Comments on: Survey: Almost 60% Say Sasquatch Unsnatchable

By: windigo

windigo — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:37:25 +0000

How long do true researchers of Sasquatch need to pursue their quarry before they finally realize that the Native American assertions about them are much closer to reality than the merely zoological perceptions that the world of academia subscribe to?

By: fuzzy

fuzzy — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:52:50 +0000

Keep repeating it, Ben - sooner or later it will become fact, right?

By: Benjamin Radford

Benjamin Radford — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:13:48 +0000

fuzzy responds:

“Great scientific attitude, Ben - good thing you’re not a Debunker!”

Fuzzy’s thinking is, well, fuzzy. The issue has nothing to do with debunking or a scientific attitude. The question was why most people polled don’t think Bigfoot will be captured. Part of the answer, as I pointed out, is past history: It hasn’t so far, and there’s little reason to think it will be any time soon.

By: Bob K.

Bob K. — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:38:54 +0000

Well, I dont think its a mystery that some Bigfoot “believers”-many Native Americans amongst them-believe that Bigfoot is other dimensional, and cannot be captured. Fred Beck, one of the miners who fought the Apemen of St. Helens in 1924, shared this view. My wife, who is half American Indian and is also quite spiritually gifted, holds this view as well. Me? I’m reluctant to hold this view, but darn it, we’re gonna need at least a sizeable chunk of one of these critters in order to PROVE it. Maybe not even soft tissue, but a good part of a skeleton will do. SOMETHING (sigh). The more I read about these impressive beasts, the more I’m convinced that we are dealing with one of two things;1) a creature that is of immense physical power and prowess, and perhaps the highest intelligence of any creature in the animal world, a true king of beasts, or 2) a creature that is indeed, not of this world[feel free to fill in the blanks here]. While I’m not at all comfortable with the second possibility(I do believe in a heavenly dimension; I just cant see what sense an “interdemensional animal” makes), I cant completely rule it out until we have a corpse.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:24:59 +0000

I think I know what “anamolous porn” is. It is when guys who make requests for things like that and “naked chicks watching UFOs” search years and years for a girlfriend and yet provide no concrete evidence of having ever found one. Clint Eastward? Analomous porn? This bizarre article put a smile on my face.

By: MattBille

MattBille — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:50:05 +0000

From “Back to the Future, Part III”

“Eastwood. Clint Eastwood.”
“What kind of a sissy name is that?”

That which we call a sasquatch by any other name would smell as abominably.

OK, I need more sleep. But I agree the survey does not tell us much that we can rely on as a picture of the global or national population.

By: fuzzy

fuzzy — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:11:03 +0000

Ah, Benjamin: “People have been looking in earnest for Bigfoot for 50 years, they’ve got squat in terms of hard evidence; what makes anyone think the next 50 years will be any different?”

Great scientific attitude, Ben - good thing you’re not a Debunker!

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:29:15 +0000

Ah kamoeba, I can’t believe you don’t have a sense of humor!

By: kamoeba

kamoeba — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:19:55 +0000

I can’t believe you guys aren’t familiar with Clint Eastward! He starred as cop-on-the-edge ‘Dirty Larry’ in several films in the 1970’s. A couple of his famous catchphrases are “Go ahead, rake my hay!” and “Do you feel lucky, skunk?”.

By: btgoss

btgoss — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:42:14 +0000

Well I think the first question would have to be are you here for the science or are you hear for the séance?

For me, I need science. It’s what I do for a living, so I’m all about facts. And to be honest, we don’t have enough of them. But that should be the first question.