The Problem with Sasquatch

For many people Sasquatch is a myth, a fireside story of a fantastic feral brute capable of Herculean feats told to young campers out in the wilderness. While for others, sasquatch is more than a fairy tale, they believe with an earnest heart that the legend truly exists. Skeptics have correctly maintained that evidence in support of these creatures existence is purely circumstantial or no more than blurry, and often shaky, films. While these assertions may be true, a lack of evidence does not mean that a crime has not taken place, nor does a lack of physical evidence mean that sasquatch does not exist. Fundamental flaws have been made while ascertaining concrete evidence of sasquatch. Many of the individuals seeking proof have not been trained in the methods of scientific data collection and therefore often make sweeping accusations and wild assumptions about a creature which they have no formal knowledge of. Many of the individuals searching for sasquatch are doing more to hinder the creature’s acceptance than advance it. If the individuals of the “sasquatch community” would like to change the opinions of skeptics then the approach to the collection of evidence must be altered to meet the highest standards of scientific analysis.
Whenever a new species is to be accepted by the academic community there must be physical proof or indisputable evidence. Photographic evidence alone is incapable of proving this animal to exist, along with casts made of possible footprints, since both of these are easily hoaxed. The video evidence that exists is rarely classifiable as evidence, if ever. Physical evidence such as a tissue sample, or a body (alive or dead), would be the proof necessary to convince the academic community that the species exists. If this animal does exist, it is likely to be nearly extinct or at least endangered, therefore advocating the collection of a body would be detrimental to the survival of the species which is to be observed.
Video footage could also be used as proof of sasquatch’s existence. This evidence would not be the colloquial “blobsquatch”. The video would have to be shot at a high resolution and show an amount of the creature as to properly identify the traits of its body and the behavior of the creature. This film would also need to be of substantial length.
All of the “best” footage of sasquatch to date is of low resolution and quality by the standards of science. Today the technology available makes it possible to record in a resolution high enough to see the finite details that would be necessary to rule out possible hoaxing. A high powered zoom lens would be necessary since the creature is reported to be elusive and seldom approaches humans. Quite simply put, video of National Geographic documentary quality would be necessary to prove sasquatch’s existence.
The next step would be how to obtain this footage. In wildlife documentaries, a research team accompanied by professional cameramen spends extended periods of time in the wilderness. They find the home range of a subject. Next, they learn the about the movements and behaviors of the subject before getting their footage. What this means to sasquatch research is that a long term observation range must first be established. If the sasquatch are as easily spooked as they are reported to be, then a crew must set up remote observation recorders or establish a long term benign presence where this creature is reported to exist. The point is to get footage of such quality that it is irrefutable. When the cameramen for the Discovery Channel series “Planet Earth” wanted to get the only footage of a snow leopard in its natural environment in existence to date they had to go to extreme measures. The cameraman set up on a mountain top two miles away and used a massive zoom lens to get the shots of the animal. It had to be done this way because the slightest hint of his presence would have sent the subject into hiding never to be seen again. The same approach may be necessary to get credible footage of a sasquatch.
Another solution to gaining quality footage would be the establishment of long term benign presence in the home range of a sasquatch. If sasquatch exists then they most likely have encountered humans, even if the humans were unknowing of their presence. It may be possible for a researcher to stay within a range of the sasquatch and make his presence familiar to the subject. Primatologist Jane Goodall successfully did this with chimpanzees, and her practice has been replicated with other higher apes such as gorillas and orangutans. These highly intelligent animals were initially elusive and leery of the researchers, but slowly became accustomed to their presence and eventually began to interact with them.
Although a sasquatch may never allow open interaction with the human observer, they may become accustomed to their presence and thereby may not be as concerned with avoiding them. This approach would require immense patience and as previously stated, must be done as a benign presence. The researcher could not be seen as a threat or else the Sasquatch would likely move on. This would include competition for food, or changing of the environment in any way. The individual would be alone in the woods for months on end.
Some would claim that this has been done without yielding any results. This simply is not true. The type of long term noninvasive research required actually has not been conducted. Previous attempts have been highly intrusive and therefore flawed from inception.
As comedian Mitch Hedberg states, the problem with Bigfoot is that he’s blurry. People running through the woods with Handicams and cell phone cameras are not going to prove the existence of a creature categorized as mythological. The only possible solution would be a long term research project. This would require the highest quality cameras available along with the patience to stay in the woods long enough to establish a kind of credibility with the Sasquatch. This method has produced tremendous results with other animals noted for their elusive behavior. In order for sasquatch to be taken seriously, proper research must be conducted into its existence. We may never have conclusive evidence as sasquatch’s existence, but until proper research is done we cannot rule out its possibility.

I wrote this as an essay. What do you think?

I purposefully avoid making assertions about sasquatch. My professor would have categorically rejected a paper about "is sasquatch real".

With all due respect I dont understand your point. You wrote it like you were introducing the topic to a group
of people who have never really given Bigfoot much thought. Its a great intro but I dont know what it means
to a group like this. With a couple exceptions most are active in Reading from a research prospective, going out
into the field and researching in that environment or making and/or working with technology that forwards
the search for the creature. In other words your essay is written for a freshman intro class , and what you have
here is a bunch of grad students.
Did I miss something?

Don't take this the wrong way. You are a good writer, and your points are succinct and well supported. Your foundation is very obviously lacking in the field itself.

As Paul said, it's quite obvious that your experience is somewhat limited, and that your knowledge base of Sasquatch is lacking to some extent. As a term paper, or essay goes, I can understand why you wrote it in this fashion. For me your perspective is a little shallow for this forum, where most have decades of self and group research in terms of Sas. It's like Squatch 101 for us. Please don't take offense. Your commentary is very welcome on this board, and jump on board there is a mountain of shared knowledge and experience you can delve into here.

My intention is not to condescend, as I know squat compared to many researchers out there. I do have some field experience, and do all my work solo, or with one or two companions. Much of what I've learned about these beings, has come by being careful not to presuppose anything. Encapsulating them inside the animal photography approach or prior experience with other animals(i.e. chimps, gorillas, etc) is a big mistake often made early in research.

Humility has been beaten into me through years and years, trips and trips, ending in failure. They are superior out there. Far superior, it's not even close. They are far more intelligent than we are in the wilderness. It's where they have evolved, and progressed. Our progression is civilization based, and tool driven. They require zero tools, and that's how they like it. Who's to say they aren't living much more harmoniously than we are, in our respective domains?

We can't entice, persuade, or create scenarios for interaction. They choose if and when it happens, or it doesn't happen. Tree knocking, Bobo yelling, and fireworks, and monkey's in cages might provide comic relief, but it doesn't elicit repeated interaction. That's what I seek, repetitive interaction and observation. I'm highly unsuccessful for the most part, so take my two cents for exactly what it's worth! :-)

I've been lucky enough to have interaction on 5 or 6 occasions, and witness squatches 3 times in my life. Remarkably, in a comparative sense that ranks fairly well, for a part-time researcher, with a full time job!

NobleSavage wrote:Don't take this the wrong way. You are a good writer, and your points are succinct and well supported. Your foundation is very obviously lacking in the field itself.

As Paul said, it's quite obvious that your experience is somewhat limited, and that your knowledge base of Sasquatch is lacking to some extent. As a term paper, or essay goes, I can understand why you wrote it in this fashion. For me your perspective is a little shallow for this forum, where most have decades of self and group research in terms of Sas. It's like Squatch 101 for us. Please don't take offense. Your commentary is very welcome on this board, and jump on board there is a mountain of shared knowledge and experience you can delve into here.

My intention is not to condescend, as I know squat compared to many researchers out there. I do have some field experience, and do all my work solo, or with one or two companions. Much of what I've learned about these beings, is that encapsulating them inside prior tactics or experience with other animals(i.e. chimps, gorillas, etc) is a big mistake often made early in research by most.

Humility has been beaten into me through years and years, trips and trips, ending in failure. They are superior out there. Far superior, it's not even close. We can't entice, persuade, or create scenarios for interaction. They choose if and when it happens, or it doesn't happen. Tree knocking, Bobo yelling, and fireworks, and monkey's in cages might provide comic relief, but it doesn't elicit repeated interaction. That's what I seek, repetitive interaction and observation. I'm a highly unsuccessful for the most part, so take my two cents for exactly what it's worth! :-)

I've been lucky enough to have interaction on 5 or 6 occasions, and witness squatches 3 times in my life. Remarkably, in a comparative sense that ranks fairly well, for a part-time researcher, with a full time job!

You have seen them 3 times?

Didnt a well known bigfoot researcher once say that if someone claims to have more than 1 encounter then they are lying?

GT3Paul wrote:With all due respect I dont understand your point. You wrote it like you were introducing the topic to a group
of people who have never really given Bigfoot much thought. Its a great intro but I dont know what it means
to a group like this. With a couple exceptions most are active in Reading from a research prospective, going out
into the field and researching in that environment or making and/or working with technology that forwards
the search for the creature. In other words your essay is written for a freshman intro class , and what you have
here is a bunch of grad students.
Did I miss something?

I agree, on BF forums it is preaching to the choir. This was written for people who know little about sasquatch research. I was given an obligation to explain everything as if the reader knew nothing about the topic. It is written for a general audience, not us who have knowledge/experience. As for the point, I am advocating for a "Jane Goodall" approach. Essentially long term immersion in the wilderness. This would require a special individual like dr. goodall. This paper was not written for this forum. I am aware that the knowledge presented is rudimentary to BFers. Don't think that this paper encompasses my knowledge or experience in this field. I was instructed to write as if my reader had no previous knowledge. I am asking, "is this a good proposal". As for the difference between BF and gorillas, etc, I am aware of these as well. The point is to make yourself known to the BFs, then eventually they would recognize your benevolence and become accustomed to your presence. Let me clarify that I am not talking about walking in and out of the forest all the time. This person would be there for months on end, surviving the elements.
Addtionally- Are you asserting that I have the writing compentency of a freshman?

BurdenOfProof wrote:

NobleSavage wrote:Don't take this the wrong way. You are a good writer, and your points are succinct and well supported. Your foundation is very obviously lacking in the field itself.

As Paul said, it's quite obvious that your experience is somewhat limited, and that your knowledge base of Sasquatch is lacking to some extent. As a term paper, or essay goes, I can understand why you wrote it in this fashion. For me your perspective is a little shallow for this forum, where most have decades of self and group research in terms of Sas. It's like Squatch 101 for us. Please don't take offense. Your commentary is very welcome on this board, and jump on board there is a mountain of shared knowledge and experience you can delve into here.

My intention is not to condescend, as I know squat compared to many researchers out there. I do have some field experience, and do all my work solo, or with one or two companions. Much of what I've learned about these beings, is that encapsulating them inside prior tactics or experience with other animals(i.e. chimps, gorillas, etc) is a big mistake often made early in research by most.

Humility has been beaten into me through years and years, trips and trips, ending in failure. They are superior out there. Far superior, it's not even close. We can't entice, persuade, or create scenarios for interaction. They choose if and when it happens, or it doesn't happen. Tree knocking, Bobo yelling, and fireworks, and monkey's in cages might provide comic relief, but it doesn't elicit repeated interaction. That's what I seek, repetitive interaction and observation. I'm a highly unsuccessful for the most part, so take my two cents for exactly what it's worth! :-)

I've been lucky enough to have interaction on 5 or 6 occasions, and witness squatches 3 times in my life. Remarkably, in a comparative sense that ranks fairly well, for a part-time researcher, with a full time job!

You have seen them 3 times?

Didnt a well known bigfoot researcher once say that if someone claims to have more than 1 encounter then they are lying?

Again Burden are coments like this really doing any good. Where is the respect of people explaining their situation.
Their was no need for your above post.
Besides trying to instigate something.

I was given a format to write in. I followed the format. This paper was not written for people with extensive knowledge on the subject. It was intentionally written for those without knowledge. That was a "rule" that was given. I chose BF because I enjoy the topic and I feel that what I am talking about has not been done in the way I propose. If it has been done then I have not read about, and I have read as much as anyone on the subject as anyone. I also spend extensive amounts of time in the national forest of the PNW, and do not even mention my personal beliefs or experiences. I am proposing a style of research that to my knowledge has not been attempted. If it has, then please inform me of this. I apologize for offending everyone with my paper.

CMcMillan wrote:

BurdenOfProof wrote:

NobleSavage wrote:Don't take this the wrong way. You are a good writer, and your points are succinct and well supported. Your foundation is very obviously lacking in the field itself.

As Paul said, it's quite obvious that your experience is somewhat limited, and that your knowledge base of Sasquatch is lacking to some extent. As a term paper, or essay goes, I can understand why you wrote it in this fashion. For me your perspective is a little shallow for this forum, where most have decades of self and group research in terms of Sas. It's like Squatch 101 for us. Please don't take offense. Your commentary is very welcome on this board, and jump on board there is a mountain of shared knowledge and experience you can delve into here.

My intention is not to condescend, as I know squat compared to many researchers out there. I do have some field experience, and do all my work solo, or with one or two companions. Much of what I've learned about these beings, is that encapsulating them inside prior tactics or experience with other animals(i.e. chimps, gorillas, etc) is a big mistake often made early in research by most.

Humility has been beaten into me through years and years, trips and trips, ending in failure. They are superior out there. Far superior, it's not even close. We can't entice, persuade, or create scenarios for interaction. They choose if and when it happens, or it doesn't happen. Tree knocking, Bobo yelling, and fireworks, and monkey's in cages might provide comic relief, but it doesn't elicit repeated interaction. That's what I seek, repetitive interaction and observation. I'm a highly unsuccessful for the most part, so take my two cents for exactly what it's worth! :-)

I've been lucky enough to have interaction on 5 or 6 occasions, and witness squatches 3 times in my life. Remarkably, in a comparative sense that ranks fairly well, for a part-time researcher, with a full time job!

You have seen them 3 times?

Didnt a well known bigfoot researcher once say that if someone claims to have more than 1 encounter then they are lying?

Again Burden are coments like this really doing any good. Where is the respect of people explaining their situation.
Their was no need for your above post.
Besides trying to instigate something.

I am not saying he is lying.

I am repeating the words of a bigfoot researcher (yes a bigfoot researcher not a skeptic). I cant remember his name but those were his words. Take it as you will.

Gotcha Ishmael. I thought that may have played a role. But why post it here then?

I think your premise regarding long term habituation is noble, and has merit. I set up a volunteer proposal on another forum with the same idea in mind.

Long term habituation, but geared to their lifestyle, no formal shelter, food stuffs, tents and the like. The idea was to mimic them as best we can, and see what results could be yielded.

Survivorman...or survivormansquatch...lol for 90 days at a time.

I'd do it for $3,000,000 if you could find the investors to pony up. It would be hard to find volunteers for such an endeavor.

I think anything technological, would burn the whole thing down, and have poor results. They are too observant, and too intelligent, so no sat phones, gps, weaponry, bright lights, etc. That makes things really hard for us feeble hominids!

NobleSavage wrote:Gotcha Ishmael. I thought that may have played a role. But why post it here then?

I think your premise regarding long term habituation is noble, and has merit. I set up a volunteer proposal on another forum with the same idea in mind.

Long term habituation, but geared to their lifestyle, no formal shelter, food stuffs, tents and the like. The idea was to mimic them as best we can, and see what results could be yielded.

Survivorman...or survivormansquatch...lol for 90 days at a time.

I'd do it for $3,000,000 if you could find the investors to pony up. It would be hard to find volunteers for such an endeavor.

I think anything technological, would burn the whole thing down, and have poor results. They are too observant, and too intelligent, so no sat phones, gps, weaponry, bright lights, etc. That makes things really hard for us feeble hominids!

Yes you just stated all the things that I was proposing. Technology, structures, firearms, food competition, would ruin the experiment. I know that the paper was 'below' our forum, but I wanted to know what your opinion was of habituation. You are right, I say that this would be a good approach, but I am not the one to do it. lol. I only posted it on here because I was trying to have a habituation conversation/see if the essay was good (not to BFers, the 'layman').

g

g

The cost would be very high, as Nobel and I were saying 'I don't want to do it'. Not only would the cost be high, the person doing the work would have to be highly trained, patient, professional, etc. Selecting an individual would be difficult because they would undoubtedly endure scrutiny from peers, harsh weather and wilderness, loneliness, etc. It would be a tall order. That being said I think that this approach could be answer to getting close to them. I agree with SN and Noble, these BF approach on their own terms. So my assertion is that if you were to become 'normal' to them, they may allow glimpses or even interaction.

If you wrote this for a class, for an intro then its very good. And it makes your point well now that I know what is going on.
I also like your point. It would be expensive But I think your point is very valid. It is being done a little now, but with people
with very limited resources. I am working with some of those now. A funded project would yield results if you had the right area

Hey Ishmael sorry if I came across condescending in any way. Not my intention, I think the paper probably faired well.

Did you get an A?

Long term habituation might be possible if we were in the 1800s. There were lots of mountain men, that could have probably withstood such a test, and many did exactly what you propose, but by accident or injury back in the good ole' days.

I'm not sure we churn out that sort any more. We are in the 'MetroSexual' era of men, where eyebrows are plucked, facials are endured, and manicures and pedicures are frequent. LOL

Jeremiah Johnson is no longer around!

g

With some initial funding and likeable researchers, I'd send in 2 or 3 together.... but to live in a small cabin, not in the open wild. (I'm thinking safe shelter from a Grizzly or mountain lion.) That way, one could periodically pack out to see a dentist, enjoy a 45-min hot shower, take out any trash and bring back a few supplies ~ and the place wouldn't be abandoned. And a lone person wouldn't be going wacky from the solitude.

Also... the big key would be internet access so they could Livestream their activities or focus a cam on an interesting area, even at night with an IR light. That would bring in ad money to support the project. Did you ever find yourself staring at the Decorah Eagles nest for two straight hours on UStream, even when not much was happening? Still absolutely fascinating!

Now I say all that, but am completely clueless as to how many solar panels would have to be rigged to get enough juice for one hour, let alone four..........

Kel, you know whats funny? Is we do this arleady HERE on some of our weapons ranges. The Government sends in geologists at some of our more isolated places
and they stay out there for weeks recording every artifact that might, in the most mildly way, be of interest to someone for some artifactual evidence. They are out there marking down pots from 400 years an older. The young Scientists are out there for weeks on end documenting everything somebody may find mildly interesting for years to come. Anything of historic value and it can hold up any kind of missile shot or bombing exercise for weeks or month.
So we could use these same archeologists to team up with Biologists and be out in the field looking. But instead they are not looking for anything other than broken pottery. We COULD Piggy back other missions to same money and get the data without having to spend a ton on recreating the wheel.

They don't make them like they use to myself included . I think of myself as an 'outdoors man' or whatever, then I remember my grandfather and realize that I'm a pus*y. To add to that I think about what his grandfather must have been like. To think of what this person would have to endure, and it would require Jeremiah Johnson or a modern Robinson Crusoe. None the less I feel the theory is sound. Maybe if Les Stroud isn't too busy? Whoever it is, they would have to be reputable and capable. Also another critical point was pointed out by Stank Ape, that we can and should conduct this research to withstand the highest levels of scientific scrutiny. That is what we have lacked all along and strive to achieve. I knew that I wasn't making any earth shattering revelations in my paper, I really struggled keeping my opinions of Sasquatch out of it, I would have included a lot more if I were not so restricted on what the paper could be. I think one main flaw was when I posted it on here with the title "the problem with sasquatch". I wanted it to get peoples attention, but may have put a negative connotation on the paper, which could not be further from its purpose. The title actually was meant to be tongue in cheek. All of that being said, I did get an A on the paper, the professor found it interesting even though he was skeptical of the subject before reading it (I can't say what class it was, but the topic choice was ballsy and unrelated to the course, I feared he would reject it off hand). I only posted it on here to get some BFers opinions of some of my main points (is it a good approach to opening 'real' conversation with skeptics or uninformed individuals?) and like i said before, talk about the immersion or habituation method.
Kel- I think your idea may be more feasible than my own proposal. It would actually have marketability, where as mine is a little extreme. Also Paul, it is interesting that you know of people doing something similar to this. What kinds of results are they getting, and would it be worth extending the research to be long term? I would like to do something like this, but I know that 3 months alone in the woods can drive a sane person crazy. They may even make friends with a bloody volleyball called Wilson. lol.

Mitch Hedberg is dead. Funny comedian though. Died in Feb. of '05

Danny Squatchanini wrote:Mitch Hedberg is dead. Funny comedian though. Died in Feb. of '05

That was tragic. One of my favorite stand up comedians. He had such a unique style and delivery.

I agree with the previous comments...especially surrounding the mistakes made early on in the "hunt"

These creatures do not appear to be your garden variety animal. Not at all. Not even a garden variety primate. What is it the investment banks always say? "Past performance is not indicative of future results...". This creature seems to be much more in the category of a hominid or something very close and we really haven't had any experience dealing with another species of hominid for what, 12,000 years? Projecting our experience with non-hominids, even higher primates can lead us down false paths and frustrate the heck out of you.

On the subject of pictures and "National Geographic" type productions, it is good to note that at one point National Geographic did a 5 year study on the Wolverine. 5 years! They had some great pictures, unfortunately all the pictures were staged with captive wolverines. After 5 years in the field the best picture they had of a wolverine was a 4mm dot on a snowy field at a distance of 1/2 to 1 mile distance. Getting good nature photos is not as easy as you would think!