Sasquatch Coffee

New Cougar Contacts in Michigan

Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 19th, 2012

The Department of Natural Resources announced yesterday a confirmed cougar sighting in Baraga County in the Upper Peninsula, Michigan.

Baraga County resident Fred Nault spotted the animal near Skanee on May 5 and was able to snap a picture. The confirmed sighting in the Upper Peninsula comes almost two months following the cougar sightings in Ann Arbor near the University of Michigan’s North Campus.

DNR Wildlife Division staff members were contacted by Nault and visited the property this Tuesday to verify the location.

The cougar was spotted crossing a road when Nault, who happened to have a camera, took a picture before the animal fled into the woods [seen above].

DNR Wildlife specialist Adam Bump said the department is beginning to see a few scattered cougars moving back into the state.

“I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that we know cougars have established populations in the Dakotas, so we’re starting to see a lot of dispersal and for whatever reason they’re heading east,” Bump said. “We’re starting to get more frequent cougar movement.”

University of Michigan Police Lt. Bob Neumann said the university has not seen or heard anything since the end of March.

“We haven’t heard a thing,” Neumann said.

Bump said if a cougar was actually in the Ann Arbor area, the DNR would have received more calls of potential sightings. Even so, Bump didn’t completely rule out the possibility of an actual sighting.

“I can’t say for sure because I don’t have any pictures but I must say it does seem unlikely,” he said.

Prior to that, the last confirmed cougar in the state was an animal killed near Newberry in 1906.

The DNR said possible cougar sightings are regularly reported throughout the state, but verification is often difficult, due in part to a lack of physical evidence.

Read further from the source: AnnArbor.com

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


24 Responses to “New Cougar Contacts in Michigan”

  1. maslo63 responds:

    Oh wow, look at that. An in-focus picture confirming the existence of an animal in a place it was not thought to exist. Amazing we can’t get the same for the sasquatch population that spans the entire continent.

  2. Austin Morrow responds:

    Honestly, that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. There have been a plethora of sightings around Michigan and neighboring areas, and this photograph basically confirms all the sightings that everyone has been reporting. Oh, and the whole Bigfoot to Cougar proof ratio is funny, to say the least, as mentioned above. Now, I’m just waiting for the “British Big Cats” mystery to finally be solved and done with.

  3. Desertdweller responds:

    This is encouraging to see. I would like for these cats to become common enough in the Midwest and East that they can no longer be considered “out of place”.

    Unfortunately, here in Nebraska, a law was passed this year allowing a hunting season for cougars. I tried to prevent this by contacting my state legislator, but to no avail. Apparently, people in this area have suffered losses of horses and calves that are being blamed on the lions.

    There is also a story coming out of Frontier County that the deer population has been decimated by lions. I’m not sure I can believe that, as the last time I was down there the deer were pretty thick.
    Deer are responsible for about 200 human deaths each year from car accidents and their numbers need to be controlled, and lions are the best natural way to do that. I think there needs to be a healthy balance of both deer and cougars. I do not think cougars will prey on livestock if there are adequate numbers of deer available to them.

    In live in Kieth County. I have seen plenty of deer here, but no cougars. Cougars are occasionally see here, just not by me.

    Hunting licenses for cougars will be very limited.

  4. RimT responds:

    There have been confirmed cougar sighting in Michigan for years now. I remember when several horses were killed by cougars in Michigan back as far as 2005. One of those was just north of the Indiana line. I’m sure they go back earlier than those I linked to.

  5. DWA responds:

    Well, way to go, DNR Wildlife Specialist. They’re moving east ‘for whatever reason’!

    I got one. Ever counted all the deer over here! Maine to Florida, west to Texas and Minnesota: coated with ‘em.

    Best cougar habitat in the world, and the cougars know it.

  6. DWA responds:

    maslo63:

    We have a movie of a bigfoot that is way clearer than that photo.

    Any photo that clear of a sasquatch?

    Guy in suit.

    THAT is the problem. Because the evidence says they’re as present as the cougars.

  7. CryptoNY responds:

    Interesting now that a picture was finally taken of these little seen secretive creatures how come no one has ever found skeletal remains before ?????
    With-out this picture they did not exist in this state even with eye witness reports and trackways.
    Boy this senario sounds familiar……

  8. Desertdweller responds:

    Gee, isn’t anyone going to say this could just be a guy in a cat suit?

  9. maslo63 responds:

    DWA, that movie is the only good photographic evidence that exists…for an animal spanning the entire continent? Sorry, not good enough. Then again…how many people were fooled into thinking Penn and Teller’s video was authentic as well?
    CryptoNY, even without skeletal evidence for cougars in Michigan we still know they exist and we know they’re moving east so this photograph was inevitable. Anyway, we know cougars exist because we’ve seen them, hunted them, hit them with our cars, lost livestock to them, photographed them, filmed them, kept them captive, have been eaten by them…the list goes on. Now sasquatch who supposedly has a distribution even larger than cougars currently do has still managed to allude us. I don’t buy it.

  10. DWA responds:

    maslo63:

    If by “good enough” you mean good enough for proof, well, we wouldn’t be talking about it if the sasquatch were proven, right? If by “good enough” one means way more than good enough, decades ago, to merit serious scientific attention: ohyeah. On the basis of that film alone; and the avalanche of evidence means the film can be tossed without impact.

    Penn and Teller don’t even merit mention. They should stick to what they know. They’re good at being funny, unfortunately even when that’s not their intent.

    Once again. Anyone who disagrees, talk to the scientists who disagree with you, not to me. There is far more evidence for the continent-wide sasquatch than for, say, the Michigan cougar.

    The only difference is whether science is looking at it. The latter, they do. The former, they don’t. This is so fundamental it shouldn’t bear repeating but you know how that goes.

  11. maslo63 responds:

    The simple fact that we know cougars exist is evidence for the Michigan cougar. You claim there are mountains of evidence for sasquatch but what is that evidence? Tracks? Hair samples? A body impression in the mud? Eyewitness testimony? A film from the 60’s? All of these things can be faked and while mildly interesting do little to support the notion of the worlds largest primate roaming one of the most developed nations of the world as well as all the neighboring nations and Asia as well. We found mountain gorillas in an African rainforest but we can’t find a sasquatch in Florida? These things are animals right? Or are they aliens or supernatural beings capable of invisibility or some such non-sense?
    As for Penn and Teller. Say what you want about them but they purchased a common gorilla costume and filmed a man wearing it in some random location…and people bought it. People on this forum bought it. If they can fake it, anyone can fake it and that if far more likely than a primate with a greater range than any other non-human ape that has somehow managed to avoid being described by science.

  12. DWA responds:

    maslo63:

    Yes, everything you state; a mountain of it; so deep and so consistent that to chalk it all up to false positives without even reviewing it is, on its face, conduct unbecoming a scientist.

    Argue with the scientists who agree with me. Or simply read up.

    It positively STUNS me that no one with your opinion considers their unreasoned assumptions worthy of question. Um, why even come here? Questioning all unfounded assumptions is skepticism. Swallowing them whole is True Belief. Regardless which side of the question one is on.

    That we know the cougar exists is how we know? Define “tautology.”

    How do you think we know? How do you think we find out?

    Curiosity.

    Which one would think anyone visiting a crypto site might have a smidge of. Particularly when experts in relevant fields disagree with them.

    If you would buy a guy in a suit, you are ignorant of the evidence. Surprise. Most are.

    “If they can fake it, anyone can fake it and that if far more likely than a primate with a greater range than any other non-human ape that has somehow managed to avoid being described by science.”

    Simply not a tenable position for anyone acquainted with the evidence.

    Read up.

  13. maslo63 responds:

    Everything you [DWA] said I can toss back at you. “Argue with the scientists who agree with me. Or simply read up”…see? There are far more scientists who I dare say are on the same side as myself and you have no problem discounting them. Maybe you should pick up a book not in favor of your world view. No, you think the evidence is good because you want it to be good and that is not science.

    You mistaken me as someone who has ruled out sasquatch completely but you’re wrong. It is only very recently that I have dismissed the notion of sasquatch by looking at your mountain of evidence. I visit this site in hopes of seeing good evidence that I can evaluate (you know, with science) but all I ever see are blurry videos posted on YouTube or hoaxed bodies in a freezer. In the years I’ve been visiting this place I’ve heard more discussions about bigfoot murders than dermal ridges or hair samples. The sasquatch community I’m sorry to say is mostly a joke but I am fully aware of the real work being done by people like Jeff Meldrum who as far as I can see is the most scientifically minded person in the field. No, when good evidence appears I’ll acknowledge it and that good evidence should show up on this site if it exists or is found.

    Besides, I don’t need to blindly believe in cryptocritters to visit this place. Actually, I don’t really believe in any of them. I did when I was younger and thought the evidence was good to my unscientific mind. Now I know better but just because I don’t believe in these things does not mean I don’t find them interesting and again…I try to remain open minded. There are other reasons to visit this place too…Michigan cougars for one as well as animal oddities, and rare or out of place species. New animal discoveries too but while this place will report on some new frog in a rain forest I have yet to see confirmation for bigfoot, Nessie, the Jersey Devil, Chupacabra and the rest of the high profile creatures. You know, the ones cryptozoologists look for as opposed to the real animals that remain hidden.

    I’ll actually tell you why I no longer believe in bigfoot. Again I stress this is very recent, within the last couple years. It was the only crypto left for me that I could put any stock in. The notion of an undiscovered primate in remote areas of the globe are to me entirely believable. The Pacific Northwest or the Himalayas for example. I can buy that and if the evidence was restricted to those areas I would even go so far as to call the evidence good. Then it occurred to me one day, sasquatch is not restricted to these pockets of wilderness, everyone is seeing it everywhere. From Maine to Siberia and beyond.

    The north eastern U.S. is said to have sasquatch…despite having its forests almost completely cleared in colonial times. The forests are coming back but even the animals that have made it back with them are having a hard time of it. Somehow sasquatch was never found back then in the north east and yet while wolves and elk and cougars struggle to return we now have bigfoot? In New York? Connecticut? Bigfoot doesn’t stop there, it has managed to hide out in Florida, Ohio, Texas…nearly every state in the country. I don’t need to remind you of this as you claim to be aware of the evidence but that same evidence you put so much stock in just raises more questions for me. Chiefly…how has this animal eluded us for so long? I don’t want to hear that it has not been found because no one is looking or taking it seriously. No one should really have to if this animal is living in Florida and New York! The evidence you speak so highly of is good, if this animal is restricted to places with a low human population but the evidence is lousy when put into the global perspective. So while I can sit here and say I believe sasquatch could live in the Pacific Northwest I really cannot believe it can be living in Ohio, Florida and New York and that means that if I can discount the evidence for all those states I can probably discount it for the places it actually could be living.

  14. DWA responds:

    maslo63:

    “There are far more scientists who I dare say are on the same side as myself and you have no problem discounting them. Maybe you should pick up a book not in favor of your world view. No, you think the evidence is good because you want it to be good and that is not science.”

    I’m afraid you couldn’t be more wrong. See, I know that. Know how I know?

    I’ve read up. Both sides. You don’t sound like you have.

    There’s a basic difference between scientists on my side and scientists on yours.

    Scientists on my side are skeptical, truly skeptical. They don’t swallow untested assumptions. They analyze evidence. They note similarities. And differences. They pay no attention to the stuff you are citing; and having read up, I know why they don’t. (short form: it’s crap. Youtube? Strickly laffs, man.) They search for and identify patterns. They show how 19th-century sasquatch encounter reports – made by people who knew nothing about apes – prefigure by decades what Western scientists started seeing when they began to seriously study Old World apes in the wild. (short form: sasquatch=great ape.) They sound like SCIENTISTS.

    Scientists on your side don’t sound like they’ve ever picked up a book on this topic. Indeed, functionally illiterate people couldn’t know less about this. I know a lot more than they do. A LOT. I’ve carved them to ribbons here. It’s easy. If you are a scientist, and I am saying this about you, your opinion can be safely tossed. Unfortunately in science, all too often, the blind lead the blind; and that’s what the mainstream is on this issue. Blind. If you read up you’d know this.

    This is why the “remoteness argument” isn’t an argument at all. It’s based on no evidence. ” I don’t want to hear that it has not been found because no one is looking or taking it seriously. No one should really have to if this animal is living in Florida and New York!” Um, wait for it: it has not been ‘found’ as you put it because of that little bit in quotes up there. Nice job. Regular sober Joes and Janes are TRIPPING over these animals in – wait for it – Florida and New York. (Leaders in sighting reports; and if you haven’t visited those states you have no conception how much wild there is.) But no one believes them. *I* don’t want to hear your theory about how an animal that no one believes you if you say you saw one is gonna get confirmed by science.

    No it isn’t.

    John Bindernagel (you haven’t read him) says this animal has been discovered already.

    You don’t want to hear that.

    Oh. OK. Ignoring what you don’t want to hear isn’t science.

    Why?

    You just told me that.

    I do this to you guys all the time.

  15. DWA responds:

    It occurs to me that if you could respond to my previous post without addressing any of my points, you could do the same to my most recent one.

    So let me sum up:

    No scientist on your side has successfully addressed the arguments of the scientists on mine.

    Until they do, they are scoring no points.

    And neither will you.

    You – and they – need to READ UP, and start addressing the evidence.

  16. maslo63 responds:

    You [DWA] like to toss out the notion that you know so much, apparently more than myself. That may be but based on what I know and what I’ve read (from both sides) I am not convinced. If you have some peer reviewed paper or book or such you think I need to read than by all means share it. Telling me you read up on both sides tells me nothing and I’m just as capable of saying the same back. I’m telling you you’re wrong, that the majority of science agrees there is no sasquatch. This includes primatologists, wildlife biologists, anthropologists and others who you claim have never picked up a book. We’ll I’m aware of their credentials but not yours so I’ll side with them until you provide something better.
    Anyway, did I not say in my last post that I WANT to believe in sasquatch? That I’m hoping convincing evidence turns up? Is that not why I said I’m here? I’m sure I did. But instead of share that knowledge you would rather tell me about how much more than everyone else you know on the subject. How much YOU know is not good evidence. Eyewitness testimony is not good evidence, you should really know how faulty memory and the human brain is and as a man of science you should just plain know better. Telling me sasquatch lives in NY because people have seen it is not good evidence. None of that amounts to anything. Nether do tracks that can easily be faked, or videos that can easily be faked. If I need to read up on sasquatch you need to read up on another primate…humans, because you clearly underestimate what we’re capable of.
    For the record, I live in New York and have all my life, I’ve been to Florida on many occasions. New York is mostly scattered farmlands save for the Adirondacks and a few other locations. Sasquatch is not restricted to the Adirondacks though is it? No..according to you it lives everywhere! I live in CNY, there is no place for a population of 9′ apes to hide and I say that with confidence. I guess there is probably one outside picking my raspberries. I better go look, I won’t bother taking a gun or high quality camera because that would make too much sense. Seriously though, I’ve never tripped over sasquatch nor has anyone I know. Give me a break.
    As for John Bindernagel (and don’t tell me I haven’t read him), I don’t care what he says. I say he is wrong! Other wildlife biologists say he is wrong! One man announced the creature is real and I’m supposed to take his word for it? What kind of science is that? What evidence does he have? More tracks…what a surprise. Not good enough! Humans make tracks too. Next you’ll be saying dragons and mermaids exit because people have seen them as well. No…please don’t chime in on that one. Perhaps I’ll contact John Bindernagel myself, you’re certainly of little help. Especially if your only goal here is to “carve people to ribbons”. Truly a patron of science you are.

    Ignoring what you don’t want to hear isn’t science.

    I do this to you guys all the time.

    No scientist on your side has successfully addressed the arguments of the scientists on mine.

    Tired of going in circles yet or do you have something real to contribute? You claim that I don’t want to hear that bigfoot has already been discovered but if you read my last post you would know that I do. I honestly do, that is why I’m here! I guess you’re equally guilty of not responding to my previous points. In this case the point being…I WANT sasquatch to be discovered. I WANT to believe. There is a problem however, I cannot force myself to believe something as easily as you can. I want real evidence. All the evidence so far, other scientists have shown it can be faked so it just isn’t going to cut it with me. If people can fake something, they will. Raymond Wallace did it in the late ’50’s (and that is where the term bigfoot came from in the first place). The surgeon’s photo of Nessie was considered among the best evidence of the Loch Ness monster and it as you know was also faked. Even dermal ridges can be faked and have even been shown to be fake. The Patterson film is also likely a fake, just they never confessed it. Some studies show it isn’t fake but on the other hand some do. Science demands hard evidence, so do I.

  17. DWA responds:

    maslo63:

    [sigh]

    This is what the so-called skeptical do too much of: posts full of untested assumptions. That isn’t skeptical.

    I may know New York State better than you do, and I have never lived there. But I’ve probably spent a lot more time in its wild places than you have. Sounds like it. Most Americans don’t know that most of the continent is wild: we just move along roadways between populated spots, and never move far off those roads.

    “I’m telling you you’re wrong, that the majority of science agrees there is no sasquatch. This includes primatologists, wildlife biologists, anthropologists and others who you claim have never picked up a book.”

    And this is what I mean.

    I AGREE WITH YOU! I said as much. It also doesn’t matter to my point; in fact it makes it. In science, it is never the majority that is right first. It is always a minority that is paying attention. Was everyone right when everyone thought the earth was flat? That everything in the universe revolved around the earth? That there were no living coelacanths?

    The majority never cracks a book on this topic. They live on their degrees and their untested assumptions. So has it ever been. A tiny minority is the only thing that has ever changed science.

    The majority – and you – need to READ UP!

    [sigh]

    I don’t wanna believe nuthin’. I only trust the evidence. Maybe that’s your problem. Your desire to believe hasn’t been rewarded and you’ve turned cynical. I’ve seen a lot of that type here. You might try my approach:

    I don’t “want” anything.

    I’m only here for one reason:

    The evidence.

    Which says you and the majority are wrong. As is the usual thing on the frontiers of science. No surprise.

  18. DWA responds:

    OK, let me show you my problem.

    Untested assumptions:

    1) “Telling me you read up on both sides tells me nothing and I’m just as capable of saying the same back.”

    To say what you are saying makes that a highly debatable presumption. Tell me what you have read and what evidence, precisely, leads you to your conclusion. I want evidence, not suppositions.

    2) “Eyewitness testimony is not good evidence, you should really know how faulty memory and the human brain is and as a man of science you should just plain know better.”

    Flat dead wrong. We are a species that lives by its eyes, the preeminent observer in nature. You live your days making billions of virtually infallible judgments based solely on eyesight. Where, praytell, do you think “seeing is believing” came from? Eyewitness testimony takes a backseat to no other kind. Ask any lawyer.

    3) “…Nether do tracks that can easily be faked,…”

    This bespeaks ignorance of the volume and consistency of trackway evidence. If it all adds up to a false positive, it (and it alone, never mind all the other evidence) is the greatest deception in all human history. If you disagree with me, you haven’t read up.

    4) “I live in CNY, there is no place for a population of 9′ apes to hide and I say that with confidence.”

    And I’m supposed to take your word for that. Credentials, please, and evidence that all NY sasquatch evidence is either faked or some other form of false positive. (Not proving any negatives here. You can do it.) Not holding my breath. Um, what if there aren’t any over eight feet? We good then?

    5) “Seriously though, I’ve never tripped over sasquatch nor has anyone I know. Give me a break.”

    So if you’ve never seen a coelacanth, none of those neither, right? Give *me* a break. How many lynx have you seen in NY? They’re there.

    6) “I don’t care what he says. I say he is wrong! [evidence and credentials, please. Not holding breath] Other wildlife biologists say he is wrong! [never cracked a book on the topic; I would believe them, precisely, why?] One man [who cites tons of evidence backing him up, going back like two centuries] announced the creature is real and I’m supposed to take his word for it? [No, you are supposed to go, hhhhhhmmmmmmm….what is there about this that would not intrigue a scientist? Why don’t they READ UP?] What kind of science is that? [the kind scientists do]

    And you “don’t care” what ANYONE says who disagrees with you. Good way to insulate oneself from a broader knowledge of the world. Not exactly either scientific, or fun. (Hint, scientists. “Science” and “fun” should be close to synonyms. Maybe that’s your problem. Take up beach volleyball if science isn’t working for ya.)

    7) “All the evidence so far, other scientists have shown it can be faked ”

    All of it? Half? Even a significant fragment of one percent? You know that is an utterly unsupportable statement. (OK, I do.) Sources, please. Trust me, they won’t pass the sniffer.

    8 ) Is this stance actually, you know, fun for you? WHY DO YOU COME HERE?

    9) “The surgeon’s photo of Nessie was considered among the best evidence of the Loch Ness monster …”

    Debunked that when I was six. “That looks like a toy brontosaurus in a bathtub.” Doesn’t debunk Nessie, and it doesn’t matter what Nessie is. One debunk = one debunk. That’s all. (Surgeon’s Photo = NOT Nessie evidence.)

    10) “The Patterson film is also likely a fake, just they never confessed it.”

    Not a shred of evidence ever uncovered for that. Yours? I don’t care if Patterson gut-shot his grandma and stole the camera; Patterson’s character doesn’t enter into this. His ability does. He didn’t do it; and him getting hoaxed is even more unlikely. Which you would know if you’d read up.

    You will never see “hard evidence” unless the other evidence is followed up. That is science’s job.

    Is this fun for you? Reading up – you haven’t, or else you aren’t thinking about what you have read – would be more fun. Really, it would.

  19. maslo63 responds:

    1: I may know New York State better than you do, and I have never lived there. But I’ve probably spent a lot more time in its wild places than you have. Sounds like it. Most Americans don’t know that most of the continent is wild: we just move along roadways between populated spots, and never move far off those roads.

    You haven’t and you don’t know that. Stop making assumptions about who I am and what I know. Just because my opinion is not yours does not mean I am any more or less ignorant on the subject. I grew up on a farm in downstate NY, I worked for 10 years on a farm in upstate NY, I’ve hiked around the Catskills and Adirondacks and many places in-between. I hunt, fish, camp and nearly every one of my interests involve natural history and the outdoors. Don’t presume to know me and stick with talking sasquatch. You claim most of the continent is wild but at one point in New York’s history there was virtually no wilderness at all. Mountain lions, wolves, elk, bison, turkey, beaver, white tail deer were all once wiped out or nearly wiped out in this state. Many have returned, many forests have returned as well but somehow sasquatch survived all this without ever being formally described by science in this state? I don’t think so. Stick to the things you know, New York’s natural history is not among them (see how I can make assumptions about you too?).

    2: I don’t wanna believe nuthin’. I only trust the evidence. Maybe that’s your problem. Your desire to believe hasn’t been rewarded and you’ve turned cynical. I’ve seen a lot of that type here. You might try my approach:

    Of course I trust evidence. The reasons we know what we know about the planet is due to someone finding evidence to support their theories. I see no problem with that way of living. If you want to dwell in fantasy than by all means but I would rather waste my time understanding animals we know exist rather than animals that probably don’t exist. Until evidence shows otherwise of course. You seem baffled that your mountain of evidence does not convince me but I’m sorry, it just doesn’t. If sasquatch is real we should have hard evidence by now, until it is found I don’t believe such an animal exists.

    3:To say what you are saying makes that a highly debatable presumption. Tell me what you have read and what evidence, precisely, leads you to your conclusion. I want evidence, not suppositions.

    I don’t owe you a list of what I’ve read no more than you owe me the same. I told you why I’ve come to my conclusion two days ago. If I’m the one who needs to read up (and you keep on saying that over and over) than it is up to you to guide me there. For the type of animal sasquatch is supposed to be and the range it is supposed to cover (North American, Asia, Europe, Australia and probably someplace else) the evidence is not good enough. Give me an example of a large terrestrial mammal with an global range that has recently been described by science. You can’t.

    4: Flat dead wrong. We are a species that lives by its eyes, the preeminent observer in nature. You live your days making billions of virtually infallible judgments based solely on eyesight. Where, praytell, do you think “seeing is believing” came from? Eyewitness testimony takes a backseat to no other kind. Ask any lawyer.

    And if I see sasquatch I may believe it but I haven’t and I wouldn’t expect anyone else to without the same evidence I would require, even if I was dead certain on what I had seen. We are a species that lives by it’s eyes but we’re also animals that evolved from nature and mistakes can be made. Lawyers know this, psychologists know this. You can’t always trust your eyes, or your memory for that matter. Should I believe in everything someone has seen just because they had seen it? Should I believe in dragons because nearly every culture on the planet has at some point? Should I believe in fairies and gnomes, mermaids and shape-shifting demons because people have seen them? Of course not, though you might say I should. An individual’s story is not evidence for anything except that they saw something or are making it up and there is no way to know the difference or if what they saw is what they say they saw. And lets face it, people make mistakes. That is why people think mangy dogs are goat suckers and a dead raccoon is the Montauk monster. The difference between those and bigfoot though…hard evidence, evidence showing that what they think they saw was wrong.

    5: And you “don’t care” what ANYONE says who disagrees with you. Good way to insulate oneself from a broader knowledge of the world. Not exactly either scientific, or fun. (Hint, scientists. “Science” and “fun” should be close to synonyms. Maybe that’s your problem. Take up beach volleyball if science isn’t working for ya.)

    Alright, maybe I do care a little. I did at one point believe in the damn thing after all. I’ll listen to what they have to say (as I have with you for who knows how long now) but that does not mean I’m obligated to take it seriously or believe in what they’re saying. If you believe sasquatch exists than the burden is on you to bring the evidence. The burden is not on me, I don’t even believe in it. Sasquatch does no exist, that is the default scientific position on the issue. You and no one else needs to probe otherwise. We know the coelacanth is alive because it was eventually described by science. The same for the earth being round. If you’re so certain that bigfoot is real than what is stopping you from getting the evidence required for it? If sasquach exists it is an animal, finding one is not imposable. People do it all the time. If I believed without doubt that sasquatch existed I would be out looking for as opposed to arguing with some punk (that being me) on the internet. Bigfoot lives everywhere remember? Get a camera, or a gun and go get one. You’ve already told be about your wilderness experience so whats the problem? You want the scientists to do the work for you. Why should they? Do it yourself.

    6: All of it? Half? Even a significant fragment of one percent? You know that is an utterly unsupportable statement. (OK, I do.) Sources, please. Trust me, they won’t pass the sniffer.

    I guess that depends on who’s sniffer you’re using doesn’t it? I already admitted that the Patterson footage was the only good evidence for sasquatch but one video of a creature that might be an ape is not enough to make me pack my bags and go trekking in the pacific northwest. Anyway, you seem convinced. Tell me what evidence you have that cannot be faked? Audio recordings can be faked. Tracks can be faked. Even hair samples can be (and have been) faked. Videos and photographs can also be faked and guess what, people love making up fake things.

    7: Debunked that when I was six. “That looks like a toy brontosaurus in a bathtub.” Doesn’t debunk Nessie, and it doesn’t matter what Nessie is. One debunk = one debunk. That’s all. (Surgeon’s Photo = NOT Nessie evidence.)

    Ah, but it was not a Brontosaurus in a bathtub was it? It was a toy submarine with e fake neck in the loch itself. What you see is not always what is. Besides, what is a Brontosaurus? We use the term Apatosaurus these days. There is at least one thing you need to read up on. You probably believe in Nessie too don’t you? Guess what…I don’t!

    8:Not a shred of evidence ever uncovered for that. Yours? I don’t care if Patterson gut-shot his grandma and stole the camera; Patterson’s character doesn’t enter into this. His ability does. He didn’t do it; and him getting hoaxed is even more unlikely. Which you would know if you’d read up.

    Well again I ask what it is you want me to read. Apparently I should be reading SOMETHING. I’ve seen the shows about the Patterson footage and I’ve read about it in Meldrum’s book among other places. It is convincing, just not convincing enough. Sure, they can’t say the creature is fake but they cannot say it is real either. Giving the lack of convincing evidence on a whole I would lead toward the former. A hoax, a good hoax but still likely a hoax.

    9: You will never see “hard evidence” unless the other evidence is followed up. That is science’s job.

    As the one putting forth the hypothesis it is YOUR job. Do it.

    10: And I’m supposed to take your word for that. Credentials, please, and evidence that all NY sasquatch evidence is either faked or some other form of false positive. (Not proving any negatives here. You can do it.) Not holding my breath. Um, what if there aren’t any over eight feet? We good then?

    I have no credentials. I am not a scientist and I have no degree. I asked you the same thing yesterday but I have yet to see yours. I don’t need to provide evidence that all NY sasquatch evidence is fake. You need to provide evidence that it is real! Go ahead and do it! Prove to me that the baby bigfoot video is real. Prove to me that any tracks found in NY are NOT fake. The burden is on you, not me. Tracks have been faked before, we all know this. Show me tracks from NY that you can prove are not fake. We have proof of fake tracks, videos and all the other evidence to cling to. It is up to you to bring something better and if the animal is real it shouldn’t be that hard.

    11: So if you’ve never seen a coelacanth, none of those neither, right? Give *me* a break. How many lynx have you seen in NY? They’re there.

    Well the coelacanth does not live in NY so of course I haven’t seen one. Though I bet if I did say I saw one you would be the first in line for a NY coelacanth expedition. As for the lynx I have not seen one but I know they exist because they have been described by science. In this case I don’t need to see the animal in order to believe in it. There is however no evidence for a breeding population of lynx in this state. There never has been. There have been sighting sure but that only shows that animals moved through the state. They are now considered extirpated and attempts to reintroduce them have failed. We do have bobcats however and cases of mistaken identity are inevitable and I have seen bobcats in the wild. I know all this because wildlife biologists have done the work needed to show us this. You probably don’t believe them but if they said they believed in bigfoot you would probably believe them on that. The difference is that we have hard evidence that the lynx exists in the first place, still none for your bigfoot so no comparison can really be made.

  20. DWA responds:

    maslo63:

    “You haven’t and you don’t know that. Stop making assumptions about who I am and
    what I know.”

    You too, my friend.

    “I already admitted that the Patterson footage was the only good evidence for sasquatch …”

    That statement is, on its face, an indictment.

    OK. I’m tired of hijacking a cougar thread. And of arguing with somebody who says scientists who disagree with him are wrong and offers no evidence for that view.

    See you down the road.

  21. DWA responds:

    But you STILL leave up so much low-hanging fruit.

    “Besides, what is a Brontosaurus? We use the term Apatosaurus these days.”

    Not when I was six, we didn’t. I wasn’t six “these days.”

    “As the one putting forth the hypothesis it is YOUR job. Do it.”

    An extremely fundamental – and utterly fatal – misunderstanding.

    I have. YOU haven’t.

    A fundamental rule of science: EVERY side of a scientific debate must offer the evidence for its point of view. The proponents for the sasquatch have backed their thesis up, better than any has ever been backed up – ever – for anything – ever – that remains unproven by science. The evidence that all this adds up to crap? Which is, perforce, your position?

    Zero.

    If science played by the murder rule, the sasquatch would be in field guides.

    Shame they don’t.

    Sayonara.

  22. maslo63 responds:

    You said you’re tired of arguing with me and then make another post directly afterwards. I don’t think it is in your nature to stop (and I know because it is not in mine) so we’ll see if I hear back from you after this one. As for hijacking a cougar thread. Is anyone out there reading this? Probably not. An excuse for you to stop “tearing me apart” or however you described it a day ago.
    You want evidence from me, I want evidence from you. Again I state that if this animal is real YOU need to be the one to find it, stop passing it off on someone else. Your evidence can be and has been faked on numerous occasions and that is the only proof of anything on the subject. That is my evidence, that science can demonstrate the ability to fake sasquatch evidence. Read that last part again. Everything you bring to the table can and has been faked by others. Re-read it till it sinks in. That we don’t live in an ecosystem that can support a population of giant apes. That there is no way an animal so abundant can remain hidden so long without coming across hard evidence. All that is better evidence than you any cryptozoologist can muster up and the reason why this topic is not taken seriously. You know why science is not looking for sasquatch? It is a waste of time. I’ve read your posts, you’re willing to believe anything. You don’t discount telepathic sasquatch? Seriously? Here is a notion for you, use some common sense and critical thinking. Stop taking every plaster foot cast as hard evidence. Every random noise in the woods as hard evidence. Every tall tale as hard evidence. Think about it critically. Can an animal like sasquatch really have a global distribution without having been described by science? The answer is no and you’re diluted to think otherwise. If I need to read up on sasquatch you need to read up on primatology, ecology, natural history, human psychology and the scientific method. Get your head out of the tabloids. You live in a dream world and I hope you wake up, the real world and its real inhabitants are far more fascinating then anything you can convince yourself of. You’re probably twice my age and you still don’t realize that, I feel sorry for you. So sayonara is it? We’ll see.

    As for Brontosaurus I believe the name was dropped in the early 1900’s and fell out of favor in the ’50’s but whatever, it doesn’t matter. I was mostly just picking on you.

    I shared my lack of credentials. Where are yours? Where are those references I asked for that you tell me I need to read? Don’t have any? Didn’t think so.

  23. DWA responds:

    You didn’t huh?

    No comments. Just read up. It tries my patience when people who know squat about something tell me I don’t.

    I’ve posted this many times here. READ UP; and no more until you’ve read it all. Well-informed is my minimum standard.

    —————————-

    Both of Bindernagel’s books, and Meldrum’s, and J.Robert Alley’s “Raincoast Sasquatch,” and Meldrum’s ichnotaxonomy paper, and every report on both bfro.net and texasbigfoot.com, at a minimum, are Sasquatch 001. You should read some Krantz, too. And John Green’s database (although many reports from that are written up by Bindernagel). Anyone who thinks this is too much, well, shouldn’t be opining here. I mean, they can; it’s just an uninformed opinion. At least I only offer opinions on things I know something about. Isn’t that reasonable? I think so.

    ———————

    NOW I’m gone. I always try to serve the cause of education.

  24. maslo63 responds:

    No, I actually did think you had some references but figured you wouldn’t actually share them unless I used some reverse psychology. It seems to have worked, you could stand to learn a little about psychology yourself I think.
    Seriously though, thanks for the references (thought we’re still missing those credentials). Took me long enough to get them, why you didn’t just post your last post outright is beyond me (I’ve been asking for it for days).
    I don’t think I’m as interested as you in the topic to buy two $50-$100 books (I accept donations though if you’re THAT concerned). If I had that kind of money to spend on a book I would probably buy Robert A. Kuehne’s “American Darters” but I digress. Many of the other references I’m already aware of and have read but you’ll tell me I was lying since I didn’t come to the same conclusion as you on the subject. Don’t think that because I’m not buying a $100 book on a mythical animal that I’m not fit to discuss it though because that certainly won’t stop me. You feel informed enough to discuss NY natural history and I’ve very certain I got you beat there. Suffice it to say, I know enough about sasquatch. Enough to come to my own conclusions on the matter. I’m aware of most of the important work done on the subject and I’m aware enough to know there is no hard evidence to back sasquatch up. I’m also informed enough on natural history among other things to know the likelihood of such an animal existing is very slim. Maybe you need to broaden your reading selection to something outside of the paranormal or cryptozoological. The best way to understand why there is no sasquatch is to understand the world itself and the creatures in it (humans included).
    Seeing as how you’ve neglected to address most of what I’ve said I guess I’m doing alright for myself. While I’m reading up I hope you take the time to develop some logic, common sense and critical thinking skills. I’m sure this will not be our last go-round and if my “uneducated opinions” bother you than you’re free to ignore them or just stop visiting public forums if you’re incapable of ignoring them. You might not even be able to ignore this post despite telling me you’re done for the…what was it? Third time now? I’ll be seeing you around. I do seriously suggest going out and trying to find a sasquatch, it probably lives under your porch or something and if not I’m sure there is some wilderness nearby. It would be far more productive for your cause than arguing with me.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.