Hey folks! Heather here! Shawn, our resident expert on all things sasquatch, is back with part 2 of his thoughts regarding said creature. If you would like to re-acquaint yourself with part 1, just click here!
I have fielded many questions and a lot of skepticism over the years about my belief in the existence of Sasquatch. Some of the biggest and most firmly-held arguments are over the “proof of life” debates. They range from “where are the bodies,” “it is just a myth,” all the way to “I bet you believe in UFOs and aliens don’t you?” (Which on a side note, yes, yes I do.) In my last blog, I skimmed over some these topics in the interest of brevity and space so as not to bore some of the lesser-inclined believers. I was also recently interviewed for a podcast on the topic due the posting of my blog, which I felt was an incredible honor. So, this blog is a follow-up to maybe further enhance your understanding of where I stand on the whole quagmire of myth, legend, folklore, scientific vacuum, weekly TV show, and grainy photo/film debate over the existence of Sasquatch.
Fossils. People always bring this up as proof of nonexistence due to the lack of fossil record. The problems with the fossil record are many. People have spent decades on dating and proving the ages of fossils only to have those results questioned by newer and better technology. Radiocarbon dating was first pioneered in 1905 and is commonly referred to as Carbon-14. Scientists are now utilizing multiple varieties of dating from C-14, Uranium-thorium, Potassium-argon, to fission track of Uranium-238 molecules. All of this sounds scientific and highly accurate, until you understand the ego and data correlation. All of this is driven by money. Scientist A gets a sample and utilizes one method of dating and gets paid for his results. Scientist B receives the same sample and because he is younger and wants to prove himself (in other words, get paid more) he uses a newer testing method. Since no one wants to be wrong and their results equal pay, “A” mocks “B” as unproven while “B” mocks “A” as antiquated and then somehow “C” gets involved and on and on and on. You get the picture. And all this takes place in a laboratory setting after the original discovery and clouds the original argument. The How. How did it come to exist? How was it found? Now the Where. Where was it found? And again, Who? Who Found? Who stands to gain/lose the most? How does this cloud the argument you ask? Simple. It diverts your attention away from how highly improbable the formation of fossils are. The conditions have to be absolutely perfect. Location, climate, terrain, and the presence of the living, or soon not to be, organisms are all vitally important. The mineral content to the ph and the type of soil are important as well. But, so is the weather and climate at that time and for long periods after as well. To prove this I merely point to Northern Arizona and the Petrified Forest National Park. It is awesome, go there. But here is my point, if fossilization was common and simple then why are there not fossilized trees from 65 million years ago found all over the world and only in a few isolated areas?
The scientific community has “created” an animal that some believe to be the ancestor or one of the ancestors of Bigfoot. If Bigfoot is real that is. Gigantopithecus blacki has an extensive scientific background. Size, weight, diet, range, morphology to include a sexual dimorphic classing (size disparity between the male and female of a species), and with what species (orangutan) it is most closely related to. And all this supposition is built on a few jawbones and teeth. No complete skeletal remains at all. In fact, it is this reason that there is no section for locomotion of the creature. Teeth and jawbones give us a 10 foot ape in China that lived until probably 100,000 years ago. See what picture I am forming here? If a philanthropist or even National Geographic came forward and offered to fund me financially as well as technologically for a year-long search or more for the purpose of proof to the existence of or not a Sasquatch, I say to them as I am packing and making gear lists and requests, contact me through this website, please.
I am by no stretch a scientist or an archaeologist. But what I am is a fairly intelligent individual who has seen and experienced things that fall outside of the normal who also has a very inquisitive mind. I like to know the “why” to a lot of things. I am also an admitted paranoid conspiracy theorist who believes that not everything the government tells us is true, so therefore I question conventional beliefs. When the scientific community is adamant that Bigfoot is nothing more than a hoax, I ask why. Why is a community that is founded on research and expansion of wild and crazy ideas so against the possibility of an undiscovered primate in North America? Why can they base the existence of an animal on a few teeth and jawbones? Why did they spend one year, one whole year in the jungles of the Congo for ten seconds of video of a previously undiscovered/unknown species of a 6 foot tall chimpanzee based solely on the myths and stories of the locals? They did not get any genetic samples or proof that it IS an unknown totally new species either. Just 10 seconds of video and “their word” that it is. We all know how awesome CG technology is. What I am getting at is why are we so willing to go to extremes for some things to believe, prove they exist, can be beneficial, need protection, etc. but are so totally inflexible and unwilling to even entertain the notion of another? Or is it because it is not a primate but the “missing link” that we were genetically modified from by the Ancient Aliens we called Gods and the “Illuminati” (for lack of better terms) already know this and under the auspices of National Security we are deceived? Or is it that it would shake the very foundation of many faiths and religions around the world?