I know these animals exist with 100% certainty, because I've seen one. Because of this fact I am more focused on how they exist and remain
undetected, as well as how they survive in their environments. Well, to be honest, they haven't really remained undetected. There are tens of
thousands of sightings that have taken place over the last century, and this is just an estimate of the sightings that have actually been reported to
someone...a bigfoot organization, the police, etc. There are going to be many more sightings that never get reported.
I have devoted a large percentage of my free time to solving some of the mysteries associated with this animal, and I have drawn, sometimes with the
help and input of others, quite a number of conclusions, with some of them being relatively novel. Regarding the evolution of bigfoot it is difficult
to say how old they are, as well as what species they originated from. Having pondered and researched this question for years now, I can honestly say
that I do not believe it has anything to do with neanderthals, although the possibility is certainly still there, and I could be wrong.
Regardless, sasquatch are found in North America, Asia, and Australia, and most likely South America as well. The lack of much evidence for the
species in Africa could very well suggest that they originated in Asia, which is what I believe, and migrated eastward from there. But maybe they
exist in Africa as well, and reports just don't get out, seeing as how much of Africa is not modernized, and portions that are may not necessarily be
located near large tracts of forested land, which sasquatch need for their survival, in that it provides all that they need.
They migrated to Australia at or around the same time they migrated to North America, which was the last glacial maximum, anywhere from 12-18,000
years ago, as Australia was at that time connected to mainland Asia. I personally feel that sasquatch are present in vast numbers in Asia, and there
are plenty of sightings of them, from the local population, as well as many sightings of "rock apes" by US soldiers during the Vietnam war.
Anyway, let's discuss the video itself. Sasquatch can in fact drop to all fours and run, very quickly I might add. There is a really great video
depicting as much, the mechanics of which could not have been faked by a person in a suit. I forget what the title of the video was, but I might be
able to find it. It depicts a sasquatch running, dropping to quadrapedal locomotion and progressing for some distance, and then resuming bipedal
locomotion. Very intriguing, and that is almost what we appear to be seeing here.
The movement looks very realistic, and we don't have much else to go on. If it is a hoax, it is one of the more clever to have been created. The
movement of the animal as far as the jumping and bounding looks highly authentic, and is consistent with what a younger sasquatch would do, moreso
than an older one. Sort of like how the younger sasquatch are more apt to climb trees, and they are very adept at it as well, like one would expect
from a monkey...swinging around and whatnot, as seen in video evidence as well.
These are not just random beliefs of mine that I'm throwing out there either. They might be opinions to a large extent, but they are opinions that
are based on years of speculation, evidence analysis, including video and eyewitness, and even physical evidence as well, among many other things.
Myself and others have formulated great arguments for the existence of sasquatch, and since I don't like reiterating the same things in thread after
thread, although I usually don't post that much bigfoot-related material on ATS, I am talking more about "mundane" or non-interesting topics
relating to sasquatch in this post. I think there is much more evidence than people realize.
I hate when people say that this or that piece of evidence has been proven to be false, because usually it is an error. Take the Patterson-Gimlin
footage from decades ago. There is still absolutely no consistent evidence that even suggests it is fake. There are a couple of non-related pieces of
evidence, but they are not convincing in the least. And the man who claims he wore the suit contradicted himself multiple times, and did not even
describe a suit that looked anything like the animal in the video. Not to mention the fact that experts have placed the height of the animal at the
very limit for human height, meaning not just anyone could have worn the suit. But these arguments have been gone over many times in the past. I just
wanted to illustrate the ignorance of the public when it comes to pieces of evidence like this.
IMO the greatest evidence available is the sighting record. It has been determined, mathematically I might add, that the odds are much greater that
sasquatch exist than all of the witnesses are hoaxing or have misidentified known animals. There are so many witnesses with impeccable credentials,
and many who are trained observers, some with animals themselves, who have had sightings and filed reports. Military snipers, the best trained
observers imo, have had sightings as well, and have given detailed descriptions. And the bulk of eyewitness testimony corroborates other testimony,
which suggests that something real is going on.
And when all of the footprint sizes are plotted, we get a bell curve, indicative of a real animal population. If all the footprints were hoaxes
perpetrated by hundreds of people over decades, then the data would not show such a curve, and when graphed, it would be highly sporadic.
And I also hate the arguments about how people would get them on film by this time, etc, etc. People get them on freaking film quite often to be
honest. It is just that everyone dismisses every single piece of video evidence. Can someone explain to me how skeptics claim there is no evidence,
yet when they are presented with evidence, they dismiss it, and still claim there is no evidence? The bear population is relatively large in the US,
yet bear sightings themselves are relatively rare as well. Therefore if the sasquatch population is much smaller, which it is, AND these animals are
actively seeking to avoid humans, which is entirely probable, then it stands to reason that sightings should be sparse. Yet they really aren't.
I have come to the conclusion that the sasquatch population has been dramatically increasing, although few agree with me. Most notable researchers say
the population doesn't exceed 10,000 individuals across North America, while I maintain that the population is around 50,000, maybe even more.
Definitely more than 10 imo though. I don't care what this stuff sounds like to a non-believer, because I cannot take the opinion of such a person
seriously, because I know they're wrong. Not to mention I find it hard to take someone seriously when they actually believe that they know so much
that they can claim something doesn't exist. That is either arrogance or stupidity imho, considering that history is full of high-profile examples of
the status quo being overturned when it comes to belief of certain things. Science especially is full of such examples.
There are many other important arguments for the existence of sasquatch, lack of a body, etc. Few realize that there are no professional scientific
organizations out there looking for sasquatch. And if an expedition were ever undertaken, the only hope for success is a prolonged search. The way
they do things on Finding Bigfoot, the tv show, will fail most of the time, because such an animal has no incentive to stick around when humans are
traipsing through the woods. These animals may not be as smart as humans, but they're smarter than any other mammal in the world, and I'm pretty
confident of that hypothesis. Evidenec suggests they possess the ability to reason and plan, coordinate amongst themselves to a primitive degree,
which suits their needs, etc...I could literally go on for hours regarding the various arguments for the existence of sasquatch, but I get so bored
with it sometimes, because as I said I know they exist...I am more focused on just how they do what they do. Those are the important questions imo.
I have pretty much given up trying to convince others of the truth, because many apparently don't want to know the truth. Or they cannot trust
literally the thousands of credible witnesses alone, everyone from police officers, military officers and enlisted men, professional scientists
who've had sightings, politicians, doctors, etc...The list is long. I can understand someone needing to see something to belive it, but with the
sheer volume of reports, knowing that only a fraction of people will actually file them, coupled with the other evidence available, at the very least
I don't see how people can claim the animals don't exist. At least say the could exist, or they might exist, otherwise one just sounds foolish. And
bigfoot organizations that collect eyewitness reports have only been around for a very short time. Plus, the internet is the only thing that has made
it possible to start to gather so many reports together. So how many reports have taken place before there was anyone to report to? There have
probably been hundreds of thousands of sightings since the late 18th century alone. There are reports dating that far back as well, with explorers
even writing about them in their journals. Virtually every Native American tribe has a different name for these animals...tribest that had zero
contact with another even. That in itself would be highly coincidental for an animal that doesn't exist. There are many more arguments of this
nature, like I said, and it would take a while to touch on everything. I'm not even paying much attention to sentence structure or grammer, because
this thread includes a lot of information, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
If anyone wishes to know more about these animals, or wants to talk about bigfoot in any manner, feel free to message me here on the forums. And
again, the video in this thread could very well be authentic. It has many things going for it, and the animal itself, although we can see little, does
look as if it could be a bigfoot. There are certain indicators that one can look for, things that a human cannot imitate, or will have a very
difficult time mimicking, such as the angle created by the leg during a step...all humans walk in the same manner in that this angle I speak of is
around 70 degrees. There is a considerable difference in the stride of a bigfoot, and attempting to mimic this produces a very unnatural look for
humans. I've tried it. It could be done I'm sure, but this is not something that has been known about for all that long. It has only circulated in
the community fairly recently, so the older videos that depict this non-human angle are highly intriguing for that fact alone.