The evidence for Sasquatch is actually quite rich and quite broad in nature which at least should make it a subject for official study. In some cases, such as done by Jeff Meldrum this endeavor is insufficient as the whole public case seems to rest on his shoulders. More official bodies should enter the fray to research Sasquatch in an effort to further knowledge and widen its research to make the whole subject less publicly vulnerable. This is apart from the admirable non-official research which goes on.

The is no doubt in my mind that much of the different kinds of evidence for Sasquatch is good evidence and confidence in that is what should define the actions and expression of those who appreciate that and are interested in establishing the fact of sasquatch for good reasons. What should not define their actions are sceptics specially those who are not going to accept anything other than a body however unreasonable that may be and insist on body as essential not ideal when it clearly is not. By demanding a body sceptics are in effect denying the reality of sasquatch!. Where were they when densova man got its ticket on a few bits of unremarkable bone?

Those who believe in sasquatch, on the evidence, should not do the sceptics job for them by rolling over and accepting their often specious arguments. The valid case needs to be put on its merits and not to pander to sceptics where their case is not meritorious or without balance.

I want every skeptic to think twice about saying “No sasquatch has ever been killed”.

One thing I can say about both you and me: we understand the difference between evidence and proof. In this search, that is considerably more than half the battle.

Potential bigfoot samples have been tested for DNA for many years. Mainly by Todd Disotell of New York labs (16 years) with no results that indicate bigfoot. Only results like no DNA or bear or human (contamination) The New York labs have been the respected leader in this field with a reputation built on NOT finding any bigfoot DNA ! Now this could be because there was no bigfoot DNA in the samples or it was missed by the lab. or the technology used was dated. In my opinion because of all the evidence there is for Bigfoot there should have been Bigfoot DNA in some of the samples. I would suggest the bigfoot DNA had little chance of being identified because of the extreme sceptical outlook of the lab towards bigfoot. This sceptical outlook can be shown by listening to a broadcast on Monster quest involving Todd Disotell which is still on the net. Where he showed his penchant for jeering and sneering at bigfooters in general (excluding Meldrum for some reason)

I think there was some kind of consensus at that time based on the sceptics mantra that bigfoot DNA if found would be a waste of time without a body, which seemed to me clearly wrong. I think when the realisation of this possible situation was appreciated other labs were asked to do the analysis and results started to come in. Culminating in Dr Melba Ketchums work which has and is producing results. One interesting possibility is that Denesova man might turn out to be one of the extent relic hominds or has made a DNA contribution. We’ll likely know when Dr Ketchum goes public. Whatever, the cat seems to be out of the bag on the subject of bigfoot DNA and even professor Bryan Sykes has asked for possible bigfoot samples. All this does demonstrate that thinking that bigfoot is there is no longer a matter of eccentricity.

Eyewitness testimony is a valuable resource despite hoaxes and inaccuracies and an opportunity for scientists to glean valuable information from them. A reasonable view can be reached and along with all the supporting evidence is a very strong indication for the reality of bigfoot. Mermaids and unicorns both have arguably some reality in fact in that the mermaid could be dugongs or seals and the unicorn something like an oryx. As is often the case if observations are reported there is generally something real at the bottom of it. Feral humans don’t fit the bill as bigfoot is concerned but something much more exciting!

I think bigfoot is smarter than a bear and has learned the hard way not to tangle with humans. There are records of humans and relic hominds being at war in earlier times, guess who won. An apparent failure to thrive at its simplest could be because bigfoot is at least near human and very vulnerable to human diseases and lucky to survive to date.

“We will know crypto is a science (i.e., zoology) when folks who don’t know how to look at the evidence come on here talking like experts.”

Clearly that’s a mistake. It should be:

“We will know crypto is a science (i.e., zoology) when folks who don’t know how to look at the evidence STOP COMING on here talking like experts.”

There you go.

Cass says: “And no…it is not up to the scientists to provide that. It is up to those who claim this creature exists to provide it.”

They’ve been “providing that” for over a half-century. The pile is HUGE. And we haven’t moved toward proof yet. Why?

THAT’S WRONG. It is on the mainstream of science to prove the existence of new species. Period. Inability to understand this is, well, just plain un-scientific. Bigfooters can do all they want. But it’s clear they lack the money and the time. We know where those things are…don’t we?

Apparently, other than conceding that Occcam points to the reality of the sasquatch, he hasn’t.

“Occam’s Razor isn’t about “the simplest solution” it is about the solution that contains the fewest ASSUMPTIONS.”

Assumptions required to say “the evidence points to the existence of an unknown animal”: none. That would be zero. Just a big – and consistent – pile of evidence. All that’s required. Compare to any other cryptid. None compare. It’s the biological profile of a species unknown to science.

(A scientist – I’m taking “scientist” over “Cass” every time – says – wrote a whole book on this – that this pile of evidence is a scientific discovery that we just haven’t acknowledged we’ve made yet.)

Assumptions required to say “it’s all fake”? At least three. (That would be three.)

1. North America is no place for apes, so we can discount this huge pile, which is of course wrong;

2. A vast and directed continent-wide conspiracy;

3. a vast and random continent-wide mass neurosis.

Plus, whoops, 4. some almost-impossible mix of 2. and 3. Or, in my preferred phrasing: “lies behaving like biodata.”

“Evidence points to reality of sasquatch” wins. So he’s contributed to science. Go Cass!

And he still hasn’t figured out how close we are on this. I know everyone else here knows that “belief” is not part of this discussion. He’s using belief a lot; particularly when he “concludes” acoustic evidence is all faked and “concludes” that people he’s never met are all lying. And he’s still searching anyway.

(Welcome to the fringe. I don’t look for anything for which evidence doesn’t exist.)

Most here probably know that DNA is nothing unless there is a type specimen. Numerous pieces of evidence have tested “unknown primate.” If one read up one would know that. Guess where that leaves us. In terms of proof, nowhere, says science.

Now I really am done. New worlds to explore. Anything anyone doesn’t get, read again, right up there. (Or search Cryptomundo for DWA.) Got you covered.

We will know crypto is a science (i.e., zoology) when folks who don’t know how to look at the evidence come on here talking like experts.

(UNSOLVED MYSTERIES? Mothman? Wha? Circus. Focus on the science, not the tabloid jungle.)

You say “DNA wouldn’t be evidence until we have something to test it against.”

But we do. We have apes and we have humans. We can test any DNA found against those looking for similarities. It is possible that the best we could get would be along the lines of what UNSOLVED MYSTERIES got when they tested the fragments of the Pangboche Hand (YETI hand) which Peter Byrne smuggled back (with the aid of James Stewart—again read Loren’s book on Tom Slick if you are unfamiliar with that incident). The conclusion…human-like but not human. (Earlier testing suggested Neanderthal). But THAT would at least be PROOF that there is a REAL (so far unidentified) CREATURE to search for in the Pacific Northwest. PROOF that ANY scientist could test.

Yes, TEST. For as long as the specimens of hair or feces or whatever lasts. Well, where ARE these specimens? This thing lives in the woods. It must leave clumps of hair on trees and so on at least SOME of the time. And if one follows its “footprints” (or the line they were on) one should certainly be able to locate its droppings.

But no has. Not once. Except for the sort of hear-say stories you seem to prefer to reality.

As for the experts. They answer the question they’re paid to answer. “Does this sound like the cry of a known animal.” Answer “No.” They don’t say “My God! You’ve recorded the Call of the Sasquatch!”

There’s a difference there which you seem unable to grasp.

Claims to have shot Squatches, or run across their corpses, etc.

Yeah, I’ll call the people making those claims liars.

Why?

Because they are.

This is the last time I am going to respond to you because your argument doesn’t make sense.

Your argument is “If you believe in these things why don’t you believe all the stuff you read about them?”

But I don’t “believe” in these things. I have seen creatures on three occasions that MIGHT be Bigfoot…but might not have been. The sightings were brief and the photos my friend took…unclear. A Polaroid of a creature standing off in the distance is not very useful for identification. You can only blow it up so much before it becomes completely useless.

Jeff Meldrum. I am quite familiar with Jeff’s work (having followed it for the last 20 years or so). Yeah, I take his word for a lot. But again…he isn’t a sound effects expert. Neither are the guys who usually get asked about these recordings. Mike Dees and so on.

When someone brings back a specimen that can be tested THEN we can begin to PROVE the existence of Bigfoot.

We do NOT need a live Bigfoot or even a dead one. All we need are some hair samples. Understand that, please. ANY source of viable DNA that can be compared to what already exists in the mammalian DNA database which all DNA testing labs use for comparison tests.

DWA if you “want to believe” that’s fine.

Personally, I want to KNOW. And to know we need proof. Not stories, not personal encounters, not photographs of questionable authenticity, not audio recordings (that can be faked even more easily than photographs, films, and footprints. PROOF.

And no…it is not up to the scientists to provide that. It is up to those who claim this creature exists to provide it.