“Wild Men” May Be Lurking in North America’s Remote Woodlands

originally posted by: Quauhtli
I have seen and talked to one of these men. He was a gentle creature, as big as a big foot and could easily snap a dears neck. He was in a national park too. Oregon. He had the language skills of a 2 year old and was Very harry. I could easily see how someone would have mistaken him for a wild animal. A good many people would have pulled a gun and shot him out of fear, but up close he was very docile and courteous. I will never forget the experience.

That's cool!!

I'm surprised he remembers the language. I would love to hear more details about your encounter, if you'd like to share.

originally posted by: Chamberf=6

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: sled735

This is more a way to scare the average person of people who live in the wilderness, completely off the grid.

May be. I've heard of feral children, but...

My bearded friend and his, um, hairy girlfriend live off the grid in Montana and love it.

They've invited hikers to come for dinner, offered tips on the hidden hazards in the area, etc., though at first sight --out of the blue in middle of a hike -- they may have made the hikers think ....????!!
Gentlest and and well-read people I know.

When they have come to visit me, sometimes even in the city of nutjobs they get wild-eyed looks.

Another comment on your post...
Where I grew up, we had people from the northern and far southern states that moved to the mountains where I grew up. They moved even further into the mountains than where we were. (That's totally off the grid!)
Like you said, these people were very friendly, and very intelligent people.

I often wondered what made them choose such isolation? Had they committed some type of crime they were hiding from?
I believe one of the men that moved there after I left the area was found to be on the run from a crime he committed, but they didn't find him 'til many years later. You would never have guessed this about him, if you met him.

Of course, many people just want to get away from the stress of living in the cities, trying to keep up with the high cost of living, etc.
My family was self-sufficient when I was growing up. We practically lived off food from our garden. We got our milk, butter, and eggs from my grandmother who had a cow and chickens. We had fruit trees, and raised a pig to slaughter in the winter, and bought a slab of beef from neighbors to cut up and store in the freezer. There are "greens" you can pick and eat in the forest too.

A person can live pretty well off the grid, but it is hard work. I commend the people who choose this lifestyle, but I've already had my fill of it.

a reply to: LABTECH767

So, this is happening all over the world? Interesting.
Thank you for your post and link.

a reply to: sled735

You are most welcome, not so much the whole world but there are other areas of sparse population and wilderness in which rumours of wild people have existed and throughout the ages wild children have often been encountered.
Here is one from the 1700's in germany.
www.historytoday.com...

And a few more related articles.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
home.yowieocalypse.com...
disinfo.com...
www.cracked.com...
www.microtopia.org...
www.telegraph.co.uk... (pop up on this one though it's a legit site).

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: sled735

This is more a way to scare the average person of people who live in the wilderness, completely off the grid.

With fairy tales?

Come on they're adults

Most of the time these story's develop from within these community's by people who have a wild imagination and not the government

Its like saying loch ness was invented to scare people away from lochs lakes or water... Incase they caught the government putting pineal gland blockers and fluoride in the water which stops people being galactic traveling beings and flying like superman

You gotta love conspiracy's

Regarding the toddler found in the middle of a dense swamp with water four feet deep ... Was that a living or dead toddler? Just curious.

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
honestly, i wish i could lend you my copies of paulides 411 books. recently, i heard him speak on coast to coast for the first time and i was hooked by the stories he was telling. soon after listening to a couple more interviews i went out and bought his western and eastern united states books and i must say... it was mind blowing.

hundreds and hundreds of cases that he sifted through and ruled out all natural causes. so what he was left with was the most unexplainable disappearances. everything mundane has already been ruled out as an explanation. these aren't people who have run away, they weren't attacked by bears or mountain lions, they weren't abducted or kidnapped by people and they aren't just lost in the wilderness. david in the book doesn't directly say that he thinks its bigfoot but you definitely get that sense after reading just a few chapters. it really becomes obvious and it's the only logical conclusion left. also there are running threads of common factors for each case which make them unique from other regular missing persons cases.

in nearly every case bloodhounds and tracking dogs refuse to track the person scent. they'll sit down or refuse to follow the scent. now if it were just a regular animal attack the dogs would just track whatever it was, bear, mountain lion, whatever. the parks dept has dogs that are specifically trained to track dangerous wildlife. also there is never any blood or evidence of a struggle or attack by an animal like there would be if a bear attacked someone. not to mention bears hibernate in winter when a lot of these attacks happen, plus bears or mountain lions don't carry away and consume whole bodies.

also in nearly every case the disappearance is immediately followed by inclement weather. torrential down pours or heavy snow fall which impedes the search effort. tracks are rare in most of these cases because of this reason and if by chance a track is found the trail often stops without any trace of it picking up again. bodies of water also play a large role in these cases and it seems as though these bigfoot use rivers to travel and eliminate possible tracks.

when a body is actually found (in most cases a body is never found at all), its nearly always found in a place that was already searched by search and rescue or in a place that is abnormally outside of the search perimeter for the given persons age. for example, a 2 year old goes missing, search and rescue guidelines say that 95% of the time a kid 2 and under will be found within "x" amount of miles from where they went missing given a certain amount of time. but, they are found double, triple or quadruple that distance away. and not just further down a trail, we're talking about rough back country, rough terrain, over mountain ridges, past rivers etc. the same happens with those who go missing that are elderly.

in nearly every case if the person's body is found it's found further up in the mountains while it's a persons natural response to walk down hill when lost, not further up. the path of least resistance, not thousands of feet uphill over boulder fields, swamps etc.

it's also extremely common for people when found to be found missing clothes and with scratches all over their body. missing shoes, socks, pants, shirts, hats, jackets etc. some completely naked, some in their underwear only. and the thing is these missing persons supposedly traveled long distances without shoes or socks but, their feet are never dirty or scratched, just their upper body. and sometimes people are even found in places it would be impossible for them to get to by themselves. for example a toddler found in the middle of a dense swamp with water four feet deep sitting on top of a rock in the middle the water, with again their feet bare, dry and clean. in one of the weirder cases a man's pants and shoes were found with several bones in the shoe and pant leg, like a couple toes and a tibia, all clean bone, nothing else. like the person dropped their pants and vanished except for a few of their bones.

i can go on about these books for hours, they are so interesting and it's really mind blowing what's going on in our national parks that they don't want us to know. there are so many more unique characteristics to these cases that i could mention. if people had any idea about all of these missing persons and the conditions that they are found in it would change the way the people in the US view our national parks. and it's obvious from the correspondences david had with the parks department that they are aware of the problem but don't want it going public. after all they claim that the parks department keeps no record of missings persons from their parks and he ran into a lot of red tape filing FOIA requests.

i would definitely recommend getting at least one of the books from david's site directly as its twice as expensive to order it from other people on amazon.

David Paulides Missing 411 Website

go to his site and check it out, lots and lots of info.

a reply to: sled735

Interesting story, and not sure I have read that one before. I have read two of the three Paulides books, though, and some of the stories in them are beyond weird!

I think it's very possible that what some call "Bigfoot" could be some other race of people. The Amerind legends speak of them as people, not as animals, and there are reports from around the world of interbreeding. It makes sense, and would explain why they are so hard to locate as well. Wild animals are one thing' reclusive people quite another! That might even explain why the government is so weird about the issue, too. Wild people, if acknowledged to be real, would have to be managed in some way. Call them imaginary animals, and no management is needed.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Here is a link to Unsolved Disappearances in the Great Smoky Mountains at Amazon.
There is a reference to the Dennis Lloyd Martin case. I have the book, but haven't finished reading it.

Oh, thanks! I am from that area (Tennessee), and that's a cheap book for that sort of thing! Will have to check it out. Always like locating decent books on mysteries.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

That may be why national parks are trying to ban drones:
www.imaging-resource.com...
Feral humans / Bigfoot would have fewer hiding places.

a reply to: JohnJetson

Oh, interesting! It's always fun when government agencies argue with one another! I can see the discussions now.....

"We are going to have drones everywhere, so we can monitor all the people, all the time. People trying to hide their activities in wilderness areas must be watched."

"No, no, no! Sir, we can't do that! The Bigfoots will be seen, then. Some hacker will come along, get into the camera feeds, and post the footage online. The headlines will be screaming that we covered up a whole race of people!"

"Well, crap......now what do we do? Tick off Bigfoot, or the rest of the country?"

As @lindalinda says, look into the "Missing 411" series of books by David Paulides. Besides his website, there are various interviews with him on late-night radio, the best two of which are couple of Coast to Coast AM shows devoted to the subject. Some of these interviews are on YouTube.





The cases are evidently true, and these interviews make for compelling and spooky/creepy listening -- even for skeptics.

a reply to: MrInquisitive
I am interested in those books.
Even after pricing them on Amazon, I am interested in them... darn they are pricy.
From what I have gathered, the author isn't just some nut. He has apparently investigated these cases pretty thoroughly and there are some really strange things that he has found.
ETA: Thanks for posting the YT vids.

a reply to: butcherguy

There are indeed lots of interviews from David Paulides on youtube, also some very recent ones. I stumbled over them a few weeks ago and listened to several of them. Some cases pretty much make the hair on the back your neck stand up.

As David Paulides stated in one of those interviews however, the books on Amazon are being resold by other people for twice the ususal price, so if you want one, better buy it from his own website which has been posted on page 1 by CallmeRaskolnikov.

a reply to: lindalinda

in that case, i'm fairly confident that the toddler was found alive. though with no recollection of how he wound up there. which is another common thread. if the person is found alive 90% of the time their memory seems to be fogged, where they can't recall the memories or even some where the trauma is too extreme and they don't want to relive it by trying to remember. there are several people over the decades who have reported very strange things when they were found. but, in cases where the children are very young as was the case with the toddler in the swamp, they sometimes literally don't have the language skills to even convey what happened to them, which seems to be intentional in terms of who is taken.

also, fevers are very common in those who have survived the experience in addition to surviving extreme cold/rain/snow conditions without succumbing to exposure, which would lead one to think that the abducted was actually sheltered somewhere during their disappearance.

one of the strangest recollections from a survivor was a little girl who said that she was taken by "a big dog man". she said something like "big dog man carried me away". "the big dog fed me berries from his paw". "he made me a leaf bed to sleep in"

now there are many things that stand out automatically from those statements.

1. dogs don't carry little children in their arms.
2. dogs don't forage for berries & dogs don't have the ability to give/hold food in their paws
3. dogs don't make beds from pine boughs or what have you, forget the particular type of tree material she said the bed was made of.

all in all very strange stuff. definitely not a bear, not a dog, not a wolf.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

Thanks for posting the videos.

I know what I'll be doing this weekend during my breaks from household chores!

when they get this wild, let me know.

I'm quite sure they exist.

Why is that? In my line of work, I've dealt with various special needs students. One student I had to quit working with had a really bad behavior problem in regards to his low-functioning autism spectrum disorder. (Apparently all mental disorders now seem to fall on that list.) Essentially that kid was almost in a total feral state. Tearing off clothes, biting, hitting, etc. He was getting to be a young adult, and therefore too big and dangerous to be around when he starts acting out.

Put a person like that in the woods, and I'm sure that after a while he'd have no problems figuring out what plants to eat nor qualms about eating bugs or small animals raw. I'm not talking about camping or bushcraft at all, total living bare-arse in the woods and eating whatever comes handy without any cooking. No different than a wild animal, in terms of doing what's needed for survival.

Some "wild men" may just be disenfranchised with society and put on a rather good ruse to be left alone, but others certainly are those that have fallen through the cracks and would need to be institutionalized if they weren't out in the wilderness.

Wow, interesting. And yet another good reason to teach babies sign language. It's amazing how much they can pick up, and imagine how much we can learn from a toddler who actually communicates. We could solve a lot of crimes. And if only we could teach it to cats and dogs, even more crimes solved, lol ...

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
a reply to: lindalinda

in that case, i'm fairly confident that the toddler was found alive. though with no recollection of how he wound up there. which is another common thread. if the person is found alive 90% of the time their memory seems to be fogged, where they can't recall the memories or even some where the trauma is too extreme and they don't want to relive it by trying to remember. there are several people over the decades who have reported very strange things when they were found. but, in cases where the children are very young as was the case with the toddler in the swamp, they sometimes literally don't have the language skills to even convey what happened to them, which seems to be intentional in terms of who is taken.

also, fevers are very common in those who have survived the experience in addition to surviving extreme cold/rain/snow conditions without succumbing to exposure, which would lead one to think that the abducted was actually sheltered somewhere during their disappearance.

one of the strangest recollections from a survivor was a little girl who said that she was taken by "a big dog man". she said something like "big dog man carried me away". "the big dog fed me berries from his paw". "he made me a leaf bed to sleep in"

now there are many things that stand out automatically from those statements.

1. dogs don't carry little children in their arms.
2. dogs don't forage for berries & dogs don't have the ability to give/hold food in their paws
3. dogs don't make beds from pine boughs or what have you, forget the particular type of tree material she said the bed was made of.

all in all very strange stuff. definitely not a bear, not a dog, not a wolf.

I have detailed my encounter on both these forums and another, bigfoot-related site, in the past. I have been hooked on the subject since then, although I thought the idea was interesting even before I had my encounter. These animals definitely exist. From my personal experience and research I do not believe these animals should be considered humans. Definitely not feral humans. Their entire physiology is somewhat different than ours. They are definitely related to us in some manner, and one day this will be documented.

It of course will take a body. DNA samples cannot get the job done, considering you cannot know where it came from, nor prove it. All it would prove is a novel form of DNA. You could some things about it, including that it is a primate, but not much else that will help in proving it is from a bigfoot. Paulides' Missing 411 is interesting, and I definitely think that a small percentage of those reports could be related to sasquatch, but not all.

There have been sighting reports filed by adults who had encounters as children, and on multiple occasions a sasquatch has aided a child who was lost or in danger. I do not believe they feel threatened by children, and thus while they rarely if ever approach your average adult, they are more apt to approach a lone child. The vast majority of cases tell of a docile animal, and there are very few cases of bigfoot violence towards humans or other bigfoot, although some reports do exist. Usually the most aggressive behaviors that they will engage in towards a human will be a display. They will throw things from behind cover, as well as shake trees, or even break them.

I think the most logical conclusion is that they are trying to get people to leave that particular area, without actually having to approach the person, which makes perfect sense considering confrontation means more danger...potentially anyway. Very often, when they perform aggressive displays that convince a person to vacate the area, an animal will follow some distance behind them, I guess to make sure the person leaves. But they will not get too close. And sometimes they will parallel someone who is walking, although they will do it from cover. Bipedal footfalls can be relatively distinct under certain conditions.

These animals are highly unusual, but I have found that "how" they exist is very intuitive and logical. I hypothesize they have an avoidance instinct, which is likely what has kept them alive and undetected thus far. But they truly have not gone undetected, as there are thousands of sightings that have occurred. There is not a single mammal in the world that displays the same behaviors as these creatures, and that is the main reason science has yet to document them. Any studies of the animal will need to be done in a novel manner. An animal that is accustomed to the woods like a sasquatch, and who possesses such great intelligence, will not wait around for those traipsing through the woods to get close. But they make mistakes sometimes as well. When they are not paying attention, or if the conditions are not conducive to alert them to an approaching human, they are seen. Or sometimes in search of food they get too close to a human habitation and are seen.

There are so many things that I have concluded about these animals, but unfortunately it is impossible for me to get into every single one of these aspects in this post. I have been working on a book detailing all of the most likely conclusions about these animals, as well as some novel hypotheses of my own, but it is coming quite slowly. This is due to the fact that there is so much overlapping information, meaning it is hard to break down a simple idea in only one location. It will need to be reiterated and expanded upon somewhere else, and this has made organization a nightmare for me. Anyway, I wish more people could see these animals. They truly are magnificent, and somewhat scary and unusual. I still think myself quite lucky to have had a sighting, especially considering the timing. The window for me to see that particular animal was extremely small, as he was heading for a treeline across a somewhat small, open field, a field flanked on all sides by forest.

I assume he had come to see who or what was coming in to the area, and I would guess that he did that and was leaving. I had just happened to diverge from the direction I was headed initially, and came around a group of trees and had this small field before me, and I caught him before he got into the trees.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

From my personal experience and research I do not believe these animals should be considered humans. Definitely not feral humans. Their entire physiology is somewhat different than ours. They are definitely related to us in some manner, and one day this will be documented.

No, this article doesn't imply that Big Foot is a feral human. It raises the question if feral humans could have been captured by these creatures when they were small and raised by them?