u/Mike1536748383

Does anyone know of any examples of those metal door slamming shut sounds people often talk about hearing when out in squatchy areas? I want to listen to a good few and see if I can compare it to natural volcalizations or other sounds of other primates.

Edit: If anyone knows any examples of rapid wood knocks, that would be great as well. That specifically I want to compared to the hollow sound that comes out of gorillas when they beat their chests. I understand that woodpeckers can sound like this but I've heard that there are instances where it's too loud to be caused by a woodpecker, but I I don't see if rapid knocks like people describe are possible. Generally I wanna actually see if most of these examples sound woody or not or more like rapid popping

Does anyone have any decent suggestions for camping YouTube channels? I'm finding myself exceptionally frustrated when trying to find a simple hour or two long camping vid to either fall asleep to or just have in the background throughout the day. The reason I ask here is because bigfoot content is the closest thing to what I'm looking for, like Sasquatch Theory's stuff, Mike Wanders' stuff, the stuff on Small Town Monsters, it's all the perfect mix of duration and environmental interaction, but when I try to find more stuff with this vibe, I just can't. Like either the videos are really short, the entire thing is someone building a shelter, or more than half of it is the main person canoeing, I'M TIRED OF THE CANOEING!!! 🙅‍♂️🛶

So yeah, any suggestions would be GREATLY appreciated. The best thing I was able to find in the past was stuff from The Outdoor Boys, but as everyone knows, he's stepped back from making new content.

As the title says, I'm trying to pinpoint exactly what little people are. Like, are they kind of like sasquatch, some sort of primative homonid but really small like the hobbit man, or are they said to be more advanced and closer to modern man or other indigenous human tribes? How small actually are they, are they like actual hobbit sized? Like 3 feet tall? Or are they half that or even smaller like fantasy fairy size? Are they said to possibly be fully physical or are they more spiritual? Like with sasquatch at least you might get that on camera here and there along with audio and you'll find prints and impressions, and there are theories as to why they can hide from cameras so well like the possible abilities to detect or even see and not like the lights that most cameras and trail cams give off like infrared, but are we to assume that little people have the same abilities? Because little people supposedly enter into human spaces far more than sasquatch, yet there's far faaaarrrrr less possible visual evidence for them.

Sasquatch would also naturally have more in depth senses because of how like, primordial they are I guess. Idk, I've read that once a species start to use tools and advance, they trade off those extreme senses like the smell and hearing and the hyper-accurate memory like what chimps have, but if it's the cave that Little People are advanced, how would they have those primordial senses? Doesn't make sense.

Honestly might more so be the case that they would be far more on the spiritual side of odd entities than the physical.

Anyways, if anyone has any info let me know, because I keep finding myself in the subject and am endlessly fascinated at how common they are in folklore, really far more common than sasquatch as well, so I feel like something has to fill that void but, idk what

Hello everyone, I'm pretty new to this and was just wondering if I could get some assistance with setting up my device to properly run Winlator. I believe I had the latest version installed and I followed the standard android setup guides to get it running, then it started to pop up the "The following component(s) are required to run this program: Microsoft Visual C++ 2015-2022 Redistributable (x64)" message. I tried to install both the 64 and 86 version of that and neither worked, made sure to restart the container after installing each one, so I don't really know where to go from here. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you for your time.

Now I'm not 100% certain on the theories of the government hiding bigfoot, the reasons they would do it, or if they're dripfeeding us stuff to get acclimated to the reality of it existing, BUT, is it just me or is bigfoot stuff becoming more and more prevalent in the consumer market? My mom went to the store the other day and sent me pics of a TON of bigfoot themed father's day items as well as other common items that had a bigfoot theme tagged onto them, then we got the bigfoot emoji not too long ago🫈🫈🫈

Idk man, feels like it's creeping in, what do you guys think? Government dripfeed or possibly just the market capitalizing on the subject's rising popularity?

What do you guys think could cause the possible sasquatch tracks that just seem to end where they should logically keep going on, like they stop in soft ground and the end tracks aren't any deeper as if they made some sort of massive leap.

Personally I think they back track, some accounts terrifyingly recall them being able to move like a spider, so I don't think walking backwards to hide their direction would be beyond them. I have an anatomy theory that their ankles are able to pull upwards at a greater angle than our own, allowing them to apply heel first pressure if they were walking backwards in their own prints.

Before I start, I will say that I'm posting this here because I include my opinions of dogman being more of a type 3 sasquatch thing

Ok so, here we go:

1 - Is it just me or is there A LOT of confirmation bias when it comes to people in the field looking for dogman? I've seen a lot of encounter vids where people talk about hearing them without a visual encounter, and they're so boldly confident about it, but if you already believe sasquatch is out there, why hold so fast to thinking that that unexplained sound is dogman? It's already widely believed that sasquatch has a WIIIIDDDEEE range of vocals, so why couldn't it be that? In this sense, the only form of evidence that would be reliable enough to look into would be eyewitness reports

2 - Why must it be "dog" man? Like wouldn't "bear" man make more sense? From what I've heard here and there, a LOT of encounters lack any sort of description of a predominant tail (some do some don't, but I don't hear such all too often), you know what else doesn't have any major sort of tail? Bears. Another thing is a lot of people say they have claws that are able to slash and whatnot, but primate genetics don't call for slashing claws, nor do canine genetics call for slashing claws or arms that could even swing to slash. You know what animal does have genetics for slashing arms and claws tho? Bears. You know what else would have a higher likelihood of ending up being more bipedal over thousands of years of adaptation? Probably bears.

(I guess another point to this is that if they're straight up real, they cannot be natural, at that point it would have to be supernatural or something because you can't just have this human dog thing that would have no source of it's adaptations, yet people recall seeing them carrying babies and seeing pregnant ones and whatever (which sounds pretty squatchy if you ask me but moving on), which calls for them being flesh and blood, but if flesh and blood, then those adaptations need to come from somewhere, and dog x man doesn't line up well enough)

3 - I find massive inconsistencies between how people describe it and what it actually does. It seems like a vast majority of people describe the being as being ruthless and just evil, yet those same or other people who say they've come across it don't really ever describe anything that is really any different to that of reported sasquatch behavior. Like the tree peeking, standing still, it letting you stare at it out in the open, the sounds at night, the observing nature, the fact that it apparently doesn't kill you even though it could if it wanted to, and with the way many people describe it, that's what it sounds like it would do.

4 - As stated at the top, I'm a strong believer that this is more of a type 3 "sasquatch" situation, with sasquatch being in quotes because at this point, it would come from a completely different line. I myself am religious but I don't see any issue in the possibility that the Creator made other man-like primates, recognized primates are pretty man like as it is honestly, nor do I believe that macro-evolution is incompatible with a healthy faith, like one could easily just say "The Creator set it in motion" and that's that. Now, I'm aware that within evolutionary science, it's been said that there was a baboon-like creature that was evolving right alongside with what would become modern humans and were on par or were nearly on par with our supposed ancestors. With this in mind, I fail to see how it would be impossible for some form of those creatures to not have made it to modern day. Many people already believe that sasquatch is a form of relic hominid, so if that made it, why not the baboon thing? One other thing that would support this actually links back to the tail variance of old world monkeys (specifically the baboons like ones). For example, baboons and mandrills are related and similar, yet baboons have long tails and mandrills have rather stubby tails. Now say the ancient form of this category of creatures made it to modern day and adapted to be more bipedal, you would end up having some dog looking man things that have tails, and some dog looking man things that don't. Something similar to this is why I think we have some sasquatch that, we assume, have sagittal crests causing conical heads, and others that don't, some that have different types of hair and feet like the difference between skunk apes and any other form of sasquatch, some that look more human and some that look more ape like. Depending on just how human or ape one may look in the face as well as the difference in hair could be chalked up to being simple individual variation, but when you get into the differences in the form of feet and head, that's a clear genetic difference. So there's two possibilities really, either they're like dogs and can all interbreed and there's a wide variety of subspecies and hybrids, or there are several (or a few) distinct genetic lines of the creatures that made it to modern day which cannot interbreed, either of which could cause a variance in intelligence capability in a specific area, which could give rise to these accounts of a more uniform language as opposed to what other accounts amount to being simple primate vocalizations.

Overall, I feel like I just wanted to make this post to bring up some more open minded possibilities from the side of someone who is more into sasquatch, and because I am more into sasquatch, I have to be open minded to be beneficial. I started to look into dog man a bit more because it's kind of impossible not to run into the subject once you start to do more sasquatch research, opinions and stories on such is constantly shared in interviews and whatever, and I just feel like I saw a really large disparity when it comes to the speculation of what sasquatch could be and the speculation of what dogman could be. Like with sasquatch speculation, it could be more ape, it could be more human, it could be a hybrid, it could be fully spiritual, it could be spiritual and physical, it could be fully physical, it could be a shape shifting being, it could be an interdimensional being, it could come from aliens, it could be an alien, aliens could've made it, it could be man gone wild, it could be ape gone man, it could be the nephilim, etc.. Yet, which it comes to dogman speculation, all I ever hear is "it's dogman" and that's it, at most the other possibility some people state would be it being demonic, but that's it, there's hardly any speculation on it being a bear, a primate, hardly anything on it being related to aliens or the interdimensional, it just feels, I guess not like, unfair, but it sure doesn't feel thorough, like there's not enough questioning. Not enough questioning on what it could be and not enough questioning on what the evidence people say they gather could be.

I recently started up my mom's old Sony camcorder as I want to make vintage styled videos for my trip to the Adirondacks. It was reading a C:31:23 which I was able to fix with that method of replacing that tiny inner spacer of the pinch roller with a cut piece of ballpoint pen ink tube, so now it records fine. The issue I have now is the fear of other parts breaking on me once I get there.

So, in general, with this camcorder, what other internal parts are prone to brittle decay and general shelf rot similar to said spacer insider the pinch rollers? Like is there really anything else I should be worried about and should probably replace before my trip? I'm 21 now and I know for a fact that I never laid eyes on this camcorder over the past decade, so it's been sitting in the least unused for over 10 years.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated

I'm heading up to the Adirondacks for a few nights and really want to make an attempt at passive evidence gathering. What I mean by this is gathering evidence using devices that only take in information and not putting anything out. One way I'm doing this is by using my mom's old camcorders to see if anything wants to show itself, this can have 2 benefits. 1: At this point, I feel squatches would be well knowledgeable of what modern phones and cameras look like, so seeing this weird box thing in my hands might not set off any alarm bells right away, and 2: The camcorders don't put out any invisible form of light like ir or focus lasers, unlike my modern phone camera, and it's starting to seem more and more like squatches really don't like the range of the light spectrum we cannot see, personally I think they try to stay in the shadow of it whenever people are using night vision trying to catch a glimpse of them.

Anyways, one final piece of equipment I need for my trip is something to record Audio with. What I would do is I would just have it on me when hiking but primarily set it out at night on the porch of the cabin to record whatever may want to make a sound. My budget for this audio recorder is at most $200 and I would hope it could have at least a 10 hour battery life. I would also want to be able to view the audio on one of those colorful spectrogram programs, I'm not sure if the recorder would have to have some specific specs for that to be possible. So yeah, any suggestions that fit this description would be greatly appreciated.

I did consult the almighty Google Ai and it suggested the Zoom H1essential 32-Bit Float Handy Recorder, but I'd thought I'd come here for a solid second opinion by real people before I go out and buy something lol.

Is the Olympic Project website acting up for anyone else? Keeps telling me the site can't be reached.