Similar Big Foot evidence found hundreds of mile apart in Colorado.

This blog was designed to have you think outside the box, question the science community and to look at the real evidence that is waiting for you to ponder about the mystery of Big Foot.  As a person who loves to solve puzzles and research mysteries I hope I have compelled you to do this.  I like to look at all the facts and let the facts speak for themselves.  There are 3 things that jumped out to me when I started my research into the mystery of Big Foot.  One-They are in every state except Hawaii.  Two-there are some real compelling evidence from credible witnesses.  Three-The similarities of certain information in the sightings and reports that spans hundreds of years.  Starting with the Native Americans through modern times.

Through my research and my own physical searching I have drawn the conclusion that there are bipedal primates living in the woods and forest of North America.  I know they are there.  How they have been able to elude our mainstream society for hundreds of years cannot be explained by me.  The only answer I have is that they are related to both great apes and human and that may be the key.  They are human smart and have evolved to remain out of sight of our human world.  Only a lucky few have had the privilege to have some type of interaction with this elusive primate.

In the month of June I have had the distinct privilege to experience finding similar evidence in 2 different locations hundreds of miles apart.  As the person who collected this evidence I know where they were found and saw both pieces of evidence with my eyes.  There was no chance this was mistaken identity or a fabrication.

At the beginning of June, I was out investigating with some others when some black hair was found.  It was collected by me.  I measured and took pictures of it.  There is no doubt it is hair and not fur. 

At the end of June while looking at a known Big Foot resting spot, I found a black hair.  This location is hundreds of miles apart from the other location.

What are the odds of finding similar evidence in a forest setting hundreds of miles apart?  Since I know the circumstances of both locations I know it was extreme luck that this happened.  I should have bought a lottery ticket.

Both hairs have taper ends.  You can see that the ends have never been cut like you would see in human hair.  Bear fur is much shorter and thicker.  I cannot think of another living being in the forest who would have hair and is black.

Let the evidence speak for itself.  This is one of those compelling pieces that has helped to convince me about Big Foot. 

I KNOW THEY ARE REAL AND LIVING IN OUR WOODS AND FORESTS.

 

 

 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.   

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.