The greatest discoveries of science have always been those that forced us to rethink our beliefs about the universe and our place in it. 

~Robert L. Park, in The New York Times, 7 December 1999

 

 

I would like for you to look very carefully at the photo.  In the space between the 2 boulders there may be something.  You will see what looks like an outline of a right shoulder and leg.  What do you think about it?  Could this be our first picture of BigFoot?  I know when my husband took this picture and then reviewed it, he was very excited.  He had me look at the picture and asked me to tell him if I saw anything.  I saw the outline immediately.

 

FYI-Before this picture was taken we had heard some movements back behind our gifting rock.  My husband climbed up on a boulder and took some pictures in that direction.  We were thinking that we caught one peeking. 

 

My goal in my research is to find real evidence of BigFoot.  As a researcher I want to verify my evidence.  So the next time we were there we went to the spot and looked.  What did I find?  The spot under the boulders was much smaller than we thought.  Only about 4 feet tall.  The outline was a rock behind the 2 boulders.  At first I was disappointed but then I realized that validating my evidence is a priority.  Going back to retake pictures or search the location helps validate my findings.  It should be a priority of every researcher to go back and check your findings.

 

What if I never went back to check?  I would have a picture that is false data.  Being methodical and diligent should be part of every researcher repertoire. 

 

I now show this pictures to people when speaking to point out that not everything you take a picture of is BigFoot and that you need to go back and recheck your work.  

 

Showing shadows and blurred images does not help convince people about the existence of a bipedal primate in our woods and forest.  Validated evidence and research will.  It is time to stop promoting these types of images. 

 

 



This is a typical spot in my research area.  As you can see there are downed trees, boulders and shadows.  Why would I take this picture?  Is there something lurking in the shadows of the background?  The downed trees were caused by BigFoot?  Maybe one is peeking at me from behind the boulder in the middle of the picture?

I have a very simple explanation on why I took this picture.  The beauty of this spot caught my attention and I wanted to have a reminder of it.  As I said previously in my posts, not everything we see or experience is BigFoot related.  I have almost as many pictures of beautiful Colorado as I do that are suspected BigFoot activity.

 

This picture is not too far from the first picture.  Can you see anything in this picture that may be BigFoot related?  In the middle there is a classic tree break that is suspected to be made by a BigFoot.

When I go researching I am careful to look for clues.  I try to read what the forest is trying to show me.  Most of what I find is like the top picture.  But every once in a while I will come across what I am searching for.  The evidence of a bipedal primate who is human smart.

I have a confession to make.  I do not believe there is a bipedal primate known as BigFoot or Sasquatch in our woods and forest.  Does that surprise you?  It shouldn't if you have been reading my previous posts. 

I KNOW THERE ARE BIPEDAL PRIMATES KNOWN AS BIGFOOT OR SASQUATCH LIVING IN OUR WOODS AND FOREST.

To me the belief is just words.  When you know by the evidence you find, it makes your words turn into knowledge.  Everyone knows that knowledge is everything.  My evidence backs up my knowledge.  There is no doubt.

When you have this knowledge it is very hard to listen to people mouth their belief without any evidence.  I am not saying that belief is not good but your belief should be back up with evidence. 

So when you talk to someone like me about the existence of BigFoot you may start to think about the possibilities.  If you talk with someone with only their belief then there is a chance of changing their mind. 

Who would you rather talk to?  Someone who knows or someone who believes? 

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.