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 found an image of the page describing Sasquatch from the Washington Environmental Atlas (1975):
Note that it's clearly being described as a mythical creature on the page rather than an actual animal, and the text has a bit of a tongue-in-cheek quality about it (as evidence by the cartoon stating mythical creatures shouldn't be in the atlas). My guess is that they included it in the atlas as a bit of a goof - and because the topic "excites a great popular interest". They reference the FBI study of the hair, but provide no link to a reference for the study; pretty clearly this page wasn't being included for its scientific value.
Oh, I know. I actually read the original print articles for every source I posted & believe me, Walla Walla did not have near as much fun with it as some did.
It’s not above the Feds to have some fun with us every once in a while; about 10 years ago if you were looking up law, policy & recommendations regarding Disaster Preparedness from the otherwise dry & boring “DepartmentofDot.Gov” website, you may have stumbled upon the section for “How to Survive a Zombie Apocalypse” ...
I did & at at first I was like “Oh, come ON!” And then I just started cracking up; it was hysterical!
I just wanted to hook up the poster who mentioned that specific report with some verifiable sources because that can be the weakest link in a discussion here on CD.
This is something I do on a daily basis, not for an “Unexplained Mystery” topic but related to medical health science & research. After several years, you become more fluent with certain sources & eventually, individuals. I can scan through 10 pages of sources on PubMed & recognize certain doctors/researchers & institutions & it makes it easier to hone in on what I’m looking for.
Cryptids ... not so much. I will say one thing, though about the “BF.com” sites: I’ve poked around some since this thread was started & I actually will check their sources. They have a pretty solid rate of credibility; meaning that if they say that “This was reported in 1945 in Indiana ...” ? Then it typically was.
You would think that this would be more so the case for actual Science based publications. But it’s not; it’s much harder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasily
The last paragraph is interesting:
Hardly a ringing endorsement for the existence of the creature. And in the 43 years since the atlas was published, we still haven't found any hard evidence of its existence.
Again; I know what you are saying. I feel really bad for the people who honestly have seen something that could only be described as a BF.
I never have but I did see something once that should not have been here (or there, or anywhere within the last 400,000 years) & I actually had to go through a stage of resentment because my comfy position of context through which I saw the world was completely debased in a matter of about 30-60 seconds. And it could not have happened at a worse time; I had some pretty encompassing responsibilities starting that I had to figure out how to negotiate. Not things that you “get through” but rather permanent, life-altering circumstances.
But like most things in life; I was not given any options to pencil-in that particular distraction. I’m luckier than those that believe they saw a BF because for decades now, BF has been a celebrity. Like an A-lister. For me, that would be like constantly having it shoved in my face & I can understand why people can get so fanatical about it.
What’s even worse is that if you take some time to look at everything. ALL the layers. And if you ignore any previous constructs: eyewitnesses, hoaxes, humor, peers, news/media frames, etc ... It doesn’t present itself as “something for which there is no evidence”. It just doesn’t fit that profile. It feels more like “something for which there will not be any evidence”. And there is a difference.
I joined this thread late, but I don't understand so many questioning the existence of BFs. Of course they exist. I've been one many times before I met my wife.
]
It’s not above the Feds to have some fun with us every once in a while; about 10 years ago if you were looking up law, policy & recommendations regarding Disaster Preparedness from the otherwise dry & boring “DepartmentofDot.Gov” website, you may have stumbled upon the section for “How to Survive a Zombie Apocalypse” ...
I did & at at first I was like “Oh, come ON!” And then I just started cracking up; it was hysterical!
I remember that one.
Quote:
Cryptids ... not so much. I will say one thing, though about the “BF.com” sites: I’ve poked around some since this thread was started & I actually will check their sources. They have a pretty solid rate of credibility; meaning that if they say that “This was reported in 1945 in Indiana ...” ? Then it typically was.
What you end up with is a bunch of puzzling reports, but knowing what they actually point to is a different matter. As I've said a number of times in the past here, I thought BF more likely than not existed as a real animal back in the mid 1970s; today, the absence of hard evidence over the decades with increasing tech makes it less and less likely in my opinion that BF represents something other than cases of mistaken identity with a smattering of fraud thrown in. Today, you have all these TV inspired "squatchers" running around the woods knocking on trees and whooping and hollering - and I suspect what they end up hearing in many cases are other squatchers doing the same.
The cryptids that have the highest chance of actually being real animals in my opinion are the thylacine remnant in Australia, and the orang pendek in Sumatra. I wouldn't be surprised if there were very big things in the world's oceans that we don't yet know about, either. But BF -- I'm not at all hopeful there's something there.
Quote:
I never have but I did see something once that should not have been here (or there, or anywhere within the last 400,000 years) & I actually had to go through a stage of resentment because my comfy position of context through which I saw the world was completely debased in a matter of about 30-60 seconds.
Your experience, I have no plausible explanation for whatsoever.
I joined this thread late, but I don't understand so many questioning the existence of BFs. Of course they exist. I've been one many times before I met my wife.
Its sad that people get hushed for trying to push out the truth.
Yes it is. However, there are probably (on their minds) some pretty good reasons for it.
For example: Money - Imagine the number of people who would be nervous of going to national parks if it was ogfficially confirmed there was a huge bigger-than-a-gorilla perhaps-violent, intelligent, human-like being living in the woods, mountains, wilderness.
People would sue the government for not protecting them from any attacks they suffered. (Just like this woman is doing)
The government would have to protect its habitat and they have large wild areas of territory which might well be inconvenient to protect.
What 'rights' would it have since it is 'almost human'.
It is probably a political and legal nightmare for any authority to deal with and so it may be better (for all concerned) just to leave it in the 'unknown' category without defining it all.
We really do not know what the military or authorities know which we dont. It is likely they have done some investigation into this phenomena and probably know more than they are telling us.
You have to remember also that there have been several witnesses who have reported that the footprints, in snow for example, just stop. They do not lead anywhere. So perhaps something wierd is going on. If footprints in snow continue, then these creatures can be tracked, yet no-one has done that. Skeptics would say thats because they dont really exist.
Yes it is. However, there are probably (on their minds) some pretty good reasons for it.
For example: Money - Imagine the number of people who would be nervous of going to national parks if it was ogfficially confirmed there was a huge bigger-than-a-gorilla perhaps-violent, intelligent, human-like being living in the woods, mountains, wilderness.
People would sue the government for not protecting them from any attacks they suffered. (Just like this woman is doing)
The government would have to protect its habitat and they have large wild areas of territory which might well be inconvenient to protect.
What 'rights' would it have since it is 'almost human'.
It is probably a political and legal nightmare for any authority to deal with and so it may be better (for all concerned) just to leave it in the 'unknown' category without defining it all.
We really do not know what the military or authorities know which we dont. It is likely they have done some investigation into this phenomena and probably know more than they are telling us.
You have to remember also that there have been several witnesses who have reported that the footprints, in snow for example, just stop. They do not lead anywhere. So perhaps something wierd is going on. If footprints in snow continue, then these creatures can be tracked, yet no-one has done that. Skeptics would say thats because they dont really exist.
The woman that sued never said she was attacked by anything. She stated it stared at her and her kids.
The burden of proof is on your shoulders and the rest of the believers; not the non-believers. You talk for page after page and you provide us with no scientific evidence. You come up with claims that we are doing it for the money and we are not trying to sell this to Hollywood or sell books - your side is.
The woman that sued never said she was attacked by anything. She stated it stared at her and her kids.
The burden of proof is on your shoulders and the rest of the believers; not the non-believers. You talk for page after page and you provide us with no scientific evidence. You come up with claims that we are doing it for the money and we are not trying to sell this to Hollywood or sell books - your side is.
The problem is, any scientific evidence that corroborates, is suppressed, withheld or altered, the FBI hair analysis is a prime example, results went conveniently 'missing'.
How are the believers supposed to prove their beliefs when tactics like this are employed? LOL
The problem is, any scientific evidence that corroborates, is suppressed, withheld or altered, the FBI hair analysis is a prime example, results went conveniently 'missing'.
How are the believers supposed to prove their beliefs when tactics like this are employed? LOL
Supposedly how many people have reportedly seen BF or found evidence of it's presence? This link (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...n_3967703.html) claims 3,313. The FBI is not the only lab that can do a hair analysis. There are private labs that can also do hair analysis. Whether the hair sample went missing or was misplaced; there is no reason not to have evidence if the creature exist.
That one site list over 3,000 sightings and you do not have one clear picture. Yet we have over 200,000 Americans carrying cellphones today. Not to mention the trail cameras and stationary security cameras. One hundred years ago people could make the arguments that BF was possible. Not now; the world shrinks everyday.
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.
