Abominable snowman and the Great grey Man

Why not? There are lots of proof.

 

For example?

 

Once, as a kid, in the woods of NH, I heard an unearthly shriek from about 30 feet behind me. It sounded like a woman demonstrating a scream. When I turned around, I couldn't see anything but trees. Needless to say, though, my friend and I left the spot just about instantly.

We were, in fact, trespassing on someone's private property, so my thought at the time was that it was the owner out to scare us.

A couple/three years ago I read reports that bigfoot produces a scream like that.

 

Their footsteps! And people who claimed they saw Yeti. :tongue: Anyway I don't believe them!!!!!!!

 

What does a Zoobie look like? Doesn't it fit the description well?

I'm a Yeti myself. People tell me my self-confidence is too low. I think it is because noone belives in me.

 

i think it completely fits because it is an elastic Zoobie.

 

It is possible, but extremely unlikely, that a giant primate can be undetected for so long in this century.
The footprints that were found are the work of pranksters. The viewings are always from a distance and under poor illumination. It can be a bear or a prankster in a monkey outfit. There are no droppings, no hair samples, nothing that could be evidence of their existence.

 

It does fit the description. Perfectly.

 

Actually, the reports of sightings include some very close-up views.

You might also find the book Ishi: The Last of his Tribe of interest, since it proves that bigfeet could evade detection indefinitely if they wanted to. Ishi was a member of a band of California Indians who went underground fearing that whites would kill them, and they lived undetected for twenty or thirty years. When the rest of Ishi's band died off, he approached the whites to reveal himself out of sheer loneliness.

Bigfoot is often described as having something very human about him. People don't sense they're seeing an ape or primate. The term "wild man" often crops up.

 

Can you cite some of those sightings?

Never heard of that. When did this happen?

Bigfoot supposedly leaves footprints, but never a hair sample, that could be tested for DNA, even being a hairy animal that moves between bushes and trees. Even if it belongs to the genus homo, its DNA must be different from that of the homo sapiens.

 

: : skookumQuest.com : :
Address:http://www.skookumquest.com/sasquatch/skookum_encounters_ostman.htm [Broken]

1924 - Ape Canyon
Address:http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/beck.htm

Argosy 1971
Address:http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy71.htm

There are lots more like this. Not that they prove anything at all, except that there are many reports of seeing them close-up.

Encyclopedia of North American Indians - - Ishi
Address:http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind/html/na_017600_ishi.htm [Broken]

I've heard of many hair samples being found and tested, some with inconclusive results, meaning they couldn't positively identify what the hair came from.

One main theory someone proposed was that bigfoot was a remnant Neanderthal. I started a thread about it a few months ago, but no one was much interested.

My main point is not to try and prove anything, but to point out that alot of the casual skeptical debunking arguments aren't really on target. My sister and brother in law dismissed it by asking why no one had ever reported bigfoot women and children. The answer is that, of course, they have. There are reports of sightings of what appear to be family units along with everything else. There are reports of people having killed them and having gotten a close look at the body, but there is no one who openly claims to have such a body for examination now.

Th stories are better than you thought, but they prove nothing and there is still no definite evidence.

 

Did it make the hair on the back of your neck stand up? Sounds like a cougar to me.

Regards

 

That's what most people suggested when we told them. I have since heard recordings of cougars and leopards and such, and this was completely different.

A cougar would have been way, way out of it's territory in N.H. so I'm more inclined to think it was the property owner trying to spook us. Whatever it was, screamed, then hid (probably ducked behind a tree), which doesn't sound like a big cat to me.

The image that came instantly to mind when I heard it was of a woman imitating a movie scream, that is: it didn't seem to have any real fear behind it, it was just meant to be loud and surprising.

 

The stories are very long, so I glanced quickly though them. The first story goes against everything that is said about Bigfoot. Why would a humanoid, that tries to go undetected, abduct a man?
As for the Yeti stories, if they lived and died among humans quite recently, why there are no remains buried near the villages?

This happened between late XIX and early XX centuries, in a sparsely inhabited area and nobody was looking for the indians. If someone saw one of them, could not distinguish him/her from other indians. It is different with the Sasquatch. Cryptozoologists are actively searching for them and each reported sighting attracts a lot of researchers to the region.

If the reports of interbreeding reported in Argosy are true, Yeti must be a very close relative, so the hair samples should have little difference to human hair.

Neanderthal was shorter then homo sapiens, so a 2.4 m tall hominid could not be one of them. The only primate this tall was the gigantopithecus, more closely related to the orangutang than to humans and chimps.

Agreed.

 

There is a similar story from Bhutan (I think) where a retarded woman often wanders away from her village for periods of weeks. During her absenses she lives with the local version of the yeti, who bring her stuff to eat. The implication is that the bigfoot don't see it as an abduction, but the rescue of a lost creature.

There are supposed to be such remains buried near that village.

These expeditions are very short, full of people encumbered by equipment, and who don't know the woods. Any wilderness-savvy creature or human could hear them a mile away and avoid them.

That seems logical (but I don't know anything about hair identification).

The Neanderthal suggestion was made in reference to Russian, Chinese, and Asian reports which don't ascribe great height to it. Gigantopithicus was an ape, and is pretty much out of the question since it walked on all fours like a gorilla. Neanderthal had the right foot size to leave oversize footprints, so it fits that criteria, anyway.

 

By way of illustrating another "up close" view, here's the story of the 1941 captured "wild man," from Mysteries of the Unexplained:

Stationed in Dagestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic during the last three months of 1941, a Soviet Army lieutenant colonel named V.S. Karapetyan was asked by local authorities to examine a man captured in the mountains near Buinaksk. A strange-looking individual, the captive was suspected of being a disguised spy. It was hoped that Karapetyan, a medical officer, would be able to determine wether or not the suspect was wearing a disguise. As the colonel reported:

"I can still see the creature as it stood before me, a male, naked and barefoot. And it was undoubtably a man, because the entire shape was human. The chest, back, and shoulders, however, were covered with shaggy hair of a dark brown colour...
The man stood absolutely straight with his arms hanging, and his height was above the average-about 180 cm [about six feet]. He stood before me like a giant, his mighty chest thrust forward. His fingers were thick, strong, and exceptionally large. On the whole, he was considerably bigger than any of the local inhabitants.
His eyes told me nothing. They were dull and empty - the eyes of an animal...
When kept in a warm room he sweated profusely. While I was there, some water and then some food was brought up to his mouth; and someone offered him a hand, but there was no reaction. I gave the verbal conclusion that this was no disguised person, but a wild man of some kind."

P.158

 

It's a very different situation. In the story in the US, the guy was sleeping and carried away by the Bigfoot. This is abduction and not rescue.

And why don't investigators dig for them?

Agreed relative to finding an actual Sasquatch. But they would not have time to clean up their camp, leaving no remains.

Agreed about the Gigantopithecus, that is supposed extinct for a million years and could not be called a wild man.
Do you have any citation about the oversized Neanderthal feet? I always believed that they were not bigger than a human's.

 

We haven't interviewed the bigfoot about its motives.

They have dug. I can't remember if they found them or not. Regardless, there is a good photograph of the son (or grandson?) of this "yeti" woman, and he looks very hominid-like to me. I saw this on a TV special and haven't been able to find this photo on the web.

What camp?

No, I read it in a Library book. Try googling Neanderthal Feet and see what comes up.

 

Story of my life.

The Yeti is female!

 

You should.

Children with abnormalities are born frequently. This does not mean they are hybrids.

The report from the supposedly abducted man cites a camp. Anyway, every animal group, intelligent or not leaves remains when settles in the same place for some period. I can understand if a group of intelligent beings, that try to go undetected, could hide those remains when leaving at their own will, but not if they are running away from potential enemies.

I found several references, none of them on the size of the feet. Since you made the claim it is up to you to provide the references.

 

True, but that doesn't debunk this photograph. If a hybrid existed, it ought to be able to be photographed, and that is what people are saying this picture depicts. The photograph, and their saying so, doesn't prove anything, except that the stories are much more elaborate than you realized.

Here you are extrapolating alleged bigfoot behavior from a story I presented simply to prove that stories of "up close" sightings exist, contrary to your assertion that it was always seen at a distance and indistinctly.

This is probably true, but without knowing if bigfoot actually ever settles anywhere, or what kind of signs he might leave if he did, then your assertion that bigfoot researchers would have found a camp by now hold no water. If bigfoot makes camps, then no doubt some person has come upon one at some point. Would they recognize it for what it was? How could they since there are no known bigfoot camps to compare it to?

If they are real, actually make camps, and have survived this long then you can assume they know how to escape detection when they feel threatened.

You're right. I can't find anything on the web that supports the notion they had extra big feet. I'll have to re-check what I read next time I go back to the library here.

 

OK, I found the book that gave me this notion. It is one of a series of Time-Life books on Early Man, this one called The Neanderthals.

In it, they make note of the suggestion that had been made that the Yeti might be a Neanderthal remnant, and present photographs of a fossil Neanderthal footprint alongside an alleged Yeti footprint. The point is to show that the Neanderthal footprint is quite different as far as toe placement.

However, no size is given for either footprint, and in the photos they look to be the same length. In the text, yeti footprints are described as "huge". This creates the impression that Neanderthal footprints must also be huge.

It says: "Heresay about outsized footprints in the snow or giant figures disappearing behind crags is suspect." But it goes on to give reasons why the yeti doesn't match Neanderthal man, without ever saying the footsize is wrong. Instead, the reason given is that Neanderthal stood erect, and wore clothing. This, and the photo, left me with the impression that Neanderthal had very large feet compared to us. They neglect to refute any notion he had large feet.

 

I found this today by the Russian who dug for the Alma bones:

Hominology in Russia: Personal Observations, Problems, Perspectives
Address:http://alamas.ru/eng/publicat/Burtsev.htm

About six paragraphs down he discusses this expedition, and the fact he found the bones of one of the sons, though not of the mother. (Persued a red herring) It talks about the tests done (not much).

Here are pictures of the son' skull. You can see especially in the second one (more of a side view), how sharply his forehead slopes back from his brow:

Pangea Institute - Cryptozoology/Khwit's Skull
Address:http://www.pangeainstitute.us/photogallery/displayimage.php?album=15&pos=51

Pangea Institute - Cryptozoology/Khwit Exhumed
Address:http://www.pangeainstitute.us/photogallery/displayimage.php?album=15&pos=52