Wildmen and National Parks

[ShadowBorn]

1 hour ago, vinchyfoot said:

 

You have no proof other than stories that there are Feral humans out there eating hikers. You just believe every story that comes down the pike?

Vinchyfoot

The statement is not about there being proof. Yet, I am not the one who is pushing the story line.  Do I believe that there might be feral humans living among us ? Well I have no idea since I have no proof of that. You sir/mam are making an assumption that I believe every story that comes down the pike. In other words you are fishing for answers from me that I cannot answer with out proof.

 

It could be possible that there might be a race of feral humans running around in our National Forest. I have never seen them although I have seen these these so called Bigfoots upclose. I have posted proof of that. You can look that up your self. Like I have said in my postings above. They are only assumptions and speculations going off what others have said. But it is scary that there might be some thing out there other then humans that might be taking hikers and leaving no trace of them. That this is happening in our National Forest. Even though that some of these incidents might be lost hikers but to find no trace. Well that is just strange. Then to hear others talk about feral humans. Well does that not make you a little bit worried of what might be happening.

 

So are we really safe when we visit our National Forest? Also remember I am just speculating on what might be going on.       

[vinchyfoot]

14 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

Vinchyfoot

The statement is not about there being proof. Yet, I am not the one who is pushing the story line.  Do I believe that there might be feral humans living among us ? Well I have no idea since I have no proof of that. You sir/mam are making an assumption that I believe every story that comes down the pike. In other words you are fishing for answers from me that I cannot answer with out proof.

 

It could be possible that there might be a race of feral humans running around in our National Forest. I have never seen them although I have seen these these so called Bigfoots upclose. I have posted proof of that. You can look that up your self. Like I have said in my postings above. They are only assumptions and speculations going off what others have said. But it is scary that there might be some thing out there other then humans that might be taking hikers and leaving no trace of them. That this is happening in our National Forest. Even though that some of these incidents might be lost hikers but to find no trace. Well that is just strange. Then to hear others talk about feral humans. Well does that not make you a little bit worried of what might be happening.

 

So are we really safe when we visit our National Forest? Also remember I am just speculating on what might be going on.       

 

No, I merely asked you a question. Because when I google the subject much of the content comes from tik tok, which I wouldn't hold my breath on.

[Incorrigible1]

2 hours ago, vinchyfoot said:

 

You have no proof other than stories that there are Feral humans out there eating hikers. You just believe every story that comes down the pike?

Ugh. This is more than "merely asking a question."

Edited May 27, 2021 by Incorrigible1

[ShadowBorn]

@vinchyfoot

That's ok. I am not into tiktok. But we have no idea what is out there and we should be careful. That's all.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

2 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

Reports of feral humans or wildmen are probably misidentified Bigfoot. There are likely some regional varieties. With the Eastern and Southern Bigfoot smaller than the more familiar Pacific Northwest variant. 

Or, feral humans in the South are being misidentified as Sasquatch.

 

I don’t think that the two are mutually exclusive.  Both can exist.  
 

But, you are right.  It could be misidentified Sasquatch.  Even the larger prints that we have found are not as big as the Pacific Northwest giants.

Edited May 27, 2021 by BlackRockBigfoot

[BlackRockBigfoot]

59 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

@vinchyfoot

That's ok. I am not into tiktok. But we have no idea what is out there and we should be careful. That's all.

I agree completely.

[vinchyfoot]

1 hour ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Ugh. This is more than "merely asking a question."

 

Tik Tok isn't proof.

28 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Or, feral humans in the South are being misidentified as Sasquatch.

 

I don’t think that the two are mutually exclusive.  Both can exist.  
 

But, you are right.  It could be misidentified Sasquatch.  Even the larger prints that we have found are not as big as the Pacific Northwest giants.

 

Biggest I've seen in the NE was maybe 7 feet that I am reasonably sure of.

[norseman]

2 hours ago, vinchyfoot said:

 

No, I merely asked you a question. Because when I google the subject much of the content comes from tik tok, which I wouldn't hold my breath on.

Feral humans were implicated in the Dennis Martin case. That’s Paulides/411 territory. So this goes way beyond merely Tik Tok veracity.

 

I find it a little strange that Bigfooters have this sort of negative response to feral humans..... If the hinterlands of North America can support a breeding population of 800 lbs primates? Surely it can support feral humans!

 

Where is the evidence? Human sized bare foot prints! Sound familiar?

[Wooly Booger]

3 minutes ago, norseman said:

Feral humans were implicated in the Dennis Martin case. That’s Paulides/411 territory. So this goes way beyond merely Tik Tok veracity.

 

I find it a little strange that Bigfooters have this sort of negative response to feral humans..... If the hinterlands of North America can support a breeding population of 800 lbs primates? Surely it can support feral humans!

 

Where is the evidence? Human sized bare foot prints! Sound familiar?

Wouldn't be a bad idea. Sure beats paying taxes LOL 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Wooly Booger said:

Wouldn't be a bad idea. Sure beats paying taxes LOL 

til winter...

[9-dot]

Relating to the discussion that footprints falling in the range of humans in terms of length could be feral humans rather than juvenile Bigfoot, I disagree that the two could be commonly confused.  My  direct observations tell me that there exist 6-15 inch long footprints with width ratios greatly larger than those that fall in the human range.  I feel confident that they were left by Sasquatch - not by feral humans.  See the accompanying illustrations from Farenbach (1997).

Just now, 9-dot said:

Relating to the discussion that footprints falling in the range of humans in terms of length could be feral humans rather than juvenile Bigfoot, I disagree that the two could be commonly confused.  My  direct observations tell me that there exist 6-15 inch long footprints with width ratios greatly larger than those that fall in the human range.  I feel confident that they were left by Sasquatch - not by feral humans.  See the accompanying illustrations from Farenbach (1997).

Fahrenbach W. H.  1997-1998. Sasquatch Size, Scaling and Statistics.  Cryptozoology, Vol. 13, p. 47–75.

[norseman]

29 minutes ago, 9-dot said:

Relating to the discussion that footprints falling in the range of humans in terms of length could be feral humans rather than juvenile Bigfoot, I disagree that the two could be commonly confused.  My  direct observations tell me that there exist 6-15 inch long footprints with width ratios greatly larger than those that fall in the human range.  I feel confident that they were left by Sasquatch - not by feral humans.  See the accompanying illustrations from Farenbach (1997).

Fahrenbach W. H.  1997-1998. Sasquatch Size, Scaling and Statistics.  Cryptozoology, Vol. 13, p. 47–75.

In modern humans shod their whole lives with shoes? Yes. In humans who have never worn shoes? Their feet are very wide in contrast.

 

[9-dot]

13 hours ago, norseman said:

In modern humans shod their whole lives with shoes? Yes. In humans who have never worn shoes? Their feet are very wide in contrast.

 

That is a good point Norseman, and Farenbach should have taken that under consideration if data were available.  However, metrics are important (more important than subjective observations), because the print on the left (unshod) actually has a lower width index than the print on the right  (shod).  I feel confident that prints I have measured on the edge of a wilderness area that I freq

Just now, 9-dot said:

That is a good point Norseman, and Farenbach should have taken that under consideration if data were available.  However, metrics are important (more important than subjective observations), because the print on the left (unshod) actually has a lower width index than the print on the right  (shod).  I feel confident that prints I have measured on the edge of a wilderness area that I freq

frequent are due to Sasquatch.  See accompanying illustrations for lucidity.

[norseman]

21 minutes ago, 9-dot said:

That is a good point Norseman, and Farenbach should have taken that under consideration if data were available.  However, metrics are important (more important than subjective observations), because the print on the left (unshod) actually has a lower width index than the print on the right  (shod).  I feel confident that prints I have measured on the edge of a wilderness area that I freq

frequent are due to Sasquatch.  See accompanying illustrations for lucidity.

How on earth did you calculate the right track to be wider than the left track? Everything about the left track is wider.... The instep, the toe splay, the heel, etc.

 

And I’m not saying that all smaller tracks are feral human and not Bigfoot. Obviously younger Bigfeet would have human sized tracks. Is it possible to distinguish the two? Possibly not. Feral humans have a wider foot than shoe wearing modern humans. And many humans exhibit a mid tarsal break. 

[9-dot]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

How on earth did you calculate the right track to be wider than the left track? Everything about the left track is wider.... The instep, the toe splay, the heel, etc.

 

And I’m not saying that all smaller tracks are feral human and not Bigfoot. Obviously younger Bigfeet would have human sized tracks. Is it possible to distinguish the two? Possibly not. Feral humans have a wider foot than shoe wearing modern humans. And many humans exhibit a mid tarsal break. 

Assuming your question is not rhetorical then "elementary my dear Watson".  If the vertical bar on the right footprint is 10 inches, then the other three bars can be measured in size relative to it.  Thus, the left vertical bar is 10.44 inches. the right horizontal bar is 4.23 inches, and the left horizontal bar is 4.18 inches.  The right foot at the ball is wider than the left foot at the ball - and the right foot has a larger width index.  If the left foot appears wider it is an illusion (why we measure and weigh things when measurements and weights are important).