I am devoting a thread to the mystery of Sasquatch.  Does this creature exist?  Remember that recent discoveries of branches of humanity that lasted until virtually the neolithic. If Sasquatch exists (a big *IF* I know), then are we dealing with a hominid or something more like a Pongid?  Maybe a female hominid mated with a male Gigantopithecus and created a hybrid that could reproduce with other such matings?

It is interesting that we have the Yeti in Tibet and the Sasquatch over here, as if someone followed the Indians across and developed a relationship with them.  This might suggest human qualities.  There are others who claim that the Sasquatch is actually a paranormal reality.  Since this is not a claim that can be validated with mainstream science, most Bigfoot researchers who have suffered for bucking their University tenure systems are reluctant to "go there."

One of the biggest hurdles that Bigfoot research has to cross is the perception that this phenomenon is lumped together with pseudo-science.  This means that scientists who might be open-minded are not willing to pursue the creature.  Another hurdle might be the apparent lack of conclusive physical evidence.

Yet, a genuine mystery exists that *COULD* fit within the current scientific model.  This should imply a greater willingness for scientists to explore than the subject of UFO's, ghosts, or religious phenomena.  Why they don't is a mystery to me.

I have somewhat of an interest in Sasquatch as well. Mind you, I've seen too many TV shows about it to be bothered to watch any more of them, but I'm willing to talk about it.

It seems to me that the existence of Sasquatch could really go either way. It's certainly possible for a bipedal, ape-like creature to exist in North America. We have bears here, which have a diet very similar to apes and hominids. If an ecosystem can support bears, it can also support a primate. The only problem there is winter. Of course, the Native Americans were able to survive that. Who's to say that Sasquatch couldn't do it using similar methods?

The big problem I see with the existence of Sasquatch is that absolutely no physical evidence has ever been found, aside from footprints, which could easily be faked. You would think that someone would find some fur or droppings. Maybe even a dead body. Of course, that doesn't mean that nothing's there. They could just clean up after themselves and practice funeral rites.

Oh, one more thing. Sasquatch and Yeti (another one I could go either way on) seem like two different creatures. The stories of the two suggest different features (Yeti is more of a knuckle-walker), and very different diets (Yeti is far more of a carnivore).

Again, I really don't know on this. I think the only way to resolve the dispute over whether they exist or not is to find one.

Hardly know anything about either & I'm not going to bother watching TV about it. Don't know why scientists won't investigate & I also think finding one, of either, is about the only way to prove they exist!

Some scientists do investigate, but they aren't taken very seriously. If they're all like the ones I see on TV, though, I can see why. Everything they look at seems to confirm the existence of Sasquatch. Not enough skepticism.

Scientist? Cryptozoologist are not scientist. They may use the terminology, but their action is not that of a scientist.

and to answer OP: No.

Vampslord:  Your statement is very much of an assertion.  I need more than an assertion to settle this question.  Remember that in the philosophy of science there are many disagreements, most of them polite but some rather vicious.  I think that your statement has more to do with perceptions of crypto-zoologists that the reality of Grover Krantz or Jeffrey Meldrum.  (I agree on many other "crypto-zoologists," for sure)

Science is not a set of facts or worldviews.  It is primarily a method.  It is also a method that relies on peer review to really be effective.  Sadly, when social pressures predominate, peer review becomes difficult to undertake in any kind of honest sense.  Real science cannot be conducted on Bigfoot simply because of the Laugh Factor, and that puts the creature in the same boat as meteors in eighteenth century science.  Only the French Revolution, with its empowering of peasants, removed the anti-peasant prejudices of French science and allowed meteors to be taken seriously.  

Hence, I believe that your statement ought to be more refined.  It is not wrong in every case, just an over-generalization that hurts science.  

d_Olson27: You know, there may be legitimate reasons why scientists and governments might want to cover this one up.  I can think of a reason that *I* would want to cover this one up.  Simple.  Admit to the existence of Bigfoot and we might have a Redneck Gun Feast on a creature that could very well be a hominid, something like us.  The human species does not have a good record in this department.  

I might do a slight retraction from my statement to Vampslord and admit that I too might cover this one up.  I tend to think some kind of cover-up is occurring and on this one I think I might agree with it, if my thinking is correct.

This post was last modified: 03-18-2012 07:26 PM by Nasa Shill.

I can think why I might want to cover this up, too. There is one state (can't remember which one, but its on the gulf coast) that already has the skunk ape listed as a protected species. It's not because of any scientific evidence of the skunk ape's existence, though. It's a totally preemptive measure.

Right.  My thinking exactly!

It is often said by skeptics that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  But, you know, it is also the case that the more a belief system is studied the less "extraordinary" it becomes.  It may become true or false, but it ceases to be extraordinary if understood in the social context in which it arose.

I think that Sasquatch is a cool meme, true or not.  It represents a part of humanity we have suppressed.  That is what informs my interest in it.

In Europe there are also stories of trolls and ogres. In Australia we have aboriginal stories about yowies.

I doubt if all or any of these creatures exist. What I find interesting is to consider whether they are the products of active imaginations and stories to frighten children to keep them from exploring dangerous places. Or whether these stories have been passed down from the relatively recent past when, we now know, we shared the planet with at least several other species of human.