I Don’t Believe in Sasquatch
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on July 6th, 2007
Loren and I have both talked here on Cryptomundo about belief in Bigfoot/Sasquatch.
Here’s an interesting take on this topic by a college student.
I don’t believe in Sasquatch
But I kinda wish I did
Despite compelling evidence to the contrary, mainly consisting of footprint casts, grainy videotape of a guy in a gorilla suit, and various sketchy reports, I cannot and do not seriously believe that Sasquatch exists.
Nor do I believe in the Loch Ness Monster, Mokele-Mbembe, or kongamato, for the very same reason.
Everybody knows the tales of the plesiosaur-like sea monster that supposedly inhabits Loch Ness, and the eight-foot hairy ape-man who purportedly roams the Pacific Northwest.
The two other critters don’t get nearly as much hype. Mokele-Mbembe is supposedly a giant dinosaur, a sauropod, living in the deepest jungles of Congo in Africa. Kongamato, an African word meaning “overwhelmer of boats,” refers to an unidentified species of pterodactyl reportedly living in the swamps of Zambia.
I don’t seriously believe in any of this. But I really wish I did.
These beasts fall under the blanket term of “cryptid,” which means “hidden animal.” Cryptozoologists can spend their entire lives looking for these creatures and never see hide or hair of them, but often run into very mystifying and compelling reports about them nonetheless.
Despite the sizable lack of credence I give cryptozoology, I find it fascinating. The idea that there might still be strange, ferocious animals, holdovers from prehistory or new undiscovered species, living out there in the unfathomed wilds gives me the willies. And I mean the good kind of willies.
I don’t care if it sounds like nonsense. I don’t care if not a single report of these critters has ever been confirmed. I don’t care if sightings took place decades ago and there haven’t been any since. I still think every cryptid I’ve ever heard of (and the mythos surrounding it) is just plain awesome. Whether it’s the bunyip, the feathery, furry and scaly water monster of the Aboriginal Dreamtime, or the marozi, the elusive spotted lion of Africa, I’m hooked.
Imagine you’re hanging out in your backyard one night. You look up at the night sky and suddenly see a giant bird-like shape coming toward you. Before you can react, it snatches you up. Its claws dig into your shoulders like knives and you can barely see from the wind kicked up by the flapping of its wings. You scream and yell and dig at the bird’s feet with your fingernails, until it suddenly drops you and swoops away.
Supposedly, this is just what happened to Marlon Lowe, of Lawndale, Ill., on the night of July 25, 1977. He and three friends were playing in his backyard at 9:00 p.m. when suddenly two of these huge birds swooped down from nowhere. One of them snatched Marlon by the shoulders and carried him 30 yards before dropping him.
This is one of the very few sightings of a mysterious creature dubbed the “Thunderbird” after the huge mythical beast of Native American lore. Marlon and his parents described a huge, black bird, with a white ring around its neck, generally condor-like in appearance.
Think of all the stuff we don’t know about this planet. Think of all that remains to be discovered: the wild, the wacky, the totally amazing. Then tell me you wouldn’t want to get out there and find it. Because if you don’t, it might find you first.
Andrew is a senior studying mass communication. Andrew Post
Columnist, The Spectrum
North Dakota State University
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
I believe in all of it, the Patterson film is real just look at it over and over, that sasquatch is huge!!
Get off the fence, kid.
I think this is a very cogently-written explanation of how many people feel — the hard, logical evidence doesn’t support it, BUT WHAT IF…?
It’s that fascination that keeps us coming back and reading every post for news that there might really be something out there (in this world of technology and knowing everything about everything) that we don’t really understand.
Good morning Cryptos…
I did not believe in sasquatch…until a big one crossed the highway in front of me, some 35 years ago. I reported that sighting on BFRO.
Damned if another one didn’t cross a dirt road on my oil and gas leases about eight years ago…I reported that sighting on TBRC…both times I was well armed, with a camera in the glove box…I/we stared in awe…too dumbfounded to react.
What if….these magnificent critters are not rare but well dispersed and incredibly elusive.
What if…they have adapted to many millennia of human contact and interaction by remaining in the shadows, stealthily concealed, struggling to make a living…while we blindly go about our daily routines…oblivious to their presence…JMHO
What if…you discovered a clan of these critters…what would you do…who would you trust….how would you document the discovery…would you disclose the discovery or protect it from intrusive interference? A few thoughts to ponder.
Yes Virginia…I believe in Sasquatch…some of those other “folks” too.
Live and let live…
ole bub and the dawgs
I find it interesting how he talks about the mysteries of the world waiting to be found, the amazing stuff we do not know about this planet, and yet he does not seriously believe that these cryptids can exist. This seems like a contradictory attitude to me. So he thinks that cryptids cannot exist because there is no definitive evidence, yet at the same time thinks there are remarkable mysteries waiting to be uncovered in this world. So what kinds of “wild, wacky, totally amazing” things does he think there are out there to find? What does he consider as acceptable things to believe will be discovered? There are things and animals we take for granted today that were considered “nonsense” at one time or another. There are exciting things to be found and studied in this world that we do not presently have any strong or concrete evidence for, and I do not personally think this necessarily means they do not exist.
Strange creatures miles from anywhere may be interesting, but I find the idea of unknown creatures right up against our cosy, urban existance even more fascinating. I am always more excited by a sighting in someone’s back garden in a town or village than I am by a sighting half way up a snow covered peak in the back of beyond, or some wretched stretch of water miles from anywhere.
Perhaps it’s a psychological thing, a manifestation of my Jungian shadow or somesuch.
Interesting post, good conversation piece.
Maybe a tangent, but the phrases “I believe in Bigfoot” or “I don’t believe in Loch Ness monster” or even “Do you believe in God?” have always bugged me. That’s the right terminology for make-belief entities, such as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. They take belief to keep them alive. It’s almost like by believing in them you’re making them so.
Bigfoot, however, exists (or doesn’t exist) independent of my belief or disbelief. Do I think there’s lots of good evidence for Bigfoot? Yes. Do I think that there’s an elusive ape wandering American forests? Yes. Do I believe in Bigfoot? That’s irrelevant.
Yeah, I know, a tangent. But it rubs me wrong every time I see it.
My 6 year old son and I were watching the supposed Bigfoot videos on Youtube the other day and I asked him “Do you think Bigfoot is real?” He looked at me and said “No, all the videos we saw are fake.”
Which is essentially true, most of the videos we watched were fake.
I believe all the hoaxes have lead people to believe that any evidence they are given is hoaxed. I know if my son has gotten this assumption, many adults have too.
This fellow may change his views as he gets older. Right now he is in a black or white mode. Many young people are as they simply lack expirence. In balck or white mode, one either believes in Sasquatch or not. This student does not. But based on what? Simply his belief? Or perhaps lack of hard evidence? Certainly if tomorrow a captured Bigfoot was on display in a zoo, this should shed some light on the subject for him. He would become a forced believer by way of reality. Like it or not.
As he might demand proof of Sasquatch from a believer, lets turn the table. As a believer of Sasquatch, I ask him and other non-believers to prove Sasquatch does not exist. So where does this leave us on the subject of Sasquatch belief? Well I think until we know for certain, believers and non-believers should always keep an open door on the subject. Our world is shrinking fast and it will not be much longer for anything to stay a mystery. Enjoy the unkown of our earth while you still can.
My suggestion to them is to subscribe to what the preponderance of the evidence dictates. There is, depending on the cryptid, a great deal of substantiation supporting their existence and, despite the lack of the animal itself, that should not be taken lightly.
Well, like Remobec said, I think “belief” is a bit out of place as well in a certain sense, but there is some belief involved with any sort of attempts to uncover mysteries like this. A scientist for example has a hypothesis and this is what he believes to be true, so it is time to go out and verify whether this is in fact true or not. We are only human and some belief drives what we do. I don’t have any problem with believing something might be the case. It is when that belief biases the assessment of evidence or verification process, or when it becomes a strong belief in what the final outcome should be rather than what it really is that I get rubbed the wrong way. I guess I don’t view belief in this case as the type of faith associated with belieing in Santa or whatnot. I guess I’m saying that I think it is OK to “believe” that a hairy hominid is a viable explanation for the evidence we have, but we should not make up our minds and believe that it is actually the case or not quite yet.
Circumstantial evidence for sasquatch remains strong, so I don’t think it is time to throw the idea out the window, and more investigation can be done. At the same time, sasquatch should not be blindly accepted as fact either. To me, it is still up in the air. This gentleman saying he “doesn’t believe” is to me discounting even the possibility that these cryptids are actual creatures.
Mystery man: Thanks for your comments. I guess what annoys me isn’t the word “belief” but rather the phrase “believe in.” I got thinking about what I wrote and concluded that I should have also written that I’m fine with the following comment: “I believe a hairy hominid wanders the forests of America.”
It’s the “believe in” that sounds like we’re talking about Santa Claus.