Best Circumstantial Evidence

[Backdoc]

On 8/7/2026 at 11:25 AM, norseman said:

Yes. But no elk hoof tracks in the cast area.  
 

So did it levitate out of its bed?

 

. 

 

 

 

Were there obvious Bigfoot footprints in the area?  How did bigfoot get there?  slide or crawl for instance.   I might be blinded by my expectations but I would expect Bigfoot footprints provided there is soil which allowed other footprints 

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

Were there obvious Bigfoot footprints in the area?  How did bigfoot get there?  slide or crawl for instance.   I might be blinded by my expectations but I would expect Bigfoot footprints provided there is soil which allowed other footprints 

It was theorized it crawled. It’s just much harder for soft soled critters to be tracked. I have been on Bear trails that were completely matted down. But not any individual bear tracks that could be observed.

 

And then there is the whole intelligence thing. If Homo Naledi was burying its dead? And Homo Erectus was tracking an animal to exhaustion? Surely Sasquatch understands it’s leaving tracks. The ones we find either cannot be helped or it didn’t care if we found them. Not saying Sasquatch is inventing the longer lasting light bulb. But it’s gonna be on a whole other level than say a Bear. And Bears crawl and roll around as well. Just because they can. Not because they are not wanting to leave tracks.

 

But Elk are gonna leave hoof tracks when they stand up out of a bedded position. Just a much smaller foot print per animal size and very hard. Which makes them and all ungulates much easier to track. IMHO.

[xspider1]

On 8/8/2026 at 12:03 AM, guyzonthropus said:

.... I'd think most mutations that would cause drastic morphological changes will prove lethal from the get go or shortly there after, unless, of course its the result of direct genetic manipulation recombining the genes of disparate species in a plotted out effort, but even then the original species involved could be identified. Were it by just a single inheritable trait that sasquatch is set apart from modern humans then it might well be attributed to an aberrant mutation, but there's clearly more involved in the differentiation between us.

 

Well said and, I think I understand (at least that last sentence).  % )   There is a 'School of Thought' that proposes the idea that human beings came into existence as a result of genetic altering.  Without going too far into the woo aspects; that might explain our meteoric rise to world domination..  And, perhaps, Bigfoot are the result of deliberate genetic altering as well.  I know that gets away from the OP a bit but, it does circle back to circumstantial evidence.  Apparently, by definition, all of the evidence of Bigfoot (any everything else, really) is circumstantial, (exempting eyewitnesses, of course) until proven by Science. 

 

So, to me, the circumstantial evidence for Bigfoot points directly to their undeniable existence and, therefore, to the undeniable conclusion that we are missing, or deliberately avoiding, 1 or more pieces of the puzzle.

 

 

Edited 20 hours ago by xspider1

[norseman]

25 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

 

Well said and, I think I understand (at least that last sentence).  % )   There is a 'School of Thought' that proposes the idea that human beings came into existence as a result of genetic altering.  Without going too far into the woo aspects; that might explain our meteoric rise to world domination..  And, perhaps, Bigfoot are the result of deliberate genetic altering as well.  I know that gets away from the OP a bit but, it does circle back to circumstantial evidence.  Apparently, by definition, all of the evidence of Bigfoot (any everything else, really) is circumstantial, (exempting eyewitnesses, of course) until proven by Science. 

 

So, to me, the circumstantial evidence for Bigfoot points directly to their undeniable existence and, therefore, to the undeniable conclusion that we are missing, or deliberately avoiding, 1 or more pieces of the puzzle.

 

 

At least 21 species of Homo, not counting all of our bipedal cousins that didn’t make the cut. 
 

If something was altering our genetics? We are not a one off knockoff. Probably more like 50 prototypes before us if we start the stop watch at bipedalism. If we count lesser Apes or Monkeys as well?
 

Thousands.

[Backdoc]

On 8/9/2026 at 12:17 AM, norseman said:

Surely Sasquatch understands it’s leaving tracks. The ones we find either cannot be helped or it didn’t care if we found them.

 

First off, I like your insight esp. as in regular-joe- inexperienced- city slicker that I am. You (and others) give me a lot to think about esp. as those with home field advantage. That is, you and others have been there done that in the way of the wilderness and so on.   I have not.  Going to Estes Park with my kids doesn't qualify me as an outdoorsman for certain.

 

On to the tracks: 

 

I just don't agree Sasquatch knows it is leaving tracks.  How in the world can we know that?   Do we make that assumption based on the fact there aren't that many tracks out there?  If so, I think that is more likely explained just because 1) there are darn few Bigfoot out there.  2) Just because we are out in the wilderness doesn't mean we leave tracks unless conditions are such tracks can be left.

 

You mention "The ones we find either cannot be helped or it didn’t care if we found them. "   I don't think it makes sense Bigfoot knows it is leaving tracks and yet some don't care.   For me it's more one or the other.  That is, if a smart animal or whatever is smart enough to know leaving tracks carelessly is dangerous it just doesn't make any sense some are too foolish to follow this.  

 

What do I have to base any of this on?  Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  

 

 

[norseman]

11 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

First off, I like your insight esp. as in regular-joe- inexperienced- city slicker that I am. You (and others) give me a lot to think about esp. as those with home field advantage. That is, you and others have been there done that in the way of the wilderness and so on.   I have not.  Going to Estes Park with my kids doesn't qualify me as an outdoorsman for certain.

 

On to the tracks: 

 

I just don't agree Sasquatch knows it is leaving tracks.  How in the world can we know that?   Do we make that assumption based on the fact there aren't that many tracks out there?  If so, I think that is more likely explained just because 1) there are darn few Bigfoot out there.  2) Just because we are out in the wilderness doesn't mean we leave tracks unless conditions are such tracks can be left.

 

You mention "The ones we find either cannot be helped or it didn’t care if we found them. "   I don't think it makes sense Bigfoot knows it is leaving tracks and yet some don't care.   For me it's more one or the other.  That is, if a smart animal or whatever is smart enough to know leaving tracks carelessly is dangerous it just doesn't make any sense some are too foolish to follow this.  

 

What do I have to base any of this on?  Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  

 

 

The distinction I am trying to make?
 

Is that a Bear is not self aware. It doesn’t recognize itself in a mirror, it attacks the mirror. It doesn’t understand that it’s leaving tracks that others can follow either. It itself tracks like a bloodhound, on scent. It has poor eyesight, but most importantly it’s not self aware. 
 

Knuckle walking great apes are self aware. They may react like a Bear at first. But they quickly figure out they are seeing their own reflection. Jeff Meldrum talks about making Chimp casts and observing the chimps be self aware of their own footprints in the sand. So if knuckle walking great apes are self aware? Surely a bipedal Sasquatch is more self aware than they are. This is the cognition part that most animals lack.

 

So back to tracks. If you live in the woods and are hunting and foraging in the woods? You’re gonna leave sign. It’s inescapable. The key difference is having the cognitive ability to understand this. And if you don’t want to be found? Then you’re going to mitigate the risk as much as feesably possible. But you cannot erase it entirely. But if you understand this concept you can also use it as a WEAPON against the trackers.

 

You could leave a short track way in the opposite direction of your families intended travel. You could stage a track in an area where you can easily observe your trackers from concealment. A false trail buys you time while the tracker has to sort it out. There are lots of counter tactics in the game of tracker and being tracked.

 

This leaves the territory of a hunter tracking a deer through the woods. This is military and law enforcement territory. Where a tracked human could be leading you into an ambush. Now you’re asking yourself things like? Why is this track left in such an obvious way? Is it a misdirection? Are we being observed? Is it a stall for time?

 

You may be a city slicker but if you’re honestly interested in this subject? There are lots of good books to read and you can practice some of it in your own backyard or a park. 
 

I observed a trackway in snow with my father. I have zero doubt that a Sasquatch knows it’s leaving tracks. IT KNOWS. So the question then becomes did it care? Or could it not be helped? If it doesn’t care then it probably has an ulterior motive. Which should send a cold shiver up your spine. But in our case hunting for a Xmas tree in an area we normally would not be in that time of year? And in deep snow? It probably just couldn’t be helped. In that case it’s probably betting on the fact that a human on snowshoes just cannot keep up in deep snow in mountainous terrain. And it is impossible to erase a snow trackway anyhow. So make haste.

 

I have mulled this concept over in my head many times. Even when I am out in the woods looking for tracks. A quarry that understands that you could be tracking it? Is a paradigm shift for most hunters, hikers and lay people.

 

Tracks will never be the smoking gun. Dental resin casts are great conversation pieces but nothing more. But tracks will lead you to the creature…. That’s a certainty. IF we are good enough to follow them and the weather holds.🤷‍♂️ 

 

The ultimate game of hide and seek.

 

 

 

 

[norseman]

Here is an Orangutan male passing the dot test. Instead of feeling threatened by “another” male in his vicinity? He calmly wipes the paint off his own forehead. Because he is self aware.

 

 

[Backdoc]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

The distinction I am trying to make?
 

Is that a Bear is not self aware. It doesn’t recognize itself in a mirror, it attacks the mirror. It doesn’t understand that it’s leaving tracks that others can follow either. It itself tracks like a bloodhound, on scent. It has poor eyesight, but most importantly it’s not self aware. 
 

Knuckle walking great apes are self aware. They may react like a Bear at first. But they quickly figure out they are seeing their own reflection. Jeff Meldrum talks about making Chimp casts and observing the chimps be self aware of their own footprints in the sand. So if knuckle walking great apes are self aware? Surely a bipedal Sasquatch is more self aware than they are. This is the cognition part that most animals lack.

 

So back to tracks. If you live in the woods and are hunting and foraging in the woods? You’re gonna leave sign. It’s inescapable. The key difference is having the cognitive ability to understand this. And if you don’t want to be found? Then you’re going to mitigate the risk as much as feesably possible. But you cannot erase it entirely. But if you understand this concept you can also use it as a WEAPON against the trackers.

 

You could leave a short track way in the opposite direction of your families intended travel. You could stage a track in an area where you can easily observe your trackers from concealment. A false trail buys you time while the tracker has to sort it out. There are lots of counter tactics in the game of tracker and being tracked.

 

This leaves the territory of a hunter tracking a deer through the woods. This is military and law enforcement territory. Where a tracked human could be leading you into an ambush. Now you’re asking yourself things like? Why is this track left in such an obvious way? Is it a misdirection? Are we being observed? Is it a stall for time?

 

You may be a city slicker but if you’re honestly interested in this subject? There are lots of good books to read and you can practice some of it in your own backyard or a park. 
 

I observed a trackway in snow with my father. I have zero doubt that a Sasquatch knows it’s leaving tracks. IT KNOWS. So the question then becomes did it care? Or could it not be helped? If it doesn’t care then it probably has an ulterior motive. Which should send a cold shiver up your spine. But in our case hunting for a Xmas tree in an area we normally would not be in that time of year? And in deep snow? It probably just couldn’t be helped. In that case it’s probably betting on the fact that a human on snowshoes just cannot keep up in deep snow in mountainous terrain. And it is impossible to erase a snow trackway anyhow. So make haste.

 

I have mulled this concept over in my head many times. Even when I am out in the woods looking for tracks. A quarry that understands that you could be tracking it? Is a paradigm shift for most hunters, hikers and lay people.

 

Tracks will never be the smoking gun. Dental resin casts are great conversation pieces but nothing more. But tracks will lead you to the creature…. That’s a certainty. IF we are good enough to follow them and the weather holds.🤷‍♂️ 

 

The ultimate game of hide and seek.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We assume to know about Bigfoot in relation to skills of other similar animals.  It's a good assumption if Silverback gorilla can do X Y Z it's not such a leap to assume Bigfoot should be able to as well.  

 

The next assumption is Bigfoot MUST be smarter than those known animals.  It doesn't have to be but that is the fallback assumption.  Because of this they add on other skills or levels of understanding and traits to bigfoot above and beyond the known animal.  I submit this is unnecessary unless the theory is these traits are needed to explain 1) why no new PGF event filmed in 50 years 2) why so few tracks 3) and so on.  Again, maybe there are just simpler and more reasonable reasons for this. 

 

Patty may have been walking down the Bluff Creek in the water.   She might have used the creek to hide her tracks down to her starting point.  Then when approached by Bob and Roger she took off back the other way this time on foot through the creek bed soil.   Could be.  If so, does that mean she actively did this to hide her approach tracks?  It could just be a happy accident where her search for food in the creek happen to have a secondary benefit accidently hiding her pathway to the PGF approach starting point?  I'm suggesting we need to consider Bigfoot maybe doesn't have a care about tracks.  

 

We concern ourselves with tracks because there are so few out there.  In this way those who assume Bigfoot are not near extinct might have to create more elaborate reasons why there are not many tracks.  The real reason can be as simple as there are just hardly any Bigfoot out there in a very vast and difficult area to search.  

 

We have to admit we don't know for sure what Bigfoot eats, thinks, sleeps, or whatever.  It's just a guess.  The most educated guess is still a guess.  

 

All manner of traits has been attributed to Bigfoot.   Some seem reasonable to me while some seem pretty far-fetched.  Then there is the Bigfoot UFO traveler world where all bets are off.  

 

When it comes to trait about Bigfoot the truth is we don't know.  <-- That is just a 100% fact.   This is why is it such an embarrassment having shows like Finding Bigfoot where they talk of Bigfoot like they are talking about a known animal like a dog or cat.  They seem to just know what Bigfoot eats, Bigfoot's favorite color and so on.  The more they "know" the more ridiculous they sound.

 

Let's start with the fact we don't know.  Then we can build from there.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Backdoc

[Backdoc]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

Here is an Orangutan male passing the dot test. Instead of feeling threatened by “another” male in his vicinity? He calmly wipes the paint off his own forehead. Because he is self aware.

 

 

 

 

Videos like this are always interesting.  Always spooky at some level how human these guys are.

 

The behavior is observed but we really can't ask the animal why it did what it did.  It has reasons of its own.  I would like to consider what some experts in primates might tell me as to the reason.  Maybe they have a take on this that is different or even more accurate.

 

I think of my nephew who used to color everything -and I mean everything- green for a long time.   They took him to a specialist out of concern.  He tested fine medically and has a high IQ.  At some point the specialist asked him why he used only green.  He stated, "I like green it is my favorite color!"  That was his reasoning.  We could ask him the reason, and he was mature enough to relate the honest answer on behavior he chose.  (With in weeks he used all the colors)   We can't do that with this animal.

 

We need to be cautious how much we attribute to these actions.  Otherwise, I can be convinced my Golden Retriever really does love to watch NFL football with me vs just being glad when I drop the popcorn.

 

Here is a Wiki statement on the Gorilla KoKo the sign language gorilla:

 

Koko's communication skills were hotly debated.^[4][5][6] She used many signs adapted from American Sign Language, and understood nouns, verbs, and adjectives, including abstract concepts such as "good" and "false", scoring between 70 and 90 on various IQ scales, with some experts, including Mary Lee Jensvold, stating that Koko "used language in the same way as people". However, the scientific consensus is that she did not demonstrate the syntax or grammar required of true language.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

We assume to know about Bigfoot in relation to skills of other similar animals.  It's a good assumption if Silverback gorilla can do X Y Z it's not such a leap to assume Bigfoot should be able to as well.  

 

The next assumption is Bigfoot MUST be smarter than those known animals.  It doesn't have to be but that is the fallback assumption.  Because of this they add on other skills or levels of understanding and traits to bigfoot above and beyond the known animal.  I submit this is unnecessary unless the theory is these traits are needed to explain 1) why no new PGF event filmed in 50 years 2) why so few tracks 3) and so on.  Again, maybe there are just simpler and more reasonable reasons for this. 

 

Patty may have been walking down the Bluff Creek in the water.   She might have used the creek to hide her tracks down to her starting point.  Then when approached by Bob and Roger she took off back the other way this time on foot through the creek bed soil.   Could be.  If so, does that mean she actively did this to hide her approach tracks?  It could just be a happy accident where her search for food in the creek happen to have a secondary benefit accidently hiding her pathway to the PGF approach starting point?  I'm suggesting we need to consider Bigfoot maybe doesn't have a care about tracks.  

 

We concern ourselves with tracks because there are so few out there.  In this way those who assume Bigfoot are not near extinct might have to create more elaborate reasons why there are not many tracks.  The real reason can be as simple as there are just hardly any Bigfoot out there in a very vast and difficult area to search.  

 

We have to admit we don't know for sure what Bigfoot eats, thinks, sleeps, or whatever.  It's just a guess.  The most educated guess is still a guess.  

 

All manner of traits has been attributed to Bigfoot.   Some seem reasonable to me while some seem pretty far-fetched.  Then there is the Bigfoot UFO traveler world where all bets are off.  

 

When it comes to trait about Bigfoot the truth is we don't know.  <-- That is just a 100% fact.   This is why is it such an embarrassment having shows like Finding Bigfoot where they talk of Bigfoot like they are talking about a known animal like a dog or cat.  They seem to just know what Bigfoot eats, Bigfoot's favorite color and so on.  The more they "know" the more ridiculous they sound.

 

Let's start with the fact we don't know.  Then we can build from there.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about this fact? There are no Bigfoots in a zoo. Zero. Yes. I too believe that they are a small population.

 

But so are Mountain Gorillas. Roughly 1000 left in the wild. And yet? For a price you can go see them with professional trackers! You can plan a vacation around seeing wild mtn Gorillas in the wild. 
 

Its not that they are dumb. It’s that they are protected and habituated. Plus they are herbivores. They are not leaving footprints though the jungle, but a swath of plant carnage as they feed.

 

This is an animal that in captivity we have taught sign language too! We can have a real conversation with a select number of them.

 

We cannot just go out and find a troupe of Bigfoot feeding in a certain huckleberry patch. Why?

 

Not only must there be a higher intelligence involved? But that intelligence evolved along side our own. And it would seem in the Homo genus its a do or die winner takes all grudge match. Because out of 21 species? We are all thats left. Or are we?

 

If you cant beat em? Either join them or hide like a ghost. Or die. Neanderthals and Denisovans interbred with us. Maybe others too.

 

But if you’re gonna stay as a separate group and not get pin cushioned? You’re gonna hide. And your haunts and habits will keep you well away from human haunts and habits.

 

Bigfoot are claimed to be nocturnal. Occupy rugged mountainous terrain. Doesn't use tools or fire. Etc.

 

Maybe WE made them that way? They have abandoned every human trait in order to survive US?

 

Your right? We need a body. We don't know what it is exactly. But we can definitely extrapolate facts about an unknown species based on reports, film, foot casts and observed behavior. We know one thing? Its the hide and seek champion.👍

 

 

[norseman]

41 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

Videos like this are always interesting.  Always spooky at some level how human these guys are.

 

The behavior is observed but we really can't ask the animal why it did what it did.  It has reasons of its own.  I would like to consider what some experts in primates might tell me as to the reason.  Maybe they have a take on this that is different or even more accurate.

 

I think of my nephew who used to color everything -and I mean everything- green for a long time.   They took him to a specialist out of concern.  He tested fine medically and has a high IQ.  At some point the specialist asked him why he used only green.  He stated, "I like green it is my favorite color!"  That was his reasoning.  We could ask him the reason, and he was mature enough to relate the honest answer on behavior he chose.  (With in weeks he used all the colors)   We can't do that with this animal.

 

We need to be cautious how much we attribute to these actions.  Otherwise, I can be convinced my Golden Retriever really does love to watch NFL football with me vs just being glad when I drop the popcorn.

 

Here is a Wiki statement on the Gorilla KoKo the sign language gorilla:

 

Koko's communication skills were hotly debated.^[4][5][6] She used many signs adapted from American Sign Language, and understood nouns, verbs, and adjectives, including abstract concepts such as "good" and "false", scoring between 70 and 90 on various IQ scales, with some experts, including Mary Lee Jensvold, stating that Koko "used language in the same way as people". However, the scientific consensus is that she did not demonstrate the syntax or grammar required of true language.

Of course she doesn't use “true language”. But she could tell you if she was mad or sad or if the banana is yellow. That IS a form of communication. 

 

If you gave scientists a Neanderthal? They would probably reach a similar conclusion. 
 

The human needs to feel superior. And in academia? The egos get rather inflated.

 

Whatever Sasquatch is? It has superb BUSHCRAFT. The record stands on

its own accord. Its 2026 and the species is still undiscovered by science! Wow!