posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 04:28 PM
Interesting. Although I do have to disagree with at least one of these statements. Maybe more than one are incorrect, but I cannot see any besides the
fact that the porpoise is not the second most intelligent creature on the planet. In reality the second most intelligent animal on our planet is the
sasquatch. And I really am being dead serious. Many will likely disbelieve, but there are thousands of people who not only know sasquatch to be a real
animal, but who also know that the intelligence possessed by these creatures is astounding. They are not as intelligent as a man in most respects, but
they are definitely smarter than dolphins. I fully expect these animals to be proven authentic within the near future, as I believe their population
is expanding.
And due to their propensity to spread out from one another, at least what data is available suggests this, and coupled with the fact that the best
spots, the furthest away from human habitations, are already occupied, the modern generations are pushing nearer to cities and towns. When I say they
have a propensity to spread out from one another, I am referring to the spreading of non-related or non-associated groups. Data suggests they tend to
group themselves based on genealogy, or family groups, and although they do move around frequently I personally believe they spend more time in one
location as opposed to the others they temporarily occupy. This doesn't mean they do not associate with other sasquatch, as they do, but non-related
males tend to avoid one another in the wild, at least this is how I interpret the data available. Most data we have to analyze is in the form of
eyewitness testimony, the majority of which is credible, although those who know nothing of the subject might not realize this.
It is true that sasquatch sightings often induce fear in the witness, and we know that fear can cause the witness to misinterpret what they are
seeing, however I have found that witnesses in such a situation will often misinterpret minute details, but they rarely get the major details wrong.
And in such a case the major details involve knowing that what one is seeing is NOT a bear. The idea that witnesses are seeing bears is so
preposterous that I cannot believe there are individuals who still use this argument. I wish the public was more educated on the subject, and when
science finally gets off their butts and analyzes the available evidence, and attempts to gather more, a whole lot of people are going to owe the
entire community a huge apology.