The Case for Sasquatch by Bob Gymlan

[putnam6]

The Case for Sasquatch by Bob Gymlan 

Always enjoy Bob Gymlan's videos
from the video transcript

  I think it is worth taking some time to discuss what we know about primates and see how that supports
or refutes the probability feasibility and possibility of an unverified primate in North America and other parts of the
world. 

[Kurokage]

Even thou' I've been on the fence for so long I'm getting splinters, there are some great people out there making some awesome contributions to the story of Sasquatch.

[Byrd]

He really hasn't done his research on this (beyond looking at Bigfoot material) -- it's particularly annoying when he starts in on the Native Alaskan masks.  He seems to be analyzing or parroting things by other Bigfoot researchers... some of whom haven't done any homework at all.

Masks are made for a number of purposes (https://www.mpm.edu/research-collections...iutl-masks), and unless you happen to study them with the help of the tribe, you're likely to make a wrong identification or have mistaken the purpose of them.  Some, it should be noted, are art pieces and do not actually represent anything in their culture.

(When we visited Alaska 20 years ago, I took time at each location to try and briefly talk to some of the Elders of the local tribes.)

And the feet... oy.  Bigfoot footprints are the worst evidence.  Most of them are carved/created by people who have no actual idea of the structure of the foot or what's needed to make a foot something you can walk on -- people who want their "evidence" of Bigfoot to go viral and thus prove that it really exists.

His ape behavior comments are a bit suspect, but I'm not really up on primate behavior.

I'd say it was a good try, but that it falls short in many respects and it's pretty clear that he's a believer.

[putnam6]

He really hasn't done his research on this (beyond looking at Bigfoot material) -- it's particularly annoying when he starts in on the Native Alaskan masks.  He seems to be analyzing or parroting things by other Bigfoot researchers... some of whom haven't done any homework at all.

Masks are made for a number of purposes (https://www.mpm.edu/research-collections...iutl-masks), and unless you happen to study them with the help of the tribe, you're likely to make a wrong identification or have mistaken the purpose of them.  Some, it should be noted, are art pieces and do not actually represent anything in their culture.

(When we visited Alaska 20 years ago, I took time at each location to try and briefly talk to some of the Elders of the local tribes.)

And the feet... oy.  Bigfoot footprints are the worst evidence.  Most of them are carved/created by people who have no actual idea of the structure of the foot or what's needed to make a foot something you can walk on -- people who want their "evidence" of Bigfoot to go viral and thus prove that it really exists.

His ape behavior comments are a bit suspect, but I'm not really up on primate behavior.

I'd say it was a good try, but that it falls short in many respects and it's pretty clear that he's a believer.

Not arguing good to have you here BTW, just discussing so Jeff Meldrum is completely unequivocally wrong. What about the Elkins Creek footprints or the cripple foot casts? both would take more than a rudimentary knowledge of how the foot works down to the dermal ridges and the skeletal structure of the foot.

Thousands of carved wooden or faked footprints? Just takes one pair for it to exist

I appreciate your life experiences but how convinced are you? Would you bet your house, on it being a complete myth? 10 years ago the consensus was the government would never acknowledge UFOs/UAPs. 

Alaska is #8 in sightings per capita, but admittedly their diversity of fauna would no doubt lead to some misidentifications on the other hand Alaskans mostly know their shit when it comes to the great outdoors. 

I think where I started to look at the possibility came from reading Raincoast Sasquatch some very compelling stories from times and places before the subject became so monetized and popular.

a podcast recounts lots of stories from the book...

[Byrd]

Not arguing good to have you here BTW, just discussing so Jeff Meldrum is completely unequivocally wrong. What about the Elkins Creek footprints or the cripple foot casts? both would take more than a rudimentary knowledge of how the foot works down to the dermal ridges and the skeletal structure of the foot.

Thousands of carved wooden or faked footprints? Just takes one pair for it to exist

I appreciate your life experiences but how convinced are you? Would you bet your house, on it being a complete myth? 10 years ago the consensus was the government would never acknowledge UFOs/UAPs. 

Alaska is #8 in sightings per capita, but admittedly their diversity of fauna would no doubt lead to some misidentifications on the other hand Alaskans mostly know their shit when it comes to the great outdoors. 

I think where I started to look at the possibility came from reading Raincoast Sasquatch some very compelling stories from times and places before the subject became so monetized and popular.

a podcast recounts lots of stories from the book...



[Video: https://youtu.be/3m70O6lL_6s?si=14XbAXHdX3IAZmfS]

I do apologize, but I'm not really set up to watch video.  I listen to it sometimes but transcripts are more useful.

And yes, I disagree, as I've said, as do many others (although I am not an associate professor of anthropology, I have a graduate degree in anthropology and I've taught human anatomy to medical students).  Jane Goodall (in the interview that he did with her) said she had a "romantic belief" that Bigfoot existed.  I don't sneer at romantic beliefs - but I treat them more like I do Native American religious stories... i.e. I don't believe that the stars were placed in the sky by an infinitely huge Coyote tossing them out of his blanket.  I believe in coyotes (I've seen and heard them), I believe multiple Native Americans have stories of a spirit called Coyote and that one could essentially "call that spirit inside oneself" similar to the way that loas ride the believers in a Voodoo (religion) ceremony.

So... a psychology that helps one.  I can even see that one might see Coyote in a dream or a trance.

But I don't believe that a humanoid deity with a coyote head is out there walking around, causing trouble and shanking things up.


So... why not?

Tons of manufactured evidence.  Inconsistent evidence.  Lack of physical evidence.  Improbable biological niches.  Inconsistent behavior.

I think we can agree that there's tons of fakes out there.

But if you look at real (proven) rare animals, you don't find people faking sightings.  They don't need to.  There's evidence in markets, for instance (skins, carcasses, meat (here's one: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anima...0as%20meat.)

And Bigfoot's around the size of a bear... so it'd be rather hard to miss as wildlife corridors shrink and cities and farmland expands.  There should be complete pelts, for instance (like the Okapi... another legendary animal that turned out to be real).

Instead, we get fake artifacts.

DNA evidence... the ones that have been studied by multiple teams (including teams of skeptics) have only turned up things that weren't Bigfoot (like bear hair, goat, etc https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/1....2014.0161) 

It'll get worse.  I just found out (by searching) that there's lots of "Bigfoot track maker" shoes and footwear out there: https://metro.co.uk/2012/04/17/animal-fo...ow-391441/  There's even an "Instructables" for making your own plaster cast Bigfoot foot print, and it looks a lot like the fakes we've seen before:
https://www.instructables.com/Bigfoot-footprint-cast/

It's not in a single environment, but in multiple environments that are fairly incompatible -- so it's somehow global (like humans and cockroaches) without adaptations to survive in those areas (try running around the Louisiana swamps in a fur coat and you'll see what I mean.)

Its behavior depends on who's hunting it (here I'm thinking of the discovery of "nests" and so forth.)

The woods and plains of America (and other places) have been extensively hunted by professional hunters (and loads of amateurs) for hundreds of years and no body/pelt has ever been turned in that was genuine.  This is unlikely... if you read tales of true discoveries, you'll find that some of the people indigenous to the area knew about the animals and had been hunting them for a long time (hence finding them in "bush meat markets.")  So there should have been (from more than a hundred years ago) verifiable evidence of them.

The idea that scientists would hide evidence isn't plausible.   The first person to prove Bigfoot is going to go down in history.  They (or their institution) will be flooded with money for more research.  There would be international efforts to preserve them in their habitat and discussions about how to integrate them with human society.  The scientist(s) who proved it would be on talk shows and tv and ... heck, everywhere.  Their books (no matter how badly written) would be international bestsellers.


Anyway, that's why I don't find it plausible. 

But we can discuss specific points if you like; examine some of what you think is strong evidence.

[putnam6]

You are right it is probably all BS.

[putnam6]

another well-done Bigfoot video from Bob Gymlan.
 Bigfoot: the Odds of Verification, Belief, Time, Terms, and More...

[jaded]

It's always difficult to find a discussion about BF that isn't so ridiculious my bloodpressure goes astronomical. CONGRATS!!!!

For Hart:
Robert Kryder's work is exactly up your alley. He's been "pulling a Jane Goodall" documenting scat,family units, ect. He goes at this 100% scientifically. He brought his presentation to the Community College of New Mexico to get more credentialed academic's involved. All his info was collected pre-2017 so why is the topic still stuck in the 1970's?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-tgiHHuwJo&t=3910s


In General:
The problem (YMMV) is the hordes of folk who've decided to pick up bigfooting with almost no knowledge of the wilds. Don't know a rabbit screaming from a fox, don't know their botanicals,
don't know their birds OR bird calls. Most can't tell a normal game trail from a abnormal one. But there they are bloviating all over the interwebs. 

If you say something enough unfortunately it becomes valid. 

The whole "believer" thing is also out of hand. 
There's people who "believe there are Elk" but haven't seen them in the wild (example) and people who've seen Elk in the wild. I have yet to hear anyone who hasn't seen a Elk, Bear, Wolverine in the wild called "A Believer". Wolverine & BF are equally elusive and just as difficult view on a casual camping trip, hike or fishing trip.  

While it's true the major sticking point is no body yet, it boggles my mind people believe in the sham of string theory but can't fathom a relic hominid avoiding modern society like the plague. The Ape theory also is ridiculous. Monkey's and other types except gorillia's have no problem mobbing town's, villages and wreaking havoc. A fact conveniently forgotten by "researchers". So far the closest BF has come to ape behavior is territorial disputes with humans building/living or hunting in their area's. 

Fred Roehl has finally gotten the Native Peoples of Alaska to open up about what's been going on up there. A lot of it isn't pretty. 
https://www.youtube.com/@subarcticalaska...tch/videos

[UltraBudgie]

The idea is Sasquatch as an archetype is worth considering.  What compels us to externalize the unification of the brutal ape-monster and the gentle nature-creature?  The beast whose roars shake the mountains and the subtle and never-seen?  How are these aspects two sides of our own selves, that our society, culture, and politics tells us cannot be reconciled, so must find an expression we project to archetype?

[midicon]

Perhaps a reality that once was grew into mythology and folklore. The old wild man of the woods representing our last interaction with neanderthals.