• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

975 Legendary

About DWA

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Hiking/backpacking/x-c skiing, just being outdoors and animals in general. Interested in the science of this topic, not the sideshows

Contact Methods

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1,930 profile views
  1. And THIS is why I will never understand all the assumptions people make about topics like sasquatch. What we don't know is what we don't know YET. How many centuries have we had people and badgers and cattle in the American West. And here it was 2017 and we didn't know this. Yet. I have little doubt that one could get more than one very interesting story from miners or loggers on private land. Or from people who found "cow bones" or "upright bears" on construction sites and were told, if you stay employed here it's because you didn't give those to anybody.
  2. Well, one has to take the picture and then get the picture to someone who can follow up technically. (And will; and that is very unlikely unless one knows the key players.) If one hasn't been thoroughly exposed to this subject, one might consider both things either impossible or extremely difficult. I don't believe it pays to underrate the shock experienced by an encounter with something one absolutely knew wasn't real; people have failed to remember cameras literally sitting in their laps, among other things. Not to mention that the vast majority of encounters I have read would almost certainly not have allowed a decent photo, even if the witness had a camera more or less ready (and for almost everyone that's more "less" than "more;") and dead ones are almost certainly almost never going to be seen compared to deer, from the likely population figures alone. I don't think the most robust viable population would consist of more individuals over a given area of optimum range than we find with mountain lions or grizzlies, just from what evidence leads me to believe about ecological role, diet and habits. And for all intents and purposes, we *don't* find those animals dead in the wild; almost everyone who does is studying them; and of course anyone finding one knows that the society accepts them as real and won't be ridiculed for reporting them. In general, the way I prefer to look at this appears different from the way most do. My approach is: what kind of world would have to exist for all of this to be a false positive? In my lifetime, the only things that have the pattern of evidence we have for sasquatch and yeti are animals we've confirmed as real. With these exceptions. I ask: why the exceptions? I've never seen an answer that scans logically. So my question would be: why don't we know about this animal? And there are all kinds of totally reasonable explanations. Most especially for why we don't - and again that is only *that we know of*, and people have reported it - find dead ones.
  3. Anyone who thinks "most likely a hoax" would have to give me an explanation.
  4. Oh. Oh. VERY findable. Know how many bigfoot trackways have been found? Thousands, and that's just the ones that have been reported. (Mine is one of the unreported ones.)
  5. Quoting evidence cinches my case. There are no elk tracks where they must be in the Skookum Cast for that to be an elk. And what would you know about the BFRO? I'm not trusting anybody who seems to think elk levitate, personally.
  6. My experience is that sasquatch track finds are in total keeping with how many animal tracks are out there in general. I spend a lot of time outside, and as a rule, you don't see tracks. And then there's the BFRO crew that found tracks in the snow at night. They returned the next day to find an SUV parked right in the trackway, its occupants playing in the snow outside. Not one had noticed the tracks. Which it has been proven it cannot be. Oh. OK. As quaint as belief without evidence is, I am too much a skeptic to go for it.
  7. It's not logical to look at any species for which evidence is clearly lacking. Elk? Rule it out, bingo. I am not sure how people can continue to fail to get that THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD MAKE ELK A POSSIBILITY - four tracks smack in the center of the cast, where they'd have to be for the animal to get up - IS NOT IN THE CAST. Bear? Nope. Lion? Nope. Wolverine shrew-mole mountain beaver human etc., nope. No evidence in the cast. Evidence of large hairy hominoid? PRETTY MUCH THE WHOLE CAST. Plus much evidence - from actual observation of actual large anthropoids, in zoos - that they do precisely what the animal allegedly leaving the imprint was allegedly doing. Follow evidence. Anything else? Snipe hunt. P.S. I fail to get how anyone can be unmoved by one of the more prominent anthropologists and primate specialists of the past century going from skeptic to proponent on the basis of this cast alone. Him over you.
  8. Most of us use a witness's track record as evidence for/against. On that score, we have hundreds if not thousands of unimpeachable reports. I don't see a deer every time out. If you see a bigfoot every time out...you are gonna have to show me.
  9. "If you see one, throw crap at it. They hate that." "Where am I gonna find crap? Even in the woods there isn't a whole lot of crap around." "You see one...there'll be PLENTY of crap around." Get those clothes off fast.
  10. Sure. If evidence suggests a hoax. But it's not rational to assume hoaxing as a possible reason for all this evidence. And contrary to popular belief, the *least likely* cause is the oft-cited "hoaxes hallucinations and honest misidentifications." The odds against various causes coming together to add up to what we're seeing are far longer than if one postulates only one possible cause. You simply are not going to get the consistency we see with a whole bunch of random generators. The consistency says: either one agency is causing all these false positives...or they point to the thing to which they appear to point. We're still talking about P/G being a hoax, when no one has been able to postulate a means by which humans could have done it. "Easy: guy made a suit and put in footprints" isn't an explanation, any more than "the sun's a heatlamp that NASA put up there" is. One has to show, in detail, HOW it could have been done.
  11. Oh, hoaxing is insignificant. It is only dwelt upon by those unfamiliar with the breadth and depth of the evidence. It's not worth considering.
  12. I don't know why this continually needs to be mentioned but it continually does: throwing out a bunch of possibilities, with no evaluation of their likelihood - and I'm with WSA right down the line on the likelihood of the human-generated causes mentioned - says nothing asserts nothing proves nothing. And is actually inadmissible in the absence of clear evidence that the speculated possibility actually happened. Occam's Razor applies better to ruling out those causes than it does sasquatch, as the "simplest explanation" has to be an expected occurrence in the actual real world.
  13. I may even have posted it on this thread but I am aware of three of which this is one.