So Called "myth"

[Guest rockinkt]

I have had two sightings. The first was daytime and close up. The second was at night with a full moon, close up too and this myth stood there for 15 minutes. The next question is - Have you ever looked?

Please define "looked".

I never went into the bush specifically looking for sasquatch - but I do observe the flora a fauna through which I travel while not forgetting to always scan for animal sign such as tracks and scat. Does that count?

[Guest rockinkt]

I personally think Crowlogic's view makes sense. Its not a matter of "proof," its a matter of probability.

What's the probability that a large bipedal ape is living all across North America in 2010 that mysterious avoids trail cameras, highway collisions, hunters, substrate generally suitable for leaving lots of tracks, and otherwise just doesn't leave any sign of its existance that can clearly be documented? I submit that the probability is low. Not impossible, but less than 50%.

On the other hand, what's the probability that Native Americans and early settlers described a creature with very specific and unique physical traits and habits that were commonly noted across vastly different cultural traditions, and furthermore traits that were overwealmingly ape-like, where most of the eye-witinesses involved wouldn't have any independant knowledge of what an ape is or what one looks like? Is it more likely that Native Americans and settlers were basing their observations on something they actually observed, that they were having some sort of genetically encoded memory flare up based on some ancient encounter an extinct ape had with humanity thousands of years ago, or that they were just all making it up and it was a chain of conisidences mixed with "snowballing" of traditions that the accounts were so similar? I submit the first possibility is more likely. The latter two options aren't impossible, but I find them less likely.

So what's left? It makes more sense to me that the reason Native American and early settler accounts of sasquatch share so many common traits with each other and with apes is because the first eyewitnesses were in fact seeing a real creature, the same type of creature, and a creature that is ultimately some sort of ape. But it also makes sense to me that the reason physical evidence isn't there in recent decades is because there are no sasquatches now to leave the evidence.

Forgetting the fact that historical sasquatch and bigfoot legends (as we understand present day squatches and biggies to be) are not continent wide or really that similar or common amongst all the various tribal nations; what makes you believe that Native Americans could not have heard stories about monkey or monkey/human like creatures from others? Stories travel along with trade.

[Guest rockinkt]

I think there is plenty more people who have not told there story, and they are not that hard to find in certain areas, once they know you are open and investigating the subject. After discovery, it's anyones guess, but I don't think people will report their sightings in the same way people would if they were trying to save a lost panda.

There seem to be a heck of a lot of reported sightings that are so crazy - even the BFRO won't touch them.

Now add those obviously crazy reports to the ones that are accepted and then add up all the reports that are given to the other organizations and I bet you will come up with a number in the thousands.

Seems to me like there are thousands of people willing to report an alleged sighting to complete strangers.

Thousands of sightings - no valid physical evidence.

Edited September 10, 2010 by rockinkt

[Doc Holliday]

Seems to me like there are thousands of people willing to report an alleged sighting to complete strangers.

yes,there is that element,but,id wager that many more fly under the radar & never report ...IMHO.

[Guest]

yes,there is that element,but,id wager that many more fly under the radar & never report ...IMHO.

You think "many thousands" have seen, but not reported their bigfoot encounters?

[Guest]

I never went into the bush specifically looking for sasquatch - but I do observe the flora a fauna through which I travel while not forgetting to always scan for animal sign such as tracks and scat. Does that count?

YES, it counts. The same goes for the thousands of other people in the field each year, in habitats and geographic locations believed by some to harbor bigfoots, who are in those areas and perfectly capable of returning with a clear photo, a jawbone, etc. As far as we know over the last several centuries of exploration on this continent, no one has done that. Apparently, no indigenous people were ever lucky enough to do that either, or if they did, they didn't keep any of the pieces for themselves.

[southernyahoo]

People find bones, hairs, tracks, broken limbs you name it. That doesn't mean they are treating those finds like a forensic case and following through like an investigation to see what exactly left these things. They are satisfied with their assumptions.

[Guest Strick]

I don't think there's any evidence to suppose that Sasquatch went extinct around the 1970's.

I know there was an explosion of non-native reports at this time, from areas where the creatures had not previously been reported to any extent. However, it was my belief that the Native-American mythological accounts had always been continent-wide, though I'm willing to stand corrected on that one.

I think there's no evidence to suppose that the native and early settler accounts were based upon better physical evidence than those presented today.

[Guest Bob]

Bob, thanks for your short and frank answer. I want to thank you for joining here and there are some of us that are in the same "boat" as you. I wasn't even looking for the **** thing, they found us on our property. As a warning, I will tell you there are a few here that want to take everyone that has an experience to task or may even come very close to calling you a lier. (hopefully staying in the rules) I am here to say, don't let those few bother you becuase there are more jumping into our boat all of the time.

Hmm, LOOKS LIKE WE MIGHT NEED A BIGGER BOAT!!

Thanks kbhunter…to clarify my position here on the BFF, I have been a member here for over a year. I am not sure what happened but my account was closed or lost? I have posted well over 100 times here and have started a few threads of my own. I know about the potential friction that can evolve between certain members. I look at it like this: When I joined the BFF, I had no personal experiences with BF. After my two sightings and many other close indirect contacts with BF I realized that there are two different kinds of people in Bigfootery….There are the ones who have seen one for themselves and the ones who have not. I also realize that there is absolutely nothing that I can say or do to convince the “have not’s†that they are really there. I am no longer intimidated by skeptics. They simply have not been given the gift of knowledge in this matter. Having said this, I don’t look down at the “have not’s†because I was there myself just a year ago. Like I said in my reply “ My second sighting lasted for 15 minutes. We were less than 75 feet apart. We both were in the open. Both of us stood there looking at each other. I saw that there was a sentient being looking back at me. After a few minutes he began to sway from side to side and look away from time to time. He began to move away and then got down on all four legs and ran away. It was the most fantastic experience of my life.

[Guest Bob]

Please define "looked".

I never went into the bush specifically looking for sasquatch - but I do observe the flora a fauna through which I travel while not forgetting to always scan for animal sign such as tracks and scat. Does that count?

Yes your experience does count.

In my case, I was uncertain about their existence until I actually went out in to the field and looked for myself. I got lucky I guess because I picked a very active location. Luck played in to my experience but that doesn’t diminish it in any way. I realize there is nothing I can say to convince anyone about BF. All I ask is…don’t be so sure.

[Guest Bullfrog]

Forgetting the fact that historical sasquatch and bigfoot legends (as we understand present day squatches and biggies to be) are not continent wide or really that similar or common amongst all the various tribal nations; what makes you believe that Native Americans could not have heard stories about monkey or monkey/human like creatures from others? Stories travel along with trade.

Native American interpretations the basic "nature" of Sasquatch-type creatures differ, but the descriptions of them in terms of appearance and some behavioral traits are fairly universal.

I don't assert that its impossible that Native Americans heard stories about monkeys or monkey-like creatures from others. Almost anything is possible. But I find it unlikely. What really are the chances that Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest came into contact with other cultures familiar with apes or monkeys, were told specific stories of such animals, and then adjusted such stories to themselves and thus invented sasquatch legends?

One trait concerning the Native American depictions of sasquatch is specifically compelling to me. Native Americans often make sasquatch totems with saggital crests. The only apes we know of to survive into modern times with visible saggital crests are gorillas (I know orangs and chimps can have them too, but they usually aren‘t prominent enough to give the “cone“ shape gorillas are known for, as are sasquatches and yetis). Presuming sasquatch legends predate European explorers, who would have been able to tell Native Americans about the facial traits of gorillas other than ancient Africans? Surely ancient Africans didn't have contact with Pacific Northwest tribes. Is it possible that saggital crests on sasquatches is something that NAs just made up and its a coincidence that gorillas also have them as do many extinct apes? Yes, I suppose that's possible. But again, what's more likely, that its just a big coincidence or that NAs actually observed an ape at some point with a saggital crest?

[Guest Bullfrog]

I suppose there is a third way Pacific Northwest NAs could have been exposed to cone-shaped heads. I just remembered that skull binding was often practiced by PNW tribes, and that very well could account for why they would imagine a sasquatch with a cone-shaped head.

[Guest]

In my case, I was uncertain about their existence until I actually went out in to the field and looked for myself.

Lemme get this straight. You were interested in bigfoot, joined the BFF, went looking for bigfoot, and had the amazing luck of encountering such creatures not once but twice? Dang, that's some serious luck. Did you have a camera with you either time you were in this "active area" searching for bigfoot when you had the good fortune to find one?

Your options are:

"No." (My response, "Why not????")

"Yes, but I didn't get a photo because of ____________." (My response, "Ooh, that's too bad. Well, better luck with your impending 3rd encounter!")

[Guest]

I suppose there is a third way Pacific Northwest NAs could have been exposed to cone-shaped heads. I just remembered that skull binding was often practiced by PNW tribes, and that very well could account for why they would imagine a sasquatch with a cone-shaped head.

I was unaware of that and followed up and found some things of interest. Thanks for mentioning the head binding/flattening.

[Guest Bob]

Lemme get this straight. You were interested in bigfoot, joined the BFF, went looking for bigfoot, and had the amazing luck of encountering such creatures not once but twice? Dang, that's some serious luck. Did you have a camera with you either time you were in this "active area" searching for bigfoot when you had the good fortune to find one?

Your options are:

"No." (My response, "Why not????")

"Yes, but I didn't get a photo because of ____________." (My response, "Ooh, that's too bad. Well, better luck with your impending 3rd encounter!")

Your reading comprehension level is adequate and your evaluation is correct. Yes, my experiences were lucky and that is why I clearly said that they were. The number of options you have given me to respond to is a little disappointing though. There are several other possible yes options. I do have a video from that night. I will say the video is compelling but will not end the BF debate. 3rd Gen. night vision has it’s negative attributes. Since I don’t feel the need or intend prove anything on an anonymous forum. We will just have to leave it at that. Oh... and I am looking forward to my impending 3rd encounter.