It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A compelling, recent bigfoot sighting in Canada's arctic.

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 05:59 PM
Two ladies were berry picking in Nunavik, which is a region in the far north of the province of Quebec home to much of that provinces Inuit population. These people know their land like few others, and I find this to be a highly credible sighting given the source. It`s also an extremely remote location, and seems like good habitat for the creature, given it`s also been sighted in Siberia and other arctic regions where the climates are quite similar.

From the CBC:

Sasquatch sighting by Nunavik berry pickers

Two women in Nunavik had an unusual encounter while berry picking on Saturday. Maggie Cruikshank Qingalik, who is from Akulivik, Que., said her friend saw some kind of creature out in the wilderness. Qingalik said at first, they thought it was another person picking berries. Then they noticed it was covered in long, dark hair.

I feel that it`s unlikely in this case that they could have mistaken a bear - there`s a hell of a lot to be said for aboriginal knowledge, and I find it unlikely that these women hadn`t seen dozens of bears, both dead and alive.

“We weren't sure what it was first. It is not a human being, it was really tall, and kept coming towards our direction and we could tell it was not a human,” she said. Qingalik said the creature was 10 to 15 feet tall. Pictures posted on Facebook show the alleged footprints are 40 centimetres long.


So, what do you folks think - I`m wondering if this seems as legit to you fellas as it does to me. There`s still so much we don`t know, and anybody familiar with the Canadian wilderness, especially in the north, will tell you that it`s vast on an almost unimaginable scale. A creature that doesn`t want to be found would have little difficulty, even in 2012, keeping it mostly that way.

edit on 6-10-2012 by Monger because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:13 PM
Sorry, pic doesnt look like anything

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:19 PM
They Got Pictures Of The Footprint But Not Of The Thing They Seen Huh?.... Sounds Fishy To Me.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:21 PM
I agree the picture isnt very valid. It looks like they are measuring something but you cant tell what it is. Do you have any other pictures from their posting?

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:28 PM
Be nice to have a picture like this one

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:40 PM
Valid points. And while the image of the print isn`t exactly expertly shot, I can make out a set of toes and a heel - and it definitely appears to be quite large.

What would these two woman stand to gain by creating this hoax. They only open themselves to ridicule, I can`t think of any way they could gain monetarily or otherwise by hoaxing the sighting.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 11:34 PM
That's a pretty good print, especially for the kind of terrain it's in. I live...well, Newfoundland isn't quite as far north as Nunavik, but we've got a lot of similar terrain. That's a tundra bog you're looking at there, and while it'll take a print really well, it's very hard to actually see it afterwards. I did a quick-and-dirty trace on the actual print itself for those of you who can't see it. My first thought on looking at it was how close a match it is to the True Giant print illustrated in Coleman's Field Guide To Bigfoot And Other Unknown Primates.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by ShadeWolf

Another fellow islander! The words Republic of Newfoundland ring well to my ears, skipper. I know a thing or two about recognizing tracks in the bog.. spent the past week moose hunting, trotting through the bog, trying not to lose my rubbers in the muck.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 12:10 AM
reply to post by Monger

Thanks for posting this. It is interesting but I would argue that this sighting is pretty stock standard as far as BF sightings go.
So I can't see it as "compelling".

Eyewitness testimony and footprints are hardly convincing given the history of such evidence being presented.


posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:59 AM
reply to post by atlasastro
I have family in northern Quebec ( I'm in western Quebec) . In that area there is a lot of wildlife , the locals see bear, moose, wolves, elk, ect, the way most people see squirrels and pigeons !! I doubt very much that the woman would mistake a Bigfoot for a bear !!

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:57 AM
Just remember close to the arctic circle there is permafrost.
so the reason why the foot print wouldn't of had much of a indentation would be for the fact, that some parts of the ground would be covered in permafrost.

other factors could be the ground is compacted in that area.

edit on 7-10-2012 by amraks because: .

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:10 PM
I am no expert on this subject but I am quite familiar with foot sizes (use to sell shoes for many years)....I am 6'2" and I just measured my foot and I got a whamming 32 cm.....I know a guy that I went to school with that would have longer feet that 40 cm because he had to get his shoes custom made since they were not sold in stores....they were huge!!! (I would guess 45cm in comparisson with mine, they almost double mine)) he was 6'9". For a 10'-12' + creature, wouldn't the feet be much much bigger?

Just wondering!
edit on 10-10-2012 by Teye22 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-10-2012 by Teye22 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics


log in