33 replies to this topic

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

formida42, on 11 November 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:

I am a folklorist researching the Batsquatch legend, and I would like to include some of your input in a paper I'm working on. I am particularly interested in the paths that the legend has taken from its beginnings through its inclusion in cryptozoology publications, on radio shows, etc. I'd also like to know where you first heard of Batsquatch, what you think of the legend, whether you or someone you know has had an experience with it or a similar creature, and any other information you think is relevant.

Please know that you can remain completely anonymous if you like, and I will only include information that you give permission to include. It is unlikely that the paper will be published (I am a grad student writing it for a class), but if it is, I will contact you and let you know. If you prefer, you can contact me privately.

Any particular reason you chose this crypto over others?

[PersonFromPorlock]

"Batsquatch" sounds like something you do with a batswatter.

[formida42]

Thank you guys for all of your input. Keep it coming!

I chose it for a few reasons. Mainly, I thought it interesting that it wasn't very well known, that many of the people who know about it have learned about it from the Internet, and (probably most importantly) that it's called "Batsquatch."

I think my paper will mainly focus on the role the Internet has played in spreading knowledge of Batsquatch and attitudes toward it. So if you have anything to add, please speak up!

[s33ker]

oh love, don't worry.We'll speak up ,weather it'll be helpful ........?

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

formida42, on 12 November 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

Thank you guys for all of your input. Keep it coming!

I chose it for a few reasons. Mainly, I thought it interesting that it wasn't very well known, that many of the people who know about it have learned about it from the Internet, and (probably most importantly) that it's called "Batsquatch."

I think my paper will mainly focus on the role the Internet has played in spreading knowledge of Batsquatch and attitudes toward it. So if you have anything to add, please speak up!

Oh okay yeah Its like I said I havent heard about this crypto until I read It on here.

[psyche101]

formida42, on 12 November 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

Thank you guys for all of your input. Keep it coming!

I chose it for a few reasons. Mainly, I thought it interesting that it wasn't very well known, that many of the people who know about it have learned about it from the Internet, and (probably most importantly) that it's called "Batsquatch."

I think my paper will mainly focus on the role the Internet has played in spreading knowledge of Batsquatch and attitudes toward it. So if you have anything to add, please speak up!

I quite like Batsquatch as well, and have read up on what is available as well, and it is indeed an elusive cryptid with little information.

But aside from the mystery, I think he is not reported often because it is simply impossible for such a creature to exist. And no reports existed before 1980. Which seems pretty incredible, but his wingspan would have to be ridiculous. Mammals do not have hollow bones for a start, making the weight quite something to deal with. I have read a report that says the creature was 30 foot top to bottom, hard to imagine that going unnoticed until 1980.

Fun tale, but I really do not think it's credible. Batsquatch would need around 30 or more feet of surface area to fly.

Dunananananah Nananah BATSQUATCH!

Edited by psyche101, 12 November 2012 - 11:25 PM.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I'm thinking this should be in the Two-Legged Dogman database...

[DieChecker]

psyche101, on 12 November 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

But aside from the mystery, I think he is not reported often because it is simply impossible for such a creature to exist. And no reports existed before 1980. Which seems pretty incredible, but his wingspan would have to be ridiculous. Mammals do not have hollow bones for a start, making the weight quite something to deal with. I have read a report that says the creature was 30 foot top to bottom, hard to imagine that going unnoticed until 1980.

Just look at what some scientists are saying about the Quetzalcoatlus pterosaur... that at 70 kg and 30 foot wingspan it was too big to fly. How much harder for a hulking bigfoot sized creature at maybe 200 or 300 kg to get into the air?
http://www.unexplain...howtopic=237463

Though.... from the discussion in that thread... Those saying it could not fly are mostly wrong.

I tend to agree that if the Batsquatch was real, we'd have more reports and that something that big would be fairly hard to miss.

But then I also think that there could be large flying critters out there. Maybe in Africa or maybe the Ropen in Indonesia. Or maybe even the Thunderbird....

[DieChecker]

Found what is supposed to be a batsquatch photo.

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 13 November 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

Just look at what some scientists are saying about the Quetzalcoatlus pterosaur... that at 70 kg and 30 foot wingspan it was too big to fly. How much harder for a hulking bigfoot sized creature at maybe 200 or 300 kg to get into the air?
http://www.unexplain...howtopic=237463

Though.... from the discussion in that thread... Those saying it could not fly are mostly wrong.

I tend to agree that if the Batsquatch was real, we'd have more reports and that something that big would be fairly hard to miss.

But then I also think that there could be large flying critters out there. Maybe in Africa or maybe the Ropen in Indonesia. Or maybe even the Thunderbird....

Indeed, at least 30 feet, looking at those figures more like 40 feet Sq. Considering that Batsquatch is seen only in Washington, it is hard to imagine this not being seen? Not only that, but the large estimates also came with long range flight. Those arguing for a 200 kg body on a 40 foot wingspan also estimate regular flight distances of 8-12 thousand miles at 80 mph and 15,000 feet altitude. And for durations of 7-10 days at a time.

But that was my main argument, until 1980, nobody had ever heard of Batsquatch. I just cannot fathom something that large, and with that sort of potential range being elusive. The wingspan would be too massive to have missed altogether until 30 years ago.

I think the Ropen in PNG is probably the best bet, but I would not be laying my own cash in it I find the fossil record more convincing than some wild unsupported claims. But all the same, I wish good old Jon all the best and hope he finds one. Even if he is too stuck up to visit here

ETA:

Ohh, forgot to mention, the reports are anything but 30-40 foot wingspans





And of course, my personal favourite pic

Edited by psyche101, 13 November 2012 - 06:46 AM.

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 13 November 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

Found what is supposed to be a batsquatch photo.

Damn that looks a lot like a square to me.

[PersonFromPorlock]

FWIW: http://www.fanpop.co...1-photo?ir=true

[DieChecker]

psyche101, on 13 November 2012 - 06:45 AM, said:

Damn that looks a lot like a square to me.

Someone must have had a copyright or something on that image.

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 13 November 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

Someone must have had a copyright or something on that image.

I know what really happened........

[psyche101]

PersonFromPorlock, on 13 November 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

FWIW: http://www.fanpop.co...1-photo?ir=true

Top pic, I have not ever seen that one. Good catch.

Those wings are never carrying that animal though.