steddyeddy Registered User
#1

For those who didnt guess this is about sasqautch, almas and the yeti ect. The mystery here is the fact that there is over 2500 sightings of sasquatch alone in north america and canada. Many footprints that defy classification and have consistent antomical details even when found hundreds of miles apart. I dont find over a hundred years of hoaxing and or misidentification plausable in my humble opinion.

Whats everyone elses take in it?

Star Lord Moderator
#2

I'll be honest, I'd like to believe, but I think that there's a reason that sightings have all been from a distance, and photos/footage have all been blurry and inconclusive.

If they do exist, they must be the worlds rarest animals, to exist in well explored places and yet nothing conclusive shown for them.

1 person has thanked this post
steddyeddy Registered User
#3

DamoElDiablo said:
I'll be honest, I'd like to believe, but I think that there's a reason that sightings have all been from a distance, and photos/footage have all been blurry and inconclusive.

If they do exist, they must be the worlds rarest animals, to exist in well explored places and yet nothing conclusive shown for them.


Well thats my point in a way. Its not a matter of belief for me. I find the evidence points in the direction of an unknown primate and come tomorrow when Im not as tired Ill back up my claim!

1 person has thanked this post
steddyeddy Registered User
#4

Sorry for the delay. I cant talk about just one aspect of the evidence I find convincing for sasquatch because It is the combination of trace evidence (footprints) and sightings I find compelling. On the subject of sightings they can be either misidentification, the witness lying or someone playing a trick on somebody.

I dont see this as misidentification or a hoax. The other possiblity is lying but I dont see how 2500 pre internet can be lying to the same description. Anyway Ill start with one of my favouraites reported in 1955 the witness signed a sworn affidavit:

This drawing of the animal William Roe saw was done by his daughter under his direction.
This, to the best of my recollection, is what the creature looked like and how it acted as it came across the clearing directly towards me. My first impression was of a huge man, about six feet tall, almost three feet wide and probably weighing somewhere near 300 pounds. It was covered from head to foot with dark brown, silver-tipped hair. But as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was a female. And yet, its torso was not curved like a female’s. Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to hip. Its arms were much thicker than a man’s arms, and longer, reaching almost to its knees. Its feet were broader proportionately than a man’s, about five inches wide at the front and tapering to much thinner heels. When it walked it placed the heel of its foot down first, and I could see the grey-brown skin or hide on the soles of its feet.

It came to the edge of the bush I was hiding in, within twenty feet of me, and squatted down on its haunches. Reaching out its hands it pulled the branches of bushes toward it and stripped the leaves with its teeth. Its lips curled flexibly around the leaves as it ate. I was close enough to see that its teeth were white and even.

The shape of this creature’s head somewhat resembled a negro’s. The head was higher at the back than at the front. The nose was broad and flat. The lips and chin protruded farther than its nose. But the hair that covered it, leaving bare only the parts of the face around the mouth, nose and ears, made it resemble an animal as much as a human. None of its hair, even on the back of its head, was longer than an inch, and that on its face was much shorter. Its ears were shaped like a human’s ears. But its eyes were small and black like a bear’s. And its neck was unhuman. Thicker and shorter than any man’s I had ever seen.

As I watched this creature, I wondered if some movie company was making a film at this place and that what I saw was an actor made up to look partly human and partly animal. But as I observed it more I decided it would be impossible to fake such a specimen. Anyway, I learned later that there was no such company near that area. Nor, in fact, did anyone live up Mica Mountain, according to the people who lived in Tete Jaune Cache.

Finally, the wild thing must have got my scent, for it looked directly at me through an opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face. It looked so comical at the moment I had to grin. Still in a crouched position, it backed up three or four steps, then straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come. For a moment it watched me over its shoulder as it went, not exactly afraid, but as though it wanted no contact with anything strange.

The thought came to me that if I shot it, I would possibly have a specimen of great Interest to scientists the world over. I had heard stories about the Sasquatch, the giant hairy Indians that live in the legends of British Columbia Indians, and also, many claim, are still in fact alive today. Maybe this was a Sasquatch, I told myself.

I levelled my rifle. The creature was still walking rapidly away, again turning its head to look in my direction. I lowered the rifle. Although I have called the creature “it,” I felt now that it was a human being and I knew I would never forgive myself if I killed it.

Just as it came to the other patch of brush it threw back its head and made a peculiar noise that seemed to be half laugh and half language, and which I can only describe as a kind of whinny. Then it walked from the small brush into a stand of lodgepole pine.

I stepped out into the opening and looked across a small ridge just beyond the pine to see if I could see it again. It came out on the ridge a couple of hundred yards away from me, tipped its head back again, and again emitted the only sound I had heard it make, but what this half-laugh, half-language was meant to convey, I do not know. It disappeared then, and I never saw it again.

I wanted to find out if it lived on vegetation entirely or ate meat as well, so I went down and looked for signs. I found it in five different places, and although I examined it thoroughly, could find no hair or shells of bugs or insects. So I believe it was strictly a vegetarian.

I found one place where it had slept for a couple of nights under a tree. Now, the nights were cool up the mountain, at this time of year especially, and yet it had not used a fire. I found no sign that it possessed even the simplest of tools. Nor a single companion while in this place.

I hereby declare the above statement to be in every part true, to the best of my powers of observation and recollection.

WILLIAM ROE


This the picture drawn of the creature which was evidently a female.

tac foley Registered User
#5

If you lived here in England where I do, you'd see things that look exactly like this, but with clothes on, walking down main street on any morning.

tac

7 people have thanked this post
analyst2 Banned
#6

steddyeddy said:
Sorry for the delay. I cant talk about just one aspect of the evidence I find convincing for sasquatch because It is the combination of trace evidence (footprints) and sightings I find compelling. On the subject of sightings they can be either misidentification, the witness lying or someone playing a trick on somebody.

I dont see this as misidentification or a hoax. The other possiblity is lying but I dont see how 2500 pre internet can be lying to the same description. Anyway Ill start with one of my favouraites reported in 1955 the witness signed a sworn affidavit:


This the picture drawn of the creature which was evidently a female.



Isn't it curious how there are so many sightings, yet no one has photographed them clearly or unambiguously or found other evidence.

Have you any explanation as to why that is?

steddyeddy Registered User
#7

steddyeddy said:
Sorry for the delay. I cant talk about just one aspect of the evidence I find convincing for sasquatch because It is the combination of trace evidence (footprints) and sightings I find compelling. On the subject of sightings they can be either misidentification, the witness lying or someone playing a trick on somebody.

I dont see this as misidentification or a hoax. The other possiblity is lying but I dont see how 2500 pre internet can be lying to the same description. Anyway Ill start with one of my favouraites reported in 1955 the witness signed a sworn affidavit:


This the picture drawn of the creature which was evidently a female.



Isn't it curious how there are so many sightings, yet no one has photographed them clearly or unambiguously or found other evidence.

Have you any explanation as to why that is?


Yes indeed. Some animals display behaviour termed as cryptic, that is they prefer to remain elusive. Particularly primates. There are several shots that people say was a sasquatch but until they bring in a dead body there is no definative proof. My point is the theory of an unknown primate makes more sense than a conspiracy group lasting hundreds of years. Im skeptical of that assesment.

#8

In recent years, the amount of camera phones and such means that there absolutely should be definitive picture or video evidence by now. I'm betting these unexplained sightings have dried up over the past 5 years

steddyeddy Registered User
#9

al28283 said:
In recent years, the amount of camera phones and such means that there absolutely should be definitive picture or video evidence by now. I'm betting these unexplained sightings have dried up over the past 5 years


We dont have more pics of elusive animals like the wolverine (the animal) despite this. Whys that? No sightings havent went away.

1 person has thanked this post
Gileadi Registered User
#10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolverine

Is a picture of a Wolverine.

Are you trying to say that this elusive race of primates is in existance somewhere in N. America and that no bodies have been located?

steddyeddy Registered User
#11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolverine

Is a picture of a Wolverine.

Are you trying to say that this elusive race of primates is in existance somewhere in N. America and that no bodies have been located?


It is indeed we also have pictures of the mountain gorilla but a hundred years ago you would have been telling me that no way could a man sized primate exist in an area the size of munster. Ill do better on that not only will I say there is a ape in n america/ canada and there are no bones but that we know gorillas chimps ect lived in africa for millions of years and untill recently there was no fossil evidence. Now we have four chimp teeth. Ill add that the wolverine is seldom seen in the wild. Some biologists will work in areas with them for decades without seeing one.

1 person has thanked this post
steddyeddy Registered User
#12

Just before people ask me more questions I would like to ask whats everyones opinion of centuries of sightings and footprints which indicate primate anatomy and behavior? Im not asking you to disprove bigfoot but to give me your theory that explains the. sightings foot prints eg bears or secret society of hoaxers are a few explanations thrown out there

analyst2 Banned
#13

steddyeddy said:
We dont have more pics of elusive animals like the wolverine (the animal) despite this. Whys that? No sightings havent went away.


Gileadi said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolverine

Is a picture of a Wolverine.

Are you trying to say that this elusive race of primates is in existance somewhere in N. America and that no bodies have been located?


As you were wrong about there being no pictures of the wolverine, do you allow for the possibility that you may also be wrong about your speculative view about this creature?

steddyeddy said:
The mystery here is the fact that there is over 2500 sightings of sasquatch alone in north america and canada.


I think an additional mystery is that there have been 2500 claimed sightings, and not one person out of that 2500 happened to have a camera, or a camera phone. Not even one of them. Now that is a real mystery.

Star Lord Moderator
#14

analyst2 said:
I think an additional mystery is that there have been 2500 claimed sightings, and not one person out of that 2500 happened to have a camera, or a camera phone. Not even one of them. Now that is a real mystery.


Look on Youtube, there's a bunch. But they're all at a huge distance and looks like a person in the distance. There's also a bunch of very obviously fake/joke vids, some of which are funny!

1 person has thanked this post
analyst2 Banned
#15

DamoElDiablo said:
Look on Youtube, there's a bunch. But they're all at a huge distance and looks like a person in the distance. There's also a bunch of very obviously fake/joke vids, some of which are funny!


Youtube is not evidence, and we know there is lots of "evidence" on youtube for UFO's, and for Homoeopathy, for the supposed paranormal powers of psychics and all sorts of things which are bogus.

The fact that steadyeddy has thanked your post, and from his posts here, suggests he wants to believe this, in the absence of any real evidence.

My position is different in that I want proper evidence. The world is full of cranks who believe in homoeopathy, UFO's and all sorts of paranormal claims made by others, and we all have to distinguish between a belief, and a fact.

I know anadin works because there is a lot of proper evidence to demonstrate that it works. I know homeoepathy doesn't work because there is no proper evidence to show it is effective. I don't have to "believe" anadin works because I know it works. those who have to believe in something are, in essence, saying there is no evidence, as if there was proper evidence belief would not be necessary. You don't need belief when you have evidence, you only need belief when there is no evidence.

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!