Jump to content

How many members do we have that have actually seen one?


7.62
 Share

Recommended Posts

The problem with a question like this, although interesting, is that you don't know who are honest, reliable and who know what they are looking at.  Too many these days don't fit any of those criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m a pretty firm disbeliever and I just read through all of this, and would love to read more.

 

And that’s what fascinates me about reading sightings and encounters.  I don’t think all, or even most of you are lying or trying to deceive.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

There will be those who do not believe the scientists who finally get one on the lab table.   Some skeptics have way to much invested in disbelief to accept existence.   Same sort who want science to validate existence but claim Meldrum is wrong about footprints now.  But it does not help to have some proponents who claim some pretty remarkable things.    I have yet to run into a portal in the woods.   But to me that is a good thing.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd bet with some of these folks the duality arises from a sighting or interaction of some sort that has been sublimated by the conscious mind, yet it has some inkling there's something to be learned or remembered, yet the part that buried it knows there's some scary event(s) it can't deal with. So it wants to know, but also knows it must not, so there's the demand for evidence followed by the dismissal of everything presented..

Just a thought.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

When it comes to certain topics, the presence of compelling arguments for opposing sides can drive some into denial as a result of the unpleasant mental conflict that the duality creates. With fields of research such as this being as challenging as they are, one can’t afford to let their logical take on the phenomena be hindered by bias.

 

On 2017-12-21 at 3:37 AM, Dkeeng said:

I’m a pretty firm disbeliever and I just read through all of this, and would love to read more.

 

And that’s what fascinates me about reading sightings and encounters.  I don’t think all, or even most of you are lying or trying to deceive.

 

Over time I’ve personally found that the vast majority of “researchers” on outlets such as YouTube and online forums fabricate their experiences and evidence, and don’t actually believe in the existence of Sasquatch. Some try very hard to make the descriptions of their experiences compelling, but they’re never able to do so without making mistakes. The problem for legitimate investigators is that these errors are usually very difficult to discern.

 

On the bright side, there are a lot of legitimate online reports; most of them concentrated in popular databases. 

 

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

Within the massive amount of data accumulated on activity relating to sasquatch and outdoor experience in general, there exist patterns and trends that may provide insight into the history and future of the phenomenon, and people’s understanding of it.

 

In the early days of research, there existed relatively few efforts to study the phenomenon, but as time went on, the number of researchers grew with North America’s population, along with the frequency of alleged activity. Throughout this time, there were many popular advancements made in zoology in general, but virtually none in this particular field. In other words, people know nearly as much now about the phenomenon as they did 50 years ago. Under examination, one of the contributing factors for this turns out to be the isolation of knowledge; different researchers and research groups make different types of progress, but the progress is mainly limited to themselves. For instance, one group might have evidence that strongly supports the theory that modern trail cameras are ineffective for capturing photos, but other researchers may be unaware of this and end up having to start from scratch. The reason for why it’s this way has to do with the difficulty in telling who’s honest and who isn’t. 

 

When it comes to alleged evidence, there are tens of thousands of accounts of activity (both reported and unreported), which might not be surprising considering the amount of outdoor activity in North America in last few decades, but it becomes surprising when one factors in the lack of both a type specimen and DNA that can be attributed to what people generally consider sasquatch to be. Based on statistics involving North American history, it’s something that can be predicted to continue for decades to come. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

That was very well said.  Could explain a lot. I though there was a national data base of reports,but not one for shared research information.

That would be very interesting. You pointed out the biggest problem is no specimen,DNA and that seems to virtually close the book on existence with  all the supposed sightings all over North America  and the world. Just my humble opinion.

I have always thought the no fossil record in  North America is problematic. That does not lessen my hope or deter my interest in the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

The lack of fossil record is easily explained.

 

It wasn't until the fall of 2004 before we had any fossilized remains of chimpanzees.  Sally McBrearty found three fossilized teeth (a molar and two incisors) in the Rift valley. They were identified and confirmed as chimpanzee teeth by Dr Nina Jablonski. 

 

Sasquatches probably number only in the thousands. It would take a miracle of miracles to find any fossilized remains.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

Might explain no  fossil record. Does not explain no specimen  living or deceased with all of the detailed reports . No credible DNA  and the best evidence being a wonderful film over 50  years old .

Nothing really exciting since. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

I didn't attempt to address anything other than the fossil record statement you made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2017 at 6:50 AM, guyzonthropus said:

I'd bet with some of these folks the duality arises from a sighting or interaction of some sort that has been sublimated by the conscious mind, yet it has some inkling there's something to be learned or remembered, yet the part that buried it knows there's some scary event(s) it can't deal with. So it wants to know, but also knows it must not, so there's the demand for evidence followed by the dismissal of everything presented..

Just a thought.....

 

For witnesses to admit all of that to themselves they would have to take a leap out of their comfort zone.  My non-clinical, non-professional "psychological" analysis of people who insist they have had experiences is the majority seem to dig in and just go with the "it's an animal" or bring it down to the lowest denominator of it being "only" flesh & blood since that is the safe zone for them to deal with.  There are people who want to believe it is more but can't quite get to any reasonable explanation in their mind so they go with the animal/flesh and blood rationale.  This is all based on personal interactions with people over years of conferences.  I have limited field experience though I have heard some mighty strange things howling in the night, I have no way of knowing what it was.

Edited by Arvedis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

I've never had a sighting where I saw a body but have had red eyeshine swaying back and forth and moving about that I can't explain. Ditto with two separate knocks from different directions that answered my single knock. As I examine what it could have been and start peeling away those that are highly improbable, my conclusion comes from what options remain.

 

I just want to see one, period. I'm cautiously optimistic I'll get one this year on thermal in my research area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
On 9/18/2017 at 11:05 PM, OntarioSquatch said:

Quite a few regularly active members claim they’ve seen one. The problem that I have is that when I analyze their claims in-depth, I find that very few are honest....

I find that a remarkably bold assessment to make.  I've questioned a few people quite harshly (in private), pointing out apparent contradictions or omissions in their statements, and come away with the conclusion that they were being extremely honest.  

 

On 10/7/2017 at 2:07 PM, SWWASAS said:

.... they have a hard time differentiating between a camera with a lens and a rifle with a scope which has a lens.      

Amazing the number of journalists in war zones who get ticked off when someone mistakes them for a sniper due to the same problem and sends a sabot round through their position.  Your little yellow "Journalist" vest doesn't do a whole lot of good from 400 yards away. 

Edited by Trogluddite
Edited to add that I have never seen one, but am becoming a proponent after much research. A skeptical proponent, but a proponent nonetheless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

BF could full well know what a rifle scope is and what it does but I don't think so.    There are too many reports of people shooting at BF and they just stand there looking as if they do not understand what is happening at the moment.     We see little to indicate they understand technology.   I personally do not think their brain is wired to carry a thought process from selecting or fabricating a spear point,  lashing  it to a pole, and using it as spear to down a deer.   If it were, we would be finding artifacts they have constructed laying around.      Humans have done those constructs for over a million years at this point,   through several evolutionary stages as humans and in doing so we find constructed artifacts wherever we find signs they have been there.    Just the fact BF stack poles into tepee structures without some sort of lashing is telling to me.   Humans have lashed stuff together for 100s  of thousands of years they want to stay together.    And one would think if BF brains could understand the process,  they would imitate humans and do similar things.     We have no evidence they do.  

 

I know some argue that they really do not need a spear when they can chase down a BF on foot.      But if you assume that to be the case, you have to assume they are totally unlike lazy humans and always looking for a better easier way to do something.   Humans have always looked for a better, easier way to do things like kill.        Weapon development has always led human technical development.   We see none of that with BF.    Which pretty much makes my point about the way their brain is wired. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...