Africa had been regularly visited by white men for centuries – and been mostly civilized for thousands of years – before the gorilla was confirmed, scant years after its very existence was scoffed at as a ridiculous native story. Ancient Egypt – one of the world’s great civilizations – had frequent contact with civilizations living at the gorilla’s doorstep for centuries.

1847, you say?

For those who know how to think about this, no big surprise that the sasquatch hasn’t been confirmed. Look at this alone:

“If we have discovered the feet of the American primate in Arkansas ( I said SE Alaska), … then we do have hard evidence that would be conclusive. (And Dr. Meldrum should be the one to describe it to a scientific conference or society).”

Um, he has to, um, have them in his possession to do this. Not his fault that the people who made the finds – and numerous others – grievously mishandled them. Or – and this happens more often – refused to handle them at all.

Allegedly, sure. So there is no possible basis for these allegations other than mistakes or jokes? Shoot, with that prevailing attitude, a population of ten million sasquatch would remain unconfirmed. (“I’ve seen three in the past year. They must be mistakes.”) You clearly misunderstand what must happen before science can confirm something: people have to be able to say they saw it without being fitted for extra-long-arm jackets.

“On the other hand, if all we have is another “sighting report”, this time a sighting of decomposing primate feet, then surely you must know this is no evidence at all, just talk.”

See?

SIGHTING REPORTS ARE EVIDENCE. Any scientist worth his degree knows one thing if he knows anything worth knowing: that sentence is true beyond doubt.

(‘Tis how we confirmed the gorilla; the giant panda; oh shoot no sense typing for the next five years to get in all of them).

And evidence displaying frequency and coherence is prima facie scientifically compelling.

Problem is: scientists operating outside the bounds of the known frequently stop behaving like scientists.

(Boy, do they ever. I bite my tongue, frequently, before referring to them as idiots. They’re not idiotic, they just, under certain circumstances, seem that way. .)

Problem is: the attitude that if you don’t have proof, you have nothing, and that there is no evidence other than proof.

(An attitude with which, well, we wouldn’t be living in caves; we’d be extinct.)

WE HAVE THE FULL RANGE OF EVIDENCE FOR THE SASQUATCH.

And it has frequency and coherence. Which automatically interests any scientist who (1) looks at it and (2) has his thinking cap on.

And this is by a bunch of not-even-part-timers trying to solve the problem.

That science, as a body, continues to display no serious interest will – I would bet on it, a lot, ‘twere I a betting man – one day be shown to be one of its most spectacular failures.

(Everything is “just talk” to a person who doesn’t know – probably because he hasn’t read up – what should arouse a smidgen of natural human curiosity, amigo. But I’m willing to wait for you to catch up. On some things, one just has to have faith. )

(Patty didn’t dump you, amigo. YOU DUMPED HER. )

In 1847 at the Boston Society of Natural History, two naturalists described for the first time scientifically the gorilla. Their paper was based on bones found at market in Liberia. If we have discovered the feet of the American primate in Arkansas, Sasquatch, as you suggest, then we do have hard evidence that would be conclusive. (And Dr. Meldrum should be the one to describe it to a scientific conference or society). On the other hand, if all we have is another “sighting report”, this time a sighting of decomposing primate feet, then surely you must know this is no evidence at all, just talk.

You argue that “sasquatch sign has been found, of every kind that has been found for every other kind of animal….” There is a mitigating difference in this comparison: we have hard evidence for “every other kind of animal” and we do not for Sasquatch. I have yet to find a compelling explanation for this fact, other than the explanation that Sasquatch is a cultural myth and its “evidence” mimics real evidence for real animals via human imagination, failure of comprehension, and deceit.

I am suggesting that this dichotomy of abundant soft evidence and absent hard evidence is a cause for some once enthusiastic Bigfooters to abandon the hunt, and apparantly in some cases, to capitulate to paranormalism.
This is understandable because, like you amigo, they accept the soft evidence as virtually conclusive and have a very hard time believing it is all just based on human folly of one sort or another. So if the evidence is compelling (it must seem), if Sasquatch is real as the evidence tells us it is (surely it is), then WHY are we unable to FIND IT?: this is the wearying conundrum that can tire out even the most ardent advocate over time.

You often seem to argue that only a dedicated team of scientists can solve this issue and that not much has really been done so far to solve this mystery. Why? You must have a guess as to how many Bigfooters alone and in concert, poorly financed and financed sufficiently, have been in the field since the 1960′s, trying every method imaginable to find proof of an American ape, spending untold hours in the bush sweating or freezing. To no avail.

The first observation and specimen taking of a gorilla in its natural habitat, by a white man, occurred in the late 1850′s by an explorer with an entourage of porters. Imagine: over a 160 years ago, in a very remote, lush, dangerous part of the world, the gorilla was found. Today, in a highly industrialized nation, founded by westward marching pioneers of every stripe, home to millions of sportsman and outdoorsman over the centuries, of countless naturalists and scientists in the field, and we have acquired no hard evidence for the existence of a native population of mere apes.

Its no wonder Bigfooters get discouraged and
move on.

The lack of “hard evidence” isn’t inconsistent at all with the abundance of soft evidence.

But of course that depends on what you call “hard evidence.”

If you mean “proof,” well, if there was proof, we wouldn’t be talking about this here.

But sasquatch sign has been found, of every kind that has been found for every other kind of animal, if you believe the accounts (and I’ll get to that in a minute). Blood; feces; hair; partially decomposed feet (maybe the same find twice, in the same area of SE AK); other bones, for which the finder could come up with no satisfactory conventional explanation; nests and similar structures for which no conventional explanation works; tracks and tracks and tracks, for which no conventional explanation has been made to scan; and a film for which skeptics cannot point to one piece of evidence that indicates a fake – but scientists in relevant fields can point to much that indicates authenticity. And I don’t need to go into sightings, because I know you have read as many as I have, amigo. I could have listed more (like the hunters who have reported killing one), but I won’t.

If you mean “forensic evidence,” there has been a lot. Either it doesn’t get brought to the scientific community, because the finders either don’t want the hassle or are satisfied that they at least know or are creeped out at having to deal with it or their buddies are and so discourage them etc etc etc….Oh shoot, no point in even going on here.

The key is what I have said in those other posts I’ve made up there.

EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS PRIMA FACIE PRESUMED A LIE OR A MISTAKE. No matter the effort involved in bringing it to science’s attention. No matter the inability of any debunking to make a dent in it. That’s the issue, period.

I’m amazed *anyone* does bigfoot research, the way mainstream science treats it. I sure have no intention of subjecting myself to that. I’m more than sastisfied that all the evidence points to the animal’s existence. Far as I’m concerned, science has to show me it DOESN’T exist.

But science won’t even look at the evidence.

The inattention of the scientific community is the only gripe a Bigfooter needs to offer. Because that’s the problem. All the Benscardis out there shouldn’t obscure the validity of the evidence. Not to any scientist worth his salt who takes a good look. As a number of them have.

But science – other than those brave (and tenured, of course) few – won’t even look at the evidence.

THAT’s why people leave the field. Full-timers only will solve this.

And there are none.

There is an incongruity basic to Sasquatch phenomena that sometimes takes a toll on advocates: the lack of hard evidence is inconsistent with the abundance of soft evidence. Blogsquatcher seems to have been driven to the deep end of the pond, where murky mysticism lives, because of the apparently irreconcilable tension found in virtually ubiquitous “evidence” that leads to nowhere, or more specifically, to no animal.

Instead of moving toward a paranormal view, or obscuring the lack of hard evidence by making, by rote, villains of skeptics, or by blaming the scientific establishment for its collective disinterest, perhaps advocates should rethink their notions making the collected soft evidence sufficient enough (for them) to conclude there are apes (or ape apparitions) among us.

You will be missed my friend, take care

Not so sure it’s an accusation. It’s just the facts. It’s just life.

When you are looking for something every single encounter with which is presumed to be either a lie or a mistake, you have a very tough row to hoe. Logic says you will not get your proof part time. How could you? You could see a sasquatch or evidence of same every day you are in the field. What does it matter, when the default judgment is that you are mistaken? That your film or photo – you almost certainly will get only one chance, if that – is a guy in a suit; that those tracks aren’t what you say they are; and those hairs came back “unknown,” which doesn’t mean sasquatch, mainly because, the animal not being known, there’s no type specimen against which to make the essential call: This is that?

And when reality – meaning practically every animal we know about that isn’t either superabundant or conditioned to humans, or both – tells you that you will almost never come across any evidence of an animal like this working part time, then where are you?

If you are a part-timer: you are shooting craps and hoping to get really, really lucky.

I have said it here a thousand times, and here goes again: Unless the search for this animal (presuming of course that there is only one species, something on which the evidence seems to cast at least a little doubt) goes full time, we will need to get really, really lucky to get confirmation. Nothing is ever confirmed by the latter method – at least not the latter method alone. Even when evidence is stumbled upon – Eris, the coelacanth, the saola, the kouprey – it is taken seriously by the first person who stumbles upon it, and confirming it is a full-time job until done. Everything that’s been confirmed has been so pretty much that way.

The sasquatch and the yeti and the orang pendek (and whatever other primates may be out there, hiding under that umbrella) will not be confirmed, says here, until a piece of inconclusive evidence turns enough heads that the search goes full time and serious. Yeah, someone could just stumble upon a body, AND have the wherewithal to get the word to science AND the desire to do so, AND be taken seriously by the first AND the second AND the third AND etc. people who obtain custody of that evidence, until a critical mass of serious scientists get interested. But nobody who has ever found remains in the field – and yes they have (allegedly) been – has navigated that road successfully. Gee, wonder why not, when the first words you are likely to hear contain the word “nuts” somewhere in there?

Full time. Period. No full time, no sasquatch. If we aren’t going to get full-timers then we aren’t going to confirm. And we just have to be OK with that. ‘Cause that’s science, and that’s life.

Thanks for the interview, D.B. – it was a pleasure.
Fuzzy

We all bring our own experiences and paradigms to the question of cryptids. People won’t always agree. Respectful collegiality is the key. You are the kinds of people who need to stick around.

But as to the badmouthing, attention seekers, hoaxers, and assorted bad eggs, now you see why lots of people who experience things bail on talking about them. Some stuff will never be talked about, even between close friends face-to-face. It’s just not worth it.