"Squatchers"

It's really easy to disbelief that there could be a man-ape like creature roaming about, when you've never seen anything. Back in the 1960's there was an "black gorilla" sighted where I live many times. It was on the front page of the local papers, during one summer a great number of times. It caused quite a stir and tales of the creature continued for many years after. I've never seen whatever it was, but I have heard things to the extent, I don't discount these tales at all. I also know people that are solid and honest country folk, that somberly have told me they did see this creature. So, no I don't think all this stuff is made up by any means.
 
I agree about the film you can’t fake that kind of movement and in 67 that would have been a real challenge if not impossible. Planet of the Apes came out in 68 and you can see how special the effects were. Not bad, but not what’s in the Patterson/Gimlin film by a long shot. Last year there was a movie called “Letters from the Big Man” so you can see Hollywood’s current take on what they think Sasquatch would look like. This in my opinion might discount any future video evidence.

I’ve read Dr. Meldrum’s book as well as many articles about the validity of the film. It’s been studied the world over by experts from many different fields and everyone comes up with something different. I’m not a cryptozoologist nor a primate expert or a biologist. The controversy surrounding the authenticity of the film is what it is and everyone will believe what they want. My take on the whole thing is this. How convenient is it to be making a movie about Sasquatch to have one walk right up on you.

Sure stranger things have happened. I’ve been deer hunting and went the whole day not seeing a thing to almost getting trampled by some walking home that evening, which was kind of strange. I just think that was really convenient to be making a film for profit to only have your star show up in all her glory. Again stranger things have happened. So was “Patty” the last of the unicorns? I only ask as the closest thing to the film might be the “Jacobs” photos from Pennsylvania. Bear or Bigfoot, real or hoax people will believe what they want. I would think however there would be some kind of current footage by now. There is the Michael Greene FLIR video but for all hoopla surrounding it you would think experts would have weighed in or a massive stakeout of the area would have occurred.

If people say they’ve seen one I have no reason not to believe them. I really have a hard time simply acknowledging that it’s anything more than a big dumb animal that roams the woods. Either by virtue of a small population or migratory habits I can’t wrap my head around an animal that is reported to display characteristics/abilities beyond even what we as humans have. Again I have been wrong before and will be wrong again!:D
 
Last edited:
The creature in the film, did not walk right upon the men on horseback. They rode upon it and it was beside a fast running stream, I've read that the noise of the stream, may have drowned out the noise of the approaching men and also it's thought the creature may not have thought much about the sound of horses walking, as it would have been similar to the sound elk would make walking. In any event there is a film something walking before the camera and I myself don't believe a couple of guys like them could have came close to faking it.
 
Okay, so what kind of knife do I need in case of a Sasquatch attack?

I don't believe in Sassy, I agree with others about Game cams and all of the inconsistent stories you hear.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see and I know I'm not looking. :cool:
 
There's pictures and films showing this creature, that is never good enough to prove 100% that it is real. Just as the 1000's sightings, 1000's of footprint's, are not. As for inconsistent stories, I've read the opposite, that the stories are amazingly consistent, as far as what they describe. A dead body will be the only thing that proves 100% to the world this creature really is real. The Patterson film really would have been impossible for a pair of 1967 cowboys, to have faked. In fact modern analyzing of it points to it being real. (look at the way it moves and it's arm length)

It's also a fact, there's been more than one person set out to "disprove" this creature's existence, that wound up firmly believing there is something out there.
I myself, would have never believed there could be a ape like creature, keeping it's self mostly hidden out there. But, I've seen evidence there is in fact something to it.
 
I was watched a documentary about the Patterson film and an acquaintance of Patterson said he was the man in the suit . He was a big guy and walked just like the person in the film.
 
I don't think it's a fake, because of the 1000's of eyewitnesses that have reported seeing the creature. Then when someone happens to catch it on film, it's fake? If there was not reports for 100's of years by even Native Americans, before white men, then yes I'd say it was a fake. I don't think people make this stuff up myself.
 
I find the lack of physical evidence very convincing. While the terrain the Pacific NW may be harsh and relatively uninhabited by humans, there are still people everywhere. There are little towns, single ranches, etc. everywhere. Almost all of the land has been logged at some point and is currently managed. We have evidence of all the other critters out there, road kills, skeletons (I've found 2 mountain lion skeletons, hows that for rare?), tracks, scat, excellent high resolution photos, etc. We are talking about a population, likely numerous populations with some mixing (biologist here). For bigfoot to be real, we would need many individuals, breeding, raising young, migrating to seasonal food sources, and all the other things real mammals do. Sure an individual may go completely undetected for decades, but entire populations? That's what gets me, all the hunters out there, ranchers and loggers, not one has stumbled upon a bigfoot and shot it. Happens all the time with bears and mountains lions.

We've got skeletons, carcasses and high quality imagery (photo and movie) of all the mammals in North America. Yet no reliable evidence of bigfoot. It's not one bigfoot, it's a population. I just seems way to far fetched for me. I'd love it if it was real, that'd be cool.

In the end, the only logical way that bigfoot could be out there is if: 1) it doesn't show up on film (like a vampire?) and 2) it doesn't leave a carcass (like a werewolf? maybe it turns into a bear carcass?). And that's my scientific logical explanation.
 
jill jackson said:
There's pictures and films showing this creature, that is never good enough to prove 100% that it is real. Just as the 1000's sightings, 1000's of footprint's, are not. As for inconsistent stories, I've read the opposite, that the stories are amazingly consistent, as far as what they describe. A dead body will be the only thing that proves 100% to the world this creature really is real. The Patterson film really would have been impossible for a pair of 1967 cowboys, to have faked. In fact modern analyzing of it points to it being real. (look at the way it moves and it's arm length)

It's also a fact, there's been more than one person set out to "disprove" this creature's existence, that wound up firmly believing there is something out there.
I myself, would have never believed there could be a ape like creature, keeping it's self mostly hidden out there. But, I've seen evidence there is in fact something to it.
Click to expand...


People are seeing something and something is and has been making footprints for a very long time. In this day and age however, with technology it would be a hard sell saying a picture/video was legit evidence.

Either way the Patterson film has been studied by experts the world over and some say real, some say man in a monkey suit. There are just as many people trying to prove its existence than disprove it.

In fact modern analyzing of it points to it being real. (look at the way it moves and it's arm length)
Click to expand...

I would very much enjoy reading/researching the source of this analysis. Hopefully it goes beyond the movement/arm length and the BFRO hoax link you posted.

Maybe a good start and eventual finish to all this will be when and if Dr. Melba Ketchum’s DNA paper has made it through its peer review and been published. To convince the scientific community would be huge! So until then or until one ends up on a slab the debate will continue.
 
Erasmus said:
... A lot of that terrain is so unyielding and rocky, that a halfway smart creature could easily choose to leave no traces. ....
Click to expand...

Not when they are dead. Don't kid yourself. If such a population ever existed we would have had plenty of evidence by now.

n2s
 
So what do these guys do, eat their dead, fur, bones and all. I can believe that sasquatches are aliens easier than I can believe that they are a previously undiscovered North American great ape. Name any other North American mammal that was discovered in the last 45 years with no previous fossils or remains. Chris
 
Last edited:
Melba Ketchum BIgfoot DNA paper rejected by scientific journal

The paper submitted by Melba Ketchum on Bigfoot DNA study has been rejected out of hand. It has not just been handed back, it has been rejected. I have it from two unrelated sources in the Bigfoot world that the cornerstone of the Erickson project has crashed in flames.

No scientific journal would even begin to entertain a concept that has been worked backwards. That is "ad-hoc_ science". That is when you state the conclusion up front and then fill in the blanks. The project was never even a theory or an hypothesis; it was stated as a fact up front. They went straight too conclusion and only looked for evidence that would support their theory.

That is what is behind all conspiracy theories. UFO's, ghost, JFK, NWO, global warming and so forth. People only want to believe, and only look for evidence to support that. Unfortunately, that has happened in the Bigfoot world.

A good scientist will do everything they can to falsify their own logical process. That way, the integrity of their work is sound.

I'm sorry that many people will be disappointed. But it goes beyond that.

Not every hoax is as crude as a monkey suit frozen in ice. Many of them can be subtle, and have the appearance of respectability. Especially when a wealthy businessman is involved, and a respected veterinarian.

People in the BF world should have been more skeptical, and not have attached their wagons to this star. Where they hoodwinked? Was Biscardi hoodwinked?

Is that how people get out of this? They just claim they were fooled. Its not that simple. You bought it; you promoted it; you blasted skeptics (me); and claimed it was real. You owe more then just an oh well.

Biscardi was on to this scam months ago (just listen to his radio archives from May onward). They say it takes one to know one. You should have followed his lead. Now lets see who eats crow.
Click to expand...

Text from the link.
 
I've spent almost two days going through the links ... my good friend claims to have had an encounter... and I still don't believe in Bigfoot. IMO there is just as much hard evidence for UFO's, Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabra, Jersey Devil and a myramid of supernatural phenomenon. Out of all of them, I think Bigfoot is the coolest and least likely to eat you.

Why is it every other new species we've found came from scientific research, documented specimens and peer review..... while our most compeling evidence for bigfoot is a cowboy's shakey video tape from the 60's?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top