Wildmen and National Parks

[norseman]

 

[Celtic Raider]

Good for camp fire stories maybe but I'm probably more convinced that sasquatch is out there than a bunch of feral people kidnapping hikers. There is video evidence of Bigfoot in the PGF after all and I don't recall ever seeing anything for feral people.......maybe there is something?

 

As for the TikTok story it seems obvious to me that the rangers had no knowledge of it as the lady made it all up for attention and to get views or likes or whatever they get 😁😁

Edited May 25, 2021 by Celtic Raider

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Celtic Raider said:

Good for camp fire stories maybe but I'm probably more convinced that sasquatch is out there than a bunch of feral people kidnapping hikers. There is video evidence of Bigfoot in the PGF after all and I don't recall ever seeing anything for feral people.......maybe there is something?

 

As for the TikTok story it seems obvious to me that the rangers had no knowledge of it as the lady made it all up for attention and to get views or likes or whatever they get 😁😁

You would be surprised. There are reports from my area by a USAF SERE instructor. And a local BF researcher has found dozens of shoeless human sized tracks not in summer in sandy white beach areas. But in late fall in marshy swampy areas.

[norseman]

 

[Celtic Raider]

Food for thought certainly but are we saying these are feral human now? I thought the depth and width plus the stride length would be hallmarks of a sasquatch track? They do look very deep (even though bare foot would make a deeper track that a foot with a running shoe or boot on).

 

If someone wanted to try and argue them as sasquatch prints given the depth, no obvious arch, the width and stride, plus some are in line then I think that's worth listening to and definitely there seem to be an awful lot for a hoaxer to make. I don't find it plausible that a random hoaxer made them then hoped someone would stumble upon them, so it's an organised hoax and involving the video makers or real most probably for me. 

[vinchyfoot]

okay, just for giggles, why would feral humans be kidnapping hikers? One would think they went feral to leave society, and thus want to avoid contact. Kinda like amazonian tribes who dont want to be contacted.

[norseman]

25 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said:

okay, just for giggles, why would feral humans be kidnapping hikers? One would think they went feral to leave society, and thus want to avoid contact. Kinda like amazonian tribes who dont want to be contacted.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/24/mountain-man-freed-32-years-after-kidnapping-athlete-to-be-sons-bride

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

Food for thought certainly but are we saying these are feral human now? I thought the depth and width plus the stride length would be hallmarks of a sasquatch track? They do look very deep (even though bare foot would make a deeper track that a foot with a running shoe or boot on).

 

If someone wanted to try and argue them as sasquatch prints given the depth, no obvious arch, the width and stride, plus some are in line then I think that's worth listening to and definitely there seem to be an awful lot for a hoaxer to make. I don't find it plausible that a random hoaxer made them then hoped someone would stumble upon them, so it's an organised hoax and involving the video makers or real most probably for me. 

Based on my friends accounts as a USAF instructor at the survival school? They found human sized bare foot tracks even in snow. They called them “wolf people”. I made sure he wasn’t talking about werewolves. Nope. Just people who acted like wolves. Howls. Tracks. They never saw them. I shared this information with Grassman. But he may very well still believe these tracks to be small Bigfeet. I think they could be feral humans.

[Twist]

Spit balling here but we should be finding possible BF tracks of all sizes leading up to the huge ones.   BF are not born adults.   We should encounter Juveniles. Could it be that there are areas where the young are raised?  We may encounter what look like normal human tracks but are in fact juvenile BF and they tend to be clustered in areas to protect and “control” where they are taught survival?   IDK, just a thought. 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

There are stories out of the Smokey’s above and beyond the Dennis Martin wild man...

 

Around Haywood County in North Carolina there are stories of ‘beast people’ in the mountains there.  I have shared this story with a couple of you in the past, but there is a survival instructor in that area that says there are some sort of upright feral creatures that caused him to shut down his classes...these things were described by one person as ‘beast men’.  Not too far from there there are human bare prints found in the mud and snow.  I find the idea of feral humans more believable than ‘beast men’, but maybe it’s a smaller breed of Sasquatch.

 

As far as the differences between actual human prints and small Sasquatch prints...we have found bare footprints that are within human range lengthwise, but seemed disproportionately wide and flat.  I called them ‘Fred Flintstone feet’.  There have been other prints found in the mountains that look pretty much like a human foot...except that the prints are found in places were you wouldn’t normally find people walking barefoot.  

 

Ascribing rational behavior to either a group of people who have willingly left modern society to live barefoot in the mountains or a group of self sustaining folks who have lived in those mountains for generations without contact with the modern world...that doesn’t make sense.  They could be abducting hikers for breeding purposes, curiosity, loneliness, or other less savory reasons known only to them.

Edited May 25, 2021 by BlackRockBigfoot

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Twist said:

Spit balling here but we should be finding possible BF tracks of all sizes leading up to the huge ones.   BF are not born adults.   We should encounter Juveniles. Could it be that there are areas where the young are raised?  We may encounter what look like normal human tracks but are in fact juvenile BF and they tend to be clustered in areas to protect and “control” where they are taught survival?   IDK, just a thought. 

Agreed. Except in this case the giant tracks were never associated with the human sized tracks. Some of these tracks are small small. Which makes you wonder who would be dragging their kid around barefoot in the mud in the end of Sept. If Grassmans tracks were indeed Bigfeet? It would appear there was no adult present.

 

Weird happenings for sure!

1 hour ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

There are stories out of the Smokey’s above and beyond the Dennis Martin wild man...

 

Around Haywood County in North Carolina there are stories of ‘beast people’ in the mountains there.  I have shared this story with a couple of you in the past, but there is a survival instructor in that area that says there are some sort of upright feral creatures that caused him to shut down his classes...these things were described by one person as ‘beast men’.  Not too far from there there are human bare prints found in the mud and snow.  I find the idea of feral humans more believable than ‘beast men’, but maybe it’s a smaller breed of Sasquatch.

 

As far as the differences between actual human prints and small Sasquatch prints...we have found bare footprints that are within human range lengthwise, but seemed disproportionately wide and flat.  I called them ‘Fred Flintstone feet’.  There have been other prints found in the mountains that look pretty much like a human foot...except that the prints are found in places were you wouldn’t normally find people walking barefoot.  

 

Ascribing rational behavior to either a group of people who have willingly left modern society to live barefoot in the mountains or a group of self sustaining folks who have lived in those mountains for generations without contact with the modern world...that doesn’t make sense.  They could be abducting hikers for breeding purposes, curiosity, loneliness, or other less savory reasons known only to them.

Like cannibalism... scary thought.

[ShadowBorn]

If they have( these feral people ) kidnapped all these people out in our forest. People who have some knowledge of navigation in the wilderness.  Like couple of you have said have maybe been being used for mating with. Then why have not any one of of these people been able to escape. You would think that this would be the first thing that these people would try after being taken against their will.

 

 

[norseman]

10 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

If they have( these feral people ) kidnapped all these people out in our forest. People who have some knowledge of navigation in the wilderness.  Like couple of you have said have maybe been being used for mating with. Then why have not any one of of these people been able to escape. You would think that this would be the first thing that these people would try after being taken against their will.

 

 

It could be as simple as taking a modern persons shoes. You would be lame in days being forced to walk barefoot. Or it could be much much worse. Like getting your Achilles or hamstring tendon cut. Try running away then. One can research Native American torture practices. They were super inventive.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

35 minutes ago, norseman said:

Agreed. Except in this case the giant tracks were never associated with the human sized tracks. Some of these tracks are small small. Which makes you wonder who would be dragging their kid around barefoot in the mud in the end of Sept. If Grassmans tracks were indeed Bigfeet? It would appear there was no adult present.

 

Weird happenings for sure!

Like cannibalism... scary thought.

Hence the word ‘savory’.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

On 5/25/2021 at 12:41 PM, norseman said:

It could be as simple as taking a modern persons shoes. You would be lame in days being forced to walk barefoot. Or it could be much much worse. Like getting your Achilles or hamstring tendon cut. Try running away then. One can research Native American torture practices. They were super inventive.

Something is walking barefoot in rough, cold, wet terrain with no problem at all...

 

This is from just south of the Smokeys.  Doesn’t look like a traditional Sasquatch print, nor does it have the broader look of the other prints that we found.  A humans toes will separate in the mud, but won’t look as broad overall as what we found.  
 

To me, this looks like a barefoot human print.  A bit smaller than a grown man.  It’s not the only one found in that area, either.  

 

 

 

Could be a hiker way off trail who just decided to kick his shoes off for a relaxing trudge through cold mud and rocks.  Without seeing what made the print, anything is possible.  I will say that the fellow who took this pic doesn’t think that it was caused by feral humans, but his theory is even more out there than that...

Edited May 27, 2021 by BlackRockBigfoot