Sasquatch

Member for

5 years 3 months

Posts: 1,123

Hey guys, I've been listening to the Sasquatch Chronicles podcast for about one and a half years. It is only witness testimonies. The hosts have seen the creature from close too. It's the best podcast on the subject, so I thought maybe you'd like it. It would never have crossed my mind to think Bigfoot really existed until I stumbled on videos about it on YouTube. It peaked my curiosity and I finally found the Sasquatch chronicles show. It's entertaining and fun. https://www.sasquatchchronicles.com/category/episodes/ If you're interested, start at episode 136, 137 is not witness testimonies. :)
Original post
Profile picture for user Meddle

Member for

5 years 1 month

Posts: 1,613

I find it difficult, given the supposed size of the thing, for a giant primate or hominid to be inhabiting the forests of North America without a little bit more tangible evidence. The habitat needed to support a colony of these creatures is massive, so I would expect there to be more footprints, fur, skulls and other items to be found. I think pareidolia plays a big part in most sightings, if I'm honest. The history of shysters trotting out bogus artifacts to try and make a quick buck off the back of Big Foot also doesn't help. my concern is that the Sasquatch movement (for want of a better word) drops off the deep end into seriously crazy territory pretty quickly. Sasquatch can shape shift, communicate telepathically, render itself invisible of necessary and yet is some kind, benign caretaker of the woods? Hard to grasp for me. After all that, it does seem uncanny that vaguely similar phenomena appear in different cultures around the world.

Member for

5 years 3 months

Posts: 1,123

I don't know it you've heard of Dr. Jeff Meldrum, who is a Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology at the University of Idaho. He is a specialist of the anatomy of the foot and has been studying the sasquatch for about 20 years. He has large collection of Bigfoot casts, and he is convinced they come from real animals. His casts come from all over North America, often from remote places, so it is hard to imagine it could be all hoaxes. Also, he and Dr John Bindernagel, who is a wildlife biologist who has been studying Bigfoot for about 30 years, have looked at the question of whether the habitat can sustain such a large animal, and they have come to the conclusion that probably yes. It is exasperating that Bigfoot research is such a mess. Some people are obvious hoaxers, and they give a very bad reputation to the subject. Also when people see shows like Finding Bigfoot, it understandable that they think it's not a serious subject. But that's what happens when you deal with a farfetched subject like that, it will attract all sorts of weirdoes and incompetents. The theories about telepathy, paranormal abilities are also examples of obvious BS. People really see a creature that is way to big to be a man in a suite. Witnesses often say that it is even hard to describe how big it is. The animals runs also very fast so it is hard to imagine someone with a suite running that fast. Sometimes, the animal is seen by several people, and sometimes one person sees several bigfoots. Sometimes it is seen from close, and the witness sees many details, like the muscles under the hair, the lips moving when it shows its teeth and so forth. It is clear for the witness that it is an animal. As for remains of a body, the animal is very rare, buch rarer than bears. It is already quite rare to find bear carcasses in the wild, so it is likely extremely rare to find a Bigfoot carcass. I try to be objective, and I think discounting all the witnesses, the casts, etc, is not really scientific. At least one should really look into it. That being said, I certainly don't have all the answers and I am not sure it exists, I am just puzzled.
Profile picture for user snafu

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 2,748

Not long ago I was involved in interviewing people who claimed to have seen big cats in Britain; this was the non-native, non-domestic big cat, not your standard fat lap cat. Whilst the witnesses were quite convinced that they had seen something out of the ordinary, not next doors old black tom prowling in the undergrowth or a stray dog by a gate post, the facts just didn't support the idea of a large, wild cat in the wilds of rural Britain. A zoological contact, with experience of tracking African cats, said that there just wasn't the means to support even 'small' big cats without their presence being noticed: things like savaged sheep and cattle, or chicken farm break ins would be constant indicators - a single cat needs a lot of food to stay healthy, a colony would need a hell of a lot more - but the overriding thing for him was the absence of scat and lack of territorial spray markers. If you've ever had a stray tomcat pay your garden an unwanted visit then you'll know what that means, but the bigger the cat the more there is, the worse it smells. Yet there was never anything to show that there were any predators around other than the usual foxes. It is the same with sasquatch, bigfoot, yowie, the yeti and all those other humanoid bipeds that apparently inhabit the worlds less populated areas. A few blurry videos, the odd grainy photograph, lots of witness reports from one or two people (never big groups), yet never any really good, hard evidence that might prove once and for all of their existence. Of course, it is easy to hide something - or for something to hide - in dense forest where it is extremely likely that there is no human presence within a hundred miles or more nor had there been for several dozens of years, but the beasts that have recently been discovered or whose existence has been proven are small, the size of mice and smaller; there are animals thought to be larger that are only known due to the witnessing of decomposing copses, or aboriginal hunters dismembering an animal being photographed by an observer who later tried to identify it. As it stands currently, the vast majority of unknown creatures will be invertebrates. Now, had the concept for an (as yet) undiscovered, larger creature been from the sea...that would have been much more understandable.
Profile picture for user Meddle

Member for

5 years 1 month

Posts: 1,613

I've heard that there was a spike in big cat sightings in the UK immediately after a change in the law regarding ownership of exotic pets in the '70s.
Profile picture for user Lincoln 7

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 8,306

I recon it's just another story, made up, like "Our" Nessie, never has, probably never will be proved one way or tother. Jim Lincoln .7
Profile picture for user snafu

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 2,748

A swamp cat was knocked down in Hayling Island in 1988, marginally bigger than a large domestic cat but hardly comparable with the usual statements from eyewitnesses - they will insist they saw something 'lion-sized' yet would not be able to describe just how big a lion is. Meanwhile, all those Americans wandering around with guns and they still haven't managed to shoot a bigfoot...!
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 9,617

Meanwhile, all those Americans wandering around with guns and they still haven't managed to shoot a bigfoot...!
Or Canadians...or the people in Nepal, South America or all the other places that have similar legends. Again, ask why no dead one (of old age let alone being shot) has ever been found...or droppings, hair samples, dens, etc, etc. The only people who seem to believe it are the gullible conspiracy theorists, who need to think they know something secret to make up for other shortcomings.

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 6,467

Do North American Plains Indians or, at any rate, those living near wooded areas, have anything to report on this matter ?
Profile picture for user Lincoln 7

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 8,306

Or to add what you have stated John, has one EVER been seen completely well away from any wooded area?. Jim. Lincoln .7

Member for

5 years 3 months

Posts: 1,123

I am not an expert but I don't think they are seen in areas where there is no forest, like the great plains. There seems to be hotspots in east Texas, and Arkansas however, but in wooded areas. Other than that, there seems to be hotspots almost everywhere, from Florida to Ohio and Vermont, in the Rockies and along the west coast up to Alaska. 'Sasquatch' is the name given to the creature by indian tribes in BC. Almost every tribe has stories of Bigfoot. They are all familiar with it and continue to see it in some places. For instance I listened to this interview the other day about the Navajo reservation:
There is also an interview of an indian from Montana on Sasquatch chronicles ( around episode 60 ), and it is pretty much the same kind of story. It is interesting to note that in the interview the Navajo guy had an experience with sasquatches throwing rocks. This is a common behavior of the creature that has been witnesses by a lot of witnesses. Quite often in fact the witnesses say that the rock is way to big to have been thrown by a human.

Member for

5 years 3 months

Posts: 1,123

A swamp cat was knocked down in Hayling Island in 1988, marginally bigger than a large domestic cat but hardly comparable with the usual statements from eyewitnesses - they will insist they saw something 'lion-sized' yet would not be able to describe just how big a lion is. Meanwhile, all those Americans wandering around with guns and they still haven't managed to shoot a bigfoot...!
It has happened that apparently some bigfoots have been shot at. There are also a few stories of sasquatches getting killed. It does happen that hunters have encounters with the creature. Most of the time the witness is extremely scared, his brain suddenly is in survival mode and doesn't react as you would expect. For instance people don't think of taking pictures, or even shooting at it. Hunters say there is no way their hunting rifle could kill such a big animal, so they prefer not to shoot. Injuring one would only result in getting killed a few seconds later, either by the one that has been injured, or another one around. Hunters and witnesses in general prefer not to talk about their encounters. They learn very quickly that they will be ridiculed. Also many hunters say they stopped going into the woods after, because they're too scared. Some people finally, after a few years usually, return into the woods, but not alone, and armed. Seing a sasquatch is quite a traumatizing experience, and witnesses have noone to turn to usually because nobody would take them seriously. That makes the experience even harder to deal with.

Member for

5 years 3 months

Posts: 1,123

Not long ago I was involved in interviewing people who claimed to have seen big cats in Britain; this was the non-native, non-domestic big cat, not your standard fat lap cat. Whilst the witnesses were quite convinced that they had seen something out of the ordinary, not next doors old black tom prowling in the undergrowth or a stray dog by a gate post, the facts just didn't support the idea of a large, wild cat in the wilds of rural Britain. A zoological contact, with experience of tracking African cats, said that there just wasn't the means to support even 'small' big cats without their presence being noticed: things like savaged sheep and cattle, or chicken farm break ins would be constant indicators - a single cat needs a lot of food to stay healthy, a colony would need a hell of a lot more - but the overriding thing for him was the absence of scat and lack of territorial spray markers. If you've ever had a stray tomcat pay your garden an unwanted visit then you'll know what that means, but the bigger the cat the more there is, the worse it smells. Yet there was never anything to show that there were any predators around other than the usual foxes. It is the same with sasquatch, bigfoot, yowie, the yeti and all those other humanoid bipeds that apparently inhabit the worlds less populated areas. A few blurry videos, the odd grainy photograph, lots of witness reports from one or two people (never big groups), yet never any really good, hard evidence that might prove once and for all of their existence. Of course, it is easy to hide something - or for something to hide - in dense forest where it is extremely likely that there is no human presence within a hundred miles or more nor had there been for several dozens of years, but the beasts that have recently been discovered or whose existence has been proven are small, the size of mice and smaller; there are animals thought to be larger that are only known due to the witnessing of decomposing copses, or aboriginal hunters dismembering an animal being photographed by an observer who later tried to identify it. As it stands currently, the vast majority of unknown creatures will be invertebrates. Now, had the concept for an (as yet) undiscovered, larger creature been from the sea...that would have been much more understandable.
There is still a lot of wild wooded areas in North America with rempote places where people rarely go. It is not comparable to the UK. California alone is almost twice as large as the UK, or British Columbia is like 4 times larger. The fact that there cannot be a large unknown predator in the UK doesn't mean there couldn't be one in North America.
Profile picture for user 1batfastard

Member for

6 years 8 months

Posts: 3,339

Hi All, All these cryptozoological sighting are hard to prove of coarse most people will say they do not exist just like Alien UFO's without hard proof how can you prove the existence as many claim and are quite correct evidence can and is often faked by those who want to make a name for themselves or financial game out of those who have an open mind to believe in the possibility of whatever and this will always be countered by the sceptic as hogwash etc.etc.etc. As far as I am concerned I have an open mind on various subjects, the only evidence if you can call it that can be regarded as hard possibly ? is that passed down through the generations in particular tribes from all over the world telling story's. Just as it has been proved recently for example with the Inuit who had always maintained about witnessing a ship caught in pack ice, when the two ships lead by John Franklin were exploring a route through the north west passage up until 2013 were thought to have been lost, the wreckage has now been found and dived upon, so it proves that legends passed down by word of mouth while they may get twisted there is a truth in the story somewhere it's just finding that truth is the difficult bit. The same attitude should be given in the tribes from all over the US and other countries as there must be a truth somewhere in all these legends going back many,many years. Instead of dismissing these story's/Legends/Fables etc.etc.etc. out of hand try looking into whatever or even reading a book or online articles then make your decision and if you still don't believe then that's fine but just don't force your point of view on others, give those that believe the respect that they give you towards your view simple. Why not try this site ? http://cryptozoologynews.com/ Below images of Big Foot/Sasquatch/Yeti/Ab-Snowman etc. World siting's (TOP) and US siting's. (BOTTOM) http://zapatopi.net/bsa/hominoidmap.png http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9fmyktbIb1qglgp1.gif Geoff.

Member for

5 years 3 months

Posts: 1,123

I try to be open minded too on several subjects, like UFOs for instance. All too often people mistake having 'a healthy dose of skepticism' with being stubborn and close minded. Also some people are so convinced that certain things are impossible that they will just debunk the subject instead having 'a healthy dose of skepticism'. These people unfortunately are taken seriously by a portion of the population, who are lead to believe there is nothing interesting in those subjects. In the past 20 years there's been several discoveries in paleo-anthropology that have surprised scientists. It turns out there are more subspecies of homonids than previously thought. It is also likely that some branches of the evolutionary tree have not been discovered, and even possibly never will. So even if we don't know the origin of Bigfoot, its existence cannot be ruled out. Also, it is very common that species of a particular family or subfamily come in a wide variety of sizes. Think felides for instance, bears, etc... Concerning humans, homo floresiensis was very small compared to other humans.
LB1's height has been estimated at about 1.06 m (3 ft 6 in). The height of a second skeleton, LB8, has been estimated at 1.09 m (3 ft 7 in) based on measurements of its tibia.[2] These estimates are outside the range of normal modern human height and considerably shorter than the average adult height of even the smallest modern humans, such as the Mbenga and Mbuti (< 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in)),[25] Twa, Semang (1.37 m (4 ft 6 in) for adult women) of the Malay Peninsula,[26] or the Andamanese (1.37 m (4 ft 6 in) for adult women).[27] By body mass, differences between modern pygmies and Homo floresiensis are even greater. LB1's body mass has been estimated at 25 kg (55 lb). This is smaller than that of not only modern H. sapiens, but also H. erectus, which Brown and colleagues have suggested is the immediate ancestor of H. floresiensis. LB1 and LB8 are also somewhat smaller than the australopithecines from three million years ago, not previously thought to have expanded beyond Africa. Thus, LB1 and LB8 may be the shortest and smallest members of the extended human family discovered thus far.[citation needed]
Apes come in all kinds of sizes too, so why not a giant one. Gigantopithecus is the proof that it is possible. The Sasquatch might be gigantopithecus, but even if it's not, that doesn't rule out the possibility that it could be something else.
Profile picture for user Meddle

Member for

5 years 1 month

Posts: 1,613

Do North American Plains Indians or, at any rate, those living near wooded areas, have anything to report on this matter ?
They are too busy running Casinos to notice.
Profile picture for user snafu

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 2,748

The natives in every zone where undiscovered bipeds are alleged to exist have tales of old about these creatures, much like we did about fairies, pixies, elves and gnomes, etc.
Profile picture for user Meddle

Member for

5 years 1 month

Posts: 1,613

I try to be open minded too on several subjects, like UFOs for instance. All too often people mistake having 'a healthy dose of skepticism' with being stubborn and close minded.
Likewise, I find that all too often people mistake 'being open minded' with having no logic or reasoning skills, bare-faced gullability and a penchant for a good yarn.