This photo was taken of my husband's track of snow prints in about 4-6 inches of snow.  You will notice that the prints are side to side, close together and have dragged marks.  I took this picture when he was unaware and I would have a reference of a person's snow print to any that may be BigFoot.   

    

 

In the second picture you will notice similar 2 legged track of prints.  I saw them from a distance across from a stream by a ravine.  You will notice that the deer tracks bisecting the track of prints are much smaller that the track of the 2 legged prints.  This is in 2 plus feet of snow.  Drag marks?  Clothesline pattern (stride pattern)?  Size of prints in reference to the deer tracks?

 

I use these questions when I go out and find prints.  BigFoot prints and strides are similar because they walk upright like us but they are distinct and different.  It is these distinctions that help researchers such as myself to help identify what type of print is found.

 

I have come across prints that I am unsure of.  Those prints I take pictures and label them as possible human or BigFoot.  Sometimes this happens because only one print is found, soil/ground conditions or in the human size range or a narrow heel.  I am aware that there are variations within all species so that is why I put those prints as possibles.

 

When you compare the pictures you can see the similarities of being bipedal.  Also when you look at both pictures you are able to see the differences of size, stride length and placement of feet while walking.

 

That is why I was so forceful in my last post about having an open mind when researchers have evidence.  There are distinct differences when you find evidence of BigFoot to that of humans.  No way that hoaxers did the second prints.  I hope this post helps you understand why so many people like myself KNOW that a bipedal primate lives within our woods and forests here in North America.  



 

 

 

 

To all the naysayers who question findings by BigFoot researchers:

 

Talk is cheap.  Unless you have walked the talk I don't worry about your opinion.  I am out in the field exploring almost every weekend.  It may be a big surprise to you but not everything found is BigFoot related.  I have encountered hundreds if not thousands of tree breaks.  I have seen hundred plus prints and many structures made with trees and branches.  I have found close to a hundred rock stacks.  The picture above is a rock stack I found a couple of weeks ago.  BigFoot?  No.  Why?  Because it does not have the characteristics of the ones I have found that I do suspect are BigFoot related.

 

Out of these findings I have encountered only a very small fraction of them I would point to BigFoot.  Why?  Not everything you find is BigFoot.  It may surprise you that most researchers don't think everything they see is BigFoot related.  There are many possibilities when you go into the forest.  The weather, environment, conditions, wildlife and other people will leave their mark.  I look for common clues that point to BigFoot. 

 

So when you see the photos that a researcher has that point to BigFoot don't assume that this is the only thing they have found.  In fact it is probably only a small fraction of what they have found and do point to BigFoot.    I would have literally thousands and thousands of pictures of tree breaks, prints, rock stacks and structures.  I have only a fraction of that and some of them are only possibles because it could be either human or BigFoot.  There are common factors that researchers have found over the years that point to BigFoot.  Whether you want to admit it or not but there are.  When you continue to see these and do find evidence,  it only re-enforced that they are there. 

 

So what is my point?  The researchers who are finding this evidence should be heard with an open mind.  They are the ones out there in the trenches actively searching and documenting their findings.  Couch potatoes and arm chair researchers are not the ones who are finding the evidence.  It is the ones like me who actively go into the woods and forest seeking the evidence of the elusive bipedal primate. 

 

So don't assume that what I have found is not BigFoot.  I will show you the difference with my evidence.   

 

   

I know that people do some crazy and stupid things.  But why would someone be walking around in heavy mud bare foot in January here in Colorado?  Also why would they walk in a clothesline pattern in heavy mud when it is very hard to do this on regular soil?  The strides were farther than an average persons too. 

What would be the point? 

People who refuse to actually look at the real evidence will come up with just about any kind of lame excuse.  You can what-if anything.  What you need to do is to look at what is found and see if there is a reasonable explanation for it.  I do this all the time when I am out researching.  Do you think this is the first bare foot print I have come across?  NO!  I have found both human and BigFoot.  There is a difference between the 2.  The ones I'm not sure I have them filed as possible human or BigFoot.  When I see see certain characteristics that point to BigFoot than I'm pretty sure it is.  There are ones that are in the human range of size but are BigFoot.  They were not born 8 feet tall but rather grow to that size.  These prints would be BigFoot juveniles.  They still walk in a clothesline pattern, bare foot with toes, wide heels, midtarsal break and long strides. 

To the ones who say this is a human print.  I agree with you but it is a bipedal primate we call BigFoot/Sasquatch.  The findings from the DNA will point to them having human genes.  So the naysayers are essentially correct because they are human because of the DNA.

 

Why would I spend countless hours researching BigFoot if this is only a figment of an imagination?  I will tell you right now that I am the type of person who would not waste my time on something if I haven't found evidence to support my beliefs.  I would have been done 1-2 months into this.  I have been actively doing this for 1 1/2 years and still going strong.  I have found things that point to a bipedal primate.  I have photographed enough that it convinced my non-believing husband to believe.  He is a hard person to convinced but I let what we have found speak to him.   We know what we have found and know it is real.

 

My question to all about this issue is that there is enough evidence to research.  If you are like me I needed to actually see and find evidence on my own.  If I can do this anyone can.  I welcome people to use their intellect and reasoning to make an informed opinion on this issue.  I am confident that the real evidence will convinced you that there is indeed a bipedal primate here in North America.