Leaderboard

I think it's both, depending on the individual and his/her needs. The almas phenomenon is much like the sasquatch phenomenon, but there is little doubt that sasquatches are often described as being so enormous as to go beyond modern Homo sapien size range. Almas are usually described as within human ranges........but sometimes larger, like with Zana. Even many sasquatch sightings are described as within human size range, and are usually accepted as juveniles. A review of Tirademan's historical collection of news articles reveal several that read like feral Homo sapiens. If one is to be intellectually honest, one has to accept that a percentage of reports are misidentifications, some manufactured, some hoaxed, and some might be feral Homo sapiens, especially since the Zana affair proves that has occurred in the past.

I feel compelled to tell you guys that Homo isn't latin for human, it's Latin for "like" or "same" as opposed to hetero, meaning different, hence homozygous vs heterozygous, or the obvious example of homosexual(same sex) vs heterosexual (different sexes). In regards to Zana, I've always had trouble with Sykes determination that she's african, or of African heritage, her line probably brought to the region as a slave, within the last 10000years but none the less 100% sapiens. Have their been ANY reports of records that mention any people or people's retaining full body covering of the or hair, accompanied by tremendous size, be they feral or otherwise? What's the likelihood that say Zanas distant relatives escaped their enslavement, even 5K years ago, do you really think that the genes for fur would "reactivate" in so short a time? Maybe within a Lamarckian genetic reality, but we don't live there. I could see it more likely that if what Sykes reported was true and that she was fully human, that she then came from a line that never lost the fur in the first place, rather than gained it back due to exposure to the cold of the local winters. But if that were the case then wouldn't there be record or lore that speaks of a giant race of hairy beings, other than gorillas, living somewhere between Africa and that region of europe, or even much mention of hair covered humans anywhere? As I've posted before, it's my current position that sasquatch represent the descendents of hybrid hominids that crossed the bering strait prior the Pleistocene "megafication" of many of the mammal species present at the time, thus megafauna hominds. My hybrid theory seems further supported by the case of Zana, for regardless of her actual DNA make up, she had four children, and who knows how many possible miscarriages, and despite her tremendous size and full body covering of hair or fur, there were still at least four full blooded H.sapiens that decided "yeah, I'd hit that!" thereby lending credence to my theory of Man the Sex Monkey and how rather than by direct slaughter, H. sapiens drove the others into oblivion by integradation and a complement of dominant genes. However a lot of what went down over the course of the Sykes report makes me question the results it resulted in, peer-reviewed or not!

I hear Bigfoot calls that are obviously coyotes all the time, recorded by researchers. I have viewed hundreds of pictures of leaf faces on this forum. I I have seen pictures of what I call Forest divots attempting to be cast….. I approach this from a hunters standpoint. I don’t ascribe Coyote calls to Elk, because I am not after a recording. I don’t take pictures of bushes that look like Elk, because I am not after bushes. And I don’t make a fuss over ancient forest divots filled in with pine needles. I need FRESH sign! Because I need to make physical contact with what I am hunting! Elk hunting isn’t about showing off your Bull Elk hoof cast at the next Elk conference. Or lots of pictures of bushes that look like Elk. No. It’s about a head on the wall and meat in the freezer. And I have been there! I’ve been that hunter that has chosen an area where Elk were 6 months ago, but they ain’t there now. Very frustrating. Looking at old sign every where. Maybe as researchers advance in skill? They will start to better discern the noises and sign in the forest? Maybe there will be an internal drive to separate the wheat from the chaff? Let’s face it. Most people have nothing in common with the woods anymore. But I applaud a subject like Bigfoot challenging people to go out and explore and learn. But we as a community need to be patient with them. As far as pro Bigfooters seeing a Bigfoot under every bush? I think it’s all about ratings. Which is why I worry about manufacturing evidence with these shows. Unlike Elk there is always a nagging suspicions with Bigfoot…..could this be a hoax?

Long time reading this site. I am interested in the big guy. I live in the U.S.A. thanks

That seems to either being missed or deliberately ignored. Almas MIGHT be H. sapiens. That possibility seems to unhinge those desperate to prove bigfoot. If we follow the science, we will eventually find truth. (Eventually can be a long time!) If we choose not to follow science, we create religion. That happens in the BF world as well. :(

I have never seen the work of Chris Noel (that he posts on his YouTube channel titled "Impossible Visits") until last week. The title of his 2-year old documentary video "How to See a Sasquatch" piqued my curiosity, so I watched the 1 hour 38 min video (see link below). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlpssL94Gso&t=627s Unfortunately, what the video showed was how folks who have BF in their brain can be self-deceived by noises and animals that they can't identify and how random tree debris can become BF tree structures in their mind. IMHO, none of the evidence presented in this video was indicative of BF presence. Nonetheless, Chris gives the impression that these creatures live very close to his neighborhood and every odd noise or odd tree structure that he runs into is made by the sasquatches. I think this video is a good example of the dangers of wishful thinking when going out in the field looking for evidence. Even if folks are knowers, they need to slow down when it comes to alleged evidence. They should subject the evidence to some type of peer review before publishing/sharing it, and realize that their observations are truly biased by their beliefs. This documentary climaxes in what is supposed to be a sasquatch climbing a tree. However, other video reviewers have examined the creature and have determined that it was a porcupine. Despite the alternative hypothesis of a porcupine (which is very convincing and in my mind conclusive), Chris did not back down and revised his original claim, but instead created another video to support his claim. Below is link to Chris Noel's 2nd video, insisting that the creature is not a porcupine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB9a5H9sFP0 This looks really sad, and should be a warning for all those researchers out there publishing YouTube videos to slow down and get expert wildlife reviews before jumping to conclusions. Brent Dill, who runs "The Tall Ones" YouTube channel with a critical thinking hat on, reviewed this claim 2 years ago and posted 2 good critical videos. See links below. I think he makes a compelling and clear case that that video footage was of a porcupine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogj-W76-Xo4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyhKTBZCFK0 In conclusion, wishful thinking and subjective biases are dangers that all long time researchers (who believe in the reality of sasquatch) have to deal with and be attentive to.

Dogman

Welcome to the BFF Erin, we're glad you're here.

Humans in Alaska tend to store food for the winter and stay home, especially females. It’s not a scientific hibernation, but it’s a dormancy borne of common sense. The horrid smell associated with sasquatches might be related to nest caching, similar to grizzlies burying their kills. After the original trackway find, Ivan Marx tried to sell a movie footage of a sasquatch limping along that was faked. The trackway wasn’t faked.

The two most dangerous creatures in the woods I hunt, are cougars and people. In 52 years of spending a ton of time in the woods, I saw what I thought was a cougars some years ago and two cougars on separate occasions very close up this year alone. I guess ticks too. They gave me Lyme's disease. People on the other hand, you gotta be real careful with them.