Leaderboard

I saw my first Sasquatch at 10 when I used to explore a bunch of small old minning camps around the town. The second was camping with a group of friends. I moved up to the mountains at around 25. Lived and worked as a logger, tracker for search and rescue for the Forest Service, road maint for the same, heavy equip for the same. Retired in the Rockies.

True, I suppose. "Is Bigfoot real"? To answer that, one must define "Bigfoot". To some, it must be a new species. Period. Otherwise, even if you drag a huge, hairy creature out of the woods and its DNA is determined to be homo sapien, it is not "Bigfoot". As absolute proof of that, I point out the Zana affair. All the people who knew her referred to her as an almas. Today, after DNA analysis, there are people willing to argue until the end of time that Zana was not an almas, even though there is absolutely no reason why a homo sapien cannot also be an almas, or vice versa. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almas_(folklore)#:~:text=In North Caucasian folklore%2C an,Altai Mountains of western Mongolia.

^ Interesting discussion, but I'm pretty sure that the intent of the OP wasn't to dissolve into a PGf debate. (which is my favorite sub-topic of the over-all Sasquatch discussion, second only perhaps to details of reputable encounters). If someone I trusted, family or not, told me that they definitely saw a Sasquatch, I would believe them. The details of their encounter would be very important to me and I would weigh that into my level of belief considering that hoaxes do occur, as do misidentifications.

I probably need to immerse myself in the full timeline thread to get my head around the criticality of the issues to the robustness of the story - and this may be an unpopular opinion - but I currently find myself in the following camp (although this can and probably will change over time): The film comes first - in that if you attain the point where you realize to all intents and purposes it's practically impossible for the film to be hoaxed, the intricacies of the story points around it are somewhat secondary. It's clear that we would all have liked the right questions to have been asked at the time, and we may never get the whole story straight - but if it's virtually impossible that these question and gaps are anything to do with a hoax, they probably don't materially change the fact that Patty was real.

HA! just got a Down Vote, that took 2 minutes! Kind of sad that this site doesn't require identity of the "voters"