BFRO / What's New - America and Canada / Archives / 08-17-2009 / What are some of the major reasons people think a sasquatch hasnt been found?

Topie: What are some of the major reasons people think a sasquatch hasnt been found? Page: 1 2
April 11th, 2009 06:24 PM
nubirthgod Just curious as to the reasons people think after all these years, a LIVE sasquatch hasnt been found by the public. I have my thoughts, my primary belief is the government knows about them and censor any proof of their existence. What do some of you guys believe? Their ability to hide? etc. etc.
April 11th, 2009 06:53 PM
Bossburg Seems to me sasquatch has been found - read all the eye witness reports, view the good movies, talk to anyone who's seen one (or more).

April 11th, 2009 11:59 PM
nubirthgod i meant proof enuf that sasquatch is recognized as a official entity in science.
April 12th, 2009 04:15 AM
DRTaylor If you're talking about why a body hasn't been found, my personal thought is it's because a BF might know when it's time is up and it prepares a grave if you will with some other members of it's family. Then they just sit vigil and wait for the end. Then once the elder or sick one dies, the others bury it and move on.

This, to me anyway, is why no bones have been found. But like I said, it's just a thought.

April 12th, 2009 06:44 AM
Jake Levi
For those who are not familiar with the NW forests, the density and extent of them hide almost all skelteons, even common species such as deer, elk and black bear skeletons are rare.

Here in northern MI deer are extremely common, yet the only skeletons I find are those of wounded deer who escape to die. Or road kills.

I am in the woods several times a week, I havent found a 'natural death' deer skeleton yet. Finding a Sasquatch skeleton would be a once in many millions accident.

Whatever the actual reasons , we dont know why but there are too many good sightings not to recognize them as a real species. Plus the other evidence, which grows by the year.
April 12th, 2009 11:42 AM
Bill Boqs Understanding the question as posed by nubirth (above), here's my list of reasons why squatches haven't been "reduced to possession" by modern science -- and it's not intended to be definitive or exhaustive.

First, mainstream science won't actively seek out or research any creature which it believes to be non-existent (and virtually mythological). I'd be willing to bet that if multiple, well-funded, long-term research projects were in-place, we'd be seeing more and better evidence than we now have. It goes without saying, this predisposition to disbelieve (on the part of academia and society at-large) is also highly prejudicial to any report(s) or other evidence brought forward by lay witnesses and "amateur" researchers.

Second, for exactly the reasons outlined by Jake Levi (above). Like him, I've explored and hunted the woods of Northern Wisconsin and the UP since childhood (about a half-century ago!) and I have yet to set eyes on the skull of a black bear, moose, cougar or wolf in situ (coyotes, commonly shot on-sight, are an altogether different matter). The woods -- and the smaller animals & bugs that live there -- are a very efficient disposal (and dispersal) system when it comes to the remains of large, heavy-boned animals (a process graphically illustrated on MQ last year).

And, Third, for reasons which I'll describe as "the nature of the beast". Much of this falls into the realm of pure speculation -- but I'm convinced there's something to it. Squatches are secretive by nature and by necessity; how they live and how they die are matters which are purposefully concealed from us. They're good at "hiding in plain sight" and it's very possible that they bury (or otherwise dispose of) their dead. We have a lot to learn.

As Bossburg pointed out, though, compelling evidence is already there for anyone willing to give it due consideration. For me, the early newspaper accounts, the tracks (the same evidence Dr. Krantz found so convincing), the ever-growing body of geographically consistent sighting reports and, of course, the P/G film are enough proof that squatches are for-real.
(Edited by Bill Boqs)
April 12th, 2009 08:06 PM
Andy I agree 100% with Bill Bogs on this one...and also with Bossburg.
April 12th, 2009 10:21 PM
BigfootBeliever55 Perhaps they bury their dead? I don't buy the reasoning that skeletons of animals aren't commonly found. I have found many skeletons of box turtles, deer, groundhogs, etc.
April 13th, 2009 08:44 AM
BFSanctum Living BF are just too adapted to thier enviroment to give good opportunity to obtain proof. They are large, to be sure, but they blend in with the environment, can move almost silenty and/or at great speads and can traverse terrain humans cannot. THey may be aware of the the signs they make during passage though an d area and seek to avoid leaving those signs. When BFs are noticed by humans at all it is probably well after they have become aware of the humans. Typical sightings last only a few seconds. Not long enough to recover from the initial shock and ready a camera or weapon with steady hands.

BF's may live in communities. They may care for one another and assist the sick or wounded to get back to saftey. They may even carry off their dead.

It is highly likely that BF has been shot. Most hunters do not carry a weapon large enough to mortally wound something as large as the largest bear. Even if they do carry a larger calibur weapon are their nerves steady enough to shoot a vital organ when confronted with something they have been told does not exist? Even when a BF is hit and is mortally wounded it probably has time to make a hasty retreat to a secure hidaway to die. They are reported to have tremendous speed when they need it.

to BigfootBelievers point, the small population of BF compared to turtles, deer and groundhogs and even large predators like wolves, cougars and bear, would make it highly unlikely that BF remains would be found. If BFs tends to retreat to remote areas that are all but inaccessible to humans when they are sick or elderly it would be especially hard to find remains. Any BFs sighted around human settlements are probably the more adventurous and healthy specimins of the species. They would also be more nimbal and adapted to trecherous terrain then unhealty BF. I doubt you will find many succumb to quick deaths due to accidents.

I'm sure there are many more arguments that can be found for the reasons that BFs are able to elude human detection at large and recognization as a species by the establishements that be. There are several hundred credible reports every year. To the minority (who number in the thousands if not tens of thousands) who have either witnessed the creature or examined the evidence in detail, BF has been found.

April 13th, 2009 12:47 PM
Andy It's probably just as simple as: most of them live where most of us don't.
April 13th, 2009 03:09 PM
Bill Boqs Good point.
April 13th, 2009 04:03 PM
Harpoonfisher Their smart... they adapt well to human tactics.
April 13th, 2009 05:56 PM
Troy75 It's because they don't exist...

Well, in the minds of many they don't -- and in the minds of many they do.

I for one, would like to see one. Then I will be converted. Until then, I will continue to strain my eyes looking at the Patterson film, and look closely at shadows on the hillside. But until that day I gaze into his big brown eyes -- I will have to say -- could be,...

The least favorite thing to do -- is to be a skeptic merely for the sake of being a skeptic. On the other hand, one does no good by being a devoted "believer" I might say that I believe in the Loch Ness monster -- but that doesn't overcome the evidence that there is nothing in that lake resembling the popular myth.

Let the scientists flock to the scene... let them disect and analyze...

April 14th, 2009 01:47 AM
easternoregongirl I have spent countless hours in the great outdoors since I was a child. The amazing expanse of forest that I have experienced has been enough to convince me that there is more than enough habitat for this creature to exist.

Beyond that I believe that there is plenty of proof that Sassy exists. Photos, films, footprints with dermal ridges, etc.

I think its important to remember that for years western society was convinced that both the silver backed gorilla AND the giant panda were nothing more than myth. If creatures as large as those were undiscoverable until very recently in human history I believe it is more than possible that an even bigger and better "mythological" creature exists.
April 14th, 2009 07:21 AM
easternoregongirl wrote:
I have spent countless hours in the great outdoors since I was a child. The amazing expanse of forest that I have experienced has been enough to convince me that there is more than enough habitat for this creature to exist.

Beyond that I believe that there is plenty of proof that Sassy exists. Photos, films, footprints with dermal ridges, etc.

I think its important to remember that for years western society was convinced that both the silver backed gorilla AND the giant panda were nothing more than myth. If creatures as large as those were undiscoverable until very recently in human history I believe it is more than possible that an even bigger and better "mythological" creature exists.

It's scary, but in a good way, to think that Mountain Gorilla's were only accepted as a Species by Science in the West, around about 115 Years ago..
April 14th, 2009 07:30 AM
Jake Levi

There is more then enough evidence for an objective researcher.

I think it is very worthwhile to do ssome historical research, Sasquatch has been a matter of reality to Native NorthAmericans for centuries. Anglos didnt pay much attention, some did, reports were written many years ago. A review of history, even more recent historyas Don Hunter reported in his book on Rene Dehinden has a number of excellent reports, long before there were any actual Bigfoot 'investigators'.

For the now, a careful research of incidents/sightings of the last 20-30 years will provide much information for anyone seriously interested. By specific areas.

BFRO has an excellent database now that wasnt available 10-20 years ago. Anyone who is really interested who doesnt study teh database just isnt really interested no matter what they say.

Murphy's Law has a corrolary, if the law says 'the thing most likely to go wrong will', then the corrolary is 'the most preparation will produce the most results'.

In recent years sightings and incidents happened the most often accidentally, as people went about their own activites, but we are finally getting to where we can minimize the accident in efforts and begin to focus them.

I totally agree with 'EasternOregongirl', the sheer expanse of unknown habitat in the NW has much more then enough area for a number of unknown species. Even here in Northern MI there is much area that people dont see closely even within a couple of years. I live within one such, the Huron National Forest.

Multiply this area by the many times in size of the NW Forests and there is no doubt in my mind why skeletons havent been found of BF. There are many human skeletons there that havent been found.
April 14th, 2009 06:43 PM
nubirthgod wrote:
i meant proof enuf that sasquatch is recognized as a official entity in science.
I really do belive the only way that will happen is with a body alive or dead.
I also have to ask what if someone had really good evidence,Not a blury vid or pick or print that could be faked.
But say hair or tissue that was actually seen coming of the BF.
And even if the evidence was taken care of properly who would you take it to?
April 15th, 2009 07:44 AM
Jake Levi Size 18 your last sentence is excellent.

A number of reliable labs are available now, I would suggest submitting samples through Jeff Meldrum or John Bindernagel. And document all steps in the process.

Samples have been sent to the Smithsonian, with very unsatisfactory results, the most definite being "unable to reference to a known species", i.e. unknown.

Without a carcass or live specimen to reference to about the only working demonstration of authenticity would be a good 16mm film of a BF showing a definite identifiable area, and then collecting forensic evidence from an identifiable spot in the film where the subject was shown to be at.

I am building up a collection of hair, I have well over a dozen species, human, bear(2 species), deer(four species), canids, cats, cattle, horse, mule, rodents, so far the only primate is human, but have texts on other species hair, I can ID all my samples without anything other then a hand magnifier.

If I find an interesting sample I can document the site and location, and go from there.

Lacking a carcass we need to document finds and sightings , and corroborate them with other known finds and folks like Drs Meldrum, and Bindernagel to advance their information and sites like the BFRO database.

Sites with good footprints need to be approached extremely careful so as not to disrupt the site and hide other evidence such as hair, scats etc. Combining evidence from such a site is what will build up convincing documentation.

Reading over the histories of finds its disheartening to read what happended at places like Bluff Creek and others when word got out of footprint signs. Any chance of finding other evidence was trampled under by curiosity seekers.

I really reccommend investing in some of the good books available on earlier searches and finds just to see what not to do and what to do. Start with Dr Jeff Meldrum's book.

(Edited by Jake Levi)
April 15th, 2009 04:36 PM
tmedina "In 1992 Whatcom County received national prominence when their county council enacted legislation defining the county as a "Sasquatch Protection and Refuge Area." The legislation was passed and approved on 6/9/91 and was formally implemented in 1992, thus the date of the bill. The Whatcom County Ordinance is called, " Resolution No. 92-043." Declaring Whatcom County A Sasquatch Protection And Refuge Area.

Whereas, legend, purported recent findings and spoor suggest the Bigfoot may exist; and

Whereas, if such a creature exists, it is inadequately protected and in danger of death or injury:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council that, Whatcom County is hereby declared a Sasquatch protection and refuge area, and all citizens are asked to recognize said status.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this resolution shall be effective immediately. Approved this 9th day of June 1991.

Skamania County is located in the State of Washington, approximately sixty miles east of Vancouver, Washington at the mouth of the Columbia River gorge. This area is extremely rural, with Gifford Pinchot National Forest to the north and Mount Hood National Forest to the south.

Skamania County received national recognition in 1969 when the County Commissioners received several reports of Bigfoot sightings. The commissioners became concerned, and believed that there was a creature matching Bigfoot's description that lived in the rural sections of the county. Their concern prompted the Council to enact legislation, Ordinance 69-01.


WHEREAS, there is evidence to indicate the possible existence in Skamania County of a nocturnal primate mammal variously described as an ape-like creature or a sub-species of Homo Sapian; and
WHEREAS, both legend and purported recent sightings and spoor support this possibility, and
WHEREAS, this creature is generally and commonly known as a "Sasquatch", "Yeti", "Bigfoot", or "Giant Hairy Ape", and
WHEREAS, publicity attendant upon such real or imagined sightings has resulted in an influx of scientific investigators as well as casual hunters, many armed with lethal weapons, and
WHEREAS, the absence of specific laws covering the taking of specimens encourages laxity in the use of firearms and other deadly devices and poses a clear and present threat to the safety and well-being of persons living or traveling within the boundaries of Skamania County as well as to the creatures themselves,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that any premeditated, willful and wanton slaying of any such be deemed a felony punishable by a fine not to exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and/or imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed Five (5) years.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the situation existing constitutes an emergency and as such this ordinance is effective immediately.
ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 1969."

Anyway, this is what is written in the ordinances for both Whatcom County and Skamania County Washington State.

April 15th, 2009 06:30 PM
ceconut as far as i know about DNA testing even with hair or skin sample its only going to come back unknow. DNA exist in a format that took the sample form comfirmed samples then they match it up. If no Bigfoot is ever found and comfirmed all the evidence wil come back as unkown. After time you might get hits off of other samples that are matches but it will still be unknow dna matches.
April 16th, 2009 07:24 AM
Jake Levi As I posted above, IF, one is filmed, with a reliable camera, such as a 16mm, and then samples are taken from an identifiable spot in the film where the BF was seen, and you can gather hair and other body evidence it can be referenced to the filmed creature. That would be acceptable evidence to most biologists. Thats one of the great regrets on the PG film, that they didnt get hair samples or scats or whatever was available from the site, and after the prints were mostly trampled over except for one or two that they got casts of. But print casts arnt documentation of physical evidence, they document movement.

We need samples of the animal itself. If they can be tied to a known referenced spot that a BF is filmed in then there is real evidence. Not proof, but evidence.

I am in full agreement with the ordinances cited.
April 16th, 2009 01:17 PM
goolsbinin I agree that history provides enough evidence to suggest that squatch exists. On the main section of this website there is a section devoted to historical accounts. The most intriguing in my opinion is that of Christopher Columbus who in his journals reported seeing apes in NA.

I also think it is good to note that Native Americans draw most, if not all of their spirits and legends directly from animals they have regular contact with, as well as from trees and mountains. Having said that I think the most convincing bit of evidence (even more so than footage and tracks) can be drawn from the people who have spent the most time on this continent and the most time in the wildlife realm of North America.
April 16th, 2009 05:35 PM
CharlesL I've lived in the Pacific states, including Alaska, all my life. I think people who have never been here, or who simply turn around where the pavement ends, would be startled at the incredible amount of wilderness we have. It's interesting to me that the "modern era" of bigfoot sightings and tracks began when construction companies began building roads through these wild lands.

As for the lack of a BF body, I think three things account for that: First, there aren't very many large apes in our woods, so the odds of finding a body are SIGNIFICANTLY lower than finding a natural-death bear (which I have never seen in spite of being in the woods all the time!).

Secondly, the sheer size of the Pacific Northwest helps hide the bodies. (This point is even more valid if you add in the theory that BF might intentionally hide their dead.)

Lastly, Mother Nature is incredibly good at housekeeping. Dead animals deep in the woods are taken apart by other animals fairly quickly. A case in point... last December my wife and I bought a quarter of a buffalo from a local rancher. We butchered it and I took the ribs, spine, shoulder blade, and other very large bones off into the woods and left them at the base of a tree. It was probably 50 pounds of bones. In late March, after most of the snow melted, I went back to that tree and discovered every trace of those bones had vanished. Me and my three dogs searched the area but we couldn't find any of those bones. Mother Nature had already cleaned house.

I think the most likely situation in which Science obtains a BF body is either one is shot by a hunter (I hope that never happens) or one is hit by a car (I hope that never happens, either).

As far as THE GOVERNMENT hiding evidence of these animals... I just can't buy into that scenario. I don't particularly trust government, but I see no motive for them to hide the existence of a North American Ape.
April 17th, 2009 01:40 AM
Steve Pace We're not doing it right.

No one has since Patterson or Freeman
April 18th, 2009 06:57 PM
nubirthgod All very good answers, sorry i was away for a while while these were posted. One thing i blatantly AGREE with is this: North America has lots of wooded areas that is rarely seen by man, and thus, make good hiding places. I believe that plays a large part in the situation. Where i may disagree with some people is my belief that the government knows more about these beings than they let be known. Who knows why they would do that IF thats the case, but im pretty sure they have looked into it. TOO many sightings not for them to get involved in this research.
April 18th, 2009 08:45 PM
Jake Levi
Who do you refer to when you say 'the government' ?
April 19th, 2009 12:32 PM
CharlesL I think in today's political climate, and especially with the ever growing concerns about the environment, if there were government studies that indicated a large bipedal ape was living in North America a whole bunch of politicians, political activists, and environmentalists would JUMP at the chance to enact legislation to protect the habitat of these animals.

I'm not against environmentalism, but some of the more extreme environmentalists would love to lock up our wilderness areas to prevent any and all human activity. The presence of the world's most elusive and least understood primate would give them the perfect excuse for doing so.

Since that hasn't yet happened, I can only conclude there is no serious government interest, evidence, or inclination to acknowledge BF's existence.

I think the existence of our hirsute friends is going to be proved through the work of volunteers, aided by the few scientests like Jeff Meldrum, who spend their own time, efforts, and money. Once that happens, THEN the government will step in and likely make things very very complicated.

April 19th, 2009 01:46 PM
Jake Levi

If there is serious interest by the public the politicians will jump in with both feet while maintaining one foot in their mouth. To make their grand entries to ' a subject of national concern'.

Those who work in agencies such as the Smithsonian will give out pompous 'opinions' that say nothing while still indicating that they will deign to give of their valuable time and experience if any evidence is handed to them on a silver plate. Not to be overly hard on them but they have been conditioned to respond this way.

Charles is exactly right, when solid evidence is gleaned the radical environmentalists will push for draconian laws to bar everyone from non urban areas without a written permission slip from some govt official .

Getting our ducks lined up BEFORE evidence is blared about and trampled on is imperative. Having internationally known people like Jane Goodall, George Schaller, Jeff Meldrum and John Bindernagel aboard is absolutely essential to prevent a mass hysterical descent by the institutionalized blood suckers of the environment.
April 19th, 2009 02:46 PM
Bossburg This thread has taken a turn towards political agenda and we can't have that. The things we ask that you not bring into this forum are politics, religion and guns. Those subjects become a vicious circle of posts that have no end.

April 19th, 2009 03:29 PM
Jake Levi You're right, its walking a thin line when talking govt.
Page: 1 2