So many critics of Bigfoot ask, if Bigfoot is real, why haven't we found bones? Surely there would be evidence of these animals in the fossil record?
To answer these questions simply... I believe we have, and there is.
Practically from the first day Europeans set foot on the American continent, they began unearthing unusually large skeletal remains. Said remains were reported to be seven, eight, even nine feet tall if standing upright. Today no public trace remains of these giant skeletons, even though they have been unearthed right up until very recently.
In the US, it seems a concerted effort has been made by the authorities to keep such evidence out of the public eye, however elsewhere some evidence sits in museums, right in our faces... potentially misidentified as archaic hominids like Homo erectus, hiedelbergensis, and others.
Because established science is apparently determined to refuse to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of hominid relatives of humans existing more recently than a few tens of thousands of years, are these remains simply misidentified? Perhaps even purposefully?
Sasquatch Skull Found?
An anthropologist from the University of Michigan was sent a mould of the Pintubi Skull. His description will sound familiar to Bigfoot researchers;
"...the skull is complete and quite robust. The moderately low vault has a marked frontal slope with a well developed sagital keel along the midline."
... here we have the 'cone-shaped-head' described by multiple witnesses to the Type 1 Sasquatch, immortalised by the famous Patterson-Gimlin film of 'Patty'. Below I have superimposed a 3/4 view of the Pintubi Skull over an image of Patty...
The Pintubi-1 skull is a case in point. Discovered in 1905 near Australia's Darling river in the tribal territory of an aboriginal tribe called the Pintubis, the skull was then and is now, an enigma.
One look at this remarkable skull and it is instantly obvious that it is not your normal Homo sapiens skull. Indeed it more closely resembles an archaic hominid like Homo erectus.
The problem is, according to accepted scientific theory Homo erectus nor any other potential candidate ever lived in Australia, a land mass whose first hominids, Homo sapiens sapiens supposedly only arrived on the continent between 40 and 60 thousand years ago.
The anthropologist goes on to say;
"Also notable is the distinct nuchal torus (occipital bun) at the rear area of neck muscle attachment."
...This means the owner of this skull had MASSIVE neck muscles. He would have looked like a footballer wearing shoulder pads. Once again, perfectly matching the 'no-neck' appearance attributed to Sasquatch by witnesses.
It is my belief that in the case of the Pintubi Skull we are looking not at the skull of some deformed aboriginal, nor the remnant of some ancient ancestor (as 'accepted' science claims).
Are we in fact looking at the remains of a relative?
A relative that perhaps still survives and thrives even today in the darkness on the fringes of our oh-so-tamed and well-documented world?
The remains of the Australian Bigfoot, the Yowie?
(A very old newspaper article from England)
It is also a well-accepted 'fact' in the Bigfoot Research Community that the Hairy Folk are mostly nocturnal and have excellent night vision. Have a look at this side by side comparison. Note the huge eye sockets...
As usual, such finds bring more questions than answers.
How many ancestral hominid remains have been labelled Homo erectus, or Homo hiedelbergensis, or any other of the many 'ancestors' in our family tree, remains which actually might be of something else?
... Something still wandering the wild places under the starlit skies?
Next time you are outside at night looking up at the moon, allow your imagination to wander, and your mind to wonder... at what else may be out there looking up at the same moon through the branches of a darkened forest.
... Perhaps an apex predator who has survived and thrived throughout the centuries, Homo sapiens nocturnus?
After all, if the Homo genus has been so evolutionarily successful in the bright light of day, why would it not be as successful evolving to fill the niche of the night?
Erectus walked the earth over 200 thousand years ago, yet here he is, not only out of place but also out of time... for you see the age of this particular skull is only somewhere between 150 and 250 years old, not 200 thousand.
Scientists were very puzzled at its unearthing in 1905 and still are today. Some postulated that perhaps it was a deformed Pintubi tribal member?
But deformities do not produce skeletal structure akin to an ancient member of the Homo genus. So if it is too young to be an archaic hominid, and not the result of some deformity... What else could it be?
"A rollercoaster ride of action, suspense, emotion, and discovery, that gives a highly plausible insight into the life and world of Sasquatch. An exciting Bigfoot story told from the perspective of the animal itself." Damien T, Sasquatch Eyewitness
"Awesome, just Awesome! I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the Sagas." ... Jack, Sasquatch Eyewitness