Reports – displaying both frequency and coherence – indicate strongly, to me and to others, that there could well indeed be more than one species of native nonhuman primate in North America.

Many “juvenile sasquatch” sightings are suspicious to me, because the animal is alone with no apparent adult in attendance, and apparently quite physically adept to boot. Sure, the juvenile sas could have a higher degree of independence than in other primates. But it could be that these are sightings of the North American equivalent of, say, the chimpanzee too. And there are many Florida sightings of an animal (the Skunk Ape) that, while it appears to be an ape, seems quite different from the sasquatch. (Along with a lot of what appear to be sasquatch sightings.)

Almost all other kinds of animals have more than one representative species on every continent they inhabit. No reason it couldn’t be true here too. I would, in fact, expect it to be true, if that is we have at least one. Reports show, for all their internal consistency, enough variation to be accounted for by more than one species. Until we spend enough time on this to find out, of course, we won’t know.

It’s clear to me that we need to start thinking of these creatures in terms of being very different from one another. There almost certainly are remnant hominid/pongid populations in Europe remaining. I am a proponent of the position put forward by Mark A. Hall, and also by Loren Coleman and others that there are multiple hairy ape-men throughout the world and in North America.

Since Hall talks about the “trolls” on Greenland and the areas around Baffin Bay in Canada as Marked Hominids, that is what I believe are often found in the upper Midwest and in parts of eastern Europe. But you have other specific types, that should be distinct and not all labeled as Bigfoot:

True Giants: the reports of truly enormous Bigfoot-like creatures (over 10 feet tall), but that have a relatively lean frame, and huge head, and leave distinctive four-toed footprints with consistency. What Hall thinks is likely gigantopithecus.

Neo-Giants: Your classic Pacific Northwest sasquatch/Bigfoot, the burly type seen in the Patty film. This may be paranthropus, or others from the fossil history.

The aforementioned Marked Hominids.

Skunk Apes in Florida: which could be dryopithecines or more pongid (ape-like) hairy cryptids. These have footprints with adducted big toes, more like chimps and gorillas.

The Satyrs: which of course you find in historic Europe: These seem to have distinctive large ears, and a part-time gait at least that has the legs positioned in such a way that it reminds people of goat legs, hence the often-reported appearance of “goat-men”.

The “Little People” worldwide: Creatures like those from the island of Flores, like Orang Pendek, like the little yeti (teh-lma) in the Himalayas, and like the smaller hairy man-like creature in Australia (Junjudee, rather than Yowie).

But what we should concentrate a bit on tracking down are the pieces of video evidence I believe are actually out there. Ones such as that mentioned by Storfot above, or ones such as the Navy Seal purported footage from Africa of the water-type creatures with three toes previously reported on this site by Loren Coleman.

Loren I’m curious though, I know that descriptions of Sasquatches vary across the US, such as the Skunk Ape described a bit differently from the California Sasquatch. What I was wondering though in what ways do the reports from Northern Minnesota and Canada (Around the great lakes) vary from those from California, or if they tend to describe the same thing.

DWA are right, not far across the Finnish border both in Karelia and also up at the Kola peninsula there are several sightings of wildmen. They look much like american Bigfoots are described, hairy and “naked”, but also an individual at winter was seen with skins wrapped around them, carrying tools/weapons. They are mostly called wildmen in different languages, absolutely not Bigfoots. There are few nasty aduction stories, indicating they live in caves in some form of families. Mostly they are benign creatures, however foraging around houses at night, stealing or killing sheep, but also a fun case of one robbing an innocent hiker of his food right off his rucksack.

That European wildmen exist is our best kept secret.

I just wrote a comment to DWA about some of the things you mentioned. It is interesting that you bring up the records of bigfoots being observed in sweden (may I guess you are Danish or Norweigan?). I have just now studied some more concerning this topic. I have read about it before but didn’t find it very plausible. My doubt was mainly because of the non-scientific sites on the internet.

What I have read about it is that there are quite a few eye witnesses and that there is a video of a bigfoot that is supposed to be far beyond the P/G clip in quality and duration. Same sites have speculated whether it is Russian bigfoots that come over to Scandinavia during migration season?

I am a novice here and I have no sources that I know are reliable so it would be great if you had some more information on the subject.

Now I am with you. Your first comment seemed (to me) that you meant all Europeans know about the wildmen.

It is correct that we have no history of sightings here. In fact, there are no tangible or plausible records or documentation of wildmen’s physical existance.

However, in my part of Europe, the norther countries we had the trolls and such creatures in our tales and mythology. Similar to or the same same as the woodwose some might say but when I scrutinize and compare the traditional tales of a woodose and a troll the differences are huge. Like comparing horses and snakes. Christianity came to the Nordic countries between AD1000 and AD1100 but the old traditions, culture and myths lived much longer. Fact is, we still celebrate the summer solstice. Every child up here (in general, he he) has heard at least one fairy tale about trolls and every corner of the country has its story of trolls. But obviously we don’t believe in trolls:)
I think that the difference between continental Europe and the Nordic countries might be that we adaptet Christianity rather late.

To get back to the wildmen, they are not unheard of up here. I just fond out that they were depicted on the national coat of arms of Denmark as well as the most northern prefictures of Sweden and Finland. Some further research showed that wildmen were rather popular in the art of heraldry throughout Europe and not uncommon up here.

I have read (can’t remember where) that some people’s approach to trolls is that they are actually the bigfoots of north Europe. That they were just called trolls here like the the natives in the Americas call them Sasquatch (and other names).
If we had the trolls up here, why would we need another wild creature in the forest? Was it influence from the continetal Europe and Christianity?

Perhaps trolls and wildmen are the expressions of the basic human need of creating “greater than life” figures and they turned out different because of cultural impression?

It is obvious that the wildmen of Europe can’t possibly be the equivalent of the American bigfoot.
Russia is the only country in Europe I think possbily holds/held a European bigfoot.

This could have been different in Germany say where places like the Black forest might have had residual populations of real wild men-haven’t we seen an etching?

In my case I remember early on coming across the Green Man inn (Great Snoring) situated in well wooded country with a green face sign and I knew instinctively what the face represented, something to do with the exuberance and creativity of nature and a suggestion that behind that sign was a vast forest, as it once was. Previously idly looking at gargoyle like Green Men sculptures on churches had little impact.

It seems to me ideas about wild men and green men at one time were very distinct and it is possible and I think probable wild men were those first having ideas such as green man nature spirits. Wasn’t the first mention of wild men ( so far) Enkido in the Epic of Gilamgesh (2000-3000 BC).

One representation I like of a green man figure but perhaps is not shared is Bombadil in Lord of the Rings, though I don’t know where Tolkin got him from.

It seems to me the beliefs and views about green men and wild men are seperate but have disentangled and entangled to and fro over millenia and still are.

Incidentally the green children stories refer to (possible events) in Suffolk and Norfolk UK in about 1100 and there doesn’t seem to be a link with the Green Man tales. It IS possible I am a relative (though I am not green in a physical sense and I admit there is not much evidence).

Clearly Shackly was dead wrong in her assumptions, as they were reported by DWA.

What I mean (and I put it a bit colloquially) is that that the wildman tradition in Europe is very clearly based on myth and legend, and not on actual contemporary encounters between Europeans and undocumented species of hominoids.

The evidence for this? Really, a lack of evidence: no history of reports of European hairy hominoids meeting the twin tests of frequency (lots of them) and coherence (internal consistency).

By contrast, the sasquatch and yeti, for example, are seen by many people, who describe them consistently, in ways that go far beyond naive cultural notions of what a wildman should look like.

I don’t believe - and I don’t think scientists do either - that any phenomenon without a history of consistent reports from ostensibly reliable sources is worthy of serious scientific investigation, barring extraordinary extenuating circumstances.

So, whether individual Europeans have cognizance of it or not (and with legends and myths, that certainly will decrease with time - for example, I’m of Irish descent, and there’s much of my people’s culture that is pretty much lost to me unless I research it), the wildman TRADITION in Europe is one that does not appear to be based on actual, non-human species coexisting with humans.

I am a European and I have never heard about wildmen. Would you mind to explain further what you mean?

To make it easier for you, yes, I have heard about wildmen but only through Cryptomundo and similar websites. I assume that you mean “we” believe in wildmen in a cultural or traditional point of view so if that is a correct guess I would like to read more about this.