Minnesota Bigfoots Running Wild Recently
While we're on the subject of Minnesota Bigfoot today, here's the latest eye witness account recently sent to Lon of Phantom & Monsters blog (great blog). This one involved two Bigfoots crossing the road in front of a car. According to the witness, the photo above "best represents" the hominids they witnessed that morning.
Hello Sir - I am writing you about an incident my daughter and I had this past weekend near Crane Lake, Minnesota. We were on our way home and traveling south on Crane Lake Road only a few miles from the lodge we had stayed the weekend. As we drove around a wide bend in the road we noticed two tall dark creatures walk out of the forest to my left. I slammed the brakes and stopped about 30 feet from them. They seemed oblivious to us as they walked onto the road and barely gave us a glance. They crossed in front of the car and leaped over a ditch then into the forest. I quickly hit the gas pedal and drove for about a quarter mile. I then pulled over to collect myself. My daughter, who is 15, was sitting with a shocked look and not moving. My heart was racing and I was shaking uncontrollably.
I think we sat there without saying a word to each other for over a minute. I then asked my daughter what she thought those creatures were. Immediately she said that we had seen 'Bigfoot'.
Both creatures were about 7 foot tall and massively built. I was surprised by the amount of dark reddish hair they both had and how proportionate their bodies were to humans. I saw the face of one of the creatures briefly as it glanced at us. The nose was very broad but the rest of the face was similar to those you see on TV that are supposed to be cavemen. They walked upright like humans and didn't slouch. I believe they were both male.
I have lived in Minnesota (in St. Cloud) all my life and I never heard of anyone seeing a 'Bigfoot'. My daughter is convinced that these creatures were 'Bigfoot'. We looked online and found your website and an image that best represents what we witnessed.
Have there been sightings in the Crane Lake area previously? I called the lodge where we stayed and the woman who answered said that there had been a few sightings in the area over the years but nothing that close to their location. I'd be interested to know what it was we saw. I can't believe that there are not more reports of these creatures. Thanks for reading. MM
[via naturalplane.blogspot.com]
Another story. Still zero evidence.
ReplyDeleteGreat evidence in the descriptions, you confuse it with no physical proof.
DeleteAnother story full of evidence. Built like humans only massive and over 7 foot tall. Dark reddish hair is seen again and again and seems to be the most common, although there is a wide variety, from whitish to black. The broad nose is an often described feature as is the caveman, human type face.
ReplyDeleteTo the witness of the story there many sightings, but most people will not report them for fear of ridicule by people like the above poster. Evidently this person does not know that it is eye witness testimony that gets people put away in jail, always has and always will. If these sightings were very few and isolated one could be somewhat skeptical. When they number in the 10's of thousands or 100's of thousands, that changes everything.
Chuck
Chuck
EXACTLY!!
DeleteI disagree that the more sightings that are reported makes the existence of bigfoot more likely. In fact, I think it is just the opposite. I have read that there are more than 40,000 reported bigfoot sightings and still no real, biological proof. If you have 4 sightings without proof it's easy to say we just haven't found it yet but when you get to 400 then 4000 and, eventually, 40,000 without proof it does indeed change everything but not in a positive way. That the descriptions seem similar is no different than people describing aliens with their small bodies and great big heads, etc. There is a psycological phenomnon called The Red Panda Effect that may apply to some of these sightings. You should be able to find info on it through Google.
ReplyDeleteThe term "proof" is used liberally in your post without definition.
DeleteMaybe "extrinsic evidence" is more applicable, because we all recognize the species is not proven. As for extrinsic evidence, there is a great deal.
So, why doesn't that get "accepted?" Who is there to accept it?
Those that look deeply and choose to. But, funding defines science in many ways and employed scientists haven't the choice to take this on professionally given the fringe fanatic flavor that has grown around the Myth and Money Makers.
So, even with a "body" BFs could remain in some ways "unproven" simply because no self respecting institution will look into it. It's a can or worms, for us and for Bigfoots, if proven as well.
Perhaps proving is a bigger can of worms than the guilt of letting a species struggle on our fringes, hidden, and unknown until they, or we, expire.
I do think there are many reasons they haven't been proved, and reference to witnesses as impressionable copycats is just too easy an answer to explain away the "phenomenon."
I'm forever amazed some still see them as apes, but the differing debate's an old hat by now. We'll all know in the end even Gary will see it's one similar species, and none of them have antennas.
DeleteBigfoot is a short gorilla with big feet. Case closed, genius.
Deleteapehuman - excellent post. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. :)
DeleteTo Anon 4/9 7:25 AM. All human groups no matter how primitive create and manage fire; the great apes do not. That's what I had thought of them as apes, mostly on this point. But I'm learning and experiencing a paradigm shift: All human groups, to this point, have been found to create and manage fire. This species is exceptional on several points, perhaps this is just another. Or perhaps there are multiple species sighted - some more ape, others more human.
I think another factor comes into play: fear. Thinking that you have control is important to survival. When faced with new events, the brain tries to find a point of reference with the visual information received in order to determine a proper response. Well it kinda looks human, but is huge and hairy; most of us have at least seen pictures of apes so Bigfoot is then identified as "ape." It is common to associate unknowns with things we are not to maintain a psychological (and physical) safe distance.
So maybe it really just looked like your hairy Uncle Phil, but your primitive brain isn't going to take the chance. We are generally fearful of things bigger than us for a reason - way way back they used to eat us. "It was horrible!", "It was a monster!" - these are self-preservation statements. The sad part is that with each recollection, new fear can feed on the old and snowball. So it's true: the only thing to fear is fear itself. Which is why it's important not to dismiss witness fear - it won't go away until they are helped to own it, confront it, and overcome it.
GbyP
I believe all of it except their size, which is obviously an exaggeration. In shocking situations people are known to lost their ability to judge sizes. The creatures were more likely to be under 6 feet, maybe five nine and about 150 lbs.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to me; how many sightings end, with the witnesses in a near state of shock. I disagree with those who place zero value on eye witness reports. With enough reports, the similarities become more evident. In a court of law eye witness reports are valued. In military reconnaissance eye witnesses are valued. Why would this be any different? People are clearly encountering something unfamiliar to them. If these same reports were coming out of the Congo, we’d be sending in teams to ferret out the truth. SWP (TeamTazerBigfoot)
ReplyDeleteVery true, SWP.
DeleteTrue SWP,in my book a sighting is just as valuable as everything else,the problem is with the posts above,the more people ridicule or say a sighting isn't relevent then the less people will come forward,and i would'nt blame them either
DeleteI will give a sort of analogy here. Last night I watched James Camerons special on Nat Geo The Last Word in which they had experts with James trying to get it right what really happened that caused the Titanic to go down and a final computer generated version of it breaking up and going to the bottom and blowing of pieces of the ship and scattering them in a large area.
DeleteBob Ballard the first one to dive on the wreck in 1985 was astounded to find the debris field and the ship in two sections hundreds of yards apart. When asked at that time why this was he had no answer and was dumbfounded. In this new show last night he said the answer was always there. Many eyewitnesses on the life boats in 1912 stated that they had seen the boat break apart and go down seperately. However all the Senate and British hearings at the time dismissed these eyewitnesses because it did not fit the science and builders view at that time that the ship could not break up. He stated that they should have and he should have listened to the eyewitnesses.
The same thing is happening with the Bigfoot. Eyewitnesses are dismissed by the science and skeptic community for the most, However the witnesses know what they are seeing. This has been a reacurring theme in the history of man.
Chuck
Ok there is proof of how the ship went down in the form of a debris field. It is there and can be examined as many times as we want. So thats what backs up the passengers story, provable, repeatable, pysical, evidence plus eye witness testimony.
DeleteIf we accept bigfoot on the evidence and testimony that we have so far then we also must accept aliens,vampires, werewolfs and shapeshifters. cmon ppl use your head.
Aliens are probably real most scientists today even say so, they merely disagree whether we've been visited or not. But since there's a lot more evidence and possibility of Sasquatches and nothing for werewolves and vampires, I'd say it's safe to say those are not real as people can make up all kinds of fantasies with their imagination. But the same primate, why? If you want to make up stories why not vampires, why a primate you'd expect can be found?
DeleteWith all the current stories about undersized Bigfoots I can't help but call BS on reports of seven foot tall monsters.
ReplyDeleteBased on sample of about 1,500 reports (Green's era) the average reported height was below 7 feet, but the range was from 4 to 10 feet. There also seems to be regional differences in average height reorted, with the PNW consistently reporting on the upper end of the range, while other US regions report sightings closer to 7 feet. Many NBA players might object to being called a monster too.
DeleteThey might appear taller due to their arm length. And, in general, their shoulders/chest size seems to be outside normal human range.
DeleteBoth of those might make us think they must be taller. Sort of like the optical illusion with two circles of the same diameter. But surrounded with larger or small circles. Our eyes see a larger center circle if surrounded by larger shapes.
I disagree. Just like our own species grows and have different sizes so do they. Pretty simple.
DeleteWhen witnesses of six feet have encounters describing the bigfoot as taller and towering over them, don't you think it's probably so?
I do, just like it's nonsense to say people can't tell the difference between a bear and a primate. If I hear one more park ranger instructed to tell me that's what I see, I'm gonna punch him out. lol
I agree with the optical illusion assessment.
DeleteMost sane people won't.
DeleteElephants are 9' tall and they are easy to find. Bigfoot is a lie and you know it.
DeleteNo, you don't.
DeleteI would venture to say that Sasquatch range in height from 3ft to 8ft based on their age. Also, I am guessing that the smaller ones are seen because they are young, curious, and not nearly as "woods wise" as the older creatures. This applies to all other animals, why not Sasquatch?
ReplyDeleteI think that the reason people freak out is because they are looking at something that they did not believe was real or had never given much thought to.
It is hard to "guesstimate" somethings size when you have nothing to compare it too. Hunters often do the same thing when they take that "trophy buck of a life time." Once the approach the fallen animal, they discover what we call ground shrinkage. The antlers looked much bigger in all of the excitement.
One thing is probably certain; a majority of these close encounters are not mistaken identity.
Archer1
comment +1
DeleteI think stories -- and science -- are trending toward the more believable Bigfoot size: 5'5" to 6'. There's no evidence apes get bigger than that.
DeleteThey aren't apes you see, we have humans of seven feet, would've thought most intelligent researchers had figured that one out by now as fact.
DeleteAs far as we know Gigantopithecus was an ape and enormous, so we had apes in the past that did grow huge. Still think bf is probably human though.
DeleteI think it is important to remember that the witness described the gait as 'upright'. They didn't mention anything about the arm length. So I'm assuming that these beings looked as described...'cave man' like.
ReplyDeleteThe hominid being I encountered in 1981 (in Maryland) was very human-like...more human than ape. I have been investigating sightings, especially in the Mid-Atlantic, for over 30 years. I tend to believe that these are supernatural creatures that are somehow related to the human species in the past or, mostly likely, in our future. I know most Bigfoot researchers discount this theory, but there are trends and anecdotal evidence that simply cannot be ignored.
Here's my question: Of course discovering a body would be the greatest evidence of the existence of BF, but short of that - clear, professionally-shot video footage would certainly be the next best thing. If these creatures exist, why is there absolutely zero interest from any of the renowned wildlife filmmakers to set out to photograph and document this creature?
ReplyDeleteCertainly if a completely undocumented large creature exists in North America, it would be the ultimate discovery for these people to film. If legitimate sightings are so common such as the one here, it would not take very long for one of these experts to track one down.
Supposedly there are 5,000 of these undocumented creatures running around North America, but instead of a serious team of scientific filmmakers we have people like Matt Moneymaker and Ricky Freezer-Boy leading the way.
That is a valid and good question. I lean towards thinking that these things are real but my main issue is just as you stated it here; why do we not see a crew of filmmakers do a serious attempt? I do not completely buy that they all would be ridiculed by their fellows, this could be true for scientist in biology or so but not for many others and especially not for wildlife filmmakers, the film could be great even if they did not find any sasquatches.
DeleteJN
Sweden
cause, just like the above anon said, if theres only 5000 in north america there going to be hard as fuck to find, even if there all like 9 feet tall.
DeleteNot a lot of television/documentary crews are willing to invest the huge amount of research, time and money that would be involved in attempting to find one. The reward may be great, but the risks aren't worth it for most people.
I´m not sure about that, with the current buzz about sasquatch it could be a good idea for a network to produce a serious indebt show where experienced filmmakers really really try to find them. At the same time they could capture untouched wilderness and rare animals etcetera. And if one should go by number of sightings and the spread of them there should be more than 5000.
DeleteJN
Sweden
I agree with that. There's an incredible interest in the subject, and like the (otherwise unrelated) fantasy craze in literature and media right now I don't think it's going away. Not until they find one, so they might as well give it a crack. Stashing a small crew away in an active area cabin somewhere for a couple of weeks, bringing their own gear and food shouldn't cost a fortune. It's what you need to do anyway if you want to get close to this species, staying a few hours will only see you leave with nothing.
Delete5,000 or 500, even in an area as large as North America, is a decent-sized population that most certainly could be discovered using today's technology by the right people. Especially if you believe people are randomly seeing these creatures on a regular basis. Just watch any of the excellent Planet series and ask yourself why aren't any of these filmmakers curious about the existence of bigfoot? They spend months tracking down and filming extremely endangered and elusive species in areas as large as the natural forests that believers claim BFs live in. They certainly would be able to find a 7 1/2 foot ape-man walking around the wilds of Oregon or Washington looking for donuts and bacon.
ReplyDeleteI also don't buy the theory that no legitimate scientist or filmmaker is taking this on for fear of being ridiculed. If there was a single ounce of credible evidence, that would be enough reason for some serious person or group to investigate.
Isn't it strange for how just about everyone today carries some type of photo and/or video recording device on them at all times, yet there has not been one single clear and credible image of BF captured?
In a country of 300+ millions not strange if we assume these beings must be intelligent enough with brains developed entirely different than our own, they're bound to possess abilities beyond our understanding.
DeleteNot that they're superhumans because Hitler and Stalin could've used them then, but with a basic everyday need that's very different and solely adapted to their environment.
It's probably not fair to call them apemen either just because they're hairy all over, that doesn't have to mean they're animals. It may not make them human either but it's more likely, based on body features.
So if they're as smart as they need to be to elude detection, they'd be long gone from any camera crew coming into their domain and retreat to the mountains where they're not easily followed.
People are a noisy lot, so a larger group of investigators would get noticed probably by those daywatchers Todd Standing's always talking about. That means great cunning.
But let's say some TV crew from NGC actually saw or filmed something or some movement on a hill above them, it would warrant futher investigation should they not feel safe in pursuing.
Anon 1:29. We have a good few image captures on film and video already, the Patterson/Gimlin Film being the most famous but by your contradicting question you're really saying you don't take even good footage like that as useable, even though it fits the description of these creatures brilliantly and in most serious research estimation shows one.
DeleteWhere are all these "good" image captures and video footage? Please direct me to just one of them taken in the last 20 years that is not an out-of-focus blob that lasts for a few brief seconds.
DeleteAs for the Patterson/Gimlin footage, I think it's accurate to say that its authenticity is still very much up for debate. Both sides of the argument have their points, but to list it as being universally accepted as legitimate proof of their existence is really stretching it. Some people look at whatever that thing is walking away from the camera and are amazed at the muscle structure and definition in its lower backside. When I look at it, I simply see what looks like the bottom of a bulky coat bunched up under a suit. No one has proven beyond a doubt yet who is correct.
Elephants are 9' tall.
ReplyDeleteWhat would be nature's purpose in creating a 9' gorilla in the Pacific Northwest? It makes zero sense.
ReplyDeleteWell, they're obivously not 9' gorillas then.
DeleteAnd why would nature create a 10-12' grizzly in the Pacific Northwest? Who else is going to eat the 9' Bigfoot. lol. Just because you repeat the same statement 25,000 times doesn't make it true.
DeleteAll this talk of short Bigfoots prove what I've said all along: Bigfoot isn't all that tall.
ReplyDeleteExcept those reaching eight feet and more.
DeleteMy two cents worth. The scientist who discovered/studied the molars and jaw bones of Giganto. theorized that the creature was a biped. These fossils are carbon dated to only 12000 years ago. This does not mean that Giganto died out 12000 years ago, only that the specific samples studied were that old. One can only assume that the species held on for several hundred years afterward.
ReplyDeleteEssentially, the modern Sasquatch closely resembles the scientists description of Giganto.
It baffles my mind why skeptics refuse to acknowledge the existence (or even possible existence) of a creature that has a known fossil record, has been video and audio taped, thousands of eyewitness accounts, footprints, hair, etc. etc. etc. yet skeptics still refuse to even give an inch. Our scientific community has acknowledged and documented primitive man based on one single tooth, yet these same scholars scoff at the thought of Sasquatchand dismiss volumes of evidence.
I know they are real, I had an up close and personal encounter that left me second guessing everything about the forests that surround me.
Prior to my encounter I was a non-believer. Now I study the evidence presented by others and I know the truth when someone claims to have had a sighting. Generally speaking, we all hear/react similarly.
Archer1
A short and skinny Bigfoot is not as interesting as a tall, broad shouldered Bigfoot.
DeleteI don't get turned on by the thought of a short skinny Bigfoot at all.
The scientific community can document primitive man based on a single tooth because...wait for it...they HAVE a tooth!
DeleteArcher...Why does it boggle your mind that ppl don't believe? When you say you were a nonbeliever before your encounter.
DeleteDon't you think we all have the right to have it proven true to us also?
Some of the old family members are getting sloppy. I don't think they realize that people are more likely to talk about seeing us now more than ever before.
ReplyDeleteJoe, can you tell us why you guys just walk right out in front of moving cars, even at night with the headlights coming at cha? That's always been a puzzle for me. ;)
DeleteThey're running from a fate far worse than death by a speeding car, namely cannibalism.
DeleteI don't even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was great. I do not know who you are but definitely you are going to a famous blogger if you are not already ;) Cheers!
ReplyDeleteHere is my weblog ... click here
Hmm it appears like your website ate my first comment (it was super long) so I guess I'll just sum it up what I wrote and say, I'm thoroughly enjoying your blog.
ReplyDeleteI as well am an aspiring blog blogger but I'm still new to the whole thing. Do you have any helpful hints for beginner blog writers? I'd definitely appreciate it.
Have a look at my weblog :: breaking news
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but great topic.
ReplyDeleteI needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more.
Thanks for wonderful info I was looking for this info for my mission.
My web-site ... The Effects Of Free Video Websites Upon The Entertainment Industry