A listener of mine named Miguel wrote this paper for college. I thought he did a great job, check it out:
I am witting my proposal on why the government should recognize Bigfoot/Sasquatch as real animals that live in the forest and also tell the truth about where they actually come from. Most people do not believe that these things exist but I have strong evidence that I am going to present and also propose why the government should recognize them as living animals and protect them.
We first start out with Darwinism. The simple view of it is that we are taught in school that everything evolves and everything out there was once eat survive reproduce and finally we come along we stand there and are able to think, what’s it all about? Why are we as humans so different from anything on this planet? Darwinism says that we evolved from apes into what we are today. This is mostly everyone’s interpretation of life on earth and what the government wants us to believe. I am now going to begin to present an alternative view for you to consider.
Something that most people do not know about is the Miocene Era. The Miocene era lasted from 25 million years ago to around 5 million years ago. Now you all would think that monkeys came first, they did, at about 35 million years ago monkeys begin to appear in the fossil record. They are almost immediately eclipsed when the Miocene apes begin to appear. Miocene apes were tailless apes like gorillas and chimps not monkeys. These apes were all over the place during this era and for about 20 million years dominated monkeys. Monkeys have taken over in the last 8 to 10 million years in the fossil record. The Miocene era shows us that there were 50 to 100 species of ape. We have two chimps today and two gorillas today.
There were numbers of each different species of ape during the Miocene and they were dwarf size, human size, and even bigger than humans and Giganthopithicus was one of those bigger species. Even though we found fossils in the early Miocene and not as many in the late part of the era that doesn’t mean they aren’t there. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence just because you don’t find fossils doesn’t mean that they aren’t there. You have to be killed in a very specific way to create a fossil. For example, let’s say you are killed at the waterhole and are left on the soil. After some time a herd of wildebeest come and stomp you into the ground so that scavengers and bugs can’t get into your body and you eventually become a fossil. This is why there are so little fossils of these apes and it has to do with where you live and what your environment is like at that particular time. On top of that these apes are living in forests where it is extremely difficult to make fossils. It’s rare to get fossils although we have a lot of them and there are periods where we have lots of them. It makes sense to me that those Miocene apes have gone on from the beginning 25 million years ago right on through and they didn’t necessarily go extinct. They didn’t necessarily go extinct but they tell you that they all did except for the 7 that we have now: the two types of chimps, the two types of gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, etc. Why would all those apes go extinct? There was no catastrophic extinction event like what took out the dinosaurs so why would they go extinct. They’re living for the most part in forests not out on the savannah. If you aren’t running 40mph you are a snack treat for the cats out there that’s why they are living in forests and in trees so they can scamper up or get away and hide from the cats. I’m not saying there aren’t any cats in the forests and jungles, there just aren’t as many compared to the savannahs. When they are living their lives their environment isn’t disappearing beneath them at all. When you have periods of change in the environment it changes very slowly and if you have survival instincts like animals do, you will just move where the environment goes. This is exactly what the monkeys did and it didn’t hurt them so why would it hurt the other species of ape and take them all out?
The problem with the Miocene is that it produced a number of short armed apes. It also produced a number of long armed apes but mostly a number of short armed apes. Short armed apes have arms that are more like monkeys than the quadrupedal apes that we know today. They are a problem because you have to explain how they moved around. It isn’t easy to move on all fours if you have arms equal in length to your legs. We as humans have arms that are shorter than our legs and the apes we have today all have arms longer than their legs in order to move comfortably. What science says about the short arm apes is that they would travel in trees like monkeys but monkeys have tails for balance, the short armed apes had no tails. Take away a tail and moving around in trees gets pretty hard. Get up over 200 pounds with no tail and that gets extremely hard. Yet, they insisted it happened this way because they cannot allow bipedal locomotion in the Miocene because it leads straight to Sasquatch. So they leave out the possibility of bipedal walking in the entirety of the Miocene when it screams out that it most likely was there because of the short armed apes. The Darwinist solution for how the short armed apes moved on the ground is that they walked with their knuckles dragging on the ground. Ask yourself, if you have been walking with your knuckles dragging on the ground for millions of years don’t you think one us would think to raise up a bit higher, walk upright and become bipedal? Yes, because I don’t think knuckle dragging is the answer but they, the other side all buy that and I think it’s ridiculous frankly.
We know from the bones that we recovered like from Lucy and the Lake Turkana boy that we have four types of australopithecines: Africanis, Afarensis, Robustus, and Boisei. A pair of upright walking chimps and a pair of upright walking gorillas at four million years ago down to two million years ago including the sagittal crest. The most famous of the australopithecines is Lucy. Her bones were discovered in 1974 and carbon dating showed that her bones were 3.2 million years old. We have 40% of her skeleton, mirror imaging gives us about 80% but there is enough to clearly see that there is no doubt she’s a bipedal creature because we have the bones to prove it. What science does to deceive you is that they make her look as human as possible. They only thing human about her is that she walks upright but they do things like bump her shoulders up so that it looks like her arms are shorter than what they actually are in proportion to her legs. Vince Lombardi said football is a game of inches, so is anthropology. That now brings us into the early Homos: Homo habilis, Erectus, Neanderthal etc. Science tells us that anything that walks upright and came before us is considered a pre human and that’s what we evolved from. Looking at the Lake Turkana boy a Homo erectus his bones were found in 1984. Carbon dating showed that the bones were 1.5 million years old and he was about 12 years old when he died. Even though he was 12 years old he stood already 6 feet tall and would probably grow to 6’7 to 6’8 in adulthood we still aren’t sure how they grew but we have a pretty good idea. The thing with him is that at 12 years old every bone in his body was thicker and more robust than every bone in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s body in his prime. Yes the early australopithecines and the early homos walk upright we know that but they don’t look very human. When science shows us a picture of a Neanderthal or Homo erectus, as a part of the deception we are given an ugly face sitting on a very human looking body. Science can’t argue what the faces looked like because we have the skulls. We don’t have a whole lot of the body bones but even though have enough of the bones to know better like with Lucy they still give the pre humans the nice slender human bodies to make you believe that science has it under control and that Darwinism is still intact. Also for the longest time Neanderthal’s were the last step and that we evolved from them and I say it’s impossible. Neanderthals have a totally different anatomy than us and the structure of their bones compared to ours is like comparing broomsticks to shovel handles. We know that they were so much more robust than us because your bone density is a function of the torque that your muscles can generate. Also on top of that if we evolved from Neanderthals we lost two chromosomes, lost a whole bunch of strength and durability, and our brains shrunk but somehow we turned out a whole lot smarter, it’s interesting isn’t it.
In my eyes the so called pre humans are non-extinct Miocene apes. They share no basic characteristics with us humans. Apart from them being bipedal they did not walk the way we do. We have unique sets of pre human footprints from Tanzania, Africa discovered back in 1978. These tracks are 3.5 million years old and they aren’t human because the way they place their foot on the ground. A typical human foot has an arch and we swing our momentum around our arch with a hard heel strike and push off of our big toe, that’s why our joints wear out over time. The tracks found in Africa in 1978 it was clear that whatever creatures made the tracks were landing flat on the ground not on the heel and didn’t have to swing its momentum around its foot it just picked it up and kept moving efficiently because they’re walking right. At 3.5 million years ago the early australopithecines are walking better than we are today. We have the skulls because we know the transitions that they’ve made over time to adapt to the planet. They needed improvement in the skulls, but I don’t think they needed much improvement in the feet. I believe they got walking correct after millions of years of perfecting it. Also it’s clear to see that the walking of the australopithecines and the early Homos have the same motion and placement of the tracks we have today of reported Sasquatch sightings.
It would probably amaze you to know that according to the fossil record the early Homos and us humans lived on the planet side by side for at least 100,000 years. We are a pack animal we are two legged hyenas. Science says that we drove the other apes to extinction but I don’t buy it. What if we didn’t drive them to extinction but we just drove them to places where we stop chasing them and to places where they don’t make fossils. If this scenario is true which I postulate that it is given all the evidence, then it would explain the hundreds and thousands of sightings of upright walking hair covered creatures living in the deep forests, jungles, and high mountain ranges that we have today. There are four types of hominoids. We have the bigfoot/sasquatch kind that live in North America (7 to 10 feet tall, 500 to 1,000 pounds), The Yeti that lives exclusively in the Himalayan mountains (6 to 9 feet tall, 300 to 600 pounds), the Almas that live in southern Russia and the north Indonesian mountains (5 to 7 feet tall, 200 to 500 pounds), and the Ogaugweys that live in the jungles of south America and Australia (4 to 6 feet tall, 200 to 400 pounds). It’s also very interesting that there were 4 types of australopithecines, 4 types of early Homos, and what a surprise there are 4 types of hominoids.
With all of this being said and all the evidence provided these things are indeed real and I have seen two of them myself. They have been reported long before Europeans stepped foot on North America and are still being reported today on every continent except Antarctica. When these things are reported they are consistent. Most of them have a sagittal crest, extremely tall, very hairy, big robust bodies, arms that hang down to their knees, low sloping foreheads, an ugly face with barely a neck. Take away the hair and I just described to you the early australopithecines and the early homos. The pre humans are today’s hominoids. The government cannot come out and tell you this truth because it would conflict with laziness of what science has deceived us with for so many years and we would have to go back and really take a look at evolution. With the evidence and information that I have provided to prove these things exist I believe the government should really considered what I am proposing and come out publicly and freely instead of covering up the existence of these things.