espritch said:
With the exception of a lot of foot prints, physical evidence for the existence of Sasquatch is scarce to non-existent. And the foot prints can be faked. We are talking about a 7 or 8 foot tall ape like creature. If there was a viable population of such creatures living in the Pacific Northwest, you would expect some actual physical evidence to turn up: bones, bodies, live specimens. One or two ought to have been shot by hunters, or stepped in a bear trap, or just died of natural causes and been discovered by a passing hiker. But, other than foot prints, the evidence for Sasquatch is exactly as scarce as that for Nessie.
And then of course there was the admission by one of the original hoaxers.
An update here; along with the footprints folks have found a "bodyprint" (butt and side) of a large humanoid creature. Now
some have been faked. But all? Just recently a physicist was found to be responsible for faking the discovery of new transuranic elements. Does this mean all discoveries in physics are now invalid? They, too, could have been faked. In addition, there sound recordings of a subject that does not sound like anything else in the area, disturbed foilage, and hairs. Hairs that have been tested, determined to be primate, but not human.
As for the territory, have you ever been there? Have you ever been in the mountains of your state? For an appreciable length of time that is? The mountains of my home (San Diego County, California) are dinky little things, but they are still rugged and it is easy to get lost in them. Now, combine mountainous terrain with lost bodies. It took how long to find the corpse of Chondra Levy? And this in a heavily traveled park. Hell, how often do people find dead bears out in the woods? When I was much younger I found a gopher skull (Mom was at an informal conference in the back county and I went exploring with a companion). My new friend told me that founding an intact skull was rare, and that I was lucky indeed. A rare find. A gopher skull. How can that be? Aint gophers supposed to be as common as dirt on a pre-schooler? Where are all the bones?
Now consider the resources available. The American Northwest gets a lot of rain every year, it is resource rich. Other than southwest Kyushu it is the only place on the Earth where hunter-gatherers were able to establish permanent settlements. Now keep in mind things we've learned about forests in recent years. Such as the fact there is no such thing as a stable climax forest. Conditions change, old trees, old forests give way to new. Pre-Columbian Eastern Woodland Indians would burn away old growth forest to open up the land for deer and rabbit. Wildfires can do the same thing, as can heavy storms, landslides and avalanches (common events in mountainous terrain), and even the actions of animals (an angry adolescent male african savannah elephant tearing up a stand of young acacias for example, or a herd of white tail chowing down on aspen saplings in Colorado for another).
Carcasses get scavenged, bodies decay. I doubt the rules are going to get changed simply because we need a body part or a bone to prove the existence of an animal.
And let us not forget the question of how well traveled the area is. Is it as well traveled as some would think? Mountains aint made for walking. Most people don't see any need to go traveling in the mountains, when they can get where they're going by means of the local roads and highways. It is a rare individual who goes into the mountains because he feels like it.
On the question of hunters and sasquatches: Let's consider Man and mountain gorillas. Before Dian Fossey came to study them, mountain gorrillas had a reputation for being shy and reclusive. Almost impossible to spot (you real old fellows should remember when the mountain gorrilla was a crytid itself). Then Diane got to know them. And they her. These days when people show up to see them it's no big deal for the animals. "Oh, humans. Pass the celery stalk and swat junior for me, would ya?" Up in Washington State and points nearby? Nobody's introduced themselves. Nobody's said "Hi" and waved at one. Nobody's gone to live in sasquatch territory for an appreciable length of time. We haven't introduced ourselves for crying out loud. So sasquatches hide, because they are smart enough to recognize a possible danger. Bears aint got that sort of smarts. They don't see us as dangerous, they're not that intelligent. The sasquatch is.
Your objections come down to, "it just can't be?" Why not? What evidence do you have that leads to the conclusion that the sasquatch does not exist? I will concede that the disturbed foilage could have been disturbed by bears. But, do bears disturb foilage in that fashion? Are they able to disturb foilage in that fashion? Have they ever been seen disturbing foilage in that fashion? Has foilage disturbance of that type been seen in bear country?
Let's not forget the pictures. Which falls under the subject of sightings. Such as a sasquatch walking across a hillside in the presence of a group of people, one of whom had a video camera. No, the Patterson Film is not the only one. I do recall a film that was aired on the old
You Asked for It show that was so obviously faked it wasn't even funny. This appeared about the same time the Patterson Film first hit the news. I think it likely that this film and the Patterson got conflated in the minds of many, and so the Patterson footage got smeared with the charge of hoax.
Let me put it this way, I have seen too much evidence to find the charge that it is all mistaken identity or faked credible. It is true that some could have been faked. But all of it? And what of the hairs? Are you trying to tell me that the people who work at those labs are colluding to hoax the general public, and keeping the conspiracy secret? The colluding I can believe, but keeping it secret? I'll believe that when somebody finds a dead chupacabra.
No, the weight of the evidence points to the existance of a large, flat-faced, bipedal ape. likely descended from a flat-faced bipedal ape that once lived in the Chad area over 5 million years ago. Have you any evidence that points to another explanation?
No, not testimony, evidence. Evidence that sasquatch tracks are really bear tracks. Evidence that elk are the ones making those strange calls. Evidence that those anomalous primate hairs are really deer hair. 'It seems to me' no "seems to me', I want proof. Just because you don't like the idea of a large, bipedal, flat-faced ape roaming around in the U.S.A. does not excuse sloppy science. The rules apply as much to the sasquatch as they do to The Theory of General Relativity. Even when… …no, especially when the evidence points you in a direction you find hard to consider, it is imperative to treat that evidence honestly, without dismissing it out of hand.
There were tales once that a different species of elephant lived in a different part of the land. A species that had features not found in the known species. Some people said it was legend, that such a thing could not be. There was only one species of elephant in the land, and if there were any elephants living in the other place, they had to be members of the known species.
Then somebody decided to find out if either side was right. He found those anomalous elephants, got tissue samples, and did genetic testing on them. To learn that the people who said it was legend were right. The strange elephants were asiatic elephants, just like every other elephant in India. They merely had anatomical features not found in other asiatic elephants, most likely expressions of genetic material not expressed in most other asiatic elephants. (I bet you thought I was talking about the african forest elephant, weren't you?
)
No, sir, the evidence for the sasquatch is too convincing. Rejecting that evidence out of hand will not settle the question. A comprehensive, long term study of the area is what's needed, not claims of fraud. This is the time for scientists to do what they do best, research, and damn be those who would find their discoveries beyond the pale.
They might be bears. Should the evidence lead to that conclusion I am willing to accept it. But should the evidence point to it, are you willing to admit they might be giants?
)
)