What many people don't realize is that there are literally thousands upon thousands of reports where eyewitnesses have detailed their encounters. And
in many of these the witness states how they initially assumed that what they were looking at was a bear, only to have to revise that view as the time
passes, because either they got closer, or the animal moved a certain way or became more visible, etc...Many think that people automatically assume
that a bear is a bigfoot or whatever, yet this is the complete opposite of the truth.
People are much more likely to assume a bigfoot is a bear than assume a bear is a bigfoot. The ONLY times that a bear can be mistaken for a bigfoot is
when the view is highly obstructed, and all that can be seen is fur, with some height to it, through the trees or other obstructions. Or when
extremely far away when all that can be made out is a black blob. Yet most sighting reports detail an encounter where the view is not obstructed, or
at least a portion of the encounter involved an unobstructed view, and the witness was able to get a great look at the animal. My sighting was
completely unobstructed. The animal crossed a relatively small clearing and entered the treeline on the opposite side. And there aren't even any bears
It is hard to explain to people who haven't seen what I've seen. If you have a clear view of a bigfoot it does not take you that long to tell that
what you're looking at is not a bear. Sometimes witnesses assume its a bear because of the usual color of a sasquatch, and the brain immediately makes
the bear connection. But not long after that, especially if the animal is moving, it becomes apparent that something strange is going on. I cannot
describe the primal fear that I felt during my encounter. It was almost like an instinctual fear is probably the best way to describe it. It happened
relatively quickly and I wish I could have observed it for a longer period of time.
Another thing is that if you've seen a bigfoot walking like many people have, you know a bear cannot even come close to mimicking that type of motion.
What you see in the bear video above shows an animal with pointy ears, which bigfoot does not have, short arms, while bigfoot has very long arms,
short legs, while bigfoot has much longer legs, and the bear takes short steps and has a snout. Bigfoot doesn't have a snout, and its natural stride
is strikingly long. It was prominent enough for me to notice that it was taking large steps. But it was not unnatural by any means, like a person
would have to do to get such a length. You can tell by the length of an animals legs where its comfortable stride would be. You would instinctively
know if you saw a person trying to take really big steps, because it wouldn't look right. It wouldn't be natural. But the bigfoot I saw obviously
always walked that way, like it was built for it. That is the best way I can describe it.
I really get annoyed when people who don't have the faintest idea about bigfoot, who haven't devoted any significant portion of their lives to
studying it, try to make blanket statements like "people are seeing bears." Minimal research into what people are reporting would dispel this
hypothesis rather quickly. I have concluded from my research that hoaxes make up a very small percentage of sighting reports as well. Most of the
hoaxes come in video form, or in still images. Rarely are sighting reports filed detailing something that didn't happen. The BFRO has investigated and
made the reports available for something like over 4,000 cases, and sometimes corroborating evidence is found, something that backs up the claims.
Even blanket statements like "scientists would have discovered the animal by now if it were real" are also inaccurate for a variety of reasons. Unlike
most other scientific disciplines the scientists are out there pursuing or researching a topic. This doesn't happen with bigfoot. There are no
scientific expeditions to gather evidence even. There has been two scientific studies done, one which concluded from DNA analysis of multiple samples
that sasquatch is related to humans and the two species diverged so many thousands of years ago, and this report was dismissed outright. There were
certain problems with the study, although I maintain that there were certain things found that are worth pursuing. Then there is the Sykes study,
which could have been flawed from the get-go. Part of the problem is that if sasquatch DNA is human on either the mother or father's side, it would
have been thrown out before even being tested. They were throwing out anything with human markers as being contaminated, or belonging to a human.
While we don't know if sasquatch would have human mitochondrial or nuclear DNA, it is not out of the realm of possibility by any means. And the people
collecting evidence are just scooping up hairs they find out in the woods, and the odds are that it will belong to one of the myriad other animals
that live there, not a bigfoot. There needs to be a better vetting process.
edit on 8/15/14 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)