CrimsonFox79, about the “grass”, most of which you see is sagebrush, which generally runs 2-3 feet, but it sometimes gets higher.

There is one thing that strikes me as rather sad, though. I could not begin to assert any knowledge of grasses, regional demographics or primate anatomy that could attest to the validity of this or any other evidence so that handicap probably tends to hinder my skepticism, but…. Most of you seem so…. cynical. I apologize for the lack of a better word but I think if a genuine Bigfoot video were ever published, most of you would not believe it anyway.

Personally, I want to believe. Even if it means I’d be “suckered” a million times. There seems to be more peace that way

Thank you

Which gives me the excuse to add something.

I don’t see – except for two – any videos of alleged sas that so much as raise my eyebrows.

This still didn’t do that. But close. I’d actually be interested in seeing the video – once all the usual shenanigans die down, if there’s still anything worth seeing by then.

“But it does strike me a bit odd that these creatures seem to turn up just about every corner on this planet. Yet they are extremely difficult to document in spite of their huge lumbering size.”

Huge, maybe. Lumbering, most definitely not, if almost all of the eyewitness reports I’ve read mean anything. That they are most definitely not “lumbering” is one of the major factors making them “difficult” to document.

As to the other factors:

1. No one will believe you if you say you saw one; so most people don’t bother. They live with what they saw (and in many cases don’t care what anyone else thinks).

2. They report – when they do, reports probably being only a tiny fraction of actual encounters – usually anonymously, to people who, sometime in the next two years, may get a weekend off from the day job to follow up.

2. Most people who see them aren’t prepared, in any way, to document. As has been pointed out on this thread: if your camera is not out and running, you are not ready. Think about how many wildlife sightings you have had. On how many of them would you have come back with anything close to documentation, if it had been an animal not confirmed to exist? This obviously excludes animals accustomed to human presence (e.g., bison and elk in Yellowstone).

3. Qualified observers such as scientists are gambling their future if they even contemplate talking about a sighting.

Well…etc. I mean, I know all of this has been said here before. (I’ve said all of it myself.) The geographic range of sightings used to be a disqualifier to me. But no one has adequately explained to me – and no one will – how people all over the place, in areas that all sound rather similar in terms of basic habitat requirements, are describing consistent features of the same animal. Every sasquatch report I read reads like a sasquatch; and the more detailed the report, THE MORE IT READS LIKE A SASQUATCH. This incredible fact is given short shrift in sighting discussions. To pass it off, all of it, as even conceivably being hoax, lie, or most incredibly, misidentification or hallucination, is to contradict practically everything we know about human perception. Yet people routinely do it, and get away with it, because they (and we) cannot get to, much less past, their unconscious assumption that THIS JUST CANNOT BE REAL.

Cows would be unconfirmed if people’s perception blockers operated with cows the way they do with the sasquatch.

As incredible as it sounds, something far bigger and dumber than this, in far greater numbers, could pull this off – if no one wanted to see one, or to follow up when someone did.

At the very least we need to identify the so called giant weeds. Then we can proceed with a few carefull deductions. But it does strike me a bit odd that these creatures seem to turn up just about every corner on this planet. Yet they are extremely difficult to document in spite of their huge lumbering size.