Leaderboard

Actually what I see is that we puny, big brained, naked apes are actually the ones that don't fit the mold. We are the odd man out, so to speak.

There are some attributes that they probably share with other elusive animals that help them survive and stay undiscovered. But if we look at each of these individual attributes alone it wouldn't be enough. Elusiviness: Cougars are elusive but are known to exist, though they aren't seen by many. Population density: Wolverines have low population densities and are also elusive. Black bears have larger densities than wolverines but still less than many other animals. Large individual home ranges: Wolverines again as well as male cougars. This with lower population densities makes them very hard to find within any given area. Isolated habitat: Which is the reason for the other great apes late discoveries by Europeans. But as evidenced by LCB's urban bigfoot that doesn't seem to be the case with BF. Human avoidance: Many animals do this. But this can be overcome if none of the animal's senses have detected us. That's the reason hunters can be successful. It's probably one of the reasons why some bigfoot sightings occur. I say one of the reasons; another is a conscious choice on their part to reveal themselves. In North America the wolverine has all the above listed attributes. But, that didn't keep them undiscovered. So if bigfoot exists, which is the point of this discussion it has something more than the above attributes; because as we can see that doesn't keep something undiscovered. Population density is the main 'go to' for bigfoot not being categorized. Along with that is the statement that they are close to or are already extinct. That is simply an excuse. It doesn't work for the wolverine or any of the other great apes. And it doesn't fit the sighting databases which cover all of North America and beyond. It doesn't fit what I or others have found or seen recently, which says they are present in the habitat currently. So with such a large species' range it would require a viable population. One thing I can't say is whether that population is increasing or decreasing. Finally, to the point. I happen to think they are flesh and blood creatures. So what attribute would set them apart from the animals mentioned above. Intelligence. Big argument I know because they don't use technology. But technology is a manifestation of our intelligence. Another manifestation of intelligence is the ability to remain undetected. Some Native Americans were able to do it when they saw that's what it took to survive. Aboriginal people of Australia were able to do it for the same reasons. Native tribes in South America were able to do it and some may still be. Even Japanese on the Pacific islands after WW2 were able to stay hidden. The funny thing is that the discovery of many of the above happened after they chose to come in of their own accord. Who knows, maybe sasquatch will do the same someday...

I never expected or would have thought I would have such an emotional, "fight or flight" reaction, and MINE was to flee. Then again, it was 3am and I was never expecting at that exact moment I would actually run into one right then. Almost immediately, I had to intentionally stop and remember every piece of it because it seemed too surreal. To this day, I have a fragmented memory of it. I see "still images" in my mind of it as it happened, interspersed with a single segment of it in motion running off the road onto the shoulder and disappearing into the trees. I really thought I'd be in better, more full control of my faculties and emotions were I ever to have an encounter. It just didn't work out that way. It took until nearly 5:30am before I could calm down, relax and finally lay down and try to go to sleep. I was back up for the day about 3 or 4 hours later. It certainly gave me a new point of view to relating to witnesses whom I had interviewed and would go on to interview who were so emotionally rattled by their experiences.

Perhaps the most compelling argument concerning both the validity of eyewitness accounts as well as it being a flesh and blood creature is the geographical correlation of sightings. The oft repeated fact that almost exclusively Sasquatch sightings occur in areas with annual rainfall exceeding 18" defies hysteria and hoaxing, as well a a supernatural origin. This is a creature that probably was primarily a rain forest type creature that has adapted to multiple environments, but yet still requires a certain amount of what wet forested areas providing in terms of cover and food. While reports rarely come outside of that geographical region, it almost always only occurs near rivers that provide an alternative wet flood plain type habitat, say along the Platte in Nebraska, rare but possible. If Sasquatch were of some other origin I am quite sure that this would not hold true. One need only note that sightings generally have a geographical relevance to water sources and food sources. Much like the range of the black bear in the United States and Canada.

When I look at the people involved in the Skookum cast and compare what I know about their specific interests and qualifications, then weigh that against the lack of comparable qualifications on the part of people doing the criticizing (and even scoffing) and the outright foolishness many of the "opponent" counter-explanations, for the time being, I will stick with it being as-claimed, a bigfoot lay. (Randy - I think your interpretation as a possible prank adds an interesting twist, certainly within the realm of possibility and more than adequate to nullify most criticisms.) At this point, given the lack of relevant qualifications among the people doing the scoffing, about the only thing that would change my mind on this is if Thom Powell, Rick Noll, and Derek Randles all came forward to say they made a mistake, explain their mistake, and offer a better counter explanation. MIB