posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 04:52 PM
It is important to remember that no evidence, aside from a body on a slab or in a cage, will settle this issue. There will always be doubts about any
footprint, video, still image, audio recording, hair sample that is only analyzed morphologically, etc. I contend that even a DNA sample will not
prove the existence of bigfoot unless there is an accompanying body. This is because if one gets a novel DNA sequence there is no way to tell what the
animal it came from actually looks like. You could determine certain things from the DNA, I mean you would know it was a primate, and could even tell
that it was an undocumented primate, but that doesn't prove the existence of bigfoot. Then there is also the possibility of the sample being an
isolated incident, which means the following: the sample could be used up in initial testing.
This is a huge problem because other scientists will want to try to duplicate the results. They will attack the person's methodology and techniques,
and could claim all types of things. It takes multiple independent sources confirming the same thing to establish something scientifically in most
instances. DNA is a little bit different because to my knowledge it would be impossible to fabricate a novel DNA sequence, but perhaps I am wrong and
it is possible. This would just add more problems to proving the existence of bigfoot.
Some of the claims of a bigfoot body being discovered have occurred far into wooded terrain. There is a huge logistical problem with retrieving an
intact sasquatch body from their native habitat. They tend to live in areas that are not frequently or even easily accessed by humans, and many
sightings occur where human civilization meets the wild expanses of inaccessible terrain. In the Pacific North West especially, there are human
settlements in areas that are, overall, considered remote due to their terrain and the foliage and whatnot. Or to put it another way, settlements were
often established in prime locations, while the surrounding areas were a bit more "wild." My point is that bigfoot doesn't tend to gather around
human settlements, unless those settlements are smack in the middle of prime habitat.
There are many other things to consider, and I have my own hypothesis about a sasquatch population that is quickly on the rise, and has been for
centuries. Sightings will increase, and so will the likelihood of their discovery. Anyway what I was saying earlier was that it is hard to move such a
large body. And a dead body will not last very long in the wilderness, especially in the acidic soil of the PNW, where the greatest concentration of
bigfoot within the United States is located. I had my sighting in Texas, in the Sam Houston National Forest, and even though the surrounding areas I
would not consider "remote," the whole of the forest is relatively remote, with tall pine trees for many miles. A sasquatch could probably move huge
distances without ever crossing a human habitation if it was so inclined. There are these highways of forests all over the US, and they are likely
used by bigfoot, who tend to stay in the safety and cover of this foliage.
I postulate that their first line of defense is just staying away from people. Why the stay away from people I do not know, but it probably has a lot
to do with instinct. This is not unheard of in wild animals at all, although bigfoot have more intelligence than any other wild mammal in North
America, or the world, aside from humans of course. Their second line of defense is to stay hidden. They prefer the forests because that is where they
live, and they are adept in this environment. They are aware. They can easily get away from people in such an environment. Whether they are naturally
inclined for forest living, or whether they live in forests because of the safety or food sources offered I do not know. Probably a bit of both.
Their next line of defense comes from the terrain itself. Sighting reports sometimes detail sasquatch who are fleeing from humans will take unexpected
tacks or lines, possibly moving up steep inclines or rocky slopes, while a much easier path would seem to make more sense to us. So apparently it
would seem they know it is difficult to follow such terrain, and choose these routes for tactical reasons. I understand that you were asking for
something different in this thread, but I just want to point out that any understanding that one wishes to gain about why bigfoot has remained
undocumented must be preceded by an understanding of the nature of the animals themselves. They are not normal in the sense we think of most animals.
We think of most animals as being beneath ourselves as far as intelligence and other things, but this assumption is partly why bigfoot has remained
Then there are the faults of science in general. Scientists have made no well-funded or concerted effort to make any form of contact with a bigfoot,
or find evidence of any kind. The two scientific studies that have been done were only done on tissue and hair samples sent in by random people, thus
there was no scientific control or chain of evidence. These studies were flawed for a variety of reasons, and only served for these scientists to
claim that science was not ignoring the possibility of bigfoot. But they definitely are. Take a scientist who has used their area of expertise to
analyze the bigfoot problem, Dr. Meldrum, and he has studied the sasquatch foot by analyzing hundreds of footprint casts. He has determined that the
possibility of all these tracks being faked is zero. It just wouldn't happen. This is not because of the sheer number of tracks, although that does
make a hoax much less likely, but rather has to do with the morphology of the foot itself.
Graphing the measurements of the tracks that have been discovered in North America yields an interesting result, which is a curve on the graph that
would be expected if one were truly looking at an animal population. And these tracks are much larger than a human footprint. But the most telling
evidence comes from the minute characteristics found on many tracks. Things that would be next to impossible to fake, and would require such an
understanding of the anatomy of the foot to make the idea preposterous. If someone were to make a copy of their foot, then somehow blow it up to
massive proportions, even this would not account for what is seen in many sasquatch tracks. There are some peculiar things about them, and about the
structure of their foot in general, which would make sense for an animal living the type of life they live, and who must carry around so much weight.
It would not be structured like the human foot. I urge anyone interested in sasquatch to check out the scientific work that has been done in this
I could go on all day about bigfoot to be honest. There is so much information that I think everyone should know, and I can only briefly touch on a
portion of these aspects in this thread. I will say this: even if I had not had my own encounter, I would be leaning towards the existence of bigfoot.
There is too much unique evidence that points to a new species of primate living in the forests of North America to simply ignore it, or to account
for it by hoaxes and misidentifications. The sighting record is a valuable form of evidence, but other areas, some of which I mentioned, offer the
best scientific evidence for the likelihood of bigfoot. But we need a body.