Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Earl.Of.Trumps

Snowman. Does the Russian Yeti Exist?

88 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

MWoo7

Two bits/bytes: To nobody in particular, blah blah blah blah gawds so tired of that. 

THere certainly are new modern recent videos and quality photos that have not been debunked or explained. 

What is all this or shall I say these droning platitudes or prattling meaningless drivel as at a card and tea ordeal with old ladies?

No I'm not replying, just stating something I and others tire of.  Blah blah blah blah GODS! put up some quality media at the very least to discuss.   

Lastly: *sighs* .. a bit of clarity hand holding spelling it out-  NO, not already hashed over OLD! tripe that just destroys the thread like so many others and sites on the rock.

Edited by MWoo7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
the13bats

Yes, ive seen the redford film.

There is no "actual" bigfoot but rather a concept and its description will vary person to person, in fact that is a big issue for me, example to some yeti was a hominid primate type idea to the monks and ithers it was a type bear, very different concepts.

You likely have a valid point that i should stop using "feral" as my blanket term as i am very aware the vast difference of a human who is for what ever reason grown up in the wilds vs say some fellow tired of society so he goes off the grid, i also fully accept some cases people going off the grid might cling to things like fire and of course that would be seen but even you pointed out "if" they used fire,  the girl who lived with dogs likely would have never gotten near fire.

Edit: you said " they wouldn't become savage and lose their humanity"

This is your opinion and far from fact it would vary person to person, and in some cases they very much would become savages, dont take my word look it up.

I have a feel im causing discomfort with some true believers not my intention im not saying humans living in the woods solve the bigfoot mystery what i am suggesting is more sightings than true believers want to admit are likely humans.

 

Edited by the13bats
edit:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
1 hour ago, MWoo7 said:

Two bits/bytes: To nobody in particular, blah blah blah blah gawds so tired of that. 

THere certainly are new modern recent videos and quality photos that have not been debunked or explained. 

What is all this or shall I say these droning platitudes or prattling meaningless drivel as at a card and tea ordeal with old ladies?

No I'm not replying, just stating something I and others tire of.  Blah blah blah blah GODS! put up some quality media at the very least to discuss.   

Lastly: *sighs* .. a bit of clarity hand holding spelling it out-  NO, not already hashed over OLD! tripe that just destroys the thread like so many others and sites on the rock.

Are you trying to scold i cant tell

If you dont like a thread you are not forced to join it.

The only time i ever understand what you are saying is when you hijacked my thread talking wardrobe,  flirting with and hitting up on that one guy....

I did grasp i believe you claim there are good pictures and videos well then by all means post them,

 

Edited by the13bats
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
5 hours ago, the13bats said:

 

And alleged bigfoot living out in the woods, That is not sustainable by any measurable standard either.

A breeding number of bigfoot leave nothing behind but a feral solo human would?

Trend? i cant say that, just my opinion? im not alone i know from reading that people do sometimes go off the grid, drop out, live out away from society,

Someone else on here suggested feral humans and at the moment it has more plausibility with me that what it would take for bigfoot to really exist.

And i know a true believer in bf will hate this theory of feral humans,

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at.

1st point; Any animal, regardless of population size or density, will leave evidence of its existence in the are it occupies. I am not stating what the animal could be. I am only stating that if it were to be any sort of animal, there would be evidence of its habitation a particular area.

2nd point; I would like to know your thoughts about the items you are proposing. I say this because you have not cited another source making a case for feral humans being candidates for the Russian Yeti sightings.

3rd point: I agree however, as stated several time before, there would be evidence of the feral humans habitation in the reported areas.

4th point; You're probably right considering the hatred the BRFO has for the bear conclusion being made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Replies,

1, you are correct animals leave evidence of their habitation in a particular area however the amount of evidence is going to be in relation to the number of said creatures, example, 1000 bears will leave a lot more behind than one human or bigfoot.

So the fewer the animals the less they leave behind the less they leave the harder is is to find if its found at all. This applies no matter what unknown creature one is hunting.

2, oops my bad, i wasnt talking about humans ( remember i dropped "feral" ) as the answer to all yeti, bigfoot, etc sightings just some, i have cited my thoughts and didnt and do not plan to go track down others who are into this theory but jack rink suggested tribal shamen so thats also humans living wild.

3, repeat of your number 1

4, cool, we agree, but i wish they could be more open minded i am a skeptic who would love to be wrong.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

As to the point #3, the "bigfoot" feral humans would still be humans, so evidence of humans is what we would expect and that is what is regularly found nearly everywhere, as hikers, homeless and hunters leave stuff, and even build shelters... all over the place.

There's no need of a breeding population.... they'd be humans. They'd just need to disappear a few people a year. And AFAIK hundreds of people do... disappear.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Sure, i dont know the numbers or reasons but a lot of humans leave society and go live wild,

This is where i have a grey area not a definitive line because for lack of a better term "mentality" of the human living wild could vary so greatly, real extremes then some could be living far more like a savage animal than a camper or homeless guy in a tent and not leave remains so easily recognized as human or in an abundance to even be found.

Also keep in mind im just saying it happens not saying its the case closed answer to the bigfoot mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 11:58 PM, the13bats said:

Sure, i dont know the numbers or reasons but a lot of humans leave society and go live wild,

This is where i have a grey area not a definitive line because for lack of a better term "mentality" of the human living wild could vary so greatly, real extremes then some could be living far more like a savage animal than a camper or homeless guy in a tent and not leave remains so easily recognized as human or in an abundance to even be found.

Also keep in mind im just saying it happens not saying its the case closed answer to the bigfoot mystery.

Well I know that one person left in the wild will affect their surroundings as they occupy that particular space.  I give a damn what level of sophistication they exhibit. There will be something there that shows they were occupying that particular place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DodgyDaoist
3 hours ago, Trelane said:

Well I know that one person left in the wild will affect their surroundings as they occupy that particular space.  I give a damn what level of sophistication they exhibit. There will be something there that shows they were occupying that particular place.

If they remain relatively static , yes, however if they adapt a more nomadic existence there would be little to no evidence. A day or 2 here or there a week at most, small game (squirrels rodens etc) and foraging not much of a footprint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
5 hours ago, Trelane said:

Well I know that one person left in the wild will affect their surroundings as they occupy that particular space.  I give a damn what level of sophistication they exhibit. There will be something there that shows they were occupying that particular place.

See post 81. Such habitation areas are very, very common, all across the US. But, they are almost always clearly human in nature. But, then, we're talking about what.... oh yeah... humans.

How does one show that the pile of rags, trash and broken tools, belonged to a feral human, a homeless person, or just teenagers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
2 hours ago, DodgyDaoist said:

If they remain relatively static , yes, however if they adapt a more nomadic existence there would be little to no evidence. A day or 2 here or there a week at most, small game (squirrels rodens etc) and foraging not much of a footprint.

Most people who actually believe in Bigfoot believe they must be nomadic.

Almost all homeless people are nomadic, if they have the means. Traveling north in the spring/summer, and south in the fall.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
4 hours ago, DodgyDaoist said:

If they remain relatively static , yes, however if they adapt a more nomadic existence there would be little to no evidence. A day or 2 here or there a week at most, small game (squirrels rodens etc) and foraging not much of a footprint.

Even small  isolated groups leave evidence. In Afghanistan I was on a patrol to help locate and capture a Taliban group that was conducting attacks on forward camps. The SF guys were certain that there were no more than five but it was hard to tell because of how well they were covering there tracks. Ultimately, they were killed because there was evidence of their paths of travel and preferred camping areas. It was revealed to only be a three man team. Whether it be a feral human or 8 foot hominid, there would be something. Not much agreed, but still enough to build a habitation profile on over time. If it is the creature as described, then it most certainly would have a noticeable impact on the environment it interacts with.

 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Most people who actually believe in Bigfoot believe they must be nomadic.

Almost all homeless people are nomadic, if they have the means. Traveling north in the spring/summer, and south in the fall.

I can't comment on migration tendencies for the alleged creature because I honestly have never heard much discussed about that. Again, there would have to be a breeding population to help sustain the decades (if not more) of sightings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
17 hours ago, Trelane said:

I can't comment on migration tendencies for the alleged creature because I honestly have never heard much discussed about that. Again, there would have to be a breeding population to help sustain the decades (if not more) of sightings.

Here on the US Pacific coast, it is well known. In the summer the homeless populations of Seattle and Portland increase by a factor of at least four. And then in the fall, they return to San Fran and LA areas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.