Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Shooting Sasquatch, and the Russian Technique

Over the past couple of years I've been visiting an online question and answer forum, doing my best to field questions from the general public regarding Bigfoot. Recently, after responding to a question about types of weaponry I'd use IF I found myself in a situation where I had to hunt one of these wonderful creatures, a Russian fellow who claims to have been involved in several missions to kill these creatures while a member of the Russian military, piped up and related how his unit approached hunting Sasquatch. Since I find this topic fascinating, I thought I'd share the post with you and let you see what all he had to say. Hope you find it as interesting as I do.  

QUESTION: Could an assault-type rifle be used to hunt a Sasquatch?

A weapon like an AR or an AK could be used to hunt bigfoot, but using one of the most common calibers, the (5.56mm) .223, is not advisable. Having a fairly rapid shooting weapon with a high capacity magazine tends to give the shooter a false sense of security. It's always important to remember that a .223 or 5.56mm is designed for taking out people, in a military combat situation, NOT on 1000lbs of pissed off animal. In my opinion, anything smaller than a 30 caliber round (which would likely be a 7.62mm if you were using an AK, or a 300 Blackout if you were using an AR) would require so many hits, that even after firing a 30 round magazine at him, an angry Bigfoot would probably be on top of you, tearing you to pieces long before it would succumb to its wounds. It would indeed die from multiple .223 wounds, just not nearly fast enough to make that round a feasible caliber for Sasquatch hunting.  

Military people (who typically carry 5.56) who have been sent in to bring them down always report that they had to empty several mags at them, but inevitably they also report that occasionally, a member of their team would be killed when a lightning fast creature snatched them up while they were shooting at it. Evidently, that has happened more than once over the past few decades.

Only if I was in a situation where I had no choice in the matter, would I, personally, go hunting one. Unless you are in a group (10+) of well armed and trained shooters, hunting one is a suicide mission. But if one attacked me or someone I care about and I needed to shoot it, my go-to weapon would be a 45-70 lever action rifle. Bullets as big as your thumb with a nice powder charge would do the trick I rekkin. 

If you ever find yourself in the terrifying scenario where you have no option other than to unload your weapon on one these fellers, it is highly advisable that you Do NOT aim for the chest or the forehead. Sasquatch are reported to have a thick, like 4 inch layer of cartilage all across the chest area, as well as an extremely thick brow ridge across the front of their skull, so if you tried doing it anyway, there's a fairly decent chance that all you will do is piss it off unless you get lucky. A skull shot, unless it is a perfectly straight on hit will likely result in a ricochet. 

There is an episode on Sasquatch Chronicles where a hunter tells a story about being attacked by a squatch while walking back to his truck from his tree stand. Around the time he got into view of his truck, a creature came out of the woodline about 35 yards to his right and started growling and yelling at him in a very menacing manner. The hunter says that since he felt that an attack was imminent, he started running toward his truck. Apparently unamused, the Bigfoot took off after him. As the hunter arrived at his truck he tossed his rifle into the bed and started digging for his keys as he stood next to the vehicle. At the same time he got his keys out, the creature leapt up and landed in the bed of the truck, came over to the driver side and lunged at him. The hunter fell down onto his back, terrified, thinking this thing was about to kill him. The creature, still in the bed, was hanging off the driver's side, looming directly over him, still growling and carrying on, seemingly pondering how he was going to kill him. At that moment, flat on his back, 700lb sasquatch pretty much on top of him, the hunter remembered that while hunting he always carried a loaded western style 22 magnum revolver on his hip. He stated that he drew the revolver pointed it directly between the creatures eyes, and pulled the trigger.  When the gun went off, the creature wheeled backward, screamed furiously and repeatedly, then jumped out of the passenger side of the truck bed and ran into the nearby woods. The hunter was then able to open his truck door and get the hell out of dodge. 

Now, the reason I tell you this story, is in regards to where the bullet hit the creature. The hunter says that he saw the bullet hit the brow ridge over the Bigfoot's left eye, near the centerline. However, he is 100% positive that the bullet did not enter the brain case. Instead, he is confident that it ricocheted off that thick boney ridge. Essentially, all he did was surprise the creature, and cause him a great deal of pain, which in turn, very likely saved his life.  

People who have successfully brought one down say to aim just below the chin, or directly at the eye. Otherwise, your odds are low at bringing one down quickly. 

Response from Nicholas Gagarin...
In Russia, anti-Sasquatch squad is composed of 4 men with RPG-7 rocket launcher (HEAT warheads), 2 men with PKM light machine guns (automatic 7.62x54R fire is capable of slowing down Sasquatch significantly, a lucky shot might even hit the head and kill him!), and 1 man with a Kalashnikov as bait.

How we did it in “Baba Yaga” squad back in the '90s was we would get dropped off in taiga of Siberia by Mi-8 helicopter. Usually the noise of the helicopter would be enough to attract the Sasquatches, but our “bait” Vasya (which means Burly man, or Thug) would usually fire his Kalashnikov in air anyway. At this point, if Sasquatch appears, Vasya would run away as fast as possible while rest of squad finds cover. Of course Vasya would be very drunk before the mission, and the smell of vodka would cause the Sasquatch to not be able to detect us as well. At that point, the PKM gunners would start shooting at the Sasquatch as it ran past us from about 50 yards, causing it to stop and attempt to turn around. Then, our RPG men would fire all at once, and usually at least 1 rocket would hit the Sasquatch and amputate a limb or punch a hole in it.

Common strategy if all the RPGs missed would be for Vasya to run directly at Sasquatch while firing Kalashnikov, giving RPGs time to reload. They only carried one spare rocket each.

We lost a Vasya that way once. Luckily we were able to find a replacement.

My Reply....

Thank you so much for the Russian perspective on the topic of squatch hunting. It doesnt surprise me one bit that you used shoulder fired rockets against rogue bigfoot in your neck of the woods.
As for what American assault teams are armed with when they head out to take one down, Im not sure. I havent heard anyone mention in detail what all they took in with them. I do know they primarily had their 5.56 rifles, and one man carries a heavier machine gun. No idea if the American teams take heavier stuff with them like what you said their Russian counterparts had.

In the accounts Ive heard, the group of 8 or 10 men helicopter in, find a trail to follow within 2 hrs, and usually managed to kill the first creature within 5 hrs or so. One story I read described how a group of 12 special forces guys killed an entire family group, 7 creatures in a 3 day time period. Evidently one or two of the family members had developed a taste for Human blood over a 2 or 3 month period. I believe they said that a woman hiker had been killed and eaten, then like a month later a 16 yr old male who was camping was taken and never seen again. Since they could not possibly nail down the precise murderous individuals in the short time they had, they were given orders to take out the whole group. 3 adult males, 2 adult females, and what appeared to be a set of boy/girl teen twins.

Its quite sad to lose so many majestic creatures at one time, but it was deemed necessary by the powers that be.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

What would the existence of Bigfoot Mean to the World?

Sasquatch are pretty much doing perfectly fine on their own. They dont really need any particular area set aside that allows them to run around doing bigfoot things, unbothered by mankind.
Therefore, the assumption that, when it becomes accepted as common scientific knowledge that indeed these creatures are out there in rather surprisingly high numbers, that they even need protecting, is silly to me.
Protection, such as being placed on an endangered species list, should be reserved for those helpless species that have had their nunbers whittled down to scarily low numbers by the expansion and careless consumption of land by Humans out to make a buck. Those that, if things continue as they are, will eventually be driven from existence within the next 30 to 50 yrs. Bigfoot are nowhere near being a part of that group.
Even though they are doing dandy on their own, there would need to be a few laws enacted to prevent the species from being fodder for researchers and red neck hunters who seek to pointlessly kill or capture one or three simply for profit. Contrary to what many whiners think, one or two MUST be killed to enable all the scientifically necessary investigations to be carried out, as has always been the case with any newly discovered animal or insect species. Altho its not pretty, it is simply the way we've always done things in regard to species recognition, so….get over it people.
The fact that these creatures are related to us, does not change the fact that acquiring one or two for scientific research is necessary. If it were indeed full blooded homo sapien, that would be different. However, mitochondrial and nuclear DNA analysis has already established it as having a modern Human female lineage, blended with something unidentifiable.
Now, having said that, if science would be so kind as to proclaim it to be a real species based on legit DNA analysis along with all the other rock solid evidence and eyewitness accounts out there, then I would have no problem waiting until we find one accidentally killed, or that has died as a result of old age or some accident it was unlucky enough to face. But barring that proclamation and acceptance, someone needs to kill one, or two.
Once bigfoot is scientifically identified and accepted as a part of the normal fauna on Earth, how would that affect our culture? Good question. For one thing, it would influence religion. Since The Bible, and other religious text have stated that something like bigfoot is a nephilim or some other type of demonic creature, science dubbing them as simply another animal, would create some spiritual issues for those of faith.
People who hunt and fish and camp and hike and bird watch would likely start to avoid state and national parks to a certain extent, since I have no doubt that many of the unexplainted disappearances and deaths that occur in these places would no doubt be, at least partially, attributed to the growling tummies of sasquatch creatures.
Nearly every Native American tribe has long held that these creatures have and do kidnap, kill, and consume women and children and those of weakened disposition. Therefore, to some, it will become obvious that a sizable number of people who up and vanish while out in nature, are almost certainly going to be labeled as victims of sasquatch.
Some folks assume that once bigfoot is accepted as a living breathing part of mother nature, instantly, thousands of square miles of both public and private forest in America will be dubbed as “off limits” to logging, home building, or any other kind of use or expansion that causes any kind of disturbance. While some tree huggers will do their best to accomplish this, to do so would pretty much result in the crippling of the USA economy, due to how unquestionably crucial homebuilding is to our way of life. Almost every industry out there is either directly or indirectly tied to logging.
Additionally, consider how a palpable cessation of outdoorsy activities by the general public will effect all the cities and towns and communities near state and national parks. Food, fuel, hotels, sporting goods, clothing etc would sit on store shelves, instead of being sold to the tens of millions of Americans who visit and enjoy these areas on a weekly basis.
When one considers the immense detrimental economic impact that accepting bigfoot as a real creature could have across the board in our nation, it becomes easier to see why our government prefers to keep up the charade regarding the existence of bigfoot. Their denial of the presence of this animal is surely, at least in part, an attempt to prevent all the numerous problems listed above.
Just as a side note, our government, namely the dept of interior, has been fully aware of the presence of sasquatch for over 50 yrs. They’ve killed them and captured them, studied and observed them. But they cant control them, and that's a scary thought. It’s not like you can manage bigfoot's presence and range like you can other wildlife. It's just impossible. So based upon that fact, combined with the huge range of bad things that could result from green lighting public acknowledgement of its presence all across our nation, they do their best to just continue allowing sasquatch to remain a laughable myth that very few people ever see or believe in.
To finish my response to this question….this subject is truly a conundrum. Nobody knows precisely what all would occur if knowlege of the existence of bigfoot became publicly accessible. All the possibilities I've listed above leave me wondering if, even though a huge part of me wants the truth to come out, another growing part of me wonders if we might just be better off leaving the subject as-is.
If it werent for the fact that these creatures are kidnapping and killing people on a weekly basis, and harassing others by stealing crops and killing pets and farm animals, all the while terrorizing families across our country, it would be a much easier decision to make. But they are doing these things, so we are left on the fence, wanting it to be accepted as real, but hoping we can find a way to make it public knowledge without all the dreadful things I mentioned above coming to pass.

How Many Bigfoot are out There?

Fascinating question, actually, and one that many researchers and scientists have been pondering ever since it became widely known that these creatures exist in our back yards.
First of all, sasquatch creatures have been sighted in every one of the United States, cept for Hawaii. While Hawaii reportedly has one or three strange cryptids, none of them are believed to be 8ft manlike hairy beasts. So we can ignore Hawaii in this matter.
Biologists and animal experts differ in their opinions on this subject. Some proclaim that if there was enough bigfoot creatures out there to be assured of a healthy breeding population, there would need to be somewhere between 100,000, and 250,000 individuals in the USA. They say that anything less would result in inbreeding, and that would result in a variety of deformities and diseases that would decimate the population into extinction. An interesting side note to consider is that it is VERY common for witnesses to comment that the squatch they saw had an odd, almost down syndrome kinda look in the face. Who knows whether their species actually has a lot of down syndrome cases, or simply that they look like that in some family groups. On the other side of the coin, if there were 100,000 or 250,000 of these things out there, police would be literally swamped by bigfoot sighting calls. Therefore, I tend to side with those who feel that the actual population is likely much less than 100,000, but enough to avoid species ending inbreeding.
Taking into consideration that the vast majority of sasquatch creatures probably reside far away from Human settlements and travel avenues, my opinion is that there is most likely somewhere around 8,000 to 10,000 of them living in the USA at any given time.
Where I get my numbers, is based upon the way there seem to be pockets of them scattered around every state. Some states are wetter than others, and tend to have better quality forested areas and landscape with plenty of food sources, so it would be pointless to try and estimate that there are x number of creatures in each state. Some are loaded with them, while others are more hit and miss and less apt to be able to sustain a large population. Plus, it is believed that each family group tends to move around their home range throughout the seasons, so it would be risky to proclaim this place definitely has no bigfoot, or that place always has bigfoot.
Having a population of around 10,000 would enable them to be stealthy, and rarely spotted, but individuals could easily travel for a few days and cross paths with another family group to facilitate mating up procedures, then migrate back to their usual home range.
That is my opinion on this subject.

Bigfoot World Irritants

To say I'm a fan of all things bigfoot is a bit of an understatement. Tho I don't live breath eat and think about the subject 24/7, I do read or watch something bigfoot related pretty much every day. Since I was a kid in the 70's the subject has fascinated me to no end. Still today, when I see screen caps from the P&G film, I'm taken back to when I was a 10 yr old checking out library books on the topic whenever I encountered a new one.

If I were physically able right now, I would likely be one of these people we see on YouTube going out on weekly excursions looking for evidence that the big guy is lurking in my neck of the woods. However, a recent heart attack and subsequent quadruple bypass surgery has essentially relegated me to being an armchair researcher.....for the moment anyway. Eventually tho, I intend to join a research group and do my best to be more hands-on in the world of bigfoot. 

Until that happens, I find myself searching for, and learning about, bigfoot, vicariously, through the eyes and video cameras of several researchers and podcasts I follow online. I glean great joy from reading and learning all I can about this amazing creature. Considering the name of this blog post, when it comes right down to it I really don't have a right to complain about how I get irritated with some researchers, or podcast radio hosts, or podcast guests, but the fact remains....I do. 

Basically this post is an opportunity to vent about a couple things. Yeah, it will likely inflame some folks, but that's ok. It's my bigfoot blog so I can write whatever I want.  I've never really discussed these topics with other fans of bigfoot, but I often wonder whether or not my irritation regarding certain aspects of the world of bigfoot is unique and singular, or part of a larger, yet silent group who find them selves wishing now and then that they could reach into their puter and smack the snot out of someone they hear or read about discussing bigfoot online. 

           Say the name Correctly !!          

Label me childish or silly if you wish, but some of these things legitimately make my blood boil. One of the more common issues I encounter on my daily forays through YouTube videos on the subject, are people who mispronounce the word sasquatch. It's not an every day annoyance, but I'd say it happens at least once a week, and more times than not, it's during a story I REALLY want to hear, but end up not being able to stick with. I don't know why exactly, but it tends to grate on my nerves similar to fingernails scratching down a chalkboard. In fact, if someone on a podcast mispronounces the word too many times, I either fast forward past their interview, or shut off the video altogether. This is the correct way to say sasquatch......

Even tho it's utterly obvious to everyone on Earth that the correct way to say it is [sas-kwoch] some folks insist on pronouncing it like [saw-skwoch]. I really don't understand why they do this. Millions of people out there say it properly, but for some reason these scattered few screw it up, much to my chagrin. It kind of reminds me of how the world calls the terrorist group ISIS, ISIS. But our goofy former president called them ISIL. Ugh!  Anyway, this is what this particular mispronunciation sounds like... 

One might think....only newbies would say it like that. But noooo, in addition to the occasional bigfoot witness or podcast guest who evidently live in a hole somewhere and are unaware of how to properly say the word, Kelly Shaw from RMSO says it like that, which only serves to be one more reason why I tend to avoid his posts and videos like the plague. 

Another incorrect, but thankfully less common way of saying sasquatch that truly gets under my skin, and essentially the only other wrong way of pronouncing the word possible, is to refer to the creature as [sas-kwach]. The other day I was watching the only bigfoot related video program I could find on Netflix. This long haired hippy guy who likes to drag his drum set out to the woods to entertain the forest creatures has it in his head that polluting the air with his drumming is a great way to attract bigfoot to him. This fella, even tho a couple of guys standing right next to him repeatedly pronounced sasquatch correctly, kept calling it sas kwach over and over. So much so that it leads me to wonder if people like him say it wrong on purpose, just to be different. I kept waiting for the narrator/host of the program to ask him why he refuses to pronounce sasquatch properly, but he never did. Here is an audio file of my voice making this mispronunciation.....

Tree Squatches
(aka voluntary Pareidolia)
Another annoyance that irritates me to no end is this relatively new thing where folks post pix and videos of trees and bushes, but they say that there is a bigfoot or some other type of cryptid in view. Along with them follows a dedicated group who starts commenting about how that's an amazing photo or video, and how the poster is so awesome for capturing such great footage. All I can do is roll my eyes, for if I say something, like...."I don't see anything but leaves" the whole group attacks me like I am blind for not seeing the nonexistent bigfoot in the pic or video, and evil for saying it out loud that it's simply a pic of a bush or tree.  

Here is an example of what I am referring to, a screen cap from a 15 second video a fella posted on a facebook bigfoot group the other day. The video shows NOTHING but the edge of a tree trunk. Although the poster says  "circled you can see the nostrils and mouth moving up", the video is basically 15 seconds of this same image, with no other action.   

I suspect, like me, you look at this and am I supposed to be seeing here? But nope, it's not a trick. It's just the edge of a tree trunk, and absolutely nothing else. I'd love to see where this mouth and nostrils are. 

The next few images are other examples of supposedly OBVIOUS bigfoot creatures. Keep in mind, after each photo there is always, inevitably, people commenting about how they see it too, and how awesome the poster is for sharing such rock solid photographic images of bigfoot.

Honestly, I think these are good honest people who, in their hearts, believe they actually are seeing bigfoot amongst the bushes. However, I strongly suspect that they so badly want to see an image of bigfoot in the photos, their brain creates a squatch in the photo. Unless you are equally afflicted with this emotional malfunction, you see what we see above; Nothing. But these folks actually, without a doubt, see bigfoot in the photos, and will, at the drop of a hat engage in facebook's version of a chatroom fist fight to support their belief. 

Here is an example of video pareidolia. The header says something like 'father films his child interacting with a bigfoot in a tree'. But like with the still images above, there is nothing but leaves and branches. 

Every day, all across the internet, especially in facebook groups, people are posting this kind of nonsense. I've protested till I'm blue in the face, trying to explain to these people that this damages, not helps, the case for demonstrating to the skeptical world that bigfoot exists. Scientists who may be on the verge of looking a little deeper into the subject, is likely turned off when they see this garbage. It's counter productive, and likely leaves them shaking their heads thinking....yup...just as I suspected...they are all just imagining things. 

My opinion is.....if you feel the need to enlist the time and skills of a trained bigfoot spotter to go over your footage to point out the creatures, you have no footage of bigfoot. There are indeed a few talented souls who people flock to in droves, that evidently are extremely skilled at seeing bigfoot in trees and bushes. They have high powered zoom software, and the skills to crop and change the coloring, then present to the world all the (usually numerous) bigfoot creatures in pretty much any footage or image they investigate. Then, they return the image to the photographer, who then posts these annotated and edited pix online, and in facebook groups, and are labeled as heroes for being able to snoop out and locate bigfoot creatures any time they go out in the woods. They are legit photographing bigfoot...the bigfoot spotter said so. 

We know bigfoot exist. They have a scientific name: HOMO SAPIENS COGNATUS. They and their genetic fingerprint are listed on the ZooBank website list of all known creatures in the world. Back in the late 70's the US Army listed sasquatch as one of the many types of creatures soldiers may encounter out in the woodlands of the USA, and explained how to deal with them. At around the same time the Washington dept of natural resources noted bigfoot on their list of creatures that make up the fauna of their state. Multiple DNA studies done by unconnected laboratories have clearly identified and proved that bigfoot is a hybrid of Human and something else. Lastly, we have zillions of sighting reports, track ways, and other evidence that they exist. Therefore...all these stupid photos of trees and bushes that people are creating and posting are POINTLESS. We know they exist. What we need now is info about them. We need scientifically minded people to get interested in this subject, and dedicate some brain power to figuring it all out. Therefore, people should only record then share actual images and video of creatures, instead of shadows and hints of things intermingled in shrubbery. If everyone who looks at an image doesn't clearly see a creature....delete it. It's useless. 

How many races of them are there? Where do they live? What is their life cycle? How are their family groups set up? Do they use infrasound? What all do they eat? Do they use fire?  Do they live underground?  Can we communicate with them?  THAT is what we need to focus on and learn. NOT continue to take and devour silly photos and videos of trees and bushes, with people saying oooh and ahh....I see it too!!

   Bigfoot Radio Shows and Podcasts

One my fave things to do is listen to bigfoot related podcasts. I've listened to pretty much every one out there at some point, and a few stand out in the crowd. In my opinion, the best podcasts are.... 

1) Sasquatch Chronicles with Wes Germer hosting. Originally he had William Jevning as a co-host, but Jevning walked out and abandoned Wes, and said nothing as he left, when early on in the show's run, some people accused Wes of lying about his encounter. This, to me, told me a lot about the type of man William Jevning is. Instead of standing by his friend, and supporting and defending him, he bailed. I'm glad he did tho. The show is way better without Jevning's constant references to Rene Dahinden and John Green. 

2) Bigfoot eyewitness radio with Vic Cundiff hosting. Vic obviously prepares his guests well, then after they tell their account, asks great questions. Vic is a true pro at this podcast gig.  

3) Bigfoot Outlaw radio with Matt Knapp and Tim 'Coonbo' Baker. Jim 'Bear' King, until recently was a member of the outlaws and a major part of the weekly podcast, but according to Knapp, was voted out of the outlaws back a month or two ago by all the main players via a unanimous vote. Knapp, in a facebook post, to shut up all the people whining about Bear's departure, pretty much laid out a huge list of things that Bear has said and done over the past year or so that resulted in him being removed abruptly from the group and the radio show. For more on here >>   FaceBook Post about Bear

As for the rest of bigfoot radio shows....there are some decent ones. But they each have flaws that make me turn the channel at some point during every podcast. Here are some examples....

1) One host of a bigfoot podcast with a fairly long name that will not be mentioned has great guests with great stories, but he acts drunk half the time, mispronounces words often, and interrupts witness's stories to tell other stories he's heard. That's not even to mention his penchant for selling flashlights to his listeners. Ugh that is so irritating. 

2) One podcast has a super flashy website and facebook presence, and has a cool name, but their guests are eh, and their format is a mess. Hard rock music, then joke time, then interviews with people you've never heard of, who are acting like experts. 

3) One podcast which focuses on the pacific nw, always has amazing stories. In fact some of the best accounts being told on the web are popping up on his podcast. However, he tells these accounts himself....and he does so with a story telling format that drags it all out to take about 3 times longer than it should take. Additionally, he sells bigfoot coffee, and stops many times during each podcast to slurp coffee loudly. Altho I'd love to hear some of the stories he tells, they are just too long and drawn out to keep my attention for long. 

One of the biggest failings of bigfoot podcasts, is the hosts not instructing the guests who are going to tell of their bigfoot experiences, to avoid dragging the story out too long with several minutes of unnecessary details that nobody cares about. I want to hear the stories, and I want the whole story....but I dont care what you did before you went camping, or why you chose a certain kind of tent, or what you ate for breakfast that day etc etc. NOBODY CARES!  We want to hear the bigfoot stories !

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Why do so many people believe in Bigfoot?

I suspect that most people who believe in these “commonly referred to as mythological” creatures, do so for a myriad of reasons. In my opinion, the reasons for believing in them far outnumber and outweigh other folk's reasons for not believing in them.
Here are a few reasons why I, and a rapidly growing number of people, believe Bigfoot exists….
Footprints are an excellent and dependable bit of evidence for the presence of any walking animal. In fact, footprints are considered by all mainstream scientific authorities as an effective and accurate means of determining population in a given area. However, since mainstream science doesn't want to even entertain the possibility that Bigfoot exists, they've disqualified footprints as evidence of their existence. 
Every day across the USA and Canada, Sasquatch footprints are found by both those looking for them, and by random hikers and outdoorsy people enjoying nature. Now when I say they are finding footprints, I'm not talking about mere outlines of big barefoot feet placed one after another on a path somewhere. I'm saying that dynamically placed, anatomically accurate, scientifically and mechanically actual footprints are being left behind by living breathing walking bipedal creatures. They indicate a flexible foot of a creature that weighs sometimes up to 600-800 lbs. The toes are in a different position in every subsequent print, they demonstrate accurate bone structure required for a creature of that size, and they present with dermal pressure ridges. People know about these things now, but 60 yrs ago when the first tracks were cast, nobody, not even many anthropologists, had any in depth technical knowledge of what tiny details are important when considered as evidence for a previously unknown hominid. 
Microscopic details found on prints cast 50 and 60 years ago have numerous exact same aspects as prints found today on the opposite end of the country. These facts lead me to believe that most footprints found are not the product of a hoax. For a hoax to be perpetuated in this area, literally hundreds of extremely knowledgeable and skilled craftsmen who all really desire to create an ongoing flawless hoax, would have to all be in cahoots with similarly skilled craftsmen and scientists across the country over the past 60 yrs. In my opinion, the odds of that being likely are pretty close to zero.
Any police officer or psychologist will tell you that the skills of accurate observation in the common person are questionable at best. This is especially the case when the witness is under physical or emotional duress. Ask an armed robbery victim what color shirt the criminal was wearing, and they are likely to tell you something totally different than what another witness says. This fact is used as the main reason mainstream science tends to disregard all Bigfoot sightings as mistaken identity. Whether it was a bear, another person, or a tree stump, they feel that even those who had up close face to face encounters with these huge terrifying creatures were incorrect when they identify what they saw 10 feet away as an 8ft hairy manlike apelike beast who growled and bared their teeth at them. It had to be a bear or a clump of branches that did all that then turned and walked away into the woods behind them. 
Well, I don't buy it. While I have no doubt that mistaken identity occurs every day, I truly do not believe that every witness account is incorrect. Maybe one or two out of ten, but I believe that the vast majority of those who say they saw one of these creatures, saw one of these creatures. The fact that many eyewitnesses have spent a lifetime exploring nature, whether hunting or fishing or hiking or camping, and have encountered the myriad of different flora and fauna out there on numerous occasions, is proof enough in my book that they are educated enough on what all is out there in their favorite patch of woods to know that what they saw 30 feet away digging for grubs in a rotten log, then stood up and growled and stomped off into a thorny plum thicket was not a stump or a bear or a guy in a hoodie. 
Witnesses in new york state report very similar creature details as witnesses in tennessee. Witnesses in mississippi report very similar creature looks and behavior as witnesses in east texas. In literally every state in the union these creatures are continuously spotted, except of course, in Hawaii. If indeed all Bigfoot sightings were the product of a hoax or mistaken identity, why do we not see Bigfoot sightings in Hawaii? Are people in Hawaii less prone to pulling pranks on others, and do those who live in Hawaii somehow magically transform into uber accurate observers? Who knows? It does give you food for thought tho.
…There is room for them to exist
Even tho these creatures can and often do inhabit areas close to where Humans live or visit, their most favored domain is most likely where they can be alone, unbothered by pesky Humans and their boom sticks and chain saws. Most people aren't aware that there are still ranges of wilderness scattered throughout the USA and Canada that either have never been visited by Humans, or are only visited by Humans every few dozen years. Steep cliffs, thick thorny fields of overgrown brush, swampy marshy, snakey wetlands, high rocky mountaintops, thick forests that go on and on for hundreds of square miles, are all places that Humans tend to avoid, and THAT, in my opinion, is the key to this species remaining hidden and unresearched, compared to other typically hidden animals. 
Regardless of how many scientists claim that any given area could not support these creatures food-wise, their vastly varied suspected diet would enable most areas to support one or more individuals over the course of the 4 seasons. While a particular spot may not be fertile enough grounds for the entire year, an adjacent valley or mountainside may provide more than enough plant and animal life to give ample sustenance. When discussing bigfoot migration possibilities, most researchers I've seen offer an opinion feel that while the creature most likely doesn't migrate long distances from season to season, their probable permanent home range of 30-100 miles offers plenty of variation in plant and animal life, as well as Human supplied snacks, to sustain a small group of wandering creatures.
By Human supplied snacks, I'm referring to pet and livestock feed, pets and livestock themselves, food discarded in garbage, back yard gardens and farming acreages. There are numerous stories out there that document the skilled scavenging techniques these creatures exhibit around homes and other Human settlements. That’s not even mentioning the scads of folks purposefully feeding these animals in habituation sites across our nation.
The three broad reasons I've listed above are just a sample of why I believe these creatures exist. I'm betting that if I laid out all the reasons I believe in Bigfoot, it would result in 8 or 10 more paragraphs.
While I have no idea if the majority of bigfoot believers out there will completely agree with my reasons for believing Bigfoot exists, I suspect that their lists of reasons wouldn't be too awfully different. Its certainly an interesting subject with a vast variety of opinions on every aspect of its existence. For every opinion out there on some detail, there is going to be a differing opinion opposing it. Until we either capture or kill one and make it available for mainstream study, it will continue to be the hugely debatable topic we find it to be today.

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Some Things You May Not Know About Bigfoot

1) For most oblivious folks, it's a big hoot to make fun of the crazies who actually believe that a bipedal man/ape creature roams the backwoods across the USA. However, every day more and more video, audio, and footprint evidence, as well as respectable eyewitness accounts, are being made public. The time is rapidly approaching when the laughing disbelievers will be shown to be blatant fools who owe someone an apology. 

 With advances in affordable consumer technology showing up in backpacks everywhere, (such as HD image and HD video capable phones in everybody's hands, and high quality audio recorders and low cost night vision and infrared devices now becoming affordable by the common person) more and more people are chancing public scorn by getting out in the woods and capturing real footage of these creatures. As this occurs, it's starting to look like they may very well be a lot more numerous and wide spread than previously thought. 

While more evidence piles up, those who have had encounters but kept quiet over the years to avoid public ridicule, are starting to feel more comfortable talking about their experiences. They are coming forward, both in official sighting reports and in interviews on one of the numerous bigfoot themed Internet podcasts available almost daily for anyone to listen to. Many of these folks clearly state that they kept quiet for months or years because speaking up may have resulted in the loss of a job or business or friendships or reputation in their community. To a police officer, or ER doctor, or business owner, a damaged reputation could instantly result in the financial ruin of them and their families. 

Although many are emphatic about remaining anonymous, at least they are talking about it now, and that's a huge deal to researchers. The fact that many reputable eyewitnesses are not wanting to be identified, adds creedance to the validity of their reports. In other words they have nothing to gain (and much to lose) by making up a creature sighting report. 

It's always been the opinion of researchers that only around one in ten encounters are actually reported or even talked about. The scads of people coming out of the woodwork these days to tell their stories suggest that this number may be fairly accurate. So when skeptics say...if they were real more people would see them...they may be getting precisely what they've asked for. 

2) Contrary to popular belief, Sasquatch don't only reside in the deep dark woods way out in the sticks where few Humans visit. It's becoming common knowledge that while the Pacific Northwest may be considered the home base for Bigdootdom, they are witnessed in pretty much every US state but Hawaii. 

Any state or national park, any wildlife preserve, any hunting grounds or farmland or ranch, riverbottom or creek bed or orchard, and any acre + stand of woods can hide a sasquatch. They literally can be.....anywhere. 

I find the Hawaii thing curious. I believe it was a video by Michael Merchant a few months back regarding this phenomenon that got me to agreeing.... If we are to trust in the judgement of professionally skeptical scientists and subscribe to their opinion that most bigfoot image and video evidence is hoaxed, why aren't we seeing hoaxed fake evidence perpetrated in Hawaii? Do people in Hawaii lack a sense of humor? Do people in Hawaii tend to avoid pulling pranks on the general public? I find it odd that pranksters and hoaxers are rampant all across the continental USA, but seem to be absent in Hawaii. Weird eh? 

One other side note to the presence of bigfoot all across the USA that I suspect most people don't that any smallish clump of woods or creek bed may be the home of one or more of these creatures. They have been witnessed peeking in windows and leaving footprints around homes in well pooulated suburbs and neighborhoods in many states. 

You may think, that's impossible, because there's not enough food available so close to man. Well, they love pet food and livestock food, and are able to snatch things out of back porch freezers and pantries as soon as you go back in the house. Ever wonder why your bird feeder keeps going empty faster than you think it should? Recently I heard a story about a brazen squatch who reportedly opened screened kitchen doors on a regular basis and helped himself to an occasional loaf of bread or plate of leftovers. (The muddy 17 inch footprints on the kitchen floor was a dead give away) That's not even mentioning missing pets that forever disappear, and don't forget about trashcans and dumpsters that often have a lot of discarded cooked and uncooked food tossed inside them. A bite or two of a burger you were too full to finish, along with the dozen leftover fries in that McDonald's bag may not seem like much nutritional value to you, but to a 3 foot juvenile sasquatch making the rounds at 3am, it's a tasty treat. 

These intelligent animals are expert opportunists, and have even been suspected of grabbing a bag of groceries out of open car doors and trunks as mom carries the groceries in the house in 2 or 3 trips. They are lightning fast and amazing at hiding in plain sight, so none of these possible sources of a well rounded diet can be ignored. 

3) Like with any subject, there are many schools of thought within the world of bigfoot regarding its nature of reality. As more and more people become open to the possibility that bigfoot exists, there are two differing opinions developing out of the melee. 

Group one views sasquatch as a flesh and blood animal that eats and sleeps and poops and walks the Earth the same way the rest of us do. They study the subject based upon the theory that bigfoot is born and lives and dies like all other animals. These folks consider themselves to be realists, who tend to avoid letting romantic spiritually influenced notions of how some see bigfoot to be, to interfere with their search for the actual physical creature we all know and love. 

Group two people subscribe to a varied menagerie of beliefs that most often lean toward viewing sasquatch as either a fully, or partially rendered supernatural creature that is infused with a whole slew of magical or otherwise scientifically questionable aspects and abilities. These abilities vary from them being able to communicate via telepathy or what is commonly called "mind speak" with receptive Humans, to possessing the ability to appear or disappear at will. The latter is believed possible by the creature either emitting some type of cloaking/invisibility energy, or by totally moving about between multiple metaphysical realities by way of mere thought, or by utilizing energy portals that seem to materialize in areas where sasquatch like to roam during their sporadic adventures on Earth. 

Some members of group two theorize that bigfoot and ufo's are connected, and some even feel that Bigfoot is most likely a hybrid creature created by alien beings for either entertainment value, or for some other devious reason that mere Humans can't begin to fathom. 

Group one members, for the most part, believe that while, as with pretty much every other wild animal, most bigfoot are very likely generally peaceful animals that just want to be left alone, they respect the piles of evidence out there that these creatures have a more deadly and bloody side that can and has and occasionally does result in Human injuries and deaths. 

On the other side of this coin, group two members tend to embrace the theory that bigfoot is a species of peaceful intelligent Human that loves us and protects us and enjoys the peanut butter and apples that group two habituaters are known to leave out in "gifting" areas. They do this for a myriad of reasons ranging from wanting to establish a friendship with the creatures, to feeling like they have a special spiritual responsibility to augment their natural food sources with yummy treats to demonstrate affection and kinship with them. 

Group one members tend to question the ethical and moral wisdom in feeding these wild animals, but the group two members who do it continue on with the practice regardless of negative possible results. Evidently they strongly feel that the perceived benefits gained by habituating these creatures to receiving food from Humans far outweighs any potential harm such an activity my cause. 

The multi-faceted world of bigfoot is littered with unusual quirks and beliefs. The three things I discussed above are but the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Regardless of where you stand on the above topics, I hope you feel a little more knowledgeable about the subject than you did before visiting this page. It's a fascinating subject that is likely to go on surprising and amazing all of us for some time to come. Just remember, learning and developing an understanding about anything is usually best approached like a sponge. I know very little about this topic, but I enjoy sharing what little I do uncover with the hopes that it inspires others to want to learn more about this wonderfully fascinating creature we call Bigfoot.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Could Bigfoot be a Gorilla that is native to North America?

While Bigfoot is believed to be a member of the great ape lineage of animals, and some aspects of their appearance and behavior mirrors gorillas, it is believed that the creature is a unique hominid relative of both great apes (like gorillas) and Humans, rather than a member of an already classified species of ape. Somewhere in the middle, in other words. Bigfoot DNA and hair analysis results, when compared to other apes and Humans, typically comes back as “Unidentified Ape Species”. This is the main reason we can definitely say that Bigfoot is not one of the already identified species of great ape on our planet (including Homo Sapiens). If it was, the DNA would prove it.
How about some differences first: Gorillas ambulate on 4 limbs. Yes, they can wobble around on their hind feet for short distances, but they don’t usually do it for long, or for any great distances. Bigfoot on the other hand, is predominantly bipedal, but occasionally is viewed on all fours like a gorilla, typically when moving at great speed. Gorillas can roar and grunt, but Bigfoot can talk and growl and whistle and very accurately mimic other animals, and yes, they can sometimes convincingly mimic Human speech also. Gorillas are herbivores. Bigfoot is an omnivore. It is theorized that for most of the year they rely mostly on plant nutrition, but in leaner times of the year they have no problem hunting and killing and eating animals such as deer and rabbits and wild pig.
How did they get to North America? Some people believe that it’s cut and dried that there could never, and has never been an ape species in North America, but a few researchers and scientists feel that Bigfoot, like mankind and other species of animals, migrated to North America via the asia/alaskan land bridge tens of thousands of years ago. They are here, and they managed somehow to get here, and they aren’t typically reported to have wings, so most likely they got here the same way our Human ancestors did, on foot.

Even though we’ve established that Bigfoot are not Gorillas, they share some unique traits. One, being the sagittal crest present in many specimens of gorilla. Although not all bigfoot reports describe an animal with a sagittal (sloping back forehead and coned skull) crest, it is a commonly reported head shape. Likewise, the often reported hooded nose demonstrates that Bigfoot also has genetic ties to Humankind. These types of comparisons are part of the reason why some people believe Bigfoot is a type of bipedal ape, while others are adamant that it is more closely related to Humans.

Other similarities between Bigfoot and Gorillas are:
It is believed that the family groups of both species, are usually made up of a dominant, or Alpha male, who has sole authority to mate with females in the group, as well as 3 to 5 breeding age females, and 2–4 lower stature males who are either related, or too young to challenge the Alpha for breeding rights. It is believed that Alphas of both species, change over time, as bigger and stronger males overtake the current Alpha and assume the leadership role of the family group.
Another similarity believed to exist is the way both species tend to avoid physical combat whenever a member of the group feels threatened. Instead, both gorillas and bigfoot prefer to put on loud displays of strength and screaming, often tearing down trees and thrashing about loudly and wildly to convince their opponent that they are very strong and powerful. They both often bluff charge, running toward the enemy, taking out trees and bushes as they rampage toward the foe, but stopping short of making contact in hopes of ending the conflict with intimidation before it comes to blows. It is believed that both species are smart enough to realize that an actual physical fight puts both animals at risk of injury or death, which, as a result, would jeopardize the overall well being and security of the entire group. While either species will attack a Human if it feels its family is in imminent danger, in almost every recorded instance, the Human leaves the situation unhurt. It is believed that Bigfoot creatures know that Humans are nowhere near as powerful as they are, but oft-reported Bigfoot behavior strongly suggests that they recognize firearms as a huge threat to their safety. The fact that they rarely physically attack Humans possibly indicates that they assume that any Human may be armed and dangerous.
Both species are recognized to be in possession of immense strength. Gorillas and bigfoot, pound for pound, are thought to be six to ten times more powerful than an equally sized Human.
There ya have it. Now we know the similarities (and a couple of differences) between Bigfoot and Gorillas, and how we know they are not the same species.