posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 07:12 PM
reply to post by boomer135
As I have no personal experience seeing wildmen (other than hairy reg humans) in the woods, I remain open to the possibility they don't exist.
However, after a few in-depth talks with some serious anthropologists, I was surprised to learn many (repeat many, not all or most) take their
existence as a matter of fact.
Apparently, at the U of A, for instance, there is a drawer with casts that sport dermal ridges, callouses and injury along with hair that comes up as
"mostly human" but still "inconclusive" in dna tests. It's human dna, or at least so close that without a body it still falls in the realm of
Nests, or beds have, indeed, been found on numerous occasions, along with scat and even tools of a sort but what proof does that offer?
The individuals I spoke with were reluctant to discuss it because they felt that the ridicule factor was "preferably avoidable" but mostly because
the Sasquatches seemed intelligent and thus, human, and should be left the heck alone.
Maybe there was more to the story as to why it was so hush-hush, but I dunno.
I should add the Dr. I spoke with (as opposed to the grad students) had a distinct sighting and had no hesitation in calling what he saw a previously
unknown hominid... of immense proportions... for what it's worth. I believed he believed it.
But those guys with degrees aside, the thousands of reports taken as a whole and the public evidence should make the case that it is at least
possible, even with the paucity of concrete evidence.