/Nexus - 1905 - New Times Magazine/pages/0071/image.png)
Page Content (OCR)
must have been found, or shot, over the years?" I have typically said in answer to t hese questions that one does not see a dead bear or mountain lion on the trail when walking through the Rocky Mountains or the Pacific A close-up of the dead sasquatch photographed in 1894 in western Canada. (Source: Cryptomundo.com) transparent society where everything that exists, and for which there are clear photos and bodies, would be shown to the interested viewers around the world? Or do we live in a world where some things are suppressed, including evidence of Bigfoot? Add to the suppression of real Bigfoot evidence some hoax Bigfoot cases that everyone can laugh at, and you have a subject that appears to be just fantasy and tall tales. Some things are just too shocking to the status quo—strange mutations or missing links that make us question traditional religious beliefs or the tenets of mankind's sacred pillars of science and reason. If all the experts and scholars have been so wrong for decades, what are we supposed to believe from them? In the case of this photo, part of a series apparently, a professional photographer must have been involved. Photography, until recently, was expensive and rare; it required professional photographers with expensive equipment. Having a photograph taken in 1894 was a big deal, glass plate photography being very time consuming for each individual photo. Photography for the common man took many decades to reach even the Kodak Brownie and t hese questions that one does not see a dead bear or ytographed In I8Y4 In Mountains or ido.com) the Pacific Northwest. Though these animals are known to exist, one rarely sees them at all and never a dead one just lying there in the forest. The carcass would only be there for a few hours, days or weeks, and many animals that are about to die (of old age or disease) go off somewhere very far out of the way. Ce Bigfoot book written since 1894? Here we have what seems to be some pretty solid evidence of a hairy apeman/sasquatch that is just what he scientific community says it's ooking for. In fact, these folks from he Hudson's Bay Company not only ave some photos of a dead Bigfoot, at one time (says the photo) they actually had a dead Bigfoot! We are alking here about Bigfoot steaks, Bigfoot fur, a Bigfoot head, Bigfoot paws and all that. Since the Hudson's Bay Company specialised in dead animals and their ur, one would think that this animal—whatever it was—was carefully skinned and preserved. Was its head mounted and displayed in he den of some chairman of the company? That seems far-fetched oday, but perhaps back in 1899 it might have been seen, perhaps surrounded by some secrecy, in some Canadian or British aristocrat's personal collection. But now we have another photograph taken in 1894 was a big explanation—one that is startling to deal, glass plate photography being the researcher and the sceptic alike— very time consuming for each that evidence of Bigfoot, including individual photo. Photography for good photos and preserved bodies, the common man took many decades has been gathered but kept a secret. to reach even the Kodak Brownie and "But why?" you ask. Why wouldn't the Hudson's Bay Company just publish its photos and display a mummified Bigfoot to gawking tourists in Toronto? Why would the Canadian government (or American or British) suppress evidence of 2 Bigfoot? Don't we Map of northern Canada, with Rupert’s Land highlighted live in a inpink. (Source: Wikipedia) now Suppressed Evidence Because of my interest in Bigfoot and other hidden animals, I've often been asked the question: "Why isn't there more evidence for Bigfoot than just stories? Where are the photos and where are the dead bodies that Map of northern Canada, with Rupert’s Land highlighted in pink. (Source: Wikipedia) 68 * NEXUS AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 2012 www.nexusmagazine.com