Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
It wasnt a person, it wasnt a bear, it was what it was.
-
19-02-2012 10:56pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
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.
0 -
-
steddyeddy wrote: »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?0 -
Advertisement
-
steddyeddy wrote: »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.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
steddyeddy wrote: »We dont have more pics of elusive animals like the wolverine (the animal) despite this. Whys that? No sightings havent went away.
Are you kidding? Pictures of wolverines (dead and alive) are a dime a dozen in the Nordic countries. Like this, taken in Finland:
0 -
-
-
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?
Not at all Im still standing by wolverine pictures have not increased due to use of camera phones. For all we know there is plenty of pictures of sasquatch taken with a camera phone but a pic taken with a camera phone is never going to be proof. I would be aiming for a body.
Heres a series of shots of an alleged sasquatch taken in florida. There a couple of shots of a large hair covered figure. Could be real or could be fake. We dont know. So there could be camera shots out there.
This other shot was taken with a trail cam.
So there may very well be pictures out there. It has to be remembered that wildlfe is often extremely hard to film or photograph a lot of what you see in national geographic and other magazines is faked or staged.
http://www.popphoto.com/2011/09/award-winning-swedish-photographer-admits-to-fakery
One photgrapher tells it like it is.
Magazine scientific american states that most wildlife photgraphy is faked
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/compound-eye/2011/12/12/most-of-the-wildlife-photography-you-see-is-fake/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.
Not a problem to me in the slightest. Jane goodal was in areas with chimps for months without seeing one. THe same goes for George shcaller and gorillas and there was a similar thing with the recently discovered Bili ape in africa.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I am old enough to remember when considerable numbers of people were convinced crop circles, mainly in the UK, were caused by aliens. Many people think many things, and just because someone else is "convinced" is not evidence.
Im not putting a case forward by saying such and such is convinced Im suggeting the evidence put forward is convincing and demands a proper investigation.As a scientist you'll know the difference between anecdote and facts, (although its unusual for a scientist to appear not to know the difference between "your" and "you're", so what sort of scientist you are remains uncertain).
Im a biochemist. Is attacking spelling part of normal scientific method or am I missing something?What you have come up with here is anecdote piled on rumour heaped on top of speculation. For example, how someone be "convinced" footprint casts belong to a species which no one knows anything about, and about which we have no evidence, or no knowledge or facts, seems unusual. Certainly no scientist I know of would ever make such a claim.
Dr.Melrdum is a paleontologist and an expert in primate locomotion. Saying is conclusions are based on rumour shows a complete ignorance of the underlying science. Actually the analysis of footprints (trace evidence) is very much scientific method. Its called Ichnotaxonmy and many animals in the fossil record have been classified based on foot prints alone. This track alone was analysed by Dr.Meldrum and others and from this the height speed and weight of the creature can be determined. It is a long established science.
What was the conclusion Jimmy Chillcut came to, as I have no idea what the opposite conclusion of debunking is? Are you suggesting he, also, came to the conclusion that these footprint casts are of a creature about which we have no knowledge, and evidence and no facts? Just because someone else is "convinced" is not evidence.
The conclusion he came to is that based on the dermal ridges found in hundreds of track casts which were cast decades and hundreds of miles apart the tracks are unlikely to be human. The dermal ridges are consistent with a non human primate and hoaxers would have to have a shared knowledge of primate anatmoy in order to hoax these. Again please deal with the case put forward rather than say "just because someone is convinced doesnt mean they are right ect". If I reference a scientific paper Im referencing the case put forward by the scientist rather than the scientist who presented the paper.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
It would involve a massive and an orchestrated effort to engage in such a hoax and to keep it alive over such a long period of time. Man is always discovering new species of creatures so a new species of primate really isn't such a huge leap of faith really. Such is my humble opinion anyway
0
Advertisement