Friday, October 13, 2006

Thesis on the Existence of the Sasquatch

I promise to do Part 2 of the insect lesson, but right now this is already typed up!

First off: Scientists do not know everything. The mainstream scientists may think that they do, but they do not. Just look at all the new discoveries popping up all the time. In fact, undiscovered creatures should be EXPECTED, not disregarded as silly nonsense.

Again, Evolutionary scientists DO have presuppositions with which they channel information into. A presupposition is a preconceived notion--you "presuppose" the fact or theory in question--that the scientist takes for granted at the start, and with which he measures all evidence he comes into contact with. Although the existence of presuppositions is suppressed they no doubt exist and are not a bad thing. It's how science works--indeed, science could not--even WOULD not--work without them. Having said that (and I don't mean to be offensive to anyone who thinks the contrary), my presuppositions are in accord with young-earth Creationism (none of this "But God used Evolution, didn't he?" stuff).

Now, having said that, I will go on. The existence of a large, elusive ape species (or perhaps more than just one species, although the popular misconception of just one creature existing is so false it does not even deserve more than a passing mention here) is not without the realm of possibility in any way, shape, or form.

Did you know that, according to normal scientific procedures, Bigfoot has literally been PROVEN! Competent wildlife biologists (that means SCIENTISTS) have seen these creatures and acknowledged their encounters.

A TON of irrefutable physical evidence exists to prove the creature's existence, as well. Let's examine some of this incredibly compelling evidence:

The thousands upon thousands (perhaps even hundreds of thousands) of reports that have surfaced over the years are almost identical in nature. The creature is nearly always described as having no visible neck, a massive build, and a backwards-sloping skull ending in a peak at the back of the cranium. They are usually described to be black, brown, or reddish-brown in North America (although white or silver is not unheard of). These reports have been told for centuries, by American Indians, all sorts of people, and even Theodore Roosevelt wrote of an encounter told to him by a man in his book, The Wilderness Hunter . And don't forget, the Viking explorer who beat Columbus in discovering North American encountered large, hairy ape-like animals that walked with an upright, bipedal gait. Sasquatch-like creatures have been reported in many, many countries all over the world, namely, the Ye Ren in China, the Orang Pendek in Indonesia, the Yowie in Australia, the Alma in Russia, and even a Vietnamese version of the creature exists. North America, including Canada, seems to have a relatively large population of them. All of these creatures are described as bipedal, ape-like creatures. The similarity of the sightings (barring the expected regional differences, slight as they are), are striking. If this is a hoax, how can people all across the world, some of them so poor and living in such rural conditions that they would not even have a speck of knowledge of an "American" hoax, all say practically the same thing? But wait, there's more.

Hairs corresponding to sightings have been found, and some of them have been tested and found to be from some sort of UNKNOWN APE SPECIES.

Calls, screams, and howls have been recorded. These sounds have been studied and are of primate origin (although sometimes a human source cannot be ruled out). They sound so strange and eerie, that the people who hear them often state that these cannot be of human origin. Don't think so? Listen for yourself. (Note: I am not recommending the site. This site also purports aliens, etc., and things which I do not believe in. The clip is here for the sound clips--that's it.)

Tons and tons of footprints have been discovered. Some of the more biased scientists have claimed their impossibility to be actual ape footprint casts, but there are many VERY RESPECTABLE experts who say that they ARE real. Primate feet have ridges in them that are the foot's equivalent of fingerprints. These ridges, known as dermal ridges, are almost impossible to fake. Some say that the footprints are blown up casts of human feet (this can be done). But what they don't consider is that the ridges of the Bigfoot prints go in the EXACT OPPOSITE DIRECTION (lengthwise instead of across) that they do in humans! Even the toes are very different, all of them being closer to the same size as each other than human toes. Many respectable criminologists (i.e., actual detectives) have professed their genuine nature. Remember, just because someone doesn't believe in something doesn't make it false. It wasn't until the early 1960's that plate tectonics was even accepted as geologic fact.

Also, a good amount of pictures and even some video camera footage have been take over the years. The most famous is the footage shot in 1967, near Bluff Creek, California, by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. The footage, although discounted by many people, has yet to be effectually refuted. In the film, muscle movements in the animal's body (it was a female) can be clearly seen. Also, a very compelling fact to consider is that the creature turns its whole torso to look at the two men. Humans turn their heads over their shoulders. Big apes can't do that! I am therefore convinced that this footage must then be real. There have been many other photos and other tapes, as well.

Another piece of evidence, is the Skookum cast, which was taken from a genuine mud imprint. It was discovered in a region of Washington where the locals called Bigfoot "Skookum". This cast, the result of a Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization expedition, shows imprints of an arm, a leg, and the buttock region as the creature endeavored to reach for food laid out for the creature. On the team of the expedition were many respectable Sasquatch scientists, including the late Dr. Grover Krantz, John Bindernagel, and Jeff Meldrum.

One note, is that some BF sightings are involved in so-called "UFOs". Now, first of all, I do not believe in aliens. The concept of aliens exists, on one side of the issue, because Evolutionary thought requires it (that is, without other life forms, the Evolutionary hypothesis would be severely damaged as Earth would seem "special"). However, I do believe that "alien abductees" are not liars. I believe they are telling the truth. I believe that these so-called "aliens" are actually demons--demons impersonating other-worldly creatures in order to draw them in. This idea is lent credence by the fact that the "abductees" are so terrified and disturbed that it seems that they have had some sort of Satanic experience. I believe in Ron Rhodes's theory, posited in this superb book:
(Also see Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion)

I would encourage anyone interested to read it. He tells of much more evidence than I am recounting here. What this has to with Bigfoot, is that some say the creature is an alien. I think this is rendered moot by the fact that most BF encounters/sightings have nothing to do with UFOs. Some other encounters supposedly have a Bigfoot holding glowing orbs. Those that have to do with either UFOs or orbs, may indeed be of demonic origin. (In my own research, it seems fiery balls are sometimes attributable to Satanic phenomena.) But, I think that, since most BF encounters have nothing to do with these criteria and there is a great amount of physical evidence, and Sasquatches have even been seen eating and doing all sorts of things demons would have no need to do, I must conclude that Sasquatch still exists, and is nothing more than a natural primate. Not a human, an ape. Perhaps Satan is scheming to get people to think that Bigfoot is an alien as he is trying to purport alien existence and draw the unprepared in that way. Perhaps these "alien" UFO, orb-clutching Bigfeet are of demonic origin. Still (and I have thought this over again and again, and then considered and pondered and mulled some more), all I can say for sure is that Bigfoot exists, and these other encounters may either be untrue, or not of actual Bigfoot origin. For more on the Evolutionary side of these Extraterrestrial theories, see Gary Bates's Alien Intrusion (I haven't had the chance to read it myself yet though, but it has been recommended by a good source.)! Also please note that since my comments are from a Biblical perspective, I still have no wish to offend anyone. I would like to hear everyone's opinion on the matter. I would recommend the interested person to peruse--no, SUCK IN--the material available at the website of the most prestigious Sasquatch research group in existence (at least in my opinion), The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization. They hold expeditions all the time, often with very positive results.

Even just a quick jaunt in their Report Database will show the viewer just some of the many, many sightings that have occurred. Although these researches have an Evolutionary viewpoint, I still highly recommend this site. It is the best Sasquatch site in town in my honest opinion, and they even have recently launched their own discussion board. They have an FAQ section that deals with common objections to the idea of Bigfoot.
Any questions?


Nathan said...

A very well-written and convincing thesis. :-D You already know I'm a believer, but even I learned a lot from this (like that footprint groove direction thing--awesome!).

Laetificus Letificus said...

This is a long one...I'll have to read this one later!

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

Hey, thanks, oh Great Sly Pig! But you only have the BFRO to thank--they are my Bigfoot "mentor", so-to-speak! :-D

Little do you know that this is a post of mine from your own forum!!!!!

Lisa of Longbourn said...

Do you believe Nessie is a plesiosaur or something similar?

You should really read Monster.

I don't get why people are so reluctant to believe in Bigfoot. Are they scared he'll come get them?

To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

Hey, Lisa, you need to talk to my sister!!!!! (She doesn't believe...ha ha ha!)

But yes I believe Nessie is some sort of plesiosaur (commendations on your spelling!) or something of that sort. It's something, whatever it is!

And I don't get why people don't believe either. I guess the Evolutionists have gotten carried away with their initial objection, and now they won't admit that they are wrong!

"Are they scared he'll come get them?"

You sure made me laugh! That's a good idea...thought of it actually once or twice...but WHY is it? It makes no sense, I say!

And Sara...thanks! Please do read it!