Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Free Northman Reborn

So let's talk about Sasquatch. 100% impossible, or is there at least a chance that it exists?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

So I recently took a closer interest in the mystery of the Sasquatch. Specifically after stumbling across a Youtube channel called MountainBeastMysteries, which has a whole series of interesting discussions on the topic. There are plenty more such channels, and one thing led to another and I ended up losing hours of valuable time immersed in this very absorbing enigma.

From native American legends of the beast, to the thousands of sightings that have been reported in the last century, there is something tantalizing about this mystery.

Now, sure, my logical mind immediately jumps to all the reasons why the Sasquatch can't exist. Primarily, the minimum breeding population required to sustain a population of the creatures, the plausibility of such a population not leaving any physical evidence up to the current day and age and how a primate survives in winter up in Canada, especially if their survival techniques require them not to leave any evidence of shelters, cave nests or other habitation sites behind for humans to find.

The issue of the lack of evidence in the fossil record also bugs me a bit, but somewhat less than the others, because we know there are large gaps in the fossil record and even Gigantopithecus, which is a known great ape, is only known from a few fragments despite having existed for thousands of years in Asia.

Anyway, because I want the creature to exist, I was wondering whether the core issue of a minimum sustainable breeding population cannot be circumvented by assuming a non-sustainable breeding population. Meaning, maybe the species has been in decline for centuries, and the sightings reported in the last century are of the last remnants of a nearly extinct creature. In which case you don't need a breeding population of 2000+ individuals spread across North America. Instead, there may be only a hundred, or even fewer, of these creatures left. And within a century there might be zero.

So anyway, I'm interested in opinions on the issue. Scientists like anthropologist Dr. Jeff Meldrum and Dr. John Bindernagel seriously considered the existence of such a creature, as does famed naturalist Sir David Attenborough, and others. What do you guys think? Is it utterly impossible for Sasquatch to exist? Or is there a chance, however small, that there remains an undiscovered large hominid roaming the Pacific Northwest and other remote areas of North America?

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% impossible. Almost everyone carries a high-quality camera with them at all times for over a decade. If they were real, a definitive photographic/video proof would have appeared by now. This applies to the entire "field" of cryptozoology as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Gorn said:

100% impossible. Almost everyone carries a high-quality camera with them at all times for over a decade. If they were real, a definitive photographic/video proof would have appeared by now. This applies to the entire "field" of cryptozoology as well.

True about cellphones. Still, if there are half the number of creatures left today than there were say 50 years ago, and those are only in extremely remote areas, then the hiker who glimpses one crossing a mountain path is quite plausibly not going to have his cellphone ready to take a photograph in time. And when photographs are taken, they are usually subject to hoax claims.

There are actually a surprising number of photographs and videos available. Many of which are sure to be hoaxes, but that shows that even photographic evidence does not seal the deal.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're asking if we have discovered and catalogued amoeba that live in the Marianas Trench, to pick just one example offhand, but can't detect any evidence of an eight foot humanoid living in reasonably close proximity to civilisation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The Mountain Gorilla was discovered in 1902. It hat not been previously know about about by science. It's  Is not completely out of the realm of possibility that Sasquatch might exist in remote corners of the Wilderness of North America. 

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unlikely that the Sasquach is real.  I will not completely discount the possibility of its existence (particularly if the Sasquach is fully sentient) but as Gorn pointed out given the prevalence of cameras today it is unlikely to be real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is unlikely that the Sasquach is real.  I will not completely discount the possibility of its existence (particularly if the Sasquach is fully sentient) but as Gorn pointed out given the prevalence of cameras today it is unlikely to be real.

That is pretty much my stance, broadly. If one had to bet your money on it, one would say no. But unlikely doesn't mean impossible. So there is still a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one major problem with the existence of such creature(s) is why has nobody found one dead? Or a skeleton of one, or fossil of one?

If there is/was a significant population in existence then you'd have thought that someone would have at least come across a dead one at some point. Unless these creatures are advanced enough to follow some sort of primitive burial rites, in which case why have we never found any sign of a primitive civilization. No caves with signs of life, no traces of artificial fires, no sign of habitation of shelters/nesting sites, no tool, no left over waste like animal bones, discarded food etc.
And if bigfoot and his kind are developed enough to have such behaviour as hiding/disposing of their dead then i'd find in unlikely they'd exist in total isolation for so long, given they would presumably be capable of other higher level development. And any developing species is bound to come into contact with others such as humans eventually, if not through mere curiosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Lordsteve666 said:

The one major problem with the existence of such creature(s) is why has nobody found one dead? Or a skeleton of one, or fossil of one?

If there is/was a significant population in existence then you'd have thought that someone would have at least come across a dead one at some point. Unless these creatures are advanced enough to follow some sort of primitive burial rites, in which case why have we never found any sign of a primitive civilization. No caves with signs of life, no traces of artificial fires, no sign of habitation of shelters/nesting sites, no tool, no left over waste like animal bones, discarded food etc.
And if bigfoot and his kind are developed enough to have such behaviour as hiding/disposing of their dead then i'd find in unlikely they'd exist in total isolation for so long, given they would presumably be capable of other higher level development. And any developing species is bound to come into contact with others such as humans eventually, if not through mere curiosity.

Perhaps Cannibalism in that species might be one possibility for the lack of remains   or this might a stretch , maybe they do know enough about mankind to hide evidence of themselves from us.

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is unlikely that the Sasquach is real.  I will not completely discount the possibility of its existence (particularly if the Sasquach is fully sentient) but as Gorn pointed out given the prevalence of cameras today it is unlikely to be real.

What does this have to do with anything?

@OP,  I'd say extremely unlikely.  Most species that are only recently nondescript tend to be populations we hadn't realized we're genetically distinct (see the bifurcation of the orangutan) rather than awareness of an organism altogether, particularly when you consider the purported size of the Samsqwamch.  

Additionally, it's not as if it's alleged territory is so unexplored or remote as to be unknown or provide much refuge.  And then you have the fact that a relatively cold climate and its alleged size impose pretty high metabolic intake demands on the beast, so it would have to be pretty much constantly eating and foraging.  So it would be out and about, but moving slowly to conserve energy, like a moose or a bear but a primate.  

This behavior doesn't lend itself to remaining undiscovered.

I think our much loved Samsqwamch should be considered to wholly in the our myths and romanticization of the natural world.  

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

If you have faith that Sasquatch exists, then you dont actually need proof of its existence.

"There are more thing in Heaven and Earth , Horatio , then are Dreamt of in your Philosophy " 

Hamlet act 1 scene  5 

There is still places in the world not well explored . The sea is nearly 90 percent unexplored and there are still place on the land not well explored. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

What does this have to do with anything?

@OP,  I'd say extremely unlikely.  Most species that are only recently nondescript tend to be populations we hadn't realized we're genetically distinct (see the bifurcation of the orangutan) rather than awareness of an organism altogether, particularly when you consider the purported size of the Samsqwamch.  

Additionally, it's not as if it's alleged territory is so unexplored or remote as to be unknown or provide much refuge.  And then you have the fact that a relatively cold climate and its alleged size impose pretty high metabolic intake demands on the beast, so it would have to be pretty much constantly eating and foraging.  So it would be out and about, but moving slowly to conserve energy, like a moose or a bear but a primate.  

This behavior doesn't lend itself to remaining undiscovered.

I think our much loved Samsqwamch should be considered to wholly in the our myths and romanticization of the natural world.  

The Soala  a deer like animal  found in Vietnam  in 2010 and they are still discovering  new species not previously seen and some of them are not small .

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

What does this have to do with anything?

@OP,  I'd say extremely unlikely.  Most species that are only recently nondescript tend to be populations we hadn't realized we're genetically distinct (see the bifurcation of the orangutan) rather than awareness of an organism altogether, particularly when you consider the purported size of the Samsqwamch.  

Additionally, it's not as if it's alleged territory is so unexplored or remote as to be unknown or provide much refuge.  And then you have the fact that a relatively cold climate and its alleged size impose pretty high metabolic intake demands on the beast, so it would have to be pretty much constantly eating and foraging.  So it would be out and about, but moving slowly to conserve energy, like a moose or a bear but a primate.  

This behavior doesn't lend itself to remaining undiscovered.

I think our much loved Samsqwamch should be considered to wholly in the our myths and romanticization of the natural world.  

If they exist, and I strongly doubt that they do, and they are fully sentient... they can hide and hide the remains of their dead.  I really, really, really doubt they exist.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If they exist, and I strongly doubt that they do, and they are fully sentient... they can hide and hide the remains of their dead.  I really, really, really doubt they exist.  

What are your thoughts on the famous Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot  film ? 

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

What are your thoughts on the famous Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot  film ? 

it looks like a guy in a suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

it looks like a guy in a suit.

Thats what helped start the Bigfoot craze. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Thats what helped start the Bigfoot craze. 

Understood.  It still looks like a guy running in front of the camera in a gorilla suit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×