Why not ? That's the question I ask when it comes to the existence of the Sasquatch .In general I believe that the majority of people base and form there opinions (beliefs) on what others say, via family members , friends , strangers and especially the media ( newspapers ,books, radio and television ) . Knowledge is key to anything we do in life , without knowledge we cannot properly form an educated opinion (conclusion) to whatever it is we are trying to understand. When one talks to an expert in any field , you know that he/she has educated themselves in there field of expertise . There are however many people who distort , bend and twist reality and if they come across as somewhat believable( or have charisma) you to may be caught up in whatever it is they are saying , after all your perception is your reality . When you form your opinion with regard to the Sasquatch I recommend you do your research . Base your opinion on credible evidence for and against the existence of this creature, don't base it on the hundreds of idiots who buy monkey suits and make 1 or 2 minute videos which they post on YouTube or the high profile hoaxes such as the idiots who claimed they had Bigfoot frozen in a freezer which when thawed out was a gorilla suit . It's pretty easy to go a long with the majority when it comes to something which has still to be proven .The sceptic can always say " wheres a body " ? That's the hard evidence which still eludes us. What about all the other evidence we do have (thousands of sightings , DNA samples which don't belong to any known animal , tracks , pictures,videos,audio and so on ) ? I know that when main stream science and skeptics alike look at eye witness accounts,that they are looked at through a magnified glass , there integrity and credibility is also viewed . Its funny if you look at it like this , example : A career criminal with a record longer then your arm has a genuine sighting and reports it only to have people say " no way , he's not credible" but a doctor who has a genuine sighting must be telling the truth cause he's a "doctor" . That being said , most scientists ( main stream ) would throw most sighting reports(if not all) out the door simply because they really have no way to know who's telling the truth and who's lying? What they should be taking in to consideration is the volume of sightings (as a whole) , that alone points to something rather odd . 2nd , the DNA that exists but doesn't have a "known" animal attached to it ? 3rd , the picture evidence , not just the pictures of the creatures but of the tracks , tree twists , rustic shelters , damage and numerous other oddities ? 4th, the hundreds of plaster casts in which some have dermal ridges also included in the castings is the famous "skookum cast"? 5th , the sheer amount of video evidence including the Patterson/Gimlin film , Tofino footage , Freeman footage , Mackenzie footage and so on ? 6th , the audio footage which does not belong to any known animal ? 7th , The over powering odor which is associated with Sasquatch sightings ? 8th , The rock throwing reports , what animal in our forests can hurl rocks at un-suspecting campers,prospectors , hikers and forestry workers ?
Lets put a little twist on a thought I have . Lets just say for argument sake , The scientists ( and sceptics a like) throw out all witness reports , video and pictures, remember there is no physical evidence in any of that . Now lets take a look at what science is doing with Aliens . How much time , money and effort has science spent looking for Alien life on other planets ? They have witnesses who have seen Aliens and there space crafts , they have pictures and video as well . But I thought that having all the above mentioned was not enough evidence to support a scientific investigation? Do they have an Alien specimen that we don't know about ? If you ask the military or the scientists they would say no. If that's the case , factoring in the plaster casts , skookum cast , unknown DNA samples , audio recordings and other oddities , I believe we have more evidence here on earth for the existence of Sasquatch then we do for Alien life ?
Final thoughts: I believe in order to understand the Sasquatch you must first understand its environment . To science I will say , in order to understand space and its surroundings you must first understand your environment here on earth . Why try to understand something you still no nothing about (Alien life)when you still have so much to learn here on earth ?
If you were to tell the African Americans in the 1950's that equality would be theirs with in the next 40 or 50 years and that there would be a African American president they would have looked at you and laughed .
Why is science so put off by the Sasquatch? I love the open minded youth of today. Tomorrow when the narrow minded scientists of old are retired and the new open minded young scientists take their place in the world, I'm sure they will put forth the effort required to put this age old mystery to rest !
BCSO
.
