According to Wikipedia, "The Yeti may be considered a sort of parallel myth to the Big Foot of North America."

I have a problem with Wikipedia's conclusion about the Yeti and Big Foot.  Instead of researching and examining the evidence, they have done what any institution that is in the business to teach should not do.  They had only examined one aspect of a subject or used someone else's analysis without researching and drew an erroneous conclusion.  If they have done what I did then their conclusion would be a lot different.

Both the indigenous people of the Himalayan region, Native Americans of the United States and the First Nations of Canada have rich oral history of this bipedal primate.  It is part of their culture, history and mythology.  In certain regions of the indigenous people of both continents there are distinct differences in their perception of the bipedal primate.  In North America the further west you go it is seen as more a flesh and blood being.  In the eastern part of North America they are seen more as a sign and mythical being.  In the Himalayan bipedal primate the more south you go the more mythical being versus the northern area where they are seen as a being with more human characterizations.  All of them regard them as a living being and part of their world.  The myth part may be explained as an explanation of what they did not know.  Like their legends explaining how certain things happen and why.  It is not wrong but a way for them to understand their world and how they and others live in it.

In the 1800's the indigenous people of central Africa talked about the "Bush Man".  The descriptions, oral history and stories almost parallel the Yeti in Asia and Big Foot in North America.  If history has taught us anything it has taught us that it will repeat itself again and again.  Why are we still doing this?  In the 1920's the gorilla was finally discovered by our world.  Of course it was already discovered and known by the locals.  The so-called experts refused to listen to the natives saying that it was fear and superstition. 

We have oral history ourselves in regards to the bipedal primate.  The sightings and reports made to certain Big Foot organizations continue to be recorded.  In the 1800's a pioneer wrote in his journal about coming across huge bare foot prints in the dead of winter.  In 1951 while attempting to scale Mount Everest, Eric Shipley took photographs of a number of large prints in the snow.  I personally have found a 16, 17 and 19 inch prints.  The list can go on. 

Why do the so-called experts and our society jump to the conclusion that the Yeti and Big Foot is a myth?  Or that it is the superstitions and fears of uneducated or simple folks?  My conclusion to that question is that our science community and society feel it is too bizarre to be actually true.  Anything that bizarre can't be true.  I have heard and read many experts say that simple people or the uneducated have vivid imaginations and let their superstitions color what they saw or heard.  Of course the experts have all the answers to our world, nature and science.  The first mistake any educated person with this mindset is narrowing our world to predictable conclusions.  If anything our world and the surrounding universe is a wonderful mysterious place just waiting for more exploration.  Science answers the questions of our world but is not the absolute answer to our world.  The day we draw absolute conclusions about nature and science is just asking for Pandora's Box to be opened.  When the pictures and writings about the platypus was sent to England it was dismissed as a hoax.  Sound familiar?  They had to send an actual specimen there to prove their existence.  The experts were so sure it had been sewn together that they dissect it to prove it was a hoax.

I know there are people out there that are perpetuating Big Foot hoaxes.  You can't dismiss all for a few.  If you look at what has been collected and reported you will find a certain pattern of similarities that should not be evident in hoaxes, superstitions and fears.  It is that pattern that had me look closer. 

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature.  And that is because in the final analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.   -Max Planck  

 

It has been reported by people for many years that Big Foot eyes glow or light up at night.  Even some of the Native Americans have made reference to this.  If this so-called non-exist species is not real why is there documented stories and oral history on this specific phenomena? 

 

Many people feel that this phenomena of glowing or lit-up eyes seen at night is too fantastic to be real.  My contention is if it happens in nature somewhere else then it is possible.  We have fish that glow in the deep ocean.  How do you explain that?  We have eels that shock.  We do have examples of other living things doing this phenomena.  It just seems too fantastic because we are saying a primate is able to do this and not a fish.  It does not say anywhere in nature that only fish are able to do this.  Evolving and adaptations are done with all species for specific reasons.  Big Foot having eyes that light up to see in the dark would make sense for adaptation to hunt in woods and forests.

 

Instead of automatically dismissing many of the things that are related to Big Foot, people need to actually look at what has been gathered about this amazing bipedal primate.  There is more good information and evidence on this primate than most people realize.

My question to you:

"If there is no such thing as a Big Foot.  Why am I able to go into areas using data obtained over many years that points to the presence of them and find physical evidence?"

I had some family friends come in this week and wanted to go squatching.  With other investigators we went into an area that has been visited many times for the last 5 years.  While there we ventured into a new area and experienced many things that points to their presence.

If they are not real we would not be finding evidence such as a foot print or hair.  How do you explain this?  If my imagination is seeing what I want to see then the prints, structures and other physical signs should not be found.  I have seen and heard many things that I can't prove and many would say I think I saw/heard it.  But when you combine both the physical and what I have seem/heard it is hard to point to it being my imagination.

I am a skeptic at heart.  The reason I started to look for the evidence of Big Foot is because I wanted to see the evidence first hand and not from other people.  I know what I have collected/seen/heard and experienced.  With this and what others have investigated have convinced me that there is a bipedal primate in our woods and forest.  There is not another explanation that would answer what I have investigated other than a Big Foot.

Many may believe but I know that Big Foot does reside in our woods and forest in North America.  Whether you believe what I know doesn't matter because I have the evidence that proves it.