By Henry M.
One of the main questions about the Sasquatch issue is, "How do we prove their existence?" What I mean by that question is, "Does one have to be killed to prove its existence?" I say yes, as harsh as that may be to some people. Some people say we should tranquilize a Sasquatch, but there's a problem with that: it's completely unreliable, because you have to know exactly how much of a dose to use; too much could make the animal die a long, horrible death; too little could make the creature run off into the deeper woods and hide, possibly dying in the process there. Some say that good photos or video would be all it would take to convince the skeptics, but again, there's a problem with that: videos and photos can be faked, and videos especially can be digitally manipulated, and special effects can be added to video to make it look better, and this will not convince the skeptics. Look at the controversy surrounding the Patterson/Gimlin film-37 years later, and opinion is still divided as to its authenticity. So it's impractical to say that video or photos will prove their existence. Some have even suggested that maybe a piece of skin could be removed from a Sasquatch creature and DNA could be taken from the skin sample. Only one problem-you have to get close enough to get a sample, and a Sasquatch isn't exactly going to stand still for that. No, the only definitive way to prove their existence is with a body, and it may take more than one body. That may sound grisly and harsh, but it's true. Now, I myself would never shoot a Sasquatch, but I wouldn't condemn anyone who does shoot one. If a person wants to go out and shoot a Sasquatch for science, I say be my guest.