Monday, May 20, 2024

Bigfoot's Characteristics and What They Reveal

 


You have to wonder about witness accounts when there are so many descriptions of how a Bigfoot looks and such a variety of ways to portray it. First, let's look at some of these variations in perception - 



Sybilla Irwin (sketch artist)


Sketch created from witness Rob Johnson




Six Million Dollar Man show 




Let's take a moment to pull together some of the characteristics reported - 

Red glowing eyes
Wide flat nose
Little to no hair around the nose and under eyes 
Large eyes
No apparent whites of the eyes
Strong brow ridge
Powerful jaw
Small ears
Pointed head
No apparent neck
Stovepipe legs
Long arms
Incredible height (8 ft to 10 ft most often reported)
Long body hair either black, brown, auburn, and sometimes blonde, gray, or white.
Human-like features
Archaic traits in skull structure
Fast and strong, very muscular
Able to gallop on all four
Reacts to bright light as if in pain
Able to see at night
Horrible scent 
Imitates animal sounds and human, as well

Some of the more unusual traits - 

Disappears in thin air
Tracks stop as if they disappear
Associated with strange forest lights
Goes in and out of trees
Creates infrasound to make people go away
Reads minds/Mind speaks
Communicates with spaceships
Can jump between worlds
Creates stick structures as markers
Are aliens
Gift people with rocks and feathers

One researcher divulged a female Bigfoot had made contact with him and he could sense her heartbeat and it revealed a 3-chamber heart. 

That seemed like a very odd charateristic until I learned that amphibians have 3-chamber hearts so they can "breathe" through their skin. Amphibians also have a skin much like what I imagine a Bigfoot would have, no surface capillaries to get frostbite or make the skin pink, but instead a blue gray skin that is keratonized and oily to protect from elements. Bigfoot are known as excellent swimmers that can stay underwater for some time. 

We can agree that if there is something to the concept of evolution, an ape/human-like being and an amphibian are not likely to mate by any natural means, especialily with humans being mammals, so the conclusion would be alien intervention. It is also entirely possible that such a large creature their origins in a time on earth when there were amphibians and large creatures - the dinosaur era. In fact, one could point to the possibility these tall ones were a transitional creature that was capable of living in that time, but represented the oncoming onslaught of mammals. 

This is a great example of how a witness account can find validity in an exceptional explanation. 

I created a haunted formula (2009) hypothesis. I took 50 commonly reported haunted locations and found the common characteristics from geology to construction, history to incidental elements like  railroad tracks and moving water. From there, I was able to come down to 5 very common elements. After this, I was able to predict likely locations that would have a haunting by seeing how many of these 5 elements that location contained.

Perhaps a similar study can show whether an encounter was likely a Bigfoot. 

I've spent time studying the body proportions after the sighting I had in the Sierras. 


As an artist who does human forms, I couldn't help noting the off points of the proportions - shorter legs for height, longer body for height, long arms when compared to body length, forward-pitched head with almost pointed appearance in the back, extremely muscular thighs and glutes, unbelievably broad shoulders. 

Knowing these proportions, seeing videos and photos, it's possible to see if it's likely a Bigfoot was captured in imagery by looking at body proportions. 

People often report them galloping on all four. For us, that would be odd. For instance, I have a 31" inseam. that is almost half my height (68"). If I go down on all four, my butt is way up in the air and it's very awkward. 

For Bigfoot, the leg length appears to be 1/3 of height. Arms are long. Now, we have someone who, on all four, does not have its butt in the air. It can easily swing and gallop on from arms and push off with powerful legs and it is not at all awkward. 

If, as it appears, they were acclimated for mountains regions (has similar proportions to Neanderthals), it was built for climbing up mountains. The hip joints would be loose as they are critical for hoisting up hillsides and boulder falls. 

The appearane of Bigfoot opens itself up to lots of understanding of how and where they live and thrive. 

Neanderthals had large eyes so that they could see in low lights of higher elevations and northern locations. The Bigfoot are not only reactive to bright light and have large eyes, but also reported to have a red eye glow that would be apparent at night like any being that is adapted for nighttime travel and dark forests. 

With the body proportions of Bigfoot being different than ours, simple comparisons like foot length and height may be completely off. Neanderthal, with a very similar limb and body proportion ratios, had large feet for his height. If we extrapolate, it means that a 16" footprint is likely an 8-1/2 foot tall individual.

Note: Average man is 5'9" and size 10-1/2 shoe. Neanderthal was 5'5" and a size 10 shoe size (if he wore shoes). Extrapolating height to foot length would vary for us who are built for walking primarily and not scrambling up boulders and mountains. So, Bigfoot's prints may look big enough for a super tall individual, they are a different ratio. See my foot/height formula

Imagine what Homo sapiens might be like if we had not started agriculture and herding. We may not have created villages where the community breeds and continues certain characteristics, making a "race" for that region. We may still have "archaic" features as we would continue to breed within a small band of family with genetic defects and issues of consanguinity. We may continue to reproduce the archaic features of our early lineage. 


Is Bigfoot "archaic" simply by having to mate in isolated regions and carrying on the same traits over and over again and again?


No comments:

Post a Comment