People were just as resistant to the idea of the mountain gorilla. Reports of this animal were circulating from the very beginning of British presence in Africa in the 1700’s, but the animals themselves were not “discovered” until the 1920’s. Now that people know what to look for and where to look, they can be spotted with “relative” ease, although John Q. Public will not stumble across one.

It has been proposed that there may be as many as 4,000 to 9,000 of these animals in North America, based on estimates of what would be necessary to sustain a viable genetic pool. Now, if by the same token, we can point to the fact that there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 45,000 black bears in the eastern U.S., and relatively few people have actually seen a black bear in the wild, and even a tinier fraction still have stumbled across a corpse in the wild, I would say the odds of finding a Sasquatch corpse are pretty remote.
Still, wouldnt it be something…

I keep hearing about how, when a scientist sees one, we’ll know; how the discoverer of the sasquatch (please, he’s BEEN discovered, by tens of thousands of people, just not documented by people who don’t want to be bothered) will be rich rich rich; about how we should have found a carcass, or somebody should have shot one or taken a conclusive photo by now (please, we have a MOVIE), etc.

Oh-kay.

Comments/questions:

1. How do we know no one’s taken a pic that would be compelling if we saw it? Maybe this guy - these people - are convinced it isn’t worth the headache to come forward, and are keeping their evidence to themselves. Maybe all that matters to them is that THEY know. (Of course that happens. To many people. Happened to me. When I saw tracks, I really didn’t give a fig who else knew but me and my girlfriend. That is NORMAL. Doesn’t mean I don’t want science to confirm it. Just means I don’t want to suffer the fools. I’m content to let others be, and suffer, fools. It’s a personal thing.)

2. Same with hunters. Well, hold it, maybe not. At least one hunter has reported killing one, with one shot. Thinking he was shooting at a wounded moose he’d been tracking, if you think about it a perfectly logical thing to do in the dense brush he was hunting. This was 1941, so he sure wasn’t going to think sasquatch. (People probably aren’t confusing other things for sasquatch; they’re probably seeing sasquatch and thinking other things. Ya think? Yes. That’s what one would expect normal people to do - presume they’re seeing something known when they don’t get a good look.)

3. Same with corpses. We’ve already talked on other threads about how MANY corpses could have been found by now - by people who decided it would be better not to talk.

But these are single data points. Any one of them COULD be a lie, a hoax, a misidentification (the latter the least likely). The data points need to be connected.

And this is a good sign that soon, that might even happen. Now all we need to see is what “soon” means.

Sightings by wildlife biologists? Anyone know what he’s talking about?

A discovery on the scientific level of Ötzi the Iceman is needed.

To me, what’s most important about them is precisely that they’re NOT bombarding their readers with what their writers consider important evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, UFOs, the paranormal, etc..

But rather, they exhibit their authors’ sheer curiosity, at the same time seeking to stimulate a similar sheer curiosity in their readership.

[If this'd been a piece on psi abilities I could've said they were psi-curious, punning on the lines of bi-curious, but you just had to make it about flamin' sasquatches!]

And I suspect it’s precisely this sort of cool-headed sincere curiosity, in the face of all the overly ardent advocacy, (both for and against this and all the other similarly more outre fields), which’s led to the increasingly hysterical resort to legal manoeuvres on the skeptopaths’ part.

Stanton Friedman, with some justification, often refers to the antics of the “Noisy Negativists”.

But the “Noisy Negativists” have equally ferocious counterparts on the other side of the argument who might be styled “Pushy Positivists”, (though I myself tend to refer to them as “all-believers” because they seem to believe EVERYTHING is proof of whatever’s their fave obsession and, like the “Noisy Negativists, seem incapable of accepting the least querying of their position).

The point being, the skeptopaths/”Noisy Negativists” love the zeal and ferocity of the all-believers/”Pushy Positivists”, because they do as good a job of warding off ‘civilians’ from these fields as do the skeptos themselves.

Yet items like this piece you’ve posted hint at the possibility things won’t always be this way.