What I meant was artifacts made out of Sasquatch bones, skin, or other body parts, not artifacts (supposedly) depicting them. Medicine bundles or bags often contained teeth, bones, or hide of animals of spiritual significance. If Sasquatches existed, you might expect a tooth or bone might have been found and preserved.
I thought he was married to it…
When I first heard the fruit theory (sounds like something to do with Ted Haggard, doesn’t it?), I found it pretty compelling evidence against. Not that I believed in the existence of Bigfoot, at least not since I was about 12.
But the lack of hard evidence: no bones, no skin, no scat, no corpse, nothing…doesn’t prove it doesn’t exist of course, but it doesn’t go very far in proving it does either.
While I’ve not been in the PNW, I have no trouble believing it’s rugged, inaccessible in many parts, with vast undeveloped areas. On the other hand, it’s hardly like the far side of the moon, now is it?
Add to all this the reports of large hairy humanoids in places like Oklahoma, Ohio, and other states that aren’t nearly as rugged or undeveloped, and in my opinion, you’ve got the makings of little more than a campfire story.
Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia Sasquatch!
People of Walmart.
There was no such person as Mark Twain. It was a guy named Samuel Clemons pretending to be Mark Twain, much like it is guys with big fake feet and suits pretending to be Bigfoot. We know that there are people who pretend to be Bigfoot. The interesting question is what are all the witnesses seeing. Are they seeing people pulling a prank on them? Something else that they mistake for a 7 foot ape? Is it possible there is a 7 foot ape or a population of them out there? I’m going to be skeptical of a population of Bigfoots/Bigfeet until we have the remains of one analyzed by professors from an accredited University.
Generally, the ones from law enforcement officers, Forest Service personnel, etc. People that have no particular axe to grind, and nothing to gain from lying.
Specifically, when I wrote that I was thinking of the multiple reports from June 1-2 1971, Wasco County, OR. These are listed here and here and here but these give only bare details. I am unable to locate a full-length writeup that can be linked to. These were multiple sightings on consecutive days by independent witnesses, a couple of whom were well-regarded businessmen who, again had nothing to gain by making something up. I have watched interviews with two of these people, and to my mind at least, they had the ring of truth. Yes, I know that’s a subjective judgement. But the consistant descriptions by reputable witnesses with no vested interest do seem more credible than the run-of-the-mill reports of, say alian abductions, Roswell rods, etc.
Also impressive is the sheer number of reports dating back 200 years or more, and the repeated reports from certain “hot spots”, notably Wasco Co. OR, the Mt. St. Helen’s region of WA, and Southwestern BC.
Again, let me say I am not trying to make a case for the existance of Sasquatch, only to explain why I personally think it might be possible, and prefer to keep an open mind on the matter.
SS
If each report is bogus, 200 more bogus ones do not constitute proof of anything but your gullibility.
Forest rangers’ eyes record events like a camera without error, and their brains never misinterpret shadowy images in the woods?
“Nothing to gain”? Except notoriety? So anyone with nothing to gain always tells the truth? Think that works on a witness stand? “But your honor, I have nothing to gain by lying, so I must be telling the truth, and that man is guilty!” Nonsense.
A “ring of truth”? That’s your big gun? Not “truth,” only a “ring” of it?
Ever heard of acting? Ever heard of tall tales? Fairy tales? Campfire stories? Uncle Joe pulling your leg?
And on what criterion are you judging that Story X sounds more credible than Story Y, so much so that you discard Y and swallow X without a question?
So all it takes is a story that sounds sincere to you, and 500 years of biological research is overturned? “Bare,” sketchy, second-hand details are all you need? Think that’s how my college zoology teacher got his education?
So all you’ve got is a collection of stories. Nothing like bones? Then all you have is a collection of stories, not evidence.
How many times have you bought the Brooklyn Bridge? You must have quite a collection by now. Have you spent the million dollars given to you by that nice Nigerian gentleman yet? Had any success with that body part enlarger you got recently? Did you know the word “gullible” isn’t in the dictionary? That’s right, look it up!
Well, the only fossils of Celocanths (spelling? the old, long thought to be extinct fish) were many millions of years old. There were no not so old remains of them to be found. Until one guy saw one in a fish market.
Now, if Big Feets havent been around and or very numerous for millions of years, there seems to be the possibility of them lurking around without any past or present hard evidence. Though, myself, I think it only warrants a “well, its not IMPOSSIBLE” rating
There is the Skunk Ape Research Center about 50 miles south east of Naples, Florida. My SO refused to let me go see it when we were down there 
they also have nothing to LOSE by lying.
Sure, they may be well-regarded policemen or rangers…but, just like you and me, they have imagination. Two days ago, somebody in uniform saw a vague shadow in the trees, and said maybe it’s Bigfoot. Yesterday, you saw a shadow and thought it might be Bigfoot, but didnt dare say so. Today, you see another vague shadow, so you say it out loud, to your friend the journalist.
That’s three, yes three, confirmed sightings of…a vague shadow. But now it’s published in the local news. You may be a bit embarrassed , but it’s too late to retract, so you start talking about it more openly, with details .And tomorrow,… guess what..Your buddy at work will see a vague shadow, too.
That’s 4 reliable sightings!!!All in one week!!! And all reported on the news!!!
(remember that old saying about extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence?)
All of the other large, land-dwelling mammals wander over wide ranges of land, eat a lot of food, and leave traces of themselves.
Sasquatch enthusiasts sometimes point out that a few large mammals have only become known to science fairly recently in order to defend the absence of hard evidence. However, as in the case of the Saola, discovered in 1992, these animals have always been known to local inhabitants even if they were not known to the outside world. The locals had skulls and skins of the animal in their houses. As I said above, if Sasquatches existed one would expect the local Native Americans to have preserved such evidence.
This reminds me of one of my favorite stories, A Lion in The Woods, by Maurice Dolbier. A children’s book, but one we can all heed, and if you have children, I urge you to find a copy and read it to them or with them.
There is a review on the linked page, which says, in part:
The most educational part of the story is when Timothy interviews the witnesses. None had a reason to lie. They were all fine upstanding citizens – none of whom had ever seen a real lion before, but why dwell on that? If the reporter questioned their personal analysis of the sound, smell or shadow, they would respond angrily, “Now see here, Son, are you calling me a liar? It’s right there in the paper, isn’t it?”
The story takes some clever twists and turns, only one of which I need mention here, but please read the book if you can for sheer enjoyment.
The one twist worth mentioning…Timothy Hoppit takes his notes from the witness interviews to the Daily Blade’s Star Reporter, Harry Fox, and confesses it all – how he made the story up and how it got accidentally printed. Harry tells him not worry, he’ll take care of it.
The next day, the paper’s headline says, “TWO LIONS IN WOODS.” The star reporter had taken the multiple reports, often of events happening at the same time in different parts of the forest, and instead of concluding that there was NO lion, concluded that there might be TWO. Such is how the same facts can lead to opposite conclusions, if only you try hard enough.
And of course, Harry Fox was offering to get rid of all of them, since he knew that none existed…but you must read the book to see how it all comes out.
The review concludes:
What is your problem? That is a super aggressive response to a guy who was just saying “I’m not ruling it out.” You know science is on his side, right? We may not waste a ton of research money and time trying to prove the existence of bigfoot, but neither is a good scientist going to say “it does NOT exist.”
Starting with a supposition like this shows about as much scientific and philosophical integrity as a slice of swiss cheese.
Given the propensity of Random J. Hunter to occasionally mistake and shoot his orange clad brother-in-law for a moose, I would have to say the lack of a Sasquatch corpse from a thousandth such event over the last 300 years pretty much rules out any possibility.
Given the happenstance that Experienced J. Hunter has mistakenly killed millions of cows, dogs, horses and various other fauna over the last 300 years and never bagged a bigfoot is pretty telling.
It seems everything but bigfoots been gunned down.
Truly such a man beast must be impervious to bullets.
Anyone who grasps at straws with as little evidence as we have for bigfoot, “evidence” that is not getting better or stronger, shows an insane, pathological attraction to a ridiculous fairy tale. Scientific analysis does not give all claims the same weight, but ranks them according to their likelihood. You got nothin’.
Do astronomers take astrologer’s predictions and use it to search the heavens? Why not? Is it unscientific to give evidence the credit it deserves, which in this case is next to none?
Fine. Show me a report that is more solid than just “I saw something I can’t explain!” and then show me 200 more. Otherwise, you got nothin’.
And my swiss cheese just took offense. It may be holey, but it’s not gullible.
Did someone switch your Pepsodent with testosterone cream? He/she said:
. . . and you respond like you’re talking to Stephen E. Jones.
“A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.”
Cisco, keeping an open mind doesn’t mean accepting all stories as equally creditable. If you study how humans fool themselves (cf. Thomas Glovich), logical fallacies, and understand how little credit should be given to “eyewitness” accounts (cf.Susan Blackmore), you will understand why it is not reasonable to give any weight to voodoo science (cf. Robert Park).
It is not unscientific to disregard what hasn’t improved over time. Indeed, that is a hallmark of pathological science – evidence doesn’t strengthen over time.
“I don’t believe, I’m…just asking.” A favorite CT (Conspiracy Theorist) line, and borderline trolldom in some forums.
I will make a prediction. 10 years from now, there will not be any stronger bigfoot evidence (body, bones, etc. sufficient for a valid scientific paper), but some people will still be claiming “you need an open mind to believe.” Ignorance and nonsense.
I say again: “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.”
This is just bizarre. Entertaining too, though, I guess. Especially the part about you completely missing the point and assuming it’s because I don’t know anything about science.
Well, its obvious to me some Bigfoot done did somebody wrong sometime/somewheres and now someone’s got an axe to grind…
If you think that “keeping an open mind” means believing any cockamamie story that comes along as equally scientifically credible, I would agree.
They usually live at 90m+ underwater though, which only a tiny percentage of people have ever been to. Any remains will generally be inaccessible, it was only very recently they’ve been filmed by divers in their actual habitat.
Bigfoot on the other hand is something that supposedly has been observed by humans regularly.
Otara