bigfoot faq

a compilation of my previous posts

​Why we don’t find remains:
In Indiana, a body farm serves as a research facility for determining criminal acts. The Blow Fly and its maggots are examined in order to determine the age of the decaying body, and often, the cause of death. Dr.Neil Haskell, one of the world’s leading entomologists recalls a record during the early 80’s indicating a pig of 50 pounds that was reduced to 18 pounds within 96 hours by a species of Blow flies, which inhabit most of the world. By using a mathematical proportion, and basing it off of an estimated 800 pound Bigfoot, this would mean that the entire body of a Bigfoot could decompose in 100 days with just the influence of the Blow fly. This calculation would not include the influence of vultures, who have been known to decompose a human body in just 5 hours. It would also leave out the influence of other insects, bugs, animals, and weather. Bigfoots habitat is the Pacific Northwestern U.S., an area with a large amount of rainfall. In a rainforest, the average time for a leaf to decompose is 6 weeks, as opposed to 7 years in a pine forest.​ The climate of Bigfoot’s habitat can leave huge clues as to why we haven’t found remains. Another important point to recall, is the possibility of Bigfoot burying their dead, as seen in many hominid groups’ behavior. Bigfoot sightings usually occur deep in the woods, mountains, and rural terrain. If such a creature is roaming the Pacific Northwest, its remains would lie in the deepest parts of the forest. Many animals have an instinct to hide when they are sick, hurt, or dying. If such a creature seeks cover, their remains may lie in a hidden location. The legend of Bigfoot will forever remain a mystery if a body is not discovered. However, because of the creatures’ illusiveness along with the nature of its habitat, scientists may want to consider the other evidence we have of the creature, such as footprints revealing anatomical features, hair samples, and the countless sightings by credible witnesses.
 
How we know Bigfoot is not a man in a costume:
The anatomy of the creature Bigfoot cannot physically be recreated by a human. Through digital analysis of the famous Patterson-Gimlin film, the creature’s size of 7’6.5” was determined. However, one does not need scientific skill to distinguish a Bigfoot from a human hoaxer. In fact, there is a 21 degree difference between Bigfoot’s stride and a human’s, which is often the line that draws the two apart. When a human walks, they lift their foot 52 degrees off of the ground, whereas a Bigfoot lifts theirs 73 degrees. Such an anatomical difference is why the Patterson-Gimlin film has been proven not to be a hoax. In the most credible photography and videography evidence of the creature walking, it represents the same image: a back leg that bends at an extremely abnormal angle, not possible for modern human anatomy to recreate. Such anatomy can be supported in the way the creature steps.
​After close examination of hundreds of credible footprints, scientists have been clued in to why the creature walks the way it does. A human has a longitudinal arch, which means the entire foot is incorporated into the lever which propels it off of the ground, and weight is pushed to the ball of the foot. The bending happens on the toes, providing traction. In a foot with mid-foot flexibility, like the subject in the film, the weight is not concentrated on the ball of the foot, but rather the midfoot. A Mid-tarsal break causes weight to transfer from rear to forefront and is most commonly present in apes. By piecing the evidence together, (Click Read More)

it can be determined that the way the footprints are formed lies in the way the creatures walks, which can be proven by geometry, to be 21 degrees different than a human.
In the film, the creature walks swiftly across the creek, something a hoaxer would have trouble doing without stumbling. However, the most provoking evidence is the way the creature walks. As the creature takes a step, its foot becomes vertical to the ground. When humans walk, our feet do not lift higher than a few inches. A human has a longitudinal arch, which means the entire foot is incorporated into the lever which propels it off of the ground, and weight is pushed to the ball of the foot. The bending happens on the toes, providing traction. In a foot with mid-foot flexibility, like the subject in the film, the weight is not concentrated on the ball of the foot, but rather the midfoot. A Midtarsal break causes weight to transfer from rear to forefront and is most commonly present in apes.
 
In credible prints, the toes and mid-foot sink in deeper than the heel, due to such anatomy. No evident arch has been found present in tracks, which points to the way weight is distributed in a heavier animal. Because of longer toes and shorter legs, Sasquatch has a greater stepping gauge, causing its leg and foot to be parallel with the ground when lifting for a step. Humans only lift our feet a few inches with each step, as we are conditioned by sidewalks and flat ground. Sasquatch’s typical habitat is uneven, thick brush, causing their steps to become higher. Such high steps can be observed in the Patterson-Gimlin film. National Geographic not only touched upon this anatomy, but used photogrammetry and optic measuring to determine the size of the subject in the film. The animal was determined to be 7’, 6.5” high, ruling out the possibility of a human in a suit. The Patterson-Gimlin film alone seems to prove the existence of Sasquatch, however evidence has been arising for years.
 
Hair Sample Evidence: 
In 1968, hairs collected in central Idaho were sent to an instructor of police science at the California State College in LA. Ray Pinker determined that the hair samples did not match any known animal, and in fact demonstrated characteristics from both humans and nonhuman primates. The hairs showed many characteristics of apes like the changing of thickness and tint along their length however their scale pattern was eerily similar to humans. In 1993, another analysis of suspected Bigfoot hair (this time found in northern California) was done by Dr,Sterling Bunnel, M.D, of the California Academy of Sciences.  He examined the hairs of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutan, and pygathrix to compare and contrast the specimen. He concluded that the assumed Bigfoot hair sample was closely related to the human-chimpanzee-gorilla group, but was also clearly different than each of these apes in its pigmentation. These other apes show medullary streaks while the Bigfoot sample showed no observable medullary structure. In most all studies, the DNA from the hairs was not able to be sequenced due to damage. Although hair samples may not completely point to a Bigfoot, many do rule out the possibility of them being from a human or ape. Samples show a common pattern of relating to human and ape, but are not identified as one or the other due to slight differences. 
 
With our growing technology, why we haven’t found it:
Regarding helicopters and drones, there have been a few potential Bigfoots filmed by them, but many people ask, “why not more?” We must consider the supported evidence suggesting that Bigfoot is nocturnal. Most sightings and vocal recordings take place between dusk and sunrise, leading scientists to believe that the creature is in-fact, nocturnal. If this is the case, drones would be useless in locating this species in pitch black, thick brush conditions. It would take a stroke of luck to get even a blurry image.
                Another skepticism that has been brought to my attention is that Bigfoot has not been clearly photographed on trail cameras. A vital fact to consider is that trail cameras use infrared technology, which can actually be picked up very clearly by some animals. Snakes, bed-bugs, and certain beetles can actually see in infrared, therefore a trail camera would be like a light bulb in a dark room. Perhaps Bigfoot is among these adapted animals, considering we do have significant evidence proving that they are nocturnal.
                  Many argue that with the growing technology in our society today, that we would have caught a Bigfoot on camera at least a few times by now. On the contrary, Bigfoot is an extremely illusive creature that is most likely a very small population. Consider the many ethnic tribes discovered in rainforests around the world that have gone undetected for hundreds of years. If we are just discovering them now, it is mere proof that a small population of intelligent species could thrive in a dense forest or swamp. If these creatures are in-fact nocturnal, then the possibility of catching an image at night would be slim to none, and even if we had infrared cameras, Bigfoot may be able to detect them. After researching into the topic, there is significant evidence proving that Bigfoot is extremely illusive. 
 
DNA Evidence of the creature:
In 1850 in the Caucuses Mountains (Russia), a mysterious ape-like woman was captured by nearby villagers until a village family purchased her to live on their estate. Zana was reported to have run faster than a horse and produced an immense amount of strength. She was so violent that for the first three years of her capture, she was kept in a cage where she dug herself a hole to sleep in.  After passing away, Russian Scientists extracted the teeth of 2 of her children (conceived with 2 men in the village.) Zana was proven by Russian scientists to have been 100% ancient African. No modern humans contain this DNA, which would have meant that Zana was a subspecies of ancient human. Zana is said to have (Click Read More)died in 1890 and the whereabouts of her skeleton is not known, so a forensic study of her remains is not possible. Zana’s children were said to be dark-skinned, very strong and strange looking. However they could learn and speak and were viewed as relatively normal. The analysis of their teeth revealed them to contain 50% ancient african DNA.


Bigfoot’s don’t appear just anywhere:
A rainforest can be described as a luxuriant, dense forest rich in biodiversity, found typically in tropical areas with consistently heavy rainfall. Most often, one may relate the term “rainforest” to South America, Asia and Africa. However the seemingly secret dense, tropic-like areas of the Pacific Northwestern United States are unknown to many. The Olympic Rainforest lies within Washington State, and soaks up an average annual rainfall of 170 inches, making it the wettest place in the U.S. Imagine a creature 3 times the size of a large Chimpanzee. What might they be thriving on in a Pacific Northwestern rainforest? The answer lies in the diet of known rainforest apes. Primates are omnivorous, however while most of their diet consists of fruits, leaves and other plants, most apes will also eat insects, spiders, bird’s eggs and occasionally rodents. Chimpanzees have actually been seen hunting full-grown colobus monkeys. The Olympic National Park is not so different from your average Asian or African rainforest. However, for a large hominin like Bigfoot, the prey must be larger for an animal of such size to thrive. Species that dwell in these forests include plenty of deer, moose, grizzly bears, river otters, pine martens, and an abundance of edible plants and insects. If Bigfoot is an intelligent hominin, perhaps its species creates tooling to assist in hunting large prey. However, if Bigfoot is classified as a Great Ape, their sheer size and strength may be enough to catch large game like deer.

A giant Ape once existed:
Scientists believe that the land bridge that once connected Siberia to Alaska may have been a possible route for Gigantopithecus to have traveled to North America. Dr.Jeff Meldrum from Idaho State University points out that the environments of both continents share a striking resemblance. If this giant ape has been dwelling in North American forests, then perhaps it could explain the thousands of eye witness reports of an ape-like creature called Bigfoot. Some experts even believe Bigfoot may be a relative of Gigantopithecus. Either way, the countless sightings and descriptions of a giant ape-like creature have been talked about for centuries. Aboriginals have told many stories of giant apes kidnapping their women and children from the village, and different Native American tribes have over 100 names for it. ​