What, in the form of all evidence collected, do we need? What is exactly required, because all of the physical evidence still is not enough. Pictures, prints, hair, teeth marks all of this collectively still does not prove anything to those who have not seen...
How many countless foot print casts do we need, I mean is 1000 enough? Or do we need 100 body casts, 300 different toe prints, 600 definite heel impressions and 100 anomalous print casts that show definite ridge patterns?
Who's the authority on this stuff anyway? The public? The experts in the scientific field or the people who have had the experience?
My money is on the people who have had the experience. They are the experts, defining their events to the best that they can recollect, it is after all they who have had first hand experience.
But why must we insist on allowing ourselves, the people who have had the experience alter our views, and allow the public to dictate to us what is normal? This ~ Sasquatch is NOT normal because it is not a regular every day run of the mill animal. Normalcy is thrown out the window when it comes to studying this creature. But they still try to dictate to us what normal should be.
I went out to the bait site today after hearing activity on the monitor last night. We know Sasquatch was back. I set up the game camera the night before, and HEARD activity that would suggest that the bait site was tampered with, no it was not.
This proved to me that a squirrel, raccoon, or any other rodent did not indulge themselves.
All night, the bait was untouched, the game camera did not take any pictures, and yet, we heard the bait site on the monitor being approached and investigated. The monitor is underneath the bait site on the ground.
The next day, I left the bait site untouched, and took down the game camera.
All day the peanut butter baited area sat in the heat, under the shade of trees, and nothing. No squirrel tried to sample the morsels I placed out on a string, tied to a sapling, just hanging even with my eyes.
Tree waps could be heard in the distance.
This morning, this is all the evidence that remained for us to know that our ears heard what we know in our hearts is the evidence we need to prove to ourselves that sasquatch is real and exists.
I collected the spoon sample to possibly send off to an expert in DNA. What would I tell them? What would it proove? And what sample would they use to compare this sample to? It just doesn't make sense, time money and effort wasted for inconclusive evidence.
I'm satisfied.
The teeth marks are the marks we've seen in meat, in baggies... we don't need proof.
Do you?
Look at the scratch patterns behind the marks. Could this mean that Sasquatch has a rough tounge, not so different like that of a cat? Or is this a facial hair imprint as he sniffed before he took a bite?
This shows teeth marks, the front tooth impression is approx 1 cm in width.
The teeth marks aren't perfectly in alignment, does this suggest two rows of teeth as one eye witness suggests, or on this particular specimen, are it's teeth slightly crooked?
