Leaderboard

I was pleasantly surprised last night, at my wife's big family dinner, when my oldest bro-in-law, a retired school principal, responded very positively to my mention of the subject. We got into a fairly lengthy discussion, where he brought up the question of what I thought it might be; neanderthal offshoot, G.Blacki, unknown primate, or what. Turns out he's been following the recent developments in dna testing of ancient fossil finds, like Denisova and Floresiensis, and is genuinely curious. Who knew? In general, I'm not shy about broaching the subject to anyone, as I'm old enough (70) to not give a crap about what anyone thinks of my mental state, nor is it likely to affect my career, being semi-retired, working at what I please, when I please. I guess that's one advantage of being an old fart!

I had this very discussion with Thomas Steenburg (in Search of Giants) over coffee this afternoon. In his extensive research in Alberta, he has come across several sightings of very tall creatures in the Bighorn Dam region, spanning several decades, then ending abruptly in the mid '80s. His first thought on this is that some of the sightings were from a point of view lower than the animal, and that angle could make the figure appear taller. The fact that the reports of extreme height ended in the '80s, with no more anomalous reports since, could also indicate that one or more very tall individuals really did inhabit the area, then died out, or went to even more remote areas, avoiding further encounters. BTW, Thomas' 30+ years of research, mostly in print and audio formats, is in the process of being converted to digital files, and will soon be appearing online at his new website, Thomassteenburg.com , starting in the early part of the new year.

Since I do mostly solo field work I am very cognizant of people going missing in my research area. Since I started doing field work all the missing who were never found are women. That could be pure chance but might indicate women alone are in greater danger. But the reality of it is women alone are more in danger in the city too from humans. That certainly could carry over in the woods from both human and animal threats. I am only concerned about risk in my research area, what happens hundreds of miles away is probably not applicable. Having been a military aviator I am used to accepting some risk, so unless something changes I feel the drive to my research area is more risky than on foot in the field. There have been dozens killed on the road in the area in the same time frame. In any endeavor there is always some risk. Our bathtubs are dangerous too.

There seems to be an inadequate understanding of what it means to prove something, in mathematics, in science, in jurisprudence, in life. Instead, we get this somehow Platonic notion of "Proof." Sasquatch has been proven to me to exist, (generating a psychological state), and to many others (DWA for instance). The evidence and arguments used to prove it to us are varied. Most pass scientific muster, are logical, are statistical, are the most parsimonious, and would be publishable if the scientific process were not so dysfunctional. The work that a number of folks have been involved with around ratio of bone lengths is hard science, and can be justified based on basic anthopological, anatomcal, and statistical grounds. It alone should prove to anyone with the basic scientific understanding, and a willingness to examine evidence in an open minded fashion, that Sasquatch is a real animal. Not all will accept the extent proofs, and come up with far from believable alternative explanations for the evidence. As I like to day, "evidence free" assertions - some quite fanciful. Not all will even review the existing evidence carefully enough, with an open enough mind, to understand it. Fanciful stuff: a legion of costumed hoaxers a legion of fake track makers, in the most absurd places for a hoaxer multiple witnesses all sharing the same hallucination collaboration amongst thousands of story tellers on obscure details to get consistency stilts impossible limb extensions belief that such an animal could not exist belief that such an animal could not stay hidden (surprise, they don't, all of the time) belief that it is easy to find hidden animals in the woods belief that the terrain could not support a large omnivore belief that bones, and bodies of rare animals are easy to find belief that it must have been a bear belief that thermal images throwing nightime rock throwing are not compelling evidence .... You can even be a fence sitter on the Skookum Cast and still be blessed with vast amounts of compelling evidence. There is only one explanation which really honors the evidence, and makes sense - Sasquatch is a real animal. Parsimony and logic!