Bigfoot AND Wildman Part 2: Footprints

Jay, Ohio Bigfoot Group Founder 

Let's actually consider this more of Bigfoot and Wildman Addendum than a "part 2" (or Jay's incoherent psychobabble??). In an earlier blog post, I presented the idea that it is possible that based on descriptions of Bigfoot sightings, that Bigfoots and Wildman (Wildmen) could potentially be two separate cryptids. Yes, this is still possible as all things in the cryptozoology field are until it is proven to be otherwise by the discovery of the creature in question at which point all the questions are answered.

It's amazing how much you can learn in this field when you don't think you know it all already or use television as your only source of research. I'm not talking about going to different Bigfoot websites and reading about the different researcher opinions that are presented as fact, I'm talking about developing an idea of what you believe and researching the avenues around it. Since writing that original blog I have done a lot of researching about early human ancestors and I am now almost fully in favor of this as the likely culprit for Sasquatches and their roots. Notice I said "almost".

I subtitled this article "Footprints" because a majority of the focus is on the prints left behind and casted. I apologize to you all who thought you were going to get to read (yet another) "how to cast a footprint" article but fear not because they are not hard to find. In order to get more in depth with Bigfoot roots, let's first talk about those prints.

When we examine a casted print, nearly 100% of the time it looks to be nearly identical to our own with the size as it's exception. That being said, a lot of those prints show 4 or 5 toes and usually those toes are short and stubby compared to ours. Their prints are usually broader, but some are narrow, basically every cast is different just as your feet and my feet would cast differently.

We all know what our feet look like, if not, well... maybe it's time to hit the gym. All kidding aside, if you believe that Bigfoots are of ape origin, then the best resource we have to look at is known ape feet and their shape and size.

On the left, you have a gorilla foot. On the right, a chimpanzee. You notice that their feet are a lot like our hands with the big toe separate from the rest of the toes like our thumb is from our fingers. One could argue that Bigfoots evolved over time and because they walk upright and do not need to climb trees and that therefore their feet may have changed in that process. I can not dispute that as a possibility, only present my case with my opinion... which likely does not even represent Ohio Bigfoot as a whole. As I combed through photos of casts and prints, I could not find a clear one that was remotely close to that of a gorilla or chimp... until I saw the photos taken by Eric Shipton in 1951 during a reconnaissance trip of Mount Everest of an alleged Yeti print.

These photos, assuming they are genuine and of an actual Yeti, show a print more similar to that of known apes than human beings. This just heaped more confusion fuel into the fire for me (and probably you too now). The problem is this, if Bigfoots are Gigantopithecus or a direct decendant, we have to assume that Bigfoots and Giganto had/have feet similar to the apes of today. This is only seen in the above photograph and never in alleged Bigfoot prints.

I began toying with the idea that the Yeti could be a decendant of Gigantopithecus, whereas Bigfoot could be a distant relative of Homo Sapiens. That does not necessarily make Bigfoots in the United States a relative of Gigantopithecus, it just simply means that this planet is today (like it has been for millions of years) inhabited by several species of apes and several species of humans.

Every time I read about or watch a documentary about early human behavior, I see a lot of reported Sasquatch behaviors more so than I see when I read about apes... but again, this is simply my opinion and you are encouraged to read and research all this on your own to draw your own conclusions. You might read and watch the same things and see it differently. New early human ancestors are always being found and I have said in the past that presented candidates for Bigfoot as an early human ancestor could be Homo Heidelbergensis and Neanderthal man, but there are holes with those suspects... and considering that the early human "family tree" has many branches, it's more likely that the branch that began Sasquatch has yet to be discovered... but it can not be argued that in our ancestory, we had some relatives that were build for speed (Homo Erectus), some that were built for strength (Heidelbergensis, Neanderthal), some there were tall (Heidelbergensis again), and some that developed large brains capable of complex thought (Homo Sapiens). These facts alone would be enough to make me jump on the bandwagon for Bigfoot roots as an early human ancestor.... but it's hard to ignore the holes. Bigfoots are often reported covered in hair, Homo Erectus would've been the first known humans to walk upright and they began losing their body hair in place of sweat glands. Early humans used fire... I've yet to see a Bigfoot report where someone walking through the woods saw a Bigfoot huddled around a fire. It could be argued that maybe they do use fire and simply bury it when they are finished, maybe fire remains go unreported because they're dismissed as trespassing campers, or maybe they've realized over thousands of years "Hey, if I make a fire, one of these destructive Homo Sapiens might see us and do us harm!" Who is to say? Of course, I can also see that "covered in hair" could be in the eyes of the beholder... if someone were looking at a human ancestor and comparing them to what we've become as well groomed civilized beings then it's absolutely likely they would describe them as "covered in hair"... but how come in the colder regions they are not reported wearing animal hides for warmth? How come they are not reported carrying tools? Did they abandon what they discovered or have they simply evolved over time to not need these things anymore? Or do they still do and use these things and we simply do not see them often enough or long enough to take notice?

You are probably wanting to hit me at this point. I've really just put more questions in your head. I take an already debated topic and pull you one way and then pull you in another, I understand. However, in some sick, twisted way I may have got your mind wandering and wanting to turn off Animal Planet and do some good ole fashioned research for yourself and draw your own conclusions... and that, my friend, is enough for me.

I guess without having the ability to study these creatures.... (or people???) it will always be a mystery, especially to me because it seems every time I start to lean in one direction I come up with several questions that take me in another. Maybe it would be easier to be one of these "know-it-alls", develop an idea of what Sasquatch is, and then just stick to it and fight with everyone who disagrees. But that wouldn't be true research, would it? There is no question in my mind something is out there, it's up to us to examine all possibilities and search all paths to determine what it is exactly.