Aspies For Freedom

Anyone here live in the Pacific Northwest?

Have you seen the Sasquatch, or if not, do you find that there is sufficient evidence to support the theory that Sasquatch (or Bigfoot, Yeti, etc.) exists?

For non-believers:  find the Patterson-Gimlin footage on the web and that will give you something to chew on.  Here's a good starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film

Lastly, do you believe in a link between UFOs and Sasquatch; which may thus explain why no remains/bones have been found of Bigfoot, as he is beamed up before humans can capture solid evidence?

(Not that I believe in such a link myself-- as I realize this last point is quite ludicrous.  But such things have been claimed before, not by me, but by those who claim to have seen Bigfoot around otherwordly craft.)

I think it's a guy in a suit (on the Patterson-Gimlin film). The way he moves, it just looks so much like a guy walking awkwardly in an uncomfortable sasquatch-suit

Anyone else have anything to say here?

Possible Bigfoot sightings, theories, etc?

Sheesh.

I've never had a sasquatch sighting personally, but I definitely believe it exists.  Again, I believe in everything, but too many people have seen Bigfoot; they can't all be crazy or lying.
After all, once people believed the giant squid was a myth.

I was born in Oregon; if only I had lived there longer, I would have been actively searching for Bigfoot.

<hugs>

Athie

I live about five hours south of what is considered the southern edge of Bigfoot Country, but I really don't think that thing exists. There is no palpable evidence for the creature - all the "hair samples" they have found turned out to be deer or bear fur, and all of the "footprints" recovered are clearly faked because they are all completely different sizes and shapes. The last time a large mammal was discovered by science wes the Okapi in 1901, and they were found in a region that is more sparsely habitated and more difficult to navigate than the Pacific Northwest.

Even extremely different, isolated cultures around the world often develop similar imaginary creatures - Bigfoot by the Indians in the Pacific Northwest, the Yowie by the Aborigines of Australia, and the Yeti by the Tibetans. Many unrelated cultures also have dragons, griffins and sea monsters. Giant Squids have pretty much always been known to scientists as real animals, because fishermen have been catching at least pieces of them for centuries. It was only recently that they were captured on film, however, so it was the first time anyone except relatively small numbers of seafaring scientists/fishermen had seen them alive.

Just someone reporting seeing or hearing something is not considered valid proof within the scientific community; physical evidence is required in order for anyone to take it seriously. Richard Dawkins explains in his book that a large number of people in coastal areas of the British Isles have claimed to hear the devil talking to them, but that doesn't mean the devil exists. The "voices" actually turned out to be calls from a bird called a Manx Shearwater.

Regarding that Patterson-Gimlin film, over the years I've seen like 20 television documentaries on it on the National Geographic Channel and whatnot, and pretty much all of them conclude that the video is fake. There is some guy who was a friend of the people who shot the video, and he claims that he made the suit out of skin from a Black Bear, and then there was a guy who actually claimed to be the one in the suit. The people who shot the film wouldn't talk to the people making the show, however, meaning they didn't deny the claims these other people were making.

Natalie,  I am afraid it seems that you have recieved your eductaion about this creature from watching television.  I have spent many hours out in the field actually researching this creature.  I find myself agreeing with people such as Jane Goodall, that there is some much intrinsic evidence already collected that a serious search to imperical evidence is way over due!   First things first, it sounds to me that you may think there is only one "Bigfoot".  There is in fact, a breeding population that may be as large as 5000 individuals in the USA alone.  There has been a lot of samples of DNA found... unfortunately, with DNA of an unknown, or better put, unverified species of animal, the best results to be had, come back "UNKNOWN animal, possibly a primate"...  However, a Dr. Farrenbach, did a study just this past year, and found that specificlly with the hair samples, those that did not belong to known animals, did have the same DNA markers.  This does not say what they are, but it does say that there is some type of UNKNOWN animal out there that has not yet been classified.  The hair samples he did his work with, were usually found in conjunction with large, bipedial, primate like, foot prints.  My work has shown me that there needs to be much more serious scientific investigation of this creature.  There is a lot of mis-leading information available on the web and mass media, but there is also some good information out there as well.  As a researcher, I post all information, as I find it, on our website.  Some is clearly not proof of an unknown creature and has a much more mondain explaination.  However, much of what we find indicates that there is some type of un-identified creature out there.  See what we have found, just as we found it and make up your own mind.  Check my web site at http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com   It may not change your mind, but hopefully it will open it enough to make you think about the possiblities all around us.  I hope you check it out and at the least, find it entertaining.

I just read my recent comment and I appologize for the poor spelling and  grammar.  I am a slave to spell-check and count on it far too often...

Hmm, did you come to AFF after finding my Sasquatch post on Google, or something?

Thanks for the input, of course, as my intent was to get some good conversation going on this topic (which I consider fascinating.)

I'll check out your website, thanks.

I have some comments about this page. Are you claiming that the skeleton belongs to Homo erectus or Bigfoot?

The jaw pictured on that page exactly matches that of an anatomically modern human - the combination of the protruding chin and parabola-shaped jaw give it away as such. This degree of macrogenia is not found in any other archaic Homo species, nor in the Australopithecines, nor in any of the other species of living great apes. Photos of Bigfoot, including the Patterson-Gimlin film show a receding chin.

Additionally, parabolic-shaped jaws did not appear until the evolution of Homo, and since it would be likely that Bigfoot would have split from the human lineage before that, it is reasonable to conclude that Bigfoot would have had a U-shaped jaw as other living great apes do. All known hominids except those belonging to the genus Homo have U-shaped jaws as an adaption to processing large amounts of vegetation, so there is no reason suspect that Bigfoot's jaw would be shaped differently.

Addionally, with the DNA part, who were you comparing the skeleton's DNA to? Native Americans that have been living in the area for a few millenia? The origins of humans in the Americas are still at least partially shrouded in mystery. It is likely, however, that the Clovis People who arrived in North America about 12,500 years ago (and are thought to be the ancestors of most native North Americans) were not the first wave of people to reach the Americas.

Settlements in southern Chile have been dated to around 13,000 years ago, and some settlement in Michigan (or somewhere around there) was dated to about 16,500 years ago, both supporting the theory that the Clovis were not the first to arrive. There are many different opinions on the subject, but if I'm not mistaken it is now believed that the first humans arrived in North America around 35,000 - 25,000 years ago, which would fit in perfectly with the skeleton you investigated.

If humans first arrived in North America so much earlier than the Clovis culture did, why would it be useful to compare the skeleton's DNA to that of a descendant of the Clovis people? Essentially, it would be comparable to testing a Native American's DNA against that of a first-generation Chinese-American living in California. The Clovis people (and therefore most modern Native Americans) and the people who first settled the continent had been evolutionarily isolated for many, many thousands of years, and during that time it is possible that significant changes in mitochondrial DNA could have occurred.

Thank you for posting here, Javaman, and I look forward to your response.

I have a feeling he was just here temporarily, to spread the word about his website, so he can get some more hits.

I'd be fascinated to know if JavaBob is an Aspie or a possible Aspie, although I tend to doubt it.

Still, we do know that a lot of Aspies are very passionate about scientific pursuits.

http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/JavaBob <- says he works with handicapped and 'special' people in his community. He might not have AS, but maybe he works with autistics.