In a court of law the evidence that has so far have been collected by researchers and the testimony of credible eye witnesses would lead to a conviction.  Much of what has been collected by researchers would be considered circumstantial evidence.  It is valid in our court system.  Why should our  circumstantial evidence not be considered by the science community?  Prints and hair samples are physical evidence that should have at least have the science community study the possibilities of a bipedal primate here in North America.  Testimony of credible eye witnesses such as biologists, rangers and law enforcement should have the science community take notice.  It doesn't matter if the media or hoaxers have made this mystery sensational.

It will only be a matter of time before the "discovery" of Big Foot happen.  Groups such as Sasquatch Investigations of the Rockies and others have been modifying and adapting their research to what they have been finding.  I think the main reason why they have not be formally discovered in the past is because people have preconceived ideas of them.  Just by the sheer lack of success shows that this is correct.  When there is something highly intelligent, resourceful and elusive evading almost with ease from people for 400+ years, then it must be different.  How and why it is different needs to be analyzed to find out the possibilities.   Using the same techniques and research is not working. 

I am trying not to let my research be narrowed down to my preconceived idea of what is Big Foot.  Already that perception has changed and it continues to be modified on a consistent basis.  I have decided to use my evidence in a broad way and let it lead me where to I need to go.

The challenge to you and others is to look at all possibilities and not to let others make your decisions.  There is enough out there to warrant a real investigation into the possibility of a bipedal primate in our woods and forests.  I know they are there and it is time for you find out too.  

It is always interesting when people will try to second guess what you find while out investigating.  I have found tracks of prints in the same location about 1-2 months apart.  The tracks found were in the human size range but the characteristics of the prints pointed to Big Foot instead of human prints.  Instead of looking at the evidence and asking clarifying questions, the naysayers have an automatic answer to the prints found. 

I am aware that there are shoes that have toes.  Whenever I encounter prints in the human size range I will look for the tread marks and stride pattern.  When found in mud or powdery soil it is easy to detect.  When I have found prints that could be either I am incline to think human.  I have nothing to gain if I use misleading or false evidence.  I don't have time or the interest to do this.

I would like for you to look carefully at the 2 pictures of prints that I have found over this past year.  Can you tell which is human and the other is Big Foot?

 

 

I am a person who is trying to prove the existence of Big Foot.  Using false and misleading evidence will not help my endeavor.  I already know they are real and out there.  I'm just backing up my knowledge with my evidence. 

 

In case you don't know the answer to my question, the top picture is the human print.  When you compare and can see the difference then it is obvious.  If you are not able to then it probably is not.  But in this case you can see the differences.

 

The only problem I have with people second guessing me is the attitude of "It must be false because there are shoes with toes" without really looking at the evidence.  An automatic mindset of this nature is never a good measure of a person's persona.  Close-minded people have made this world small and dark.  Our world is full of color, wonder and mystery just waiting to be discovered.  I hope I am the type of person who is willing to open my mind to the possibilities of this world.   

 





 

You may not realized it but our society has been hinting at the extistence of Big Foot for 100+ years.  Are you wondering how I know this?  Look at the names of places in areas that are known for Big Foot activity.

Big Foot has been described as dark shapes that move quickly; ungodly screams or sounds; hairy; look similar to a gorilla; moves around at night; glowing eyes and on 2 feet. 

Here in Colorado we have Devil's Head which is the above picture.  Why would it be called Devil's Head if not for Big Foot?  When I moved here from Michigan almost 15 years ago this was pointed out to me as a known landmark for the area.  I was told it looked like an Indian laying down.  I always wondered why it was called Devil's Head when the description was an Indian in a headdress laying down?  That area you see in the picture is one of the hot beds of Big Foot activity here in Colorado.  Now it makes sense to me why it was named this.

We have a Monkey Creek in The Lost Wilderness area.  Why would we have a creek with this name?  It doesn't look like a monkey.  There has been reported sightings around that area.

We have a Devil's Canyon in Pike National Forest.  Why?  It is also in a location with known Big Foot activity.

Phantom Creek in Pike National Forest.  Why?  Again there have been reported Big Foot activity in that area.

With this in mind you may want to look where you live and research names that describe Big Foot or behavior.  You may be in for a surprise.