Strangers: Read the rules and respect them and other users. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of an anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, closed minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
That was literally one of my first questions too. In the story, nothing comes up to the surface. Bodies, waste, all of it stays underground and gets recycled through the fungal ecosystem they live in. If bones or scat were popping up topside, the whole idea would collapse pretty fast and my story would stink. Lol!
I don't consider there to be "little" evidence of Bigfoot. Just certain people not being aware of the evidence or refusing to acknowledge its validity.
Most skeptics don't actually have an issue with not having a body, given how rare of animal it would be and its habitat. You dont find corpses of bear or other predators and they don't have anywhere close to the intelligence of a BF.
Evidence for Bigfoot is largely the same as most animals. Footprints with dermal ridges, recordings of vocalizations in N.A. with infrasound (no known species have this), even recordings like the Sierra sounds that show language, complex tree structures or trees forced in the ground upside down, DNA & Edna from Canada, Ohio, CA & WA that came back as unknown primate--some that appeared closest to orangutans, others to chimps. Then theres the countless thermal images taken of them, as well as videos and still images. Most people arent aware of the hundreds of quality videos that exist, its not just Patterson gimlin.
Then there are accounts (too many to count) that mention finding bodies usually after a forest fire, volcano eruption, mudslide, or tornado. First responders generally find them but all interviews stated that the bodies were removed by a government agency. Some of the reports after mount st Helen's are the most compelling. Some even have photos.
I was just watching a documentary on Prime where people had found a body of Bigfoot, well, a hand and a leg from the knee down. They sent it in for DNA testing as well, which also came back as an unknown primate.
But to the OP point, the answer to the question of "what's the world's smartest animal" Is the one man can't prove exists aka one that manages to elude mankind. Thats obviously Bigfoot to differing degrees. Their whole survival is predicated on avoiding humans. So, the fact theyre still denied to exist is proof of their intelligence.
I really appreciate you taking the time to explain your perspective in that much detail. It’s clear you’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I agree with you on more of it than it might seem at first glance.
No matter where someone lands on the evidence itself, the idea that intelligence and deliberate avoidance are central themes comes up again and again. That’s actually one of the things that drew me in. The fact that so many accounts describe awareness, caution, and purposeful behavior is hard to ignore.
My story isn’t meant to argue against any specific evidence or experiences. I’m not trying to validate or dismiss footprints, recordings, DNA, or reports. What interested me was stepping back and asking a slightly different question: if a unknown hominid existed and its survival depended on avoiding humans, what kind of lifestyle would that push it toward over a long span of time?
That’s where the speculative angle comes in for me. In that framework, surface sightings wouldn’t be normal behavior at all, but rare responses to disruptions underground. Things like flooding, gas buildup, seismic activity, or collapses could force brief surface movement, which might help explain why encounters tend to be situational and inconsistent rather than constant.
So I’m less trying to say “there’s little evidence” and more exploring what the world might look like if not being seen was actually the point. Your comments about intelligence and avoidance line up with that idea more than you might think, and I really appreciate you sharing them.
Being good at survival doesn't afford you a suspension of physics. Sasquatch (supposedly) inhabits forests close to human settlements and apparently frequents hiking trails, visits campsites, runs across highways, and even peaks into people house windows. Yet somehow fails to leave any verifiable evidence.
And what selective pressures could possibly exist that would lead to Sasquatch evolving the ability to not shed any traces of its existence?
So not only is this physically impossible but there's no reason for it to evolve this ability.
Thank you for your thoughts and comments. I agree with you if we’re talking about a large mammal that truly lives on the surface. That version wouldn’t make sense to me either.
The idea I explored in the story is about changing the primary habitat entirely to underground. If life, death, and waste all happen underground, surface encounters become rare, situational events rather than normal behavior.
Strangers: Read the rules and respect them and other users. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of an anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, closed minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Where are the bones? And feces? Animal that big pees and poos somewhere.
That was literally one of my first questions too. In the story, nothing comes up to the surface. Bodies, waste, all of it stays underground and gets recycled through the fungal ecosystem they live in. If bones or scat were popping up topside, the whole idea would collapse pretty fast and my story would stink. Lol!
I don't consider there to be "little" evidence of Bigfoot. Just certain people not being aware of the evidence or refusing to acknowledge its validity.
Most skeptics don't actually have an issue with not having a body, given how rare of animal it would be and its habitat. You dont find corpses of bear or other predators and they don't have anywhere close to the intelligence of a BF.
Evidence for Bigfoot is largely the same as most animals. Footprints with dermal ridges, recordings of vocalizations in N.A. with infrasound (no known species have this), even recordings like the Sierra sounds that show language, complex tree structures or trees forced in the ground upside down, DNA & Edna from Canada, Ohio, CA & WA that came back as unknown primate--some that appeared closest to orangutans, others to chimps. Then theres the countless thermal images taken of them, as well as videos and still images. Most people arent aware of the hundreds of quality videos that exist, its not just Patterson gimlin.
Then there are accounts (too many to count) that mention finding bodies usually after a forest fire, volcano eruption, mudslide, or tornado. First responders generally find them but all interviews stated that the bodies were removed by a government agency. Some of the reports after mount st Helen's are the most compelling. Some even have photos.
I was just watching a documentary on Prime where people had found a body of Bigfoot, well, a hand and a leg from the knee down. They sent it in for DNA testing as well, which also came back as an unknown primate.
But to the OP point, the answer to the question of "what's the world's smartest animal" Is the one man can't prove exists aka one that manages to elude mankind. Thats obviously Bigfoot to differing degrees. Their whole survival is predicated on avoiding humans. So, the fact theyre still denied to exist is proof of their intelligence.
I really appreciate you taking the time to explain your perspective in that much detail. It’s clear you’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I agree with you on more of it than it might seem at first glance.
No matter where someone lands on the evidence itself, the idea that intelligence and deliberate avoidance are central themes comes up again and again. That’s actually one of the things that drew me in. The fact that so many accounts describe awareness, caution, and purposeful behavior is hard to ignore.
My story isn’t meant to argue against any specific evidence or experiences. I’m not trying to validate or dismiss footprints, recordings, DNA, or reports. What interested me was stepping back and asking a slightly different question: if a unknown hominid existed and its survival depended on avoiding humans, what kind of lifestyle would that push it toward over a long span of time?
That’s where the speculative angle comes in for me. In that framework, surface sightings wouldn’t be normal behavior at all, but rare responses to disruptions underground. Things like flooding, gas buildup, seismic activity, or collapses could force brief surface movement, which might help explain why encounters tend to be situational and inconsistent rather than constant.
So I’m less trying to say “there’s little evidence” and more exploring what the world might look like if not being seen was actually the point. Your comments about intelligence and avoidance line up with that idea more than you might think, and I really appreciate you sharing them.
Being good at survival doesn't afford you a suspension of physics. Sasquatch (supposedly) inhabits forests close to human settlements and apparently frequents hiking trails, visits campsites, runs across highways, and even peaks into people house windows. Yet somehow fails to leave any verifiable evidence.
And what selective pressures could possibly exist that would lead to Sasquatch evolving the ability to not shed any traces of its existence?
So not only is this physically impossible but there's no reason for it to evolve this ability.
Thank you for your thoughts and comments. I agree with you if we’re talking about a large mammal that truly lives on the surface. That version wouldn’t make sense to me either.
The idea I explored in the story is about changing the primary habitat entirely to underground. If life, death, and waste all happen underground, surface encounters become rare, situational events rather than normal behavior.
Thanks and Merry Christmas!