"Squatchers"

I have been watching the FB/FB and BFRO videos for a couple of weeks now and have come to the conclusion that these guys(especially TeamYin) will present anything that remotely falls into their "proof of bigfoot" methodology. The nests they post are ridiculous. Most are simple debris huts with classic construction patterns taught in survival manuals. They have the telltale "mistakes" that most inexperienced shelter makers do. What kills me is that they often scour the internet and "find bigfoot" in other people videos and shove it into the mold. If there are folks truly trying to find the sasquatch, these guys are doing them a disservice by making a mockery of it.

My final stand on this subject is that I don't believe they exist but hope that someone proves me wrong, someday.... cuz that would be really cool.
 
Rick Marchand said:
I have been watching the FB/FB and BFRO videos for a couple of weeks now and have come to the conclusion that these guys(especially TeamYin) will present anything that remotely falls into their "proof of bigfoot" methodology. The nests they post are ridiculous. Most are simple debris huts with classic construction patterns taught in survival manuals. They have the telltale "mistakes" that most inexperienced shelter makers do. What kills me is that they often scour the internet and "find bigfoot" in other people videos and shove it into the mold. If there are folks truly trying to find the sasquatch, these guys are doing them a disservice by making a mockery of it.

My final stand on this subject is that I don't believe they exist but hope that someone proves me wrong, someday.... cuz that would be really cool.
Click to expand...

....Adding to this those who have purposely faked sightings and evidence for whatever motive (greed, notoriety, mockery), and it is no wonder that people not only disbelieve, but openly mock those who do. Taken altogether it is no wonder that those new to the subject are hard, if not impossible to convince.
 
Why no Bigfoot scat? I find bear, turkey, deer and everything else under the sun but unlike bears it would appear Bigfoot doesn't do his business in the woods.

There is a reason why the “Finding Bigfoot” team is always just on the cusp of the great discovery but can’t seal the deal. Bigfoot is in fact Bobo from the show and the team is chasing their own tail. What’s my proof? Good question. Like Bigfoot Bobo is big, hairy and stupid. Yea I know Bigfoot is smarter than a chipmunk however he/she (hard to tell with its long hair) isn’t exactly splitting atoms either. Guessing Bobo stinks as well.
 
Woods Walker said:
Why no Bigfoot scat? I find bear, turkey, deer and everything else under the sun but unlike bears it would appear Bigfoot doesn't do his business in the woods.

There is a reason why the “Finding Bigfoot” team is always just on the cusp of the great discovery but can’t seal the deal. Bigfoot is in fact Bobo from the show and the team is chasing their own tail. What’s my proof? Good question. Like Bigfoot Bobo is big, hairy and stupid. Yea I know Bigfoot is smarter than a chipmunk however he/she (hard to tell with its long hair) isn’t exactly splitting atoms either. Guessing Bobo stinks as well.
Click to expand...
Well bigfoot digs a cathole. Or not.
 
poop.jpg
 
There should, then, be a DNA database on the critters. Hair and scat both contain viable DNA. Has the database been examined by scientists? Credible wildlife biologists? I've seen multiple reports of scat collection, but never any analysis of contents or DNA. William Charles Osman Hill, mentioned in that article as being the primate scientist who examind the scat sample, did not leave a writing about it that I have found. He was one that promoted the "Yeti" finger found in the Pangboche monastery in Nepal, which he proclaimed to belong to an unknown anthropod, then later said it was human, then finally neanderthal. His final conclusion was that evidence was inconclusive for the existance of yeti. Since he died in 1975, he could not have performed DNA sampling.
 
The reason any evidence, short of a dead body is not accepted, or studied by most scientists, is because since there is no such animal, they consider it all must be faked and they won't have anything to do with it. It is a very effective argument, completely circular without a weak spot in it anywhere.
 
jill jackson said:
The reason any evidence, short of a dead body is not accepted, or studied by most scientists, is because since there is no such animal, they consider it all must be faked and they won't have anything to do with it. It is a very effective argument, completely circular without a weak spot in it anywhere.
Click to expand...

That's kinda how it works in the science world. You can collect all the samples you want but if there is nothing to link it to, they are inconclusive. What they need to do(and I hope they are already doing) is form a database. That way, they can build a web of evidence and fill the gaps as they go. For one dermal ridge expert to say he has the track of an unknown primate living in North America is intriguing but hardly conclusive enough to validate the existence of sasquatch. Now, if they have a vast network of catalogued tracks with the same dermal ridge structures, the case for bigfoot builds. Once we find a body, if it fits nicely into the exsisting evidence base..... we have found Sasquatch! But quite literally, until we have a body, it will be inconclusive. Plausible? Maybe.... Probable? Perhaps.... but not Actual.

To be fair, when scientists began speculating the existence of the atom... we could not see one. Infact, even after it was accepted that atoms were real, we still couldn't see them. But, the evidence was demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, peer reviewed and overwhelming. The facts stood up to scrutiny and could not be refuted. Once we had the technology to view the atom, it was no surprise as to what we would see.

The same is just not there for bigfoot.
 
Last edited:
In spite of what one might think, there has not been a lot, if any professional people trying to prove bigfoot. Nor, has there been a lot of money put into it. When you consider who is looking and how they go about it, it's not surprising to me there's no more proof than there is, so far.
 
jill jackson said:
In spite of what one might think, there has not been a lot, if any professional people trying to prove bigfoot. Nor, has there been a lot of money put into it. When you consider who is looking and how they go about it, it's not surprising to me there's no more proof than there is, so far.
Click to expand...

According to your link above, at least one guy has put three million toward it so far, paying one DNA lab $70,000 to check the samples.

There is a lot of fighting inside the Erickson Project. Adrian Erickson and Melba Ketchum are not getting along well. At least one reason is that Erickson paid Ketchum $70,000 for the sequencing of six Bigfoot samples. To this date, he has not received results from these samples, even though those samples do represent six separate confirmed Bigfoot individuals. He did receive results from one DNA test, the test he had done on himself. Most of the principals had their own DNA tested to avoid contamination.

Erickson had an agreement with Ketchum that if his Bigfoot samples tested out as coming from real Bigfoots, they would then be used in the final writeup. One or more of his samples were from real Bigfoots, but Ketchum is apparently threatening to not include them in her paper due to their falling out. So Erickson is threatening to sue her for violating their agreement.

Erickson has also threatened to sue a couple of other folks, including Dennis Pfohl and Mike Rugg, but I am not sure of the reason. Erickson is well liked, and he is also deeply respected. At the same time, the respect seems tinged with fear. He has sunk $3 million into this project, and he is not going to get it back.
Click to expand...
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/breathtaking-news-from-the-erickson-project/
 
Last edited:
OK. I stand corrected, there maybe has been some big money put into the effort to try to prove something, but the way they go about it seems to leave a lot to be desired from my point of view.
 
Here's the police officer telling about what her and her partner saw run across the road. (or maybe she was with the officer, I don't know for certain)

[video=youtube;8YJ6tPNLJPQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YJ6tPNLJPQ[/video]
 
jill jackson said:
... but the way they go about it seems to leave a lot to be desired from my point of view.
Click to expand...

On this we absolutely agree. Even the few who seem to be most sincere in motive quite often forget simple rules of evidence gathering like documentation in situ, chain of custody, etc. that would make an apprentice archeologist or detective cringe. The Erickson Project shows a lot of promise, but infighting with others makes one question reliability of samples, scientific testing and extrapolation of data.
 
Rick Marchand said:
That's kinda how it works in the science world. You can collect all the samples you want but if there is nothing to link it to, they are inconclusive. What they need to do(and I hope they are already doing) is form a database. That way, they can build a web of evidence and fill the gaps as they go. For one dermal ridge expert to say he has the track of an unknown primate living in North America is intriguing but hardly conclusive enough to validate the existence of sasquatch. Now, if they have a vast network of catalogued tracks with the same dermal ridge structures, the case for bigfoot builds. Once we find a body, if it fits nicely into the exsisting evidence base..... we have found Sasquatch! But quite literally, until we have a body, it will be inconclusive. Plausible? Maybe.... Probable? Perhaps.... but not Actual.

To be fair, when scientists began speculating the existence of the atom... we could not see one. Infact, even after it was accepted that atoms were real, we still couldn't see them. But, the evidence was demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, peer reviewed and overwhelming. The facts stood up to scrutiny and could not be refuted. Once we had the technology to view the atom, it was no surprise as to what we would see.

The same is just not there for bigfoot.
Click to expand...

Well said. The same could be said for many cultural myths like the chupacabra or the loche ness monster. At this point there's simply nothing viable to test.
 
JCavSD said:
Well said. The same could be said for many cultural myths like the chupacabra or the loche ness monster. At this point there's simply nothing viable to test.
Click to expand...

There are viable samples to test. But "viability" is questionable because of how the samples were acquired and handled. Can you imagine some archeologist claiming carbon 14 dating of an artifact textile proves that Europeans were here in 1292 but he can't prove where the artifact came from? Or an ornathologist proving a feather to be from a passenger pigeon but can't prove how and when it was collected?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top