Lake County Bigfooot

Why Sasquatch should Exist,,,

157 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

There are a variety of other ways that one could convince the general scientific community of their existence, but none of them are plausible in the near future. 

 

Back when I was under the assumption that sasquatch are an undiscovered species, I came up with a guess that a type specimen would likely be obtained within the next 50 years. This was a guess that was based on a careful study of the history of the phenomenon. My opinion on this changed after analyses of overlooked data led me to revevalute the issue. Knowledge of legitimate reports of them being shot and killed originally threw me off as it led to the belief that because they’re fallible, and exist in so many areas, the obtaining of a type specimen is inevitable.

 

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, norseman said:

A body MUST be produced.....there is no other way. 

I could not agree more 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A body is the only way to convince the scientists who won't bother to take a closer look for themselves, and who completely and willfully ignore the opinions of those who have (including other scientists). The case for sasquatch is already overwhelmingly obvious.

 

It is therefore a failure on their part not to look, not a failure on our part not to produce, but their failure is no different than the failure of laymen: it stems from an inability of the imagination to grasp the concept that such a creature could simply be so elusive. It is a totally unique phenomenon, we have no other basis for comparison, and people just can't accept that another living creature could be that much better than us at something (at least without the use of technology - which is why people seem to have an easier time accepting the possibility of aliens than bigfoot).

 

Sasquatch will be proven just by us telling people it's worth it to look into it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

14 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

There are a variety of other ways that one could convince the general scientific community of their existence, but none of them are plausible in the near future. 

 

Back when I was under the assumption that sasquatch are an undiscovered species, I came up with a guess that a type specimen would likely be obtained within the next 50 years. This was a guess that was based on a careful study of the history of the phenomenon. My opinion on this changed after analyses of overlooked data led me to revevalute the issue. Knowledge of legitimate reports of them being shot and killed originally threw me off as it led to the belief that because they’re fallible, and exist in so many areas, the obtaining of a type specimen is inevitable.

 

 

I think you have touched on a good point.    Before the P/G film there was little general knowledge in the population about the creature.    Yes we have reports going all the way back to the Vikings in Canada seeing them, which is back a 1000 years.   Smattering of reports in the 1700s and 1800s and even reports of them being shot.  Davy Crockett claimed to have shot one.     But until the film put the question of existence on the table, no one had any reason to keep a body if it was shot.     Many grizzly's have attacked people and no one feels the need, unless they want the skin, to keep anything.   More recently,   with government pretections,  if you shoot a grizzly in self defense,  you have a real tap dance to avoid getting in trouble with the government.  Have to prove somehow you felt your life at risk.   But the P/G film and resulting documentaries raise the question of existence, and that requires someone who shoots one to go to the trouble to recover the body for examination.     That is not an easy thing to do.    And perhaps with a close look,  the human like features, makes it very unlikely that the shooter wants to take responsibility.   He simply gets out of the area or is chased out of the area,  and hopes not to be tied to the shooting.   I wonder how often that has happened?    But someone could stumble on the body?      Maybe if they are quick enough, and BF does not care for its dead.     If BF does care for the dead,   then a body find either from natural death, accident, or shooting is even more unlikely.     Perhaps your 50 years, which is a reasonable guess,   is made invalid by a species that hauls off their dead?      

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A surprisingly wide variety of conventional reasons exist for why we don’t have a specimen. Such explanations partially explain the situation, but allow researchers to be misled into believing that the retrieval of a type specimen is a reasonable possibility. Through assessment of available data, I believe that it can be reasonably determined at a high level that it’s virtually impossible. Such odds would surprise a lot of researchers, especially with the geographical range of sasquatch and the history of incidents that have seemed to come close to a retrieval phase.

 

9 hours ago, ioyza said:

Sasquatch will be proven just by us telling people it's worth it to look into it.

 

There are quite a few scientists (e.g. Dr. Redmond, Dr. Disotell, Dr. Goodall) that have an active interest, but aren’t convinced that sasquatch are biologically real. Their reasons are similar to those of most people, including those of active researchers that participate on this forum. I’m sure that some scientists would find some of the data to be compelling, but I’d question whether most would end up with the belief that sasquatch exist.

 

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

There are quite a few scientists (e.g. Dr. Redmond, Dr. Disotell, Dr. Goodall) that have an active interest, but aren’t convinced that sasquatch are biologically real

 

But there are lines of thought and assessment that their "interest" evidently will not follow. It is a Catch 22 because they will not be convinced UNTIL they follow those lines of thought and assessment. As I mentioned elsewhere, I did email Dr. Jane Goodall's Institute a couple of weeks ago and have yet to hear back. I will more than likely never hear back. Ah well......... 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am a scientist. Just not in this field.I have friends that are and they are inclined to dismiss them with the evidence available for study. I agree with them. 

I do know one paleontologist who says that it is a special animal . Perhaps left over from the prehuman era.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

24 minutes ago, hiflier said:

But there are lines of thought and assessment that their "interest" evidently will not follow. 

 

That’s precisely why I doubt ioyza’s claim that it’s simply a matter of them developing an interest in assessing the data.

 

24 minutes ago, hiflier said:

It is a Catch 22 because they will not be convinced UNTIL they follow those lines of thought and assessment.

 

A Catch-22 implies that the goal itself is a requirement (e.g. needing experience to get a job, but needing a job to get experience)

 

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Perhaps you are right in that but a scientist that has an interest in something will usually do something to satisfy the itch that the interest generates. There is entirely too much fear out there in the science community when it comes to touching ANYTHING Sasquatch. There is no other excuse that makes any sense.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hiflier said:

Perhaps you are right in that but a scientist that has an interest in something will usually do something to satisfy the itch that the interest generates. There is entirely too much fear out there in the science community when it comes to touching ANYTHING Sasquatch. There is no other excuse that makes any sense.

 

Really? How did these 3 fellows get tenure and funding?

 

scientist1.jpgscientist2.jpgscientist3.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Oh, I see. Build these guys up now after a history of tearing them down everywhere else? And what makes you think I had them in mind in the first place? I guess in your book three, two of which are no longer with us, is supposed to account for the thousands of other anthropologists and primatologists that turn a blind eye to the subject? You know very well 99.99999% of science will not touch this subject with a ten foot pole. Dr. Meldrum has a comfortable little niche right pretty much all to himself but will not push this any further. IMHO there is nothing to lose for him at this point by getting tougher on his "interested" peers for not tackling the real issues regarding the PGF.

 

LOL, can you imagine a guy like me in his position? I'd be fired within a week!  "But I'll know my song well before I start sinkin' ". Guess where that line came from ;) 

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not much thought, though I appreciate the fact you were not too bored. Allot of what happens hear is not relevant to the real matter. I pretty much gave up trying to prove to anyone anything. I just am stating very documented facts, if you actually can believe Patty was a hoax, then I surely would like to talk to you concerning a nice piece of wetland I have for sale. I do not say that to insult anyone, but if you actually examine the film, the track way, and that facts surrounding the Patterson Gimlin film, honestly that is, I think you will come to the same conclusion. The standard hoax theory is not only not plausible, when taking the whole into account, it is ludicrous. The film can be tossed into the garbage but the track way alone proves what walked that sand bar that day, and no human could have faked, or produced those tracks, much less in some hitherto unknown suit fabrication that would rival anything but CG today. And sorry I am a bit passionate about my opinion on that matter, and I do realize ilk is spelled ilk, not elk. Maybe that is subliminal to the supposed elk butt that stole some apples from a muddy barrow somewhere else down the road. Really, it takes some real bias to not one sit up and take notice to the reality of the foot print evidence, which alone proves this creature exists, no film or body is needed.

 

Again my statement here is simple, it does exist because something would naturally fill the role of hunter and gatherer that we have vacated, something of similar intelligence.

Edited by Lake County Bigfooot
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scientist4.jpgscientist5.jpgscientist6.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The fact that we cannot find it, or prove it, is exactly why it exists, because it can. Maybe you see that as circular reasoning, well call the kettle black then. Some reason it cannot exist because we should have found one or filmed one. Well some would certainly argue the Minnesota man was the real deal, though lost to further study. That was the conclusion of some decent scientific minds who initially examined the body. Jacko, though considered to be a fabricated story by many is another example, not to mention those more recent studies of semi human like creatures whose relatives still exist. I only can see that evidence is not as scant as some suggest, quite to the contrary, it is pretty extensive in pointing towards its actual existence. Just piecing together the decent unarguable examples would point to its reality.

 

 

  • Tracks
  • Historical Knowledge
  • Eyewitnesses
  • Film
  • Scat
  • Hair
  • Maybe now some decent evidence of nesting behavior
Edited by Lake County Bigfooot
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

People generally find the evidence compelling, but not convincing. A lot of the evidence requires either psychoanalysis of witnesses or analysis of costume design. Such controversial forms of analysis aren’t accepted by mainstream biology even though they’re valid ways of vetting data for the purpose of conducting biological science. With a type specimen or DNA, one goes about it a traditional and uncontroversial manner. 

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites