A short story and a question about SASQUATCH (Bigfoot)...?

Question

My brother was one of the biggest skeptics around - until he actually saw a Sasquatch during a hunting trip in the mountains in no. CA with a friend of his (his former cop partner). They came into a clearing, and it was standing on the other side, about 30 feet away, watching them. After a few minutes, it turned and disappeared into the trees. They went to where it had been standing, and they could still smell it; my brother told me it reeked like nothing else he'd ever smelled.

My brother is an EX-COP; he wasn't joking when he told me about it, and he'd have no reason to lie about something like that. (The experience shook him up so badly, he couldn't even tell his wife what had happened until months later. To this day, he doesn't like talking about it. I was able to get the story out of him only once, years later.) And he wasn't "seeing things".

My husband thinks they should've shot it dead and brought back a hand, or some other piece of it, as "proof". What do YOU think...?

Answer 1

my younger sister would not eat mincemeat pie or even try it till the ripe old age of 36. when we were young i told her it was the made of ground minces  and they grind them whole, don't take the fur off or nothing..................why not bring back the whole thing ....a piece of it just don't get it for me

Answer 2

They will have to kill it but there will be a problem if they ever prove that it is human and not ape.

Also to the person who had a shark encounter, sharks do not circle for ten minutes. They smell, bump and then eat or not eat.  Sharks circling is just a dramatic effect for movies and doesnt happen in real life.

Answer 3

Why was he so upset?Being a skeptical Ex-cop,one wouldn't think he'd get so frightened.No person I know of thinks the Sasquatch is dangerous.Most people would be thrilled to see one.I know I would.To be honest I doubt they exist.I'd be thrilled to be proved wrong.By all reports I've read.the Sasquatch is a shy,harmless forest creature.

Answer 4

Most serious researchers who are looking for conclusive proof of a sasquatch or bigfoot creature living in north america espouse a "no kill" policy in gathering evidence.  These creatures are not known to kill humans, although there are reports that they can exhibit aggressive behavior. For this reason, I think the best policy would be to only shoot one if one thought that he or she was in danger of being attacked. Otherwise, let's just shoot 'em with cameras!

P.S. I'm a bigfoot skeptic, but the thousands of sightings reported since the late 1950's, much like your brother's, are awfully powerful to ignore.

Answer 5

If I were you I would contact Jeff Meldrum (Professor) or Matt Moneymaker (Attorney).  Do a search on Google for Bigfoot research.  Jeff and Matt could be very helpful.  I believe Jeff is from Washington state and Matt is from CA.  Tell your brother he is not nuts.  Jeff had a special on I believe the History channel or National Geographic about Bigfoot around WA or Canada last week. Where they actually obtained some DNA and the DNA was very strange compared to Humans and the primate.

Answer 6

Me and some friends heard a yell/scream like nothing else we'd ever heard.  All my research since has yet to identify what it was.

We asked a lot about it publicly after it happened and were just blown off as being drunk or stupid.

A firsthand account with the unknown will certainly open your mind to the whole thing.

I can't say for sure what we encountered was bigfoot, but until someone can tell me what it was we heard, I'll always keep more of an open mind towards these kinds of encounters.

As far as whether to shoot a "bigfoot" or not ... I know it's not popular, but it would be one sure way to provide the proof everyone is demanding.

And for the poster above who talked about the ex-cop being scared ... we're all brave, ex-military types, and when we had the thing scream right next to us in the dark, it scared the h**l out of us.  Don't get all high and mighty until you're actually there and facing it yourself.

Answer 7

Many states (not sure if CA is included) have specifically protected Big Foot as an endangered species so shooting one would provide proof (not to the debunkers that would claim it was all a hoax perpetuated by lumberjacks that are fooling Nobel Prize winning biologist and other esteemed scientist) but it would also put you in jail and burden you with some stiff fines.

That said I don't hunt anything (including ghost which I sometimes investigate reports and sightings of) so I am against shooting anything. Why people don't carry heavy tranquilizer guns and cameras in areas where Big Foot is reported to be still baffles me though. I suppose most hunters don't believe the stories until they have an experience.

Answer 8

I have been on the so called Bigfoot expedition in Oregon/northern Cal and I can tell you that when something is near, you almost go into shock without even seeing anything, I couldn't imagine the fear level if a person actually saw a Bigfoot.

You will be in the woods and sense something near and the hairs stand up on your neck and your anxiety level goes up very fast and there is nothing you can do about it, it is just a normal human reaction. It has nothing to do if you were a cop or ex marine etc., It just comes upon your system and it is uncontrollable. You can even tell the difference in the dogs. When they sense something near, they react much more intense than in the city.

You would have to kill one to save the rest of them because of the skeptics. They are not going to accept any less proof than a hand or head.

If I were him, I wouldn't b e ashamed of being afraid, it is a different type of fear that is similar to knowing you are going to die. It goes way back in the human makeup.

Answer 9

Since there is absolutely no evidence of Bigfoot being a real creature I would say that shooting one would be a bad idea as it would probably be some clod in a monkey suit trying to hoax the city folk and bring in the tourist dollars to his little hamlet.  

Now as to the question of Bigfoot DNA, it is alleged that there is Bigfoot DNA that has been found in Canada and it was mentioned on the History Channel's new show Monsterquest.  The problem with this is that the normal lab that did the analysis couldn't even prove that the sample was even biological in origin.  A Bigfoot researcher then claimed that he was able to extract DNA from the sample and that it was a closer match to human than even chimp DNA.  However, and this is the critical part, nobody else has been able to replicate his findings.  For my money that pretty well disqualifies him and his results.  Remember what happened with the cold fusion story a couple years back?  Results should be replicatable by independent testing and if their not then something's going on.  

Look it comes down to this.  Without any real concrete evidence, like,,oh,, how about a body, Bigfoot exits in the realm of faith.  You either believe or you don't.  Unless you can prove to me that tall smelly and hairy exists I remain in the latter catagory.  Now does that mean that I'm calling your brother a liar?  I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and imagine that he was somehow mistaken.  Regardless the notion that there is a nine foot tall hairy biped stomping around North America and nothing beyond some plaster foot prints and fuzzy home movies has been produced as evidence, after over over fourty years of searching, should pretty much tell you all you need to know. Until the Bigfoot true believers can produce a body he stays in the realm of myth.

Answer 10

Probably why he's an EX Cop. Bring me proof!

Answer 11

Somebody wrote a novel.

Answer 12

I think that shooting it and bringing it back as proof would have been cruel.  Having that kind of evidence would have started a massive hunt for more of these creatures so that they could be examined.  Because, as humans, we're nosey about the socialogical structure of any species - especially ones that have eluded us for as long as Sasquatch.

What would be the purpose of having proof?  Would it have changed our world for the better knowing that there is a civilization of other humanoid type animals in existence?  More likely than not these creatures, who have lived this long very peacefully mingling among us, would become extinct in the spirit of scientific exploration or just plain old fear.

Answer 13

I think Bigfoot is an intelligent creature and as such absolutely should not be killed unless necessary. As for proof, you brother is an ex-cop. His testimony in court would most likely be taken at face value. Why should this be any different?

Answer 14

I can relate to his not telling anyone for awhile. When I was circled by a shark in the Gulf...I couldn't speak for awhile afterwards..about 10 min. or so. Since my (later) husband and I couldn't speak till later...no one believed us. Guess we were in shock or something.

I agree with psi...why don't they carry tranquilizer guns? I definitely think it would be wrong and cruel to kill one...esp. for "proof" for skeptics. (or any reason) (unless it was attacking you). You said your brother was on a hunting trip...I'm sure that's why he didn't have a tranquilizer gun.

  If others are like the skeptics on here...then I think your brother probably regrets ever telling anyone.

EDIT...JENNA....read what I said again. I didn't say the shark circled for 10 min. I said we couldn't SPEAK for 10 min.

Answer 15

In my opinion, YES.

Because it's a very elusive and rare creature and isn't even been proven to exist yet. If you can shoot it and prove it, that would be huge news.

Answer 16

Please, PLEASE, never shoot a bigfoot.  It's some fool in a monkey suit involved in making the History Channel's next scientific documentary on the subject.  He and his accomplices might be frauds, but they don't deserve to die for it.

BTW, here's my opinion of the most likely explanations, in order from most likely to least.

1)  You're making it up, borrowing from other people's stories.

2)  Your brother saw something and misunderstood what it was.

3)  Your brother made it up.

4)  Your brother is deluded or remembering a dream.

...

...

49,613,258)  It was Britney Spears, turned into a werewolf.

49,613,259)  It was really bigfoot.

So, don't you believers flame me for being a narrow-minded skeptic.  I considered the possibility that it was really bigfoot.

Oops, I see from John's answer that the much anticipated nonsense documentary on the History channel has already aired.  The people who make these films are liars and frauds.  When are people going to realize that?  And the History channel, the Discovery channel, and Fox can't WAIT to put that stuff on.  It sells.  PBS is the ONLY reliable source of scientific information on television.

Answer 17

They now have some Bigfoot DNA in Canada.  They compared it with human DNA and it is the closest to human that is known.  Up till now the closest was chimpanzees, with only about 30 differences,  the Bigfoot DNA has only 1 difference.  They now think that Bigfoot is a human that mutated long ago.  This explains why most hunters say that they could not shot one because they look too human.   I don't think they should shot one because we will find one soon.  Now that they have DNA evidence, science will be looking a lot closer,  even if it is to disprove the DNA they have.

Answer 18

I guess there's some things humans aren't meant to know of.

Answer 19

Maybe he saw a bear.

Answer 20

I believe that their could quite possibly be something out there.  

I think its arrogance to think that we know everything,..... to say that ANYTHING can't exist is close minded.

(I don't believe that ALL the people who say they see something are liars, fools or hallucinating.)

Blessings!!

Answer 21

i would say thats cruel, but i don't believe in Sasquatch, so yeah he should have killed it so we'd all know and i'd be wrong.

Answer 22

I think this is a made-up story.

Answer 23

First of all, what does being a cop have to do with the validity of his anecdote?  It has no bearing whatsoever.

Why would this experience shake him up to such a degree that he wouldn't want to talk about it?  I can understand how this might be a startling experience, but I wouldn't think it would be *that* frightening.

Maybe he was lying and maybe he wasn't.  If he was pulling your leg he wouldn't be the first to have done so.  If he wasn't pulling your leg and actually thought he saw one, I still have no reason to believe him since I don't know the circumstances.  Either way, you don't know he wasn't "seeing things" since when you are "seeing things" you invariably think you aren't.  That's why it's called "seeing things".

I don't  encourage people to shoot anything that isn't directly threatening them, but if he had shot it and brought it back he would have provided the first piece of Bigfoot evidence ever captured.  He would have settled the argument once and for all.

As it is, Bigfoot is pure legend.  There are plenty of hoaxes out there and not one shred of physical evidence.  The most damning fact is that if Bigfoot were a real creature it would require a population large enough to allow for reproduction.  This population would be so large as to be *very* unlikely to escape notice.

EDIT: John S, there has never been any Bigfoot DNA discovered.  I would love to see the source of this information.