Mountain Giants---Yea or Nay?

[Henry Stevens]

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?

 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Reports are not proof.

Fossil records and specimens are.

Thanks for sharing. Have a 🏆

Too many vote downs in my honest opinion.

[Madison5716]

I like Mattsquatch a lot, he's got some great stuff, but he's heavy on the woo, into giants and Nephilum etc. Not my mythology.

[Henry Stevens]

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

[spacemonkeymafia]

Nope.

[norseman]

I was not aware of these legends. Thanks for sharing content with us! 
 

I would not want to meet the guy that carries a Bison under each arm!😳

[BlackRockBigfoot]

9 hours ago, norseman said:

I was not aware of these legends. Thanks for sharing content with us! 
 

I would not want to meet the guy that carries a Bison under each arm!😳

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.

 

[Wooly Booger]

7 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

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.

 

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. 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

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

 

 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

1 hour ago, Wooly Booger said:

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. 

I think that if these things are actually being sighted, they are more along the lines of what has been reported at the aforementioned Skinwalker Ranch and not a extant, breeding population.

[Kiwakwe]

1 hour ago, Wooly Booger said:

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. 

Interesting first hand account of a 12' Alaskan BF, story starts around 12 min:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtUBvb4V5o4&list=PLmu0V_T-LxhAeu_8mRG2wpTgvIGIMoBLB&index=6

[Wooly Booger]

2 minutes ago, Kiwakwe said:

Interesting first hand account of a 12' Alaskan BF, story starts around 12 min:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtUBvb4V5o4&list=PLmu0V_T-LxhAeu_8mRG2wpTgvIGIMoBLB&index=6

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. 

[Henry Stevens]

I believe these giants were discussed in Loren Coleman's book and also by Mark Hall.  Those are as close to primary sources as is possible.  "Podcast bigfooting" is a total waste of time.

 

The Yeti, Bigfoot & true giants: An introduction (Primate origins series): Hall, Mark A: Amazon.com: Books

 

Field Guide To Bigfoot, Yeti, & Other Mystery Primates Worldwide: Loren Coleman, Patrick Huyghe, Harry Trumbore (illustrator): 9780380802630: Amazon.com: Books

[BeansBaxter78]

The tallest Alaskan sighting that I have personally been told about was estimated to be about 10 ft tall. I believe that was not an accurate estimate and find 8 ft is probably more likely the size. Unfortunately, I live too far away from the sighting to go and take any measurements.

[hiflier]

Loren Coleman has broached the subject as has Mark Hall and several other researchers. Where does it all leave things? I mean, if Bigfoot researchers and authors on the subject know about the reports then other up the "official ladder" have heard about them, too? If anyone is interested in the subject outside of discussion and having unanswered questions would anyone have a way to go forward from here? I wouldn't bother asking if it wasn't for the fact that I have seen this subject crop up more than once. In other words it has been discussed and then dropped. And i will eventually get dropped again until a new crop of members come on board and brings it up again.

 

It just makes me wonder if anyone has any ideas about how to break out of the cyclic stage and move closer to verification basically of the truth. Assuming the truth is what everyone would like to have in order to toss a monkey wrench into the never-ending-cyclic-pattern-of-discussion machine.