posted on May, 16 2013 @ 04:41 PM
Sasquatch is one of my primary interests, and this was the case long before I had a lucky encounter of my own. And since I have an interest in the
subject, I perform research both in the office and in the field, attempting to gather evidence and piece together the characteristics of these
animals. I am mostly interested in their behavior, and it is in this area that I believe I have the greatest understanding. There are actually some
very compelling reasons, that I have seen, to account for the elusiveness of these animals, as well as for the fact that much of the video evidence is
not that great. Most people do not realize the sheer volume of sasquatch video material exists in this world, most of it in the United States.
The best visual evidence is, unfortunately, in private hands, but there is still a considerable volume of open source evidence available for analysis.
Spotting a hoax is something that becomes easier with time and more importantly, understanding. There are a handful of aspects that one can analyze in
any video depicting a possible sasquatch that are next to impossible to fake. Anything almost can be faked with enough money, but the majority of
hoaxers out there do not posses these types of funds, and this shows in their videos as they are usually not good enough to fool someone educated on
the subject. Many people talk about the blurry videos of sasquatch and assume that makes them fake, which is sometimes the case, but often they are
wrong. There is a reason for this, and it has to do both with the technical capabilities of consumer grade camcorders, as well as the behavior of
these animals, who are not apt to let a person get very close if they can help it.
I just wanted to present the reader with a bit of background information regarding these animals, as well as the fact that I personally know them to
be real. I am not assuming or guessing this is the case...I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt. And there are THOUSANDS, literally, of people who will
tell you the same thing. So please, dismiss this notion that witnesses are mistaken or hoaxers, because this is not the case.
Now, regarding the topic at hand. There have been multiple cases of sasquatch shootings, allegedly. I have opinions only regarding these cases, since
I was not present at any such shooting. The most recent, and only case to have any credibility, was the case of Justin Smeja, who supposedly shot and
killed multiple sasquatch while out bear hunting with a friend. He has given interviews and answered questions, but there was not any physical
evidence taken from the site of the shooting on the day the shooting occurred. Apparently this man was quite frightened after realizing what he had
done, and thus did not retrieve any physical evidence. However, many researchers returned to the site many months later, and supposedly there was a
piece of flesh retrieved.
However it was not known if it was from a sasquatch. The DNA study conducted by Dr. Ketchum and others was recently released, and confirmed the
existence of sasquatch through these DNA studies. The sample that was retrieved from the site of the shooting was included in the study. That is all I
know. The results of the study are in doubt, and I have refrained from participating in that argument. I read the results personally and I was rather
excited, but I admit I do not know enough about DNA to know if the methods utilized were sound. There is a study going on now at Oxford University,
and their findings may possibly confirm the Ketchum study findings, or who knows what they may conclude.
So the notion of shooting a sasquatch is an old one, with many cases happening supposedly in the 19th century and early 20th century. I will say that
this is one of the easier hoaxes to pull off, and the hoaxer may be able to string everyone along by not producing a "body." There are also cases of
certain government departments confiscating bodies, usually animal related agencies, although they were usually present at the site of the body much
earlier in the process. There is no direct evidence to confirm this, only anectdotal evidence, but I personally find this believable, in that there
are very good reasons for certain agencies to want to learn about these animals before they confirm their existence. And contrary to popular belief,
science is not really out there attempting to document sasquatch. In the cases where science is trying, they are going about it all wrong, as are most
researchers, including the guys from Finding Bigfoot, lol.
So how do we determine whether this case is authentic? We wait for a body. I don't care what is said, without a body none of it matters. If it is
confiscated, it is not worth debating. It WILL take a type specimen to prove sasquatch's existence, and this is the bottom line. That is something I
have learned throughout my research. Nothing but a body will suffice as proof of the existence of bigfoot.