Best Circumstantial Evidence

[Northern Lights]

This, in my opinion, is the best circumstantial evidence for the existence of sasquatch.  Let me explain.

 

I found these hind deer legs in northern Minnesota, both broken.  The breaks are spiral fractures.  In order to get a spiral fracture, the bones need to be twisted.  In order to twist, thumbs are required (and tremendous strength).  I have come across this multiple times.

 

The next question, does this happen naturally? There was a research paper on this and the answer is yes rarely, and only under very limited conditions.  Those conditions require a sun baked hard pan surface where bones were stepped on by large ungulates causing twisting breaks.  These bones were found in a bog and as you can see, are sitting on sphagnum moss.  

 

Anyone else find similar evidence? 

 

Thoughts?

 

[MIB]

55 minutes ago, Northern Lights said:

Anyone else find similar evidence? 

 

Thoughts?

 

A friend works on / volunteers on a ranch along the next river corridor to the west.    They have found several deer skeletons, meat removed, just tendons, bones, and hide, with the rear leg broken and the neck snapped inside of an open-air barn.   This is consistent with observations from other places.

 

Thoughts?   Well, you did ask.    I think it is useless so far as providing evidence for existence.   There are far too many alternate explanations for it to be convincing to anyone.   Deer break their legs either stepping in holes, being hit by cars, and so on.   As tendons dry, they can bend the neck or other joints in ways consistent with deliberate manipulation.    What my friend found, the photos you shared, are interesting information for people who've already decided for themselves that bigfoot is, or is most probably, real, but so far as moving anyone from non-believer to believer .. nah, not going to move that needle in the slightest. 

 

I wish to thank you for sharing, don't want you to regret that based on my seemingly negative comments.    I find it interesting .. but I'm not someone who needs convincing. 

 

MIB

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Northern Lights said:

This, in my opinion, is the best circumstantial evidence for the existence of sasquatch.  Let me explain.

 

I found these hind deer legs in northern Minnesota, both broken.  The breaks are spiral fractures.  In order to get a spiral fracture, the bones need to be twisted.  In order to twist, thumbs are required (and tremendous strength).  I have come across this multiple times.

 

The next question, does this happen naturally? There was a research paper on this and the answer is yes rarely, and only under very limited conditions.  Those conditions require a sun baked hard pan surface where bones were stepped on by large ungulates causing twisting breaks.  These bones were found in a bog and as you can see, are sitting on sphagnum moss.  

 

Anyone else find similar evidence? 

 

Thoughts?

 

I found this awhile ago.

 

 

[Northern Lights]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

Thoughts?   Well, you did ask.    I think it is useless so far as providing...

How dare you question my opinion.  When I said "thoughts?", I wasn't actually asking and I surely didn't expect anyone to provide anything worthwhile.  Don't you know who I am?  

 

I'm like Ralphy in A Christmas Story after turning in his theme and in his mind getting an A+++++, with his classmates hoisting him upon their shoulders, and you are the teacher bringing me back to reality.  Oh the gall of some people.

 

Seriously though.  Thanks for that.  I did considered the car aspect and this was found several miles from the nearest road, so ruled that out.  Stepping in holes?  Maybe, maybe one leg, maybe and that is even far fetched in my mind.  Let's examine this post mortem.  What is going to scavenge in Minnesota?  Coyotes, wolves, bears, and cougars and none of those would create torque resulting in spiral fractures.  I think the key to this discussion really is the evidence of the spiral fractures themselves.  That in my mind is quite telling.  

 

All good conversations.  

 

As a side note, later that same night, I watched a 9 foot squatch through a thermal walk through the forest, check out our camp as a guy was playing his native flute, and then move away for a total of 15 minutes (story for another thread).  I'm pretty sure that is swaying my views on these breaks, but nevertheless I think they are good evidence.  

[MIB]

2 hours ago, Northern Lights said:

I think the key to this discussion really is the evidence of the spiral fractures themselves.  That in my mind is quite telling.  

 

I agree with you .. but that's not relevant so far as moving the bar.    What's in your mind, what's in my mind .. also not relevant to moving the bar.    The only evidence that matters, so far as moving us closer to scientific acceptance, is evidence that skeptics and outright scoftics can't find an alternate explanation for.    A body or a large enough piece to test and retest DNA from so many times that contamination or degradation is simply not a feasible explanation.   There may be lesser evidence that draws scientists in .. then THEY will have to find the body instead of US, but ultimately it is going to come down to a body or major piece of a body.

 

I wish I were wrong.

[xspider1]

^ Will DNA from a single specimen really suffice?  Admittedly, I know almost nothing about DNA, or RNA, I just wonder if a single specimen could be disregarded as a mutation??

 

'Circumstantial Evidence' is a good Topic! 

 

As usual of late, I am often at a loss without asking AI, so I did.  ChatGPT considers: 'sightings, footprints, nests, vocalizations, blurry films and photographs' all to be circumstantial.  I disagreed with that at first but; after reviewing the definition of 'Circumstantial' (which is: pointing indirectly toward, but not conclusively proving), strictly speaking, I guess I can't argue with the AI 'opinion'.  Of those mentioned, it has always been the sighting reports that have convinced me.  Whether reading those posts here, other places online, or watching video interviews, etc., many of the people speaking are extremely convincing, in my opinion.  And with the similarities they describe about Bigfoot and even the subtle to extreme differences, I see no way in the world for all of the reports, if even a majority, to be false.  8^)

Edited Friday at 04:20 AM by xspider1

[Huntster]

10 hours ago, xspider1 said:

^ Will DNA from a single specimen really suffice?  Admittedly, I know almost nothing about DNA, or RNA, I just wonder if a single specimen could be disregarded as a mutation??.........

 

That was one of the first challenges that arose upon the discovery of homo floresiensis fossils in Liang Bua cave, so yes, it will.

[MIB]

12 hours ago, xspider1 said:

^ Will DNA from a single specimen really suffice?  Admittedly, I know almost nothing about DNA, or RNA, I just wonder if a single specimen could be disregarded as a mutation??

 

I think so depending on how consistent the results are when retested independently.   If the sample has degraded in the environment or if the results on retesting are inconsistent, then no.    Mutation .. not an issue.  If the difference is big enough we're talking about a different species, if not, we're talking about some kind of human.

[norseman]

7 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

That was one of the first challenges that arose upon the discovery of homo floresiensis fossils in Liang Bua cave, so yes, it will.

Yup. Homo Naledi was questioned as well in terms of behavior.
 

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/24/science/homo-naledi-fossils-same-sex

[xspider1]

This is from google AI which apparently uses 'RankBrain (introduced by google in 2015), Neural Matching, BERT and Multitask Unified Model Technologies':

 

"Yes, a DNA mutation can be misinterpreted as a new species, particularly when it causes drastic physical changes (morphological variations) or anomalies in genetic sequencing data.  Biologists historically and modernly encounter scenarios where extreme genetic mutations or variations cause individuals to look or appear genetically distinct enough to be misclassified."

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=could+a+dna+mutation+be+misinterpreted+as+a+new+species&oq=could+a+dna+mutation+be+misonterpreted+as+a+new++&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBECEYChigATIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAhGAoYoAEyCQgCECEYChigATIJCAMQIRgKGKABMgkIBBAhGAoYoAEyCQgFECEYChigATIJCAYQIRgKGKsCMgkIBxAhGAoYqwIyCQgIECEYChirAjIHCAkQIRiPAtIBCjM1MDM2ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBTaC9ee45wmp&sourceid=chrome&source=chrome.rb&ie=UTF-8

 

I really probably am too far into AI.    I hate what the AI data centers are being allowed to do to our environment; I just can't get over a fascination with it.  Although, I have seen AI give bogus answers and, as a general rule; I would trust what some of you guys say regarding Bigfoot over an AI response most of the time.

Edited 1 hour ago by xspider1