"This place looks 'Squatchy!" It's practically a catch-phrase call now, generally made by either Bobo or Matt. But what do they mean by that?
There will always have been a good many Bigfoot sightings. The team wouldn't be there, if there hadn't. But that means little in the vast scheme of things.
Eye-witnesses may be mistaken, or they could be hoaxers after their fifteen minutes of fame. As soon as the BFRO are in the area, they start looking for much more than what people thought they saw.
Is there a large forest here? Sasquatch are terrestrial, bipedal creatures, but they live amongst the trees. They aren't going to bother with a small copse. They want dense foliage, where they can hide out of view, should nosy neighbors like us turn up.
Is there a source of water? Just like us, the average hairy giant would soon collapse of dehydration, if there wasn't a handy stream or river.
Is there food in these woods? The biggie here is deer. Bigfoot loves a meal of freshly slaughtered bambi. Where there are deer, then it might not be far behind.
Combine all of these factors and terrain together, and someone will proclaim the area to be ''Squatchy as Hell!'
To my mind, the possibility is most definitely there. Those are some vast, lonely spaces out in the wilderness, where anything could live without being seen by humanity. Sasquatch are seen, and that's what makes them worth looking into.
I love your 'Scylla of scepticism and Charybdis of credulity' speech. :D
How hard it is to pass between the Scylla of scepticism and Charybdis of credulity. Each is seductive in its over-simplicity. The correct path between these dangers is to realize that we do not know all the beings that there are in the world, and that there are many mysteries remaining to be discovered, but to accept that there can be false beliefs and misleading claims. Sometimes we have hints of realities that we do not fully understand and maybe cannot be encompassed in our existing thought systems. But sometimes these realties cannot be encompassed within status systems. To admit that Bigfoot exists would be to admit that there are realities whose existence can be known first to people outside the academic establishment, and this would undermine the status system based on the possession of privileged knowledge that academia represents.
It's an interesting hypothesis, but not one to which I can subscribe. You've made many giant leaps of logic and assumption, which make no sense outside a very racist reading of the Bible.
Why would the runaway slaves have had to perform bestiality with orangtuan in Africa? There were human beings there. Any runaway slaves would have found a whole continent full of ancient cities, rural villages and nomadic tribes. What they wouldn't have found were orangtuan. Orangtuan come from Sumatra and Bornea.
Why would those animal-loving runaway slaves have then made it to the USA? (I'm assuming that we're talking about the landmass, as the USA didn't exist back then.) There's a lot of ocean in between. The land-bridge, which facilitated the emigration of the Clovis people et al, would have been long since closed by Biblical times. The last major ice age, which allowed sea travel over there, would have melted in the flood of Noah.
Africans and First Natives do indeed have DNA that's very close to the great apes, but so do Europeans, Asians and every other human ethnicity on Earth. We are great apes. We're primates. Our closest relatives are chimpanzee. Africans and First Natives have identical DNA to the rest of humanity. They are us. As far as the record shows, we ALL came from Africa.
Which further adds a question mark to your assertion that Africa, during the time of David, was devoid of humanity, just full of orangtuan, gorillas and runaway slaves. In fact, there's so much wrong with that view that I don't know where to even begin.
Also I don't share the belief that the highest state of evolution for any creature is human. What makes us so great, that all on Earth would strive to be us? We're mammals for a start. Of all life-forms, mammals are perhaps the most transient. None of us survive more than a few hundred million years. We'd be better off being lizards or fish. Some of them go on for billions of years.
Are Bigfoot human-orangtuan hybrids (or human-gorilla hybrids)? The theory is worth discussing, but your back-story for how it came to be is not acceptable to me.
"Bigfoot Is Real"
Erk, I can't edit it either. We all know what you meant though. :) I'd have thought that the poor mouse in its claws was doing most of the praying!
Wow! Thank you for your story!
As you may have gathered, I'm in a real Sasquatch mood right now. I'm enjoying learning all that I can about them; and I'm enjoying that show.
Yes, it is a bit speculation-presented-as-facts, but there's always Ranae to bring things back to basics. I'm an academic myself (MA in History), so I want the cold, hard evidence too. However, neither will I dismiss things out of hand. If people have to prove the existence of Sasquatch, then shouldn't others be proving that it doesn't exist? The onus shouldn't be on just one point of view.
I wish I could have been in the Gorge with you that night. I would have loved to have heard it too. I would have been neither use nor ornament in working out what it was, but I would have loved to have been there.
I'm really enjoying it. Ok, some of the near misses are a bit blatant; and I'm with Ranae most of the time. But I'm really getting into it. This is all your fault, Paul.
I want you to have an encounter too, Ragtimelil. So you can come and tell us all about it!
I don't have a TV but I'm intrigued. I'm not sure I'd want a face to face encounter. But fascinating!
An interesting article on a seriously interesting TV show. I'd highly recommend giving it a try.