Leaderboard

Looks pretty darn interesting, just wonder how much is fact and the rest speculation: Here is the writeup on EW, which tells me its got a good chance to attract many who haven't thought much about Bigfoot but love a good horror story, EW + Hulu might give this story legs and also a quite bit of controversy of a murdering Sasquatch: Many people are skeptical enough of Bigfoot's existence, but what about a murderous Bigfoot who tore three men limb from limb? Journalist David Holthouse calls the urban legend "the craziest story I've heard heard," and he's just crazy enough to look into whether the tale actually happened in Hulu's Sasquatch, as seen in the exclusive trailer above. Directed by Joshua Rofé (Lorena) and executive produced by Steven Berger and the Duplass Brothers, the three-part docuseries is a look at the infamous Emerald Triangle in Northern California — one of the largest cannabis growing regions that also holds the highest missing persons and murder rate in the state. Sasquatch goes behind Holthouse's investigation into a bizarre triple homicide said to be the work of the deadly and elusive Sasquatch. LINK: https://ew.com/tv/sasquatch-bigfoot-murdered-3-guys-dope-farm/

Agreed. Personally, I am skeptical of accounts of so called "mountain giants," at least as they are described on Sasquatch Chronicles. However, Sasquatches from Alaska and northern Canada are reportedly larger and more aggressive than their counterparts from the Pacific Northwest. I suppose those could be classified as "mountain giants." The Alaskan natives refer to them as the Hairy Man. Reportedly between 12 and 15 feet tall. John Green makes mention of a Sasquatch sighting in northern Alberta I believe, that was reportedly 15ft tall. While that seems improbable on the face of it, Mr. Green interviewed the witnesses themselves and found them to be credible. The trees near where the creature was standing apparently revealed that it was around 15ft tall.

There are reports of very large hairy men, sometimes up to 20 ft. tall, in Alaska and Canada. These reports are rare but these reports do exist. They seem to differ from bigfoot in that they are tall but lean and sometimes are reported with four toes. Here is a short video: So the question is---are you on-board with this? Do you think they are real or are they legendary?

Very interesting. Thank you for posting this, I will be sure to check this out. Bergmann's Rule seems to apply to Bigfoot as well which further suggests we are dealing with a real, flesh and blood animal.

Here's Duke discussing the subject on what is arguably the best podcast currently out there... Timothy Renee's Strange Familiars.

Duke from World Bigfoot Radio used to occasionally talk about mountain giants. But, he also thought that Khat Hanson walked on water, so there's that. He has a few podcasts dedicated to the subject. Sasquatch Chronicles had a caller one time who reported seeing something between 30 and 50 feet tall, iirc. These mountain giants are usually 'friend of a friend lore', accounts that are at least once removed...like the Giant of Kandahar story. First person accounts, when they do occur, have zero corroborating physical evidence such as footprints or photographs. That's zero evidence compared to the relatively rare physical evidence that we get for Sasquatch. People may report seeing prints afterwards or having photographic evidence, but you just never see it You would think that something that large would be leaving prints left and right...but, I guess that the same thing could be said about Sasquatch to a lesser extent. I rank mountain giant stories in with other High Strangeness accounts, like bizarre one off entities or things so fantastic that they defy the laws of physics...sort of like Skinwalker Ranch accounts. People might be seeing something given the consistencies of some of the reports... Whatever they are reporting seeing does seem much different than Sasquatch...from their general build to oftentimes the giants are reported to be NOT be covered in hair.

Being a large omnivore, Bigfoots would eat essential everything bears eat. Deer, elk, caribou, squirrels, rodents, fish, shellfish, pine needles, twigs, berries, roots etc... The evidence suggests they fill a similar ecological niche to brown bears, and they appear to share a similar range and habitat.

If they can produce infrasound, I would think it logical that they can hear it as well. Thunder can produce infrasound. From: http://lightningsafety.com/nlsi_info/thunder.html "The dominant frequency of thunder energy is in the 100 Hz range. Thunder occurring in the infrasonic range (below 20 Hz) is inaudible to humans. Infrasonic thunder is considered to be related to sound conversion of energy stored in the thundercloud electrostatic field. Thus, thunder’s expanding hot gas channel produces an over-pressure (we hear it) while the electrostatic-pressure release mechanism produces an under-pressure or negative pressure change (we do not hear it) (Rakov and Uman, 2003). Of infrasonic sound, Viemeister (1961) speculated those lightnings were of low current/long duration (small amplitude/positive flashes?) which heated up the air so slowly that explosive air rupture did not occur. Sonic and infrasonic thunder can be observed in the same thunderstorm (Holmes et al, 1971). Both cloud-to-cloud and cloud-to-ground lightning can generate infrasonic thunder (Rakov, personal communication)."

If you read old newspaper accounts of 'wildmen', there are stories of armed groups of men engaging or going after these creatures. So, we go from man-eating stealers of children with the Native Americans to a kind of state of limited conflict as settlers of European descent begin to spread across the land...to our modern day elusive, shy, and rarely seen Sasquatch. It sounds very much like a very gifted apex predator was able to run roughshod over a population with bows, arrows, and spears...but, then came to realize that the firearms of the new inhabitants leveled the playing field too much for their comfort.

Better quality. I'm not part of the "us" that bigfoot comes to in open fields. The interactions I've had in more populated places have been very tenuous / ambiguous. Those I've had out in deep woods tend to be less ambiguous. Why? I think because they feel safer and more in control "out there." Even if that were not the case, I LIKE wilderness, like getting away from people. In a very real sense, bigfoot is an additional benefit but not often the main purpose for being out there. MIB

From the limits of Eastern Europe through Mongolia there are wild man creatures somewhat more human than the Yeti, bigfoot, Russian Snowman types. In the western part of this range they are not much larger than 7 ft. and have black hair. In Mongolia, in the East, they are smaller and slighter in build, having the hair color of camels. The hair is apparently much shorter in the East also. Between these two points the creatures seem to be intermediary in characteristics. What are these things? Dr. Bryan Sykes tested the skull of Khwit, the son of Zana, and concluded first that she was a Sub-Saharan African based on her mtDNA type Dr. Sykes was the man on mtDNA in humans and wrote The Seven Daughters of Eve to explain the seven mtDNA types in humans. Zana clearly had one type which was correlated with Africa. The first thought was she was a slave or descended from slaves which escaped captivity and lived in the mountains. But after taking a second look at Khwit's skull, Dr. Sykes changed is position, opening up the possibility of Zana being a descendant of an early Out of Africa migration over 100,000 years ago. He was talking about the evidence found in what was then Palestine by Dr. Dorothy Garrod in 1939 at Skhul and nearby caves. Most famous of these finds was Skhul 5. It looked at first like a human-Neanderthal hybrid. It had a deeply depressed nasal root giving it what was called an Australoid appearance. Skhul 4 was also Neanderthal looking but in a completely different way. It had a Neanderthal-ish profile from a little distance with brow ridges, long, low head and projecting mid-face. But people kept looking at these skulls and little by little the idea of any Neanderthal inheritance was discarded. They just did not have and extreme or diagnostic Neanderthal features. They were early Homo sapiens but they were dated at 110,000-120,000 years ago, a warm period. About 90,000 years a cold snap returned and so did Neanderthals. One was found in the nearby cave of Tabun and dated at 90,000 years ago. So what happened to the sapiens people? Sykes is obviously saying Zana was one. Did the Neanderthals drive the early Homo sapiens "up into the hills" where they lost most of their culture, grew hair and became Almas? On the other hand, in Mongolia, an alleged Almas skull was found and posted by Gigantor in a sticky on these creatures. But it looks nothing like Khwit. Khwit's skull is large, broad, huge, round eye sockets, moderate brow ridges, extensive scaring in the temporal region from muscular activity, moderately projecting nasal area and projecting nasal aperture, not as much as Neanderthals but in the European condition. It looks similar to Skhul 5 minus the depressed nasal root. The skull from Mongolia (lacking jaw and teeth) is much more delicate looking. In fact it looks completely modern with its rounded profile and vertical forehead. The only areas which look even a little funny are the proportionately large, round eye sockets, the wide nasal aperture and the complete lack of build up on the sides of the nose as in Khwit. So are West and East two completely different creatures? One is obviously Homo sapiens gone wild. So what is the other? It does look sapiens but does it have completely different origin? Is it descended from Homo erectus? What is going on here?

I am not endorsing Mattsquatch or anyone else. The video was for people who never heard of this before.