• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

458 Outstanding!

About OntarioSquatch

  • Rank
    Skunk Ape
  • Birthday 01/25/1994

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Scientific advancement

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?

Recent Profile Visitors

3,243 profile views
  1. It depends a lot on what exactly Sasquatch are.
  2. There's no true proof in science like there is in mathematics. Everything in science is open to interpretation, and even though we have common consensuses within acadamia, our understanding of reality ultimately comes down to person opinion. What's evidence to one person might not be evidence to another. The strength of evidence is subjective as well. With that in mind, it would make sense to explain to others in detail what you would consider as evidence before asking them for it.
  3. Properly trying to match one's understanding of reality with reality is a matter of striving for the most logical explanation, not the "simplest". There's no guarantee that the explanation you go with will be easy for others to understand or that it'll have a certain level of accuracy. Due to the potential for human error, practicing skepticism and remaining unbiased can be critical to success. Accepting incorrect explanations because there doesn't appear to be anything better is one of the biggest mistakes that people often make in this field of research.
  4. Over 99% of reported visual encounters involve people who didn't have an active interest in this subject prior to their encounter. Investigators who go out to establish visual contact tend to be no more successful than the average person who's taking part in a common outdoor activity. Not surprisingly, when it comes to indentifying evidence such as tracks, tree breaks, structures, and other environmental manipulations, people with an active interest in this subject tend to be more successful. The majority of encounters that people have are non-visual and the majority of them are never reported to any organization. A lot of these unreported encounters aren't even correctly identified as being Sasquatch activity, and that's due to the ambiguity of the experiences.
  5. Scientists are used to working with data that can be verified through replication. They currently don't have a way to observe Sasquatch consistently enough to collect visual information that can be replicated to their satisfaction. In other words, the entity is currently too elusive for mainstream science from a visual perspective. To use reports and evidence such as the Patterson film, the information needs to go through sophisticated analysis just to verify its authenticity. This is basically vetting the data through analysis instead of replication, and it's not something scientists in this day and age would spend time trying to do. This is a phenomenon that isn't observable enough for mainstream science, but is consistent enough for people to know that there is likely something to it. A type specimen can change this, but obtaining one is more difficult than almost anyone can imagine. If you go through reports, you'll notice there are almost no observations of dead Sasquatch. To give a rough estimate; you're thousands of times more likely to have a visual encounter with a live Sasquatch than come across a dead one. The odds of obtaining a specimen through known hunting methods are similarly low due to elusiveness, potential interference from other Sasquatch, and a potential government coverup. While the incredibly slim possibility of obtaining a specimen still exists, the most likely way their existence will be widely accepted is through disclosure from a government. I'll say this: the US government knows they exist, and has collected physical evidence of them in the past. By now they must have learned what they are and also how the phenomenon originates.
  6. People's perception of conspiracy theories and unusual phenomenon will change dramatically in the near future. Right now society is in a phase where people are being kept in the dark on some very big secrets that have incredibly dramatic implications. As far as the coverup on Sasquatch goes, it's important to understand that it's in the subcategory of something far bigger. I think if people knew what they are and how they came to be, they'd be much more understanding of why things have turned out the way they did throughout history and why it's been kept a secret for so long.
  7. Some researchers can believe that Sasquatch exist in almost every state and province, yet when it comes to "urban" reports, they draw a line that they will never cross. Fortunately, there are BFRO ivestigators that are willing to look into such reports. I know that a lot of people would simply dismiss them and focus on what they think is a "remote" area (in the central and southern states ). Anyway, I think it's important to carefully read the descriptions that witnesses provide and try not to stretch it too much, even if it contradicts preconceived notions.
  8. Bill Munns accurately calculated the arm length to height ratio of the Patterson FIlm subject and found that there are basketball players with that same ratio. A few of them even surpass it http://www.thesportster.com/basketball/top-15-most-impressive-wingspans-in-nba-history/
  9. Many of the people on forums who claim to have had encounters are simply fabricating their stories for attention and also so that they can feel they have authority on the subject. They act as if their experience somehow gave them incredible insight, when in reality, real eyewitnesses are often left totally confused by their experience. A lot of the so-called researchers on this forum are constantly contradicting the experiences of legitimate witnesses. Anyway, I think it’s important to understand that visual encounters, although they are first hand experiences, are actually very limited data compared to what a person can get through investigating reports. Just carefully analyzing reports and evidence such as the Patterson film is enough to give an investigator more insight into the subject than any single real life encounter.
  10. I've never once heard of a good instance where someone actually had a Sasquatch telepathically communicate with them. It's a similar case with concepts of non-biological Sasquatch; the available data not only doesn't support these ideas, but it also totally contradicts them. From what I've seen so far, it's always been attention-seeking hoaxers (often fake habituators and fake researchers) who try to support these ideas.
  11. One of the most useful skills to have when studying this subject is the ability to effectively analyze the validity of individual reports through both psychological analysis and comparisons to certain trends or patterns that aren't commonly known. No matter how hard a person tries to make their fake report appear legitimate, there's almost always multiple things that can give it away. Likewise, it's possible to tell that a witness is telling the truth even if they exaggerate certain aspects and include "fantastical" things into their report. On an ideal forum, this would be something worth discussing in great depth, but given the large number of fake researchers that fabricate their encounters for attention and try to live a little online fantasy, it's likely not a good idea. On another note, I think it's important that researchers understand that the public data they get from organizations like the BFRO is biased. Although the majority of reports they've made available are legitimate, there's a problem in that they pick which reports to investigate and publish based on their own preconceived notions when they don't really understand the subject. At the same time, they don't make the rest of the reports available. This has led to researchers getting a limited view of what's really happening. If any researcher is serious about making progress, they should consider looking into reports outside the public databases of organizations such as the BFRO, as it may lead to new insight that would be very difficult to get from biased sets of data.
  12. I found these two reports from Ohio to be very interesting. They both took place in the late 1980's and both of them involve the observation of white Sasquatch http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=14646 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=878
  13. Evolution is driven by environmental stress and random mutations over a long period of time. It's a difficult process and it has notable limitations. From an evolutionary point of view, there are two very major problems with the concept of Sasquatch: One is the absurd number of extreme adaptations that are hypothesized. There's a slight possibility that a great ape could develop a trait such as night vision or cold-weather resistance or a strength to bodyweight ratio that's bordering on unnatural, but not all of them simultaneously. It's just not in the realm of possibility when you factor in everything. The other problem is that there isn't even sufficient need for a great ape to develop any of such characteristics. There's no need for an ape to come out of Africa and enter incredibly harsh climates in a such short period of time or for them to be as fast and powerful as they apparently are or for them to be so cautious when they've supposedly been at the top of the food chain. In other words, their characteristics don't fit our understanding of evolution given what we know of the environments of Africa, Asia and North America. Sadly, people in this field of research think it's all possible. Why? Because they see the entity and that's led to them jumping onto the relic hominid bandwagon. Kudos to anyone who can see through it.
  14. Reports of encounters prior to the 1900’s often describe Sasquatch as not being very elusive or evasive. In just less than 100 years, there’s been a dramatic change in their mentality; the ones that people report seeing nowadays are unbelievably paranoid compared what is being described in older reports. Their numbers today aren’t exactly most people’s idea of "small". There are still legitimate reports coming from nearly every state and province here in North America with some of the most credible reports coming from unusual areas like woods that are surrounded by urbanization or desert areas where there’s almost no vegetation to use as cover. If you take the time to carefully look at the big picture, you’ll notice that much of what's commonly attributed to Sasquatch contradicts known science. The biggest contradictions of all are to well-supported theories in evolutionary science. One might claim that our understanding of evolution is flawed, but the reality is that it’s not flawed to any significant extent. It seems like most experienced researchers can at the very least tell they’re missing some important pieces to the puzzle, but to this day, most them don’t have the slightest clue as to what it might be. Many people are still left with this question: What exactly are Sasquatch? To many, it’s not even a real biological entity, let alone an undiscovered ape that’s roaming their backyard in Chicago.
  15. MIB, I can't blame you for making those assumptions. Just two years ago I would have said those exact same things to anyone making the claims I'm making now. The fact of the matter is we all have our own interpretations of the data and these interpretations often change over time; often becoming more accurate. When I first learned of the connection with the UFO phenomenon and the reality behind the DNA of purported biological samples of Sasquatch, I knew right away that it would be met with criticism, but it's not enough to keep me from trying to put light on this key aspect of the phenomenon. Also, I'm aware of the long history of failed predictions in the various fringe fields of research. I wouldn't be claiming there's going to be disclosure on the alien phenomenon if I wasn't completely confident about it. Whether or not it'll happen in January is something I can't guarantee, but I know for fact that high-ranking people inside the US government are currently following a disclosure plan and that so far, they've been interested in getting an announcement made by the current president. We'll see what happens with it.