Huntster Posted Monday at 10:20 PM Posted Monday at 10:20 PM 16 minutes ago, georgerm said: What are you saying? Are you saying the Sasquatch family encounters a human being walking along a trail, and the Sasquatch's capture this person who later escaped. They don't watch the person very well and the human being escapes from captivity. I think this story that you're telling sounds like what happened to a man In the 1800s in British Columbia? You probably heard of a guy by the name of Osterman......... Albert Ostman. It was in the 1920's. Another similar story was Muchalat Harry, also in the 1930's: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/muchalat.htm The third story of kidnapping was not widely known. It was posted by a rural guy from the Copper River Valley of Alaska on an Alaskan outdoorsman forum about an event he was involved with in the 1970's. Here's a link to it: 1
norseman Posted yesterday at 01:48 AM Admin Posted yesterday at 01:48 AM 3 hours ago, georgerm said: Don't put yourself down because with enough practice and messing around with new technology we can eventually make progress. I hope the Starlink technology is not too hard to figure out so we all can use it when we need it. I have made a little progress running this place! But I am not Gigantor. Thanks!
norseman Posted yesterday at 01:50 AM Admin Posted yesterday at 01:50 AM 3 hours ago, Huntster said: My problem is that I'm a death sentence to everything I bring out there with me. An iridium satellite phone was among the gizmos that were vaporized on my moose hunt last year. No more of it. I need to transcend all that silliness and go like my old buddy Don. Just go out there and disappear in The Land of the Lost. Who knows? Maybe being kidnapped into sexual slavery by a female sasquatch might not be as bad as driving to the bottom of a frozen lake? It’s all fun and games until Mr. Squatch comes home to the cave! 🤣 1
MIB Posted yesterday at 02:39 AM Moderator Posted yesterday at 02:39 AM 11 hours ago, Backdoc said: It is easy to imagine elaborate scenarios to explain all things Bigfoot. When Bigfoot is not able to meet its needs, it dies. It will live so long as it can. We don't have to imagine much beyond that .. but we'd be pretty dang foolish not to consider quite a lot beyond that. Your view only works for dumb animals. Insisting on dumb animal behavior for something that is probably Homo something-or-other is pretty darn foolish IMHO. Do we take care of our sick elders or do we feed them and try to protect them? Do we leave them dead on the ground or do we bury them? While they might indeed just be dumb animals, if they are, then we are stupider than we give ourselves credit for because whatever they are, they're consistently outsmarting us. There is no getting around that. MIB 1
norseman Posted yesterday at 03:13 AM Admin Posted yesterday at 03:13 AM 27 minutes ago, MIB said: .. but we'd be pretty dang foolish not to consider quite a lot beyond that. Your view only works for dumb animals. Insisting on dumb animal behavior for something that is probably Homo something-or-other is pretty darn foolish IMHO. Do we take care of our sick elders or do we feed them and try to protect them? Do we leave them dead on the ground or do we bury them? While they might indeed just be dumb animals, if they are, then we are stupider than we give ourselves credit for because whatever they are, they're consistently outsmarting us. There is no getting around that. MIB We have been burying our dead for a long time. 👍
Backdoc Posted 22 hours ago Posted 22 hours ago 17 hours ago, MIB said: .. but we'd be pretty dang foolish not to consider quite a lot beyond that. I'm open to consider other thoughts. Thankfully we have the BFF and its posters for that very purpose. 17 hours ago, MIB said: Your view only works for dumb animals. I'd say it works for dumb animals as well as smart animals. An injured human will still eat what's around them. I am giving an injured Bigfoot the exact same consideration as an injured human. Say I was convinced Bigfoot was a strict plant eater. I still say they would eat a fish in a stream if they were starving. I just don't feel a need to attribute qualities into bigfoot that are far from proven. (Yes, this does include the ability to teleport which we humans have yet to achieve. There are some on the BFF who believe Bigfoot can do this). 17 hours ago, MIB said: Insisting on dumb animal behavior for something that is probably Homo something-or-other is pretty darn foolish IMHO. Just looking at what is more likely in my view. I still contend the foolishness would come in attributing things to bigfoot which to me seem to be a stretch. Sure, bigfoot could be highly smart at an animal level. I am sure if we had one in a zoo, they might be able to teach it at a level of Coco. It's also possible Bigfoot isn't even that smart. Some say Bigfoot is a form of a human. It could be. I just doubt it. Patty wasn't carrying a spear and left no tools at the creek when they first saw her. 17 hours ago, MIB said: Do we take care of our sick elders or do we feed them and try to protect them? Yes, WE do. lion cubs and birds and various animals feed their young. I don't really see they feed them once out of the nest. Isn't that really the more common trait? 17 hours ago, MIB said: Do we leave them dead on the ground or do we bury them? I see this as a bit of a backward thinking. Humans are fairly high on the food chain in that we can grow food, go to the moon, and do math problems, and operate on heart patients. Yes, in our society we happen to have a social norm of burying our dead. If we want to attribute this to bigfoot it has the same chance as Bigfoot getting married and giving away the bride. Those are human behaviors. We attribute human behaviors to Bigfoot the same way we attribute things about our dogs like they know it's their birthday. In reality, dogs only know you decided to put steak in their bowl instead of hamburger, They have no idea why. 17 hours ago, MIB said: While they might indeed just be dumb animals, if they are, then we are stupider than we give ourselves credit for because whatever they are, they're consistently outsmarting us. There is no getting around that. MIB They are not outsmarting us. They are just so few in number and operate in a tough terrain. Even IF Bigfoot was more human than ape that still doesn't make Bigfoot human. An animal or a person who survives in the woods would have to be at least smart enough to achieve consistent basic survival skills. A lost dog might find water, food, and shelter. Some people might be equally lost in those same woods and die in days due to lacking the survival skills. This doesn't make the dog smarter than the person. The essential skill in this case favored the dog and not Kim Kardashian if she was lost in the woods.
norseman Posted 18 hours ago Admin Posted 18 hours ago 3 hours ago, Backdoc said: I'm open to consider other thoughts. Thankfully we have the BFF and its posters for that very purpose. I'd say it works for dumb animals as well as smart animals. An injured human will still eat what's around them. I am giving an injured Bigfoot the exact same consideration as an injured human. Say I was convinced Bigfoot was a strict plant eater. I still say they would eat a fish in a stream if they were starving. I just don't feel a need to attribute qualities into bigfoot that are far from proven. (Yes, this does include the ability to teleport which we humans have yet to achieve. There are some on the BFF who believe Bigfoot can do this). Just looking at what is more likely in my view. I still contend the foolishness would come in attributing things to bigfoot which to me seem to be a stretch. Sure, bigfoot could be highly smart at an animal level. I am sure if we had one in a zoo, they might be able to teach it at a level of Coco. It's also possible Bigfoot isn't even that smart. Some say Bigfoot is a form of a human. It could be. I just doubt it. Patty wasn't carrying a spear and left no tools at the creek when they first saw her. Yes, WE do. lion cubs and birds and various animals feed their young. I don't really see they feed them once out of the nest. Isn't that really the more common trait? I see this as a bit of a backward thinking. Humans are fairly high on the food chain in that we can grow food, go to the moon, and do math problems, and operate on heart patients. Yes, in our society we happen to have a social norm of burying our dead. If we want to attribute this to bigfoot it has the same chance as Bigfoot getting married and giving away the bride. Those are human behaviors. We attribute human behaviors to Bigfoot the same way we attribute things about our dogs like they know it's their birthday. In reality, dogs only know you decided to put steak in their bowl instead of hamburger, They have no idea why. They are not outsmarting us. They are just so few in number and operate in a tough terrain. Even IF Bigfoot was more human than ape that still doesn't make Bigfoot human. An animal or a person who survives in the woods would have to be at least smart enough to achieve consistent basic survival skills. A lost dog might find water, food, and shelter. Some people might be equally lost in those same woods and die in days due to lacking the survival skills. This doesn't make the dog smarter than the person. The essential skill in this case favored the dog and not Kim Kardashian if she was lost in the woods. They hypothesis that we began burying our dead because it attracted predators. So it began as pragmatic and may have evolved into more of a ritual. Homo Naledi at Rising Star Cave just unceremoniously dumped their dead down a chute in the back of the cave. Whereas Neanderthals buried their dead with grave goods, ochre, flowers, etc. Interestingly enough? There are no stone tools associated with Homo Naledi. So I find it odd that they are included in the genus Homo. Which just shows that science has a very gray area defining what is included in our genus and what is not. So Sasquatch may be included in our genus or it may be excluded upon discovery. But I flat reject that they are apart of our species. Based on morphology alone. Great apes are exceptionally smart (excluding humans or Homo Sapiens), so our ancestors like Homo Erectus must of been terrifying. I would not want a pack of them hunting me in the forest with spears. (L-R) Australopithecus Afarensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Naledi 2
NorCalWitness Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago 3 hours ago, norseman said: They hypothesis that we began burying our dead because it attracted predators. So it began as pragmatic and may have evolved into more of a ritual. Homo Naledi at Rising Star Cave just unceremoniously dumped their dead down a chute in the back of the cave. Whereas Neanderthals buried their dead with grave goods, ochre, flowers, etc. Interestingly enough? There are no stone tools associated with Homo Naledi. So I find it odd that they are included in the genus Homo. Which just shows that science has a very gray area defining what is included in our genus and what is not. So Sasquatch may be included in our genus or it may be excluded upon discovery. But I flat reject that they are apart of our species. Based on morphology alone. Great apes are exceptionally smart (excluding humans or Homo Sapiens), so our ancestors like Homo Erectus must of been terrifying. I would not want a pack of them hunting me in the forest with spears. (L-R) Australopithecus Afarensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Naledi many cultures burned the dead instead of burying. 1
NorCalWitness Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago On 10/20/2025 at 3:20 PM, Huntster said: Albert Ostman. It was in the 1920's. Another similar story was Muchalat Harry, also in the 1930's: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/muchalat.htm The third story of kidnapping was not widely known. It was posted by a rural guy from the Copper River Valley of Alaska on an Alaskan outdoorsman forum about an event he was involved with in the 1970's. Here's a link to it: I take most fantastic old stories with a major grain of salt. Many of these legends were published in a small newspaper first, in order to sell more papers. 1
MIB Posted 14 hours ago Moderator Posted 14 hours ago 8 hours ago, Backdoc said: I'd say it works for dumb animals as well as smart animals. An injured human will still eat what's around them. I am giving an injured Bigfoot the exact same consideration as an injured human. Say I was convinced Bigfoot was a strict plant eater. I still say they would eat a fish in a stream if they were starving. I just don't feel a need to attribute qualities into bigfoot that are far from proven. (Yes, this does include the ability to teleport which we humans have yet to achieve. There are some on the BFF who believe Bigfoot can do this). You've completely missed the point. I'm not trying to be a jerk here but I'm flabbergasted by your extraordinary cranial density! Let me spell this out in smaller words. This is not about what one sick / injured bigfoot does. Best evidence is there is never just one, there's always a group. What I'm trying to draw your attention to, what you seem hell bent on overlooking, is that it is not about what the sick / injured individual does, it is about what the group .. call it family, clan, tribe, whatever .. does to take care of the sick, old, or injured individual. Think about burial. How many dead people dig the graves they're buried in? Any? Or do the survivors bury the dead? Why would bigfoot be any different? It is not about what the sick or old do to feed themselves, it is about the group providing sustenance to those who can't feed themselves. And so on and so on. Please go back and re-read what I said with the understanding that I'm not talking about what the incapacitated, elderly, sick, etc individual does but rather what the group does to provide care for that individual. Bears don't do that. Deer don't do that. Elephants apparently SLIGHTLY do that. Most critters will prey on their own weak. Humans .. including, we think, prehistoric ones .. absolutely do and did. Maybe that, more than technology, is what makes us human instead of just animals. 1
Catmandoo Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago 1 hour ago, MIB said: is that it is not about what the sick / injured individual does, it is about what the group .. call it family, clan, tribe, whatever .. does to take care of the sick, old, or injured individual. What you stated is the benchmark of civilization. Not tools or weapons or technology. 1
Huntster Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago (edited) 10 hours ago, NorCalWitness said: I take most fantastic old stories with a major grain of salt. Many of these legends were published in a small newspaper first, in order to sell more papers. A kidnapping by a Sasquatch is truly a fantastic story, but none of the three stories that I've mentioned had a basis of origin in a small newspaper at all, which has now become widely believed in the story of Jocko. In the Ostman story, Ostman was a known personage who did report his story to his local newspaper (The Province) in 1957, 33 years after the kidnapping, but he had no motivation to "sell more papers". He remained alive for years after he told his story and was well interviewed, unlike the persons in the Jocko story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Ostman The Muchalat Harry story was told to Bigfoot author and investigator Peter Byrne by Father Anthony Terhaar of Mt. Angel Abbey in Oregon, who was a missionary priest who traveled the west coast of Vancouver Island for many years, and was living at Nootka at the time of the story and who knew Muchalat Harry very well. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/muchalat.htm The third story has never made the newspapers. I found it posted to an Internet forum of Alaskan outdoorsmen in 2010. It has all the hallmarks of a scary campfire story, but it has some very intestine features (poop smearing) that I've never heard or read of before (but which goes quite a ways toward explaining some of the stench reports involving sasquatches), and I've come to recognize that poster from later posts, and who appears to be a pretty cogent guy. https://bigfootforums.com/topic/28150-a-coast-range-bigfoot-story/#comment-544030 Edited 4 hours ago by Huntster 1
Backdoc Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 10 hours ago, MIB said: You've completely missed the point. I'm not trying to be a jerk here but I'm flabbergasted by your extraordinary cranial density! The Density is unlikely to get cured any time soon as I am sure my condition is chronic or persistent. I really haven't missed any point. I feel I mostly understand the point. I am just not convinced by it. 10 hours ago, MIB said: Let me spell this out in smaller words. This is not about what one sick / injured bigfoot does. I should have ignored the title of the thread in my answers. 10 hours ago, MIB said: Best evidence is there is never just one, there's always a group. What best evidence? Is there some kind of best evidence I have been missing here that strongly points to Bigfoot 1) being a very high order human/animal AND 2) Operating in organized societies who are so higher order they bury their dead? Evidence? In all due respect, it may be Bigfoot is all the things you say and more. I contend there is not some great evidence to show that. Your viewpoint assumes (or is very confident) Bigfoot is this higher order thing and operates in these organized societies. You are going to answer any question or theory on the BFF with this belief. I don't happen to share this belief Obviously this results in my answering the question differently based on my different viewpoint. My view is a range. My line is the bottom of the range open to the idea there could be a higher level I am not accounting for. Your view is a hardline level where you make no allowances for anything below the line you draw. That's fine. Just understand not everyone shares your view for reasons of their own. To someone convinced of the higher order Bigfoot, my more limited viewpoint doesn't seem reasonable. It might even seem Dense. The higher order bigfoot is fine with me. I have not moved that direction as I just don't see enough to move me there. It's nothing more than that. I do feel my view requires less need to stretch things to fit a viewpoint. 10 hours ago, MIB said: What I'm trying to draw your attention to, what you seem hell bent on overlooking, is that it is not about what the sick / injured individual does, it is about what the group But the title of the thread is different. I am going with the concept of the title of the thread and just trying to give a perspective about the question as I understand it. If we want to start a thread about [Is Bigfoot Tribal] or whatever it would seem that is a great place to have those or discussions. But the thread as I read it was under the consideration of what an old or injured bigfoot does. Since you have gone there let's assume this higher order Bigfoot society. Perhaps such a Bigfoot might compete to see who gets to do all the mating in the tribe. Maybe that injured bigfoot gives the young buck and chance to just kill off the competition. Maybe the young Bigfoot even murders him to get him out the way. Maybe he bulles the other Bigfoot in the triebe to keep help from the old or injured bigfoot to get him out of the way. The idea Bigfoot buries their dead (which has somehow appeared on the thread) is an interesting concept. We can assume reasons why a higher order Bigfoot might. It's just not based on any solid observation. I hate to make generalities as people tend to fight about anything they see as an exception about the point. It does seem to me most bigfoot reports out there (at least the ones presented on TV and shows like Bigfoot's Reflection) are a witness seeing one bigfoot. One can assume there are others out there are even an entire tribe of Ewoks. But if we just go by those reports at least in those circumstances, they report one bigfoot when reporting a Bigfoot sighting. 10 hours ago, MIB said: .. call it family, clan, tribe, whatever .. does to take care of the sick, old, or injured individual. Think about burial. How many dead people dig the graves they're buried in? Whatever our rituals are as humans the rituals are HUMAN. There are even variations in various other countries and regions of the world. Whatever these variations, they are all human. I see when the burial issue comes up it tends to be a response to the skeptic Q: "Why don't we find bigfoot bones in the woods" The higher order Bigfoot thinker would say "Because Bigfoot bury their dead" I would say the more reasonable assumption is what Meldrum, Grover, and others have said, That is essentially, "Nature quickly takes back the body and these same skeptics don't say the same things about bears." 10 hours ago, MIB said: Any? Or do the survivors bury the dead? Why would bigfoot be any different? Because bigfoot is not a human. That's why. We don't know enough about the characteristics of bigfoot to say either way. We might look to apes to get at least a perspective. We would compare what apes do and maybe make the assumption that is what bigfoot might do. Nothing is certain but that makes more sense than comparing Bigfoot to what Cats do. It also makes more sense than comparing what humans do. 10 hours ago, MIB said: It is not about what the sick or old do to feed themselves, it is about the group providing sustenance to those who can't feed themselves. And so on and so on. Those who think like me don't look down on those who think Bigfoot is a high order being. Those who are certain Bigfoot is all of this or more should consider the perspective of those who just see Bigfoot as a more limited creature. It's just 2 perspectives. Since humans do about anything to survive when needed I assume Bigfoot would do so be it higher order or lower order. I would even say be it a human or higher order Bigfoot when starving they both actually BECOME animalistic. I just happen the think Bigfoot starts at that point in answering the question of the thread.
Backdoc Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago (edited) 16 hours ago, norseman said: They hypothesis that we began burying our dead because it attracted predators. So it began as pragmatic and may have evolved into more of a ritual. Homo Naledi at Rising Star Cave just unceremoniously dumped their dead down a chute in the back of the cave. Whereas Neanderthals buried their dead with grave goods, ochre, flowers, etc. Interestingly enough? There are no stone tools associated with Homo Naledi. So I find it odd that they are included in the genus Homo. Which just shows that science has a very gray area defining what is included in our genus and what is not. So Sasquatch may be included in our genus or it may be excluded upon discovery. But I flat reject that they are apart of our species. Based on morphology alone. Great apes are exceptionally smart (excluding humans or Homo Sapiens), so our ancestors like Homo Erectus must of been terrifying. I would not want a pack of them hunting me in the forest with spears. (L-R) Australopithecus Afarensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Naledi These are interesting points. The same science tends to say there is no such thing a Bigfoot. In fact, Meldrum has said only recently because of the discover of Lucy has science even considered a complicated tree of development vs a linear development. Whatever the concepts we have about these figures in your post, many of these things are still just theories. We can look at the recent human iceman Utzi and know what he wore with cloths, tools, weapons and so on. He is just a few 1000's years old and preserved. Assumptions about these ancient bones from eons ago we find in a dig may be pretty good guesses but some of it is still just guesses. Educated guesses, yes. Good thoughts. Edited 2 hours ago by Backdoc
Recommended Posts