Not only do you have some work to do in providing acceptable evidence for Bigftoot, but now someone needs to explain clearly to me how you get a Bigfoot relative out of Native American legends about stone giants.
As is the way of amateur research and investigation groups (ARIGS), they will present their research to the public as if it holds scientific cachet.
On April 12, the Poland library hosted an event put on by the Genoskwa Project, a group devoted to proving the existence of Bigfoot. The four-hour event featured researchers sharing stories of sightings, displaying foot casts of Bigfoot, and photos, audio and video of Bigfoot evidence. A question and answer period followed the event. “The word Genoskwa is a Native American term,” Genoskwa Project co-founder Dan Baker said. “It means ‘stonish giants.’ We think the reason for that is because the Genoskwa would go and they would mud and dirt into their fur and when it dried, it would turn hard and make it look like stone.
This group appears to characterize Genoskwa is as a larger, more aggressive relation of Bigfoot (a pseudo-fact that travels around the internet). The Native legend and lore (Iroquois and the Seneca) are the basis for this belief; the 10 ft giants attack and kill prey including decapitation, and possible even account for raids on villages where they took humans away.
So, from these stories of mythical proportion, the group displays “evidence” of Bigfoot, none of which is definitive of a Bigfoot let alone a connection to the animal of legend (which had no doubt a considerable spiritual component). The Genoskwa project say they take a scientific view of the Bigfoot subject. But frankly, it’s not at all scientific to speculate the behavior and characteristics of a hypothetical real animal based on ancient legend.
What I see of the Genoskwa is repeated without source material. That should be fixed if they wish to have the story even considered as serious research material. More importantly, are there reports of bigfoot with armor-like skin? What is the basis to even suggest the Genoskwa is real and not just a native story. Interpretations such as this are shot through with pitfalls and unwarranted assumptions.
The evidence for Bigfoot is very weak. Is it reasonable to extrapolate ANOTHER mystery creature based on legend? This is a great story, a myth. It is baseless to portray it as real to the public who have a tendency to believe things with REALLY lame and highly disputable evidence just because it sounds kind of cool.
And here is a pro tip: Whenever you see a research group (for whatever kind of paranormal or mystery claim) say they are dedicated to “PROVE” something exists, turn the other way and leave. That is an unscientific and amateurish belief-based approach fraught with bias.