Why airlines supress UFO reports.

Yeah not in the last 5 minutes.

 

I've never yet been swayed by anything supernatural. And I have WANTED to be! Unfortunately, wanting it to be so just isn't good enough.

 

Same here, but as I said, I look at it with an open mind, maybe somebody will come up with something convincing.


I always wanted to go to one of these supposed "haunted buildings" and spend a night.

 

I'm keeping an open mind on Sasquatch, but only because it's probably the single 'theory' which has some basis in reality .. and the creature (or something very like it) in question is well understood to have existed up until relatively recently.

We don't know that ghosts existed, ever, but we do know that 'neanderthals' existed.

 

I think I know a couple.

 

I've had some friends who were Sasquatch enthusiasts, but it's as ridiculous as the Loch Ness monster. Ask a biologist how large a population any species would have to be in order to survive. Factor in the detriments of inbreeding, accidental death, disease, etc. Conservationists tell us all the time about endangered species such as wolves, yet they are well known because of attacks or their bodies are found. So, how can a species of large North American apes or humanoids with zero evidence of existence possibly exist at all? Are they aliens with cloaked spaceships?

 

Then you would know your claim is not true. Many are still dependent on religion.

 

I live in the NW. Seattle, and Sasquatch is a big thing here, actually in the surrounding forest communities.
I have second thoughts, however there is a lot of virgin land out there, where anything could hide.
You would think by now, somebody would have come up with a body.

 

Of course, it's patently absurd. BUT, it's grounded in a species known to have existed at some point in the not too distant past (in terms of the period of existence of hominids generally). I would add though, that the lack of 'bones' is a very poor argument against the premise. Plenty of fairly common animals are rarely found in skeletal form. I live in an area crawling with a certain large, wild mammal ... yet have never once found a skull or other piece of bone from these critters. Nature is VERY efficient at the breaking down and dispersing of animal remains .. and that's just the animals which don't bury or hide their dead!

The best argument against Squatch is as you say .. the sheer magnitude of trackless wilderness needed to support any kind of viable breeding population. Trackless wildernesses we no longer have in most parts of the world. SOME do remain though, and I imagine that if such a relict hominid did somehow manage to cling on into the 21stC, mostly unseen, it would be in such wildernesses. Probably only the wilds of Russia, your Pacific Northwest (perhaps), and Australia. There really isn't anywhere else 'lonely' enough.

 

Just on Nessie .. I don't think the Squatch folk are anywhere near as nuts as the Loch Ness peeps. They are trying to tell us ONE giant dinosaur exists in ONE lake in ... Scotland. Hilarious!

At least the Squatchers are pulling for an entire species of a much smaller (and biologically possible) beast, with multiple habitats around the world.

 

Actually "Nessies are claimed in quite a few lakes, however none have been caught, or have clear photographs.

 

That would be because it doesn't exist

 

I tend to agree with you.

These kinds of things are huge moneymakers for the promoters.
There will always be a group who feed off this stuff, and will part with their money to learn more, regardless how preposterous.

 

In which case, I kinda have a little more respect for the so-called 'researchers'. At least they're not actual believers, and are just trying to make a living.

 

Of course. Nellie is big in Scotland. Loch Ness is a huge lake, but biology still rules. Unless someone dumps a boa in the everglades or a gator in the sewer, it's very unlikely for a species to exist all by itself.

In the case of Sasquatch, it's more likely either pranksters (often the case) or one of Seattle's many homeless living in the woods and wearing furs.

 

The main connection being human beings all over the world.

 

Disagreed. Given the size of the population needed to sustain a large species, evidence would be found including bones. Are you saying that you've never found a skull or that the skull bones have never been found by anyone?

 

You have some questions??? In this looong thread topic??

 

I'm saying I spend a huge amount of time in my neighbouring forests .. and have spent all my life in and around wilderness type areas. I have seen perhaps 3 skulls in all of that time .. and they were very small animals. The only skulls of larger mammals I've ever seen just 'lying around' have been domestic animals. Sheep on roadsides, that sort of thing. ALWAYS animals which have no wild habit of secrecy, and are more or less contained by fencing or development, etc.

What we often don't understand about the process of 'death in the forest', is that it takes only a few days for an entire carcass to be consumed, broken down, and dispersed. The process is INCREDIBLY fast, in such an environment.

 

Mostly pranksters, is my guess. Or bear mis-identification. Or lies

 

Good point, but also factor in that hunters and hikers also pick up "the evidence" as you admitted to doing thus hiding the evidence.

I have a couple of skulls hanging in my workshop. None of Sasquatch however.

 

The main reason that UFO sightings are suppressed, is because most of them are top secret experimental aircraft.

All those triangle UFOs belong to the US.

 

I've never picked up/kept a skull found in the bush

Meantime, the reason only the small skulls survive is simply that .. they're small. All the larger bones/skulls are broken down to a point they're no longer identifiable. Nature doesn't seem to like 'big bits' lying around.

Another meantime .... check into the frequency of bear skeletons being found. It's actually incredibly rare .. and America is crawling with bears. Good testament to the efficiency of mother nature in itself, but coupled with an animal which tends to hide when it's dying, makes perfect sense. If you extrapolate .. and consider an unknown animal which is large enough to be demolished by nature upon death, AND hides itself when old, sick, or injured, AND potentially buries or further hides their dead, the chances of us actually finding an intact bone sufficient for identification are absurdly remote. We'd be far more likely to find scat or hair for DNA profiling, assuming we were looking, and assuming they didn't register as human - which could easily happen, given our lack of benchmarks.

 

Further ... there are just enough cases which fall outside the location limits of pranksters (ie, extremely remote, well away from any potential humans to prank), are in places where there are no bears to misidentify, and are from people who are highly unlikely to be liars. JUST ENOUGH to justify an open mind, if nothing else.

 

Bigfoot!