reply to post by theindependentjournal
Science, by its very nature, cannot prove the non-existence of an entity, only existence can be proven. At best, science can only reach a proximate
or non-final 'not as far as we know'.
You set yourself a high bar to meet with your argument, and you didn't make it. There are many hidden assumptions built into your argument, some of
them false and some questionable, and nothing you cited is definitive or conclusive. Some of them are partly valid, but you did not make your
Your assumptions of what Sasquatch would have to be (a mammal, an ape, etc) seem plausible, but are not by any means inclusive or final. People claim
to have seen humanoid figures of various sorts that sound ape-like, but that doesn't limit the analysis either. It is unscientific (and futile) to
try to insist that a blank space must either be filled by a specific thing or be empty, because it shuts out other possibilities, including those that
don't even fit into any known pattern.
Granting those assumptions for the sake of argument, your case is still weak.
#1. "If it was plentiful in the past and is going extinct now we should still have some evidence of some kind, bones or dead bodies or pictures.
It's not like they live underwater where man is not at a lot, they are claimed to be larger than men by most."
This isn't a argument against existence at all, it's a variation on, "If it existed we'd know about it by now." It's circular, and could as
easily apply to any other unconfirmed phenomena.
#3. This too is the 'we'd know it by now', based on a still shakier premise. There are in fact very large areas of wilderness and semi-wilderness
in North America, visited only occasionally by humans. In some regions there are _fewer_ people present now than 50 or 100 years ago.
A moderately intelligent animal could indeed avoid human contact in those regions fairly easily. It's easy to make the common mistake that there are
people everywhere today and not much empty area left. In fact, there are vast tracts yet where people are rarely found, especially west of the
Mississippi and in the montane regions. If the creatures were somewhat less numerous than bears, and somewhat more intelligent, it would not be
particularly odd that they are rarely hit by vehicles or shot by hunters.
#4 Pictures and film are rarely ever definitive, esp. those made with low-quality tech like cell phone cameras or the like. Consider the Patterson
film, the authenticity of which continues to be debated to this day. It's either a definitive film of a real sighting, or a clever fake, and nobody
has convincingly demonstrated either over decades. (And no, the claim that it was a hoax is not settled, either. That story turned out to be
questionable in itself.)
#5. As noted above, this argument is simply fallacious. There _are_ large unwatched areas, where people are very thin on the ground, and other areas
were they are present but not in large numbers. Further, even in areas with quite a few people, most of those people, most of the time, stay in
relatively constrained areas of towns and roads. There's plenty of room to hide.
I could go further, but your whole argument comes down to "If it existed we'd know it by now." That's not a scientific case.
I have no idea what the people claiming to have seen Sasquatch, or otherwise encountered it, are seeing or what the truth behind it is. But you
haven't made a good case for non-existence, and the claim that 'there are no large undiscovered mammals left' is not scientifically demonstrable