If You Were A Sasquatch How Would You Do It ?

[Guest]

If I were a Sasquatch, I would give up and turn myself into John Cartwright.

[Guest tracker]

Yea but then they would be forced to listen to all your old stories and eat your cooking John C. Better for them to remain free.

[Guest DWA]

OK, the recent threads here on BFF are REALLY getting bad.  Scoftic Wasting Disease may require us to shoot the whole bunch.  So let's have some fun with this. You guys' fault, not mine.

 

On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2010 at 9:23 PM, Guest said:

[snip snip snipperoo...]...

...I would like your opinion on what you think is happening: For populations of a large primate to continue to remain aloof from scientific verification.

They're living their life; getting seen apparently a lot; but totally safe because so many people are eager to make up reasons they couldn't exist.  Unless somebody, you know, gets real lucky and pops one.  Keep in mind that most hunters, knowing that their local hunting regulations make killing anything illegal that isn't called out by name, know they can't shoot.  And then that, as the encounter literature points out, all the rest have other good reasons not to shoot which they have clearly laid out.

What mechanisms are going on that allow this to happen ?????????????????

 

Denial.  People willing to erect cotton-candy castles of fancy that say that an ape can't exist.  A silly old ape.  CAN'T exist.  I'd be feeling pretty fat dumanhappy were I Mr. Sas at this moment. Because most people in our society are science-impaired enough to believe the cotton-candy castle-spinners.

 

Are they so rare that 90 percent of the reports or MORE are bogus ?

 

No.  The encounter literature alone indicates a secure continent-wide population.  And NONE OF THE REPORTS ARE BOGUS that have not been PROVEN TO BE.  Sorry, I like to put in the occasional all-caps for the Reading Impaired.

 

Are 90 percent or more of the ones that claim observations full of it ?

 

Not until YOU PROVE IT, bubbeleh.  It is a foundational scientific giggamoroo (technical term) that if there is no reason to believe a report unreliable, one cannot discount it.  NOTE TO THE READING IMPAIRED:  this does NOT mean that you personally have to accept sasquatch as real.  You are allowed to continue being wronger than flat-earth. It's just that you can't say that the witness is wrong without good reason to suspect that, what we call evidence, we who get the science thing.

 

Are these creatures so good at camo that they can just remain amongst us somehow and not get caught by camera ? vid ? Or keep their DNA away from possible collection devices ?

These babboos are flat DNA HOARDERS, BUDDY.  They petri-dish this stuff out in dribs and drabs to THEIR OWN, never mind us'uns.  And just try picking it up on a Sunday packed with NFL.  Not only that, who knows where to place a camera?  See, the Indians taught us to hunt pretty much everything.  But this, mainly I'll bet, and you should, too, because when they told us we weren't listening.  There is also evidence that some *other* species, e.g., alpha coyotes on their territories, avoid game cams as well.  It is likely that sasquatch notice cameras because we know practically everything ELSE does.  Them being smarter, count on that, than the entire current political leadership of the planet including You Know Where Especially, I'll leave y'all to do the 2+2.

 

Quote

 

So what is it that allows them to continue, universally across their range (presumably Alaska east down to Florida and perhaps into Mexico and possibly south. AND apparently range into Asia ? What is up ?

DENIAL.  Old story.  Denial is so powerful that it can *even hide this.* When one adds to that an animal that might be every bit as elusive as deer and turkey, maybe even wolverine, well, Good Luck Science!

First attempt at a topic...pardon if not in style with standard procedure...

Nein problemo, brah.  You kept me quite entertained.  Thanks!

Edited June 15, 2017 by DWA