Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Bigfoot, Little Known Facts and Findings Part 2

I have been video recording my endeavors to locate and study Bigfoot since 2008, and at that time I knew nothing more than the average layman. I had assumed all Bigfoot were 7 to 10 feet tall weighing in at 500 to 800 pounds. I had no clue as to the diet, longevity, social structures, or any other aspects of the Bigfoot. I had assumed they were carnivorous and would eat a person if they got hungry enough.

Bigfoot by the fire
Mitch Waite

I decided to try to document my progress via video, and started to post them on social media. Yes, at first I had no clue what I was doing, and many of the viewers let me know about it. However, I persisted through my mistakes.

As my viewership started to grow, many viewers started finding Bigfoot faces hiding in the bushes. Many of the Bigfoot faces were good candidates for peridollia, optical illusions, and may have included hoaxes. But then there are a few that are very compelling. The only way to confront the delima as to what is real or not was to create a face database in which all faces are stored and periodic reviews are conducted looking for matching faces from different times and different places. With each match, the face grows in probability of being real.

As the database grew and matching faces started to occur, I began to notice there were differences. There were many faces that had very human looking features, and then there were others that looked very primative and bulky much like the Patterson/Gimlin film of Patty.

At that point, I started to notice the actions or behaviors of the two groups were quite different. The more human type seemed to be more inquisitive and accepting, but by no means inviting. While the more primative giants did not like humans in any way, shape or form.

I begain a quest to see if any other researchers had been finding these types of differences. I looked at the Skunk Ape, and the Dog-faced Bigfoot, and it seemed to indicate there was more "Bigfoot" types than I had ever realized. Thanks to modern social media, I was contacted by various other Bigfoot researchers which verified what I had been observing.

It was at this time I decided I should start doing a search among the writings of some of the early Bigfoot/yeti/Sasquatch researchers. I was very surprised about the amount of knowledge which has been amassed about the various types of hominids which all could be related to Bigfoot.

One argument I have been faced with from the skeptics is, "If Bigfoot is real, why do we not have fossile records or bone from them?" The answer to that question is we probably do have the bones and fossile records already. Before the advent of DNA testing, bones were physically inspected and catagorized. There was no real definitive proof that one set of bones belonged to or was related to a slightly different set of bones. Therefore, each set of bones received a scientific name based on the discoverer and sometimes location. Of course, any mention of Bigfoot or Sasquatch is nearly forbidden in the academic or scientific world. However, there have been great inroads made as to early man and hominoid history. It appears as if the Archaelological science is pushing from the present to past, while the Anthropological science is pushing from the past into the present.

To Be Continued...

Report this ad