"Squatchers"

To Rick Marchand, your comment about a well trained big game hunting dog being afraid of nothing, could not be more wrong. Sorry but is flat out not true or a lie if you will. I own labs, blue ticks and a buddy of mine had Rhodesian Ridgebacks (used for hunting lions in Africa). I've hunted with well trained pure bred majestics, blood hounds, walkers and everything in-between. You comment in nonsense.
 
MikeC said:
To Rick Marchand, your comment about a well trained big game hunting dog being afraid of nothing, could not be more wrong. Sorry but is flat out not true or a lie if you will. I own labs, blue ticks and a buddy of mine had Rhodesian Ridgebacks (used for hunting lions in Africa). I've hunted with well trained pure bred majestics, blood hounds, walkers and everything in-between. You comment in nonsense.
Click to expand...
A little harsh but thanks for the correction, Mike.:thumbup: I still have my doubts that all dogs are afraid of sasquatch. I have a client and good friend who owns a company that trains military and protection dogs who says different. They have had dogs keep going after being shot and ran over. These things literally do their duty until death. Maybe I painted too broad a picture with my first statement... I shouldn't have worded it in such an "absolute" manner.
 
Last edited:
Once in a while you will find a dog in any breed that doesn't have the good sense to be scared . We raised coon hounds and other hunting dogs when I was growing up plus coon hound field trial and water race dogs. we usually had 30 to 50 dogs . Legend has it bigfoot has a habit of pulling limbs and heads off those types of dogs .
I am still on the fence on bigfoots existance . On one hand They should have found something by now on the other hand and I know to many experianced woodsman that have seen something the can't identify, people who can tell animal by a twich of an ear or how they move. Also I have watched all the people who claim to debunk the patterson grimlin film. They have not convinced me it was hoaxed discovery's recreation wasn't even close , Patterson's film was taken at the time they were filming planet of the apes , at the time the most expensive to make film ever, I find it hard to believe 2 cowboys with a rented camera and $2k borrowed money could produce a better suit than the best make up artist of the time with unlimited cash
J.M.H.O.
Roy
 
There are many who believe that aliens visit us on a regular basis, that ghosts appear/interact from beyond the grave, that individuals can posess mystical powers and all kinds of other supernatural stuff. I don't believe the majority of these people are lying. They have experience something real to them. However, NONE of it has been released as scientifically true. Maybe I am biased toward science and not willing to accept that there are things that science will never be able to explain... but so far it has been the best method of discerning truth from non-truth(not to be confused with lying). When one also considers the fame, money and prizes(Nobel) that would accompany undeniable proof, I am surprized that there hasn't been a single breakthrough.
 
Rick Marchand said:
There are many who believe that aliens visit us on a regular basis, that ghosts appear/interact from beyond the grave, that individuals can posess mystical powers and all kinds of other supernatural stuff. I don't believe the majority of these people are lying. They have experience something real to them. However, NONE of it has been released as scientifically true. Maybe I am biased toward science and not willing to accept that there are things that science will never be able to explain... but so far it has been the best method of discerning truth from non-truth(not to be confused with lying). When one also considers the fame, money and prizes(Nobel) that would accompany undeniable proof, I am surprized that there hasn't been a single breakthrough.
Click to expand...

I believe it is mathematically impossible for there not to some other life out there. I doubt they have been here though. Bili apes have been confirmed showing us it is possible for big primates to escape detection . I don't believe in ghost but do believe their are things beyond science's grasp As I said I'm on the fence, on bigfoot chances are a black bear is the likely misidentified animal . But I know some one who knows black bear behavior very well that saw something big that wasn't a bear ?????
The hebrew people 3000 years ago said we all came from a single woman science now agrees with that How did they know?? Theoretically an unknown great ape is possible so I can't be absolutely certian it isn't there. odd wise I would give it a ~10% chance of exsisting
Roy
 
plumberroy said:
Bili apes have been confirmed showing us it is possible for big primates to escape detection.
Click to expand...
In 1996 a scientific researcher looking for gorillas found the skull of a chimp. He went back in 2000 and again in 2003 when the made contact with a group. That is 7 years to find positive, falsifiable proof. This was in the Congo... an expansive, rarely traveled jungle, not someone's back acreage in Michigan. Huge difference.
plumberroy said:
The hebrew people 3000 years ago said we all came from a single woman science now agrees with that How did they know??
Click to expand...
I suggest you do a little more research before repeating that to anyone else. Science does not agree with it in the manner you are presenting. Look up "Mitochondrial Eve".
 
Last edited:
Rick Marchand said:
In 1996 a scientific researcher looking for gorillas found the skull of a chimp. He went back in 2000 and again in 2003 when the made contact with a group. That is 7 years to find positive, falsifiable proof. This was in the Congo... an expansive, rarely traveled jungle, not someone's back acreage in Michigan. Huge difference.

I suggest you do a little more research before repeating that to anyone else. Science does not agree with it in the manner you are presenting. Look up "Mitochondrial Eve".
Click to expand...

Science of course doesn't agree creationism but 3000 years ago people knew we all decended from one woman. 25 years ago science thought that was absurd , today "Mitochondrial Eve" existed according to science .
Yes the congo is remote but locals knew the "lion killers" Bili apes existed There are still remote areas in the U.S .. There are no wolves in East central Indiana/west central ohio yet a wolf tagged in North west Wisconsin was killed east of Winchester Indiana 2005-6 Cougars aren't suppose to be in the East, Michigan denied reports for years yet in the last ten years a wildlife officer reported one and one was hit on the road. I was at a farm of a contractor working for my employer 20 miles from Cincinnati Oh and saw live traps set by O.D.N.R. for a cougar. None were caught but as big as the traps were and the effort to get them to were they were set was a lot of wasted energy and time if they didn't think there was something there.
Personally I think 99% of all bigfoot sightings are Blackbear standing to smell the wind. But when a man who has hunted black bear for 40 years all over north america that has been involved in way over 100 kills tells me what he saw wasn't a black bear I have to think. Native people living off the land people who get off the beaten path and know wild animals see some thing I have to think. Look up the paiute red haired giants myth
I am not saying there I 100% believe in bigfoot science common sense and history tells me there is a slight posibility.
I am saying I don't think 2 cowboys with $2K had the know how to fake what I see on that film them find some one built oddly enough to fit that . you cannot fake where joints bend. And what ever it is it does not move like a human.
I will tell you this legend has it it like to throw soccer ball size rocks in your direction , a critter starts that crap I end the debate
Unless Some one flops a body down the debate won't end , unforunately in our world that is the only way to prove something lives is to kill one
Richard you do make lots of valid points , unless someone flop down a body it all just opinion
Roy
 
I agree that many of the eye-witnesses accounts and evidence is intriguing and often very convicing... but it just isn't enough to draw a conclusion... or it would have by now. You don't have to kill something to prove it exsits. I don't think they had to kill a Bili ape to document the new species.... but I bet the evidence they released from the 2003 research expedition left no doubt that the Bili Ape was real. There is no bili ape controversy. They were not born of legend. Locals said they were there and shortly after, researchers confirmed.

plumberroy said:
Science of course doesn't agree creationism but 3000 years ago people knew we all decended from one woman. 25 years ago science thought that was absurd , today "Mitochondrial Eve" existed according to science .
Click to expand...
Please realize they aren't saying that we all came from one woman but that the current geneology can be traced back to a single female. You still aren't grasping what Mitocondrial Eve is.

Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the Biblical Eve.[5] The reference to Eve may lead to the misconception that she was the only living female of her time, even though she co-existed with other females. However, all of her other female contemporaries failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to the present day.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell, her genetics somehow outlasted all others. Human life did not originate from one female.... That is what they meant 3000yrs ago. To make any other connection from that is wishful thinking.
 
In the Planet of the Apes the characters are close , in focus, not distant, grainy and jumpy , the opposite of the Patterson film.

People see the same evidence and come up with different conclusions. I think the Patterson film is a hoax .
 
Yes, eye witness accounts can be seemingly believable, but that's far from making them true. The article linked below briefly outlines how eyewitness accounts are problematic in our legal system, and not just for the eye witness. The degree of confidence of the person reporting the event can have an impact on how the event is heard by others. Bottom line, we're goofy brained, and need to use reliable and rational methodology to prevent us from fooling ourselves and others.

Surveys show that most jurors place heavy weight on eyewitness testimony when deciding whether a suspect is guilty. But although eyewitness reports are sometimes accurate, jurors should not accept them uncritically because of the many factors that can bias such reports. For example, jurors tend to give more weight to the testimony of eyewitnesses who report that they are very sure about their identifications even though most studies indicate that highly confident eyewitnesses are generally only slightly more accurate—and sometimes no more so—than those who are less confident. In addition to educating jurors about the uncertainties surrounding eyewitness testimony, adhering to specific rules for the process of identifying suspects can make that testimony more accurate.​

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-the-eyes-have-it
 
Good stuff, Jason.

Some folks find validity in the sightings because there are so many reported. What they fail to realize is that these are mostly individual events involving one(maybe two) witnesses. A much stronger case could be made if a larger group was witness to the same creature at the same time. There have been cases of small groups seeing something they perceive as bigfoot. The problem here is they start out with an "unidentified/unexplanable" occurance and feed off eachother until they almost come to a unanimously confirmed event. Each member fills in the blanks for the other. We, as reasoning/thinking animals tend to put purpose, pattern and preconceived notions into our decision making process. I can't site the source but I remember reading about how the majority of the animal kingdom take what they see, smell, hear, taste on face value alone... a blurry silhouette on a ridge, is just a blurry silhouette on a ridge.
 
Last edited:
The whole topic is vastly compromised by the number of known outright fakers doing so for fun and/or profit. Melba Ketchum, the vet who owns a "dna lab" in Texas just made a bunch of statements about samples she supposedly has worked on for the past few years. Without peer review, she states that the creatures are part human, the result of crossbreeding of modern human females and some unknown primate. And uses her theory to call for government protection of the yet-unproven species. She has a very low rating with the local BBB and has been removed from the list of DNA labs recognized by the CFA (cat fanciers).

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/12/breaking-dr-melba-ketchums-bigfoot-dna.html
 
Rick I understand what you are saying. Mitocondrial Eve was not the first woman but every thing I read says every human alive today decended from her. The fact that most anceint cultures believed that, even though not as science believes it . I find interesting, it could be oral history distorted through the generations. I have read there could have been as few as 1000 humans alive at her point in history. What do think as far as my opinion that the vast majority of bigfoot sightings are misidenified black bear
Roy
 
I have seen a Bigfoot. I don't need to " know " if they are real. I KNOW what I saw. It wasn't a bear or mutant deer or anything like that. This was an upright man like creature that looks like Harry from Harry and the Hendersons. NO B.S. here. Email me for the whole story if interested.
 
Very cool, M.Freeze.... no pun intended. Earlier in the thread, I spoke of a friend who had an encounter. He is definitely not one to make stuff up and I don't think you are either. What were you feeling when you saw it and did that feeling change as time passed and you re-played the encounter in your mind? Did you document any tracks? What did the face look like?
 
It's a good thing movies like "Harry and the Henderson's" came out.

That way people know what they're suppose to see when they're not sure what they saw.

I believe you saw something, just not a bigfoot.
 
Bob W said:
If there were lions in Alberta, people would probably find skeletons and take pictures from time to time. ;)
Like this one and thousands of others:
TRCG06.JPG


;)
Click to expand...

He's pretty tame:D
 
Put me down as a "no" for seeing anything. If there is a bigfoot I hope no one ever finds it. Once something is tagged and categorized the magic is gone.
 
Last edited:
I just wonder to myself which large mammal generally fits the descriptions from the Pacific North West. A very large beast standing tall on two legs, with dark shaggy hair that can make frightening noises. What would this look like in poor forest edge or evening light ? Consider this animals range and that Canada has Boreal forest basicly from one end to the other. Why not sightings across the country in this habitat ? Or are we limited to a certain animals natural range.

imagesCAV7LF5M.jpg
 
I do believe they exist, but I think I am more drawn to the mystery of it than the black or white absolutes that are always involved.
If we can absolutely say that it doesn't exist than I think that we have lost something more important than a cool new ape to study.
Probably a terrible comparison but it's like when you learn Santa is not real, lol, but instead of kids it's people that love the outdoors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top