The True Origin of Sasquatch (secret, government, strange)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only possible legitimate video I've seen was the Patterson footage from '67. The snowalker footage from the himalayas in '92 was interesting but outside of that. Nothing. Its why I have always thought they were E.Ts. An earthbound entity, there would have been much better proof of their existence in the last 80 years
Maybe you are looking in the wrong place. And don't have an open mind.
If you have a credible sighting or evidence you can prove your beliefs. If you noticed, the mainstream scientific community is not buying the current 'proof' offered by the believers. The reason they run away from your proof is that you have no proof that passes the test of time and peer review.
While you accuse skeptics of having a closed mind, is your mind open enough to accept the fact that you might be wrong?
The mainstream scientific community is NOT the first to move on a new discovery and it takes a long long time for them to 'accept' anything new. So, it is hardly 'proof' of anything.
Authorities are often at odds with each other and what is or who is 'an authority', probably only a person you accept as one. Newspapers and the media ask any old science person for comments as if they are "an authority". History is littered with "authorities" who are very well credentialled who go out on a limb and pronounce something which is not accepted by the rest of mainstream. Really it is a crap-shoot whether something is accepted or not.
Currently Professor Jeff Meldrum is probably the best 'Authority' on Bigfoot as far as the scientific community is concerned. No-one as far as I know has come out and said he is a whacko and that his research and opinions are rubbish, so I guess thats a kind-of acceptance of what he is doing.
The mainstream scientific community is NOT the first to move on a new discovery and it takes a long long time for them to 'accept' anything new. So, it is hardly 'proof' of anything.
Authorities are often at odds with each other and what is or who is 'an authority', probably only a person you accept as one. Newspapers and the media ask any old science person for comments as if they are "an authority". History is littered with "authorities" who are very well credentialled who go out on a limb and pronounce something which is not accepted by the rest of mainstream. Really it is a crap-shoot whether something is accepted or not.
Currently Professor Jeff Meldrum is probably the best 'Authority' on Bigfoot as far as the scientific community is concerned. No-one as far as I know has come out and said he is a whacko and that his research and opinions are rubbish, so I guess thats a kind-of acceptance of what he is doing.
He has over 200 hundred casts and no definitive proof that any of them are real! He has so-called 'experts' that have given statements to back his claims, but he has nothing to prove they are what he claims.
As far as our scientific community and mainstream media; they would flock to the evidence if you had any. There are over 200 million cars on our busy roads and not one has hit and killed a BF. There are more cameras than people in the US and nobody has good, clear, video proof of any of them. There are security cameras, trail cameras, drones, GoPro cameras, Ring Videos, and more and where are all the pictures?
Many of your experts rely on BF for funds. Some of the sites are littered with memorabilia/collectibles and many want to sell their books or be paid for their lectures. I am not saying that all count on funds for research, but you have no way to separate those seeking fame and fortune from the rest. You're so anxious to prove the existence of the creature that you overlook the fakes and misidentifications.
Since none of us have a body to study, none of us really know what a BF is or if even exists.
Maybe you are looking in the wrong place. And don't have an open mind.
Only in Sasquatch circles is this a valid argument. I hear it all the time in these discussions, and it holds no water. If someone told you that they had never seen any evidence for unicorns or pixies or genies in lamps, would you seriously suggest that until they go out and look and devote years of their life to searching that they have no right to cite the lack of evidence?
The burden of proof is on the Big Guy himself. If he (or she?) is out there, why is there absolutely no conclusive evidence?
I have astigmatism in my right eye. It throws off my depth perception enough that I can no longer walk without my glasses on. I will hit a wall with my shoulder.
I also have to take my glasses off when I do close work. I have a very large window in my living room. I sit in my chair to crochet. The TV is on and I can look out the window, and I’m not wearing my glasses because I’m crocheting. I can look straight down the street. With my glasses on everything looks fine.
When my glasses are off, a distant neighbor’s boat that is covered with a very white cover and sits deep in their driveway appears as if it is a large white dog in the middle of the road. The first few times I saw that I got alarmed because there is a huge white dog that somebody walks several times a day past my house, so I’m familiar with the dog. I’d pick up my glasses… and see it was boat.
When I move the chair there, and the lamp specifically, so I could work on this round pineapple afghan, I was not used to seeing the “dog in the middle of the street”. Now I am.
When we see something our mind processes it, and often it processes it into something we are familiar with. I’m not a fan of boats, but I think dogs are adorable. So I don’t see the boat, I see a dog. That’s why eyewitness accounts are not that accurate. Often we see things and don’t really see them.
I used to work at a bank. We held a mock robbery. Even a mock robbery is a little frightening. My coworker could not identify the guy. And I claimed he looked like Wilford Brimley. He really did. But I have to be honest if somebody came in and pointed a real gun at me, I don’t think I’d see the face. I’d only see the gun.
So knowing this, I actually would not believe eye witnesses. The excitement, the fright, the speed all would make that identification very suspect in my mind.
I would link things, but in a lot of ways, the jury is still out. It’s like half the people think it’s really really good and half the people think it’s really really bad.
By the way, the Apple iOS 16 update has really messed up talk to text. It is now inserting punctuation all by itself and doesn’t know what it’s doing and since my typing is actually worse than talk to text, and it’s doing this thing where when I hit submit it decides wait wait I need to fix this. I may have to see if I can turn off this punctuation thing.
The bolded above actually happened to me. I worked at a store, and I was held up at gun point. I stood 3 feet directly in front of the man and I was actually thinking during the robbery "I need to remember what he looks like for the cops" and I STILL couldn't describe him other than to say his race, his very common hairstyle, approximate height and clothes. I couldn't get anything about his face, or tattoos or anything else. It was a blank. In a frightening moment our brain does weird stuff.
It's not insignificant that people usually see Sasquatch out in the dark woods, when there are spooky noises, often they're alone, etc. I think many misidentifications are simply our overworked imaginations filling in the blanks when we are only seeing a partial picture of what is really there. My own brother professes to have seen BF out and about. He (BF) was walking down a steep hill and across the road my brother was driving on, then continued down the other side after crossing. He showed me the place. Now this isn't some remote mountainside in Canada, it was a well-traveled 2-lane to a popular fishing lake in the Sierra foothills about 20 miles from his home. Do I believe him??? I believe that he believes what he saw was BF. I KNOW however that there is no creature except a mountain goat capable of descending the slope he indicated without it ROLLING down the near vertical slope. There is no way to convince my bro, and there's no point in trying. He BELIEVES what he saw, and that's all there is to it in his mind. I think this is the case with most BF believers.
Not being able to recall a person's facial features is actually a relatively common occurrence in even normal encounters. In fact some people are "face blind" (prosopagnosia).
TBF, I think many of the BF sightings can be explained away as misidentifications.
However there are some that are almost impossible to be such. A few sightings involve a person coming literally face to face with the creature and them seeing them plain as day. No misidentifications there, they aren't seeing a bear or some mangy coyote.
So unless those people are just plain liars risking their reputations, then it's difficult to explain away what they saw.
There is no such thing as an “expert” in the Sasquatch field.
You cannot be an expert in something that does not exist(as of yet).
To be an expert you need tangible subject matter to study.
Running around in the woods and hitting trees with sticks does not make one an expert.
Plaster casts of “footprints” cannot be definitively associated to a subject that as of now, has not been proven to exist. Hooting and hollering into the woods does not make one an expert either. I have heard many strange sounds in the woods. Many have sounded like the so-called Sasquatch calls. I have been able to debunk all of them.
So until there is definitive evidence ie: a body, dead or alive, there are no experts, because there is no subject to study.
There is no such thing as an “expert” in the Sasquatch field.
You cannot be an expert in something that does not exist(as of yet).
To be an expert you need tangible subject matter to study.
Running around in the woods and hitting trees with sticks does not make one an expert.
Plaster casts of “footprints” cannot be definitively associated to a subject that as of now, has not been proven to exist. Hooting and hollering into the woods does not make one an expert either. I have heard many strange sounds in the woods. Many have sounded like the so-called Sasquatch calls. I have been able to debunk all of them.
So until there is definitive evidence ie: a body, dead or alive, there are no experts, because there is no subject to study.
So with your logic, a priest is not an expert in the study of God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hear it all the time in these discussions, and it holds no water. If someone told you that they had never seen any evidence for unicorns or pixies or genies in lamps, would you seriously suggest that until they go out and look and devote years of their life to searching that they have no right to cite the lack of evidence? 
