Bigfoot Discovery Part Five: “Proof” without blood

Discovering Bigfoot Part One: An Overview
Bigfoot Discovery Part Two: Winning the lottery
Bigfoot Discovery Part Three: “Proof”
Bigfoot Discovery Part Four: Context and Celebrity

Here’s where we’ve been, in a nutshell. I’m against taking a specimen for the sake of “proof”. I think that a corpse will create a whole host of potential problems for someone who acquires it. “Proof” is subjective: those who believe do so for a reason, and those who are skeptical are skeptical for their own reasons. Even a body may not change that. Evidence of any kind needs to be delivered in a thorough context. Bigfoot is a celebrity, and we are the bigfoot paparazzi.

Now… that last statement (and my entire rant about it in the last blog post) may seem like it’s coming out of left field, but I think it’s incredibly relevant.

Understanding the quarry

As any good hunter will tell you, if you underestimate the nature of your quarry, you’re going to come up empty handed every time.

When we view Bigfoot as a two-dimensional subject, when we fail to read between the lines and understand the nature of that which we seek, we fail to find it.

After 20 years of listening to eyewitnesses, studying reports carefully and having my own experiences in the field, there are a bunch of things that I’ve come to suspect about the nature of these creatures, their behavior, their attitudes, their lifestyle, and even their PLACE in the big picture. For reasons I’ll explain below, I’m not going to delve deeply into that subject. But what I will say is that I honestly believe (yes, I used THE word) that the vast majority of bigfoot researchers are searching for a creature that DOES NOT EXIST.

Come again?

It’s not that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. It’s that the creature, AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE MAINSTREAM RESEARCH FIELD, does not exist.

Does that mean that my experience has led me to suspect that bigfoot is some dimension-hopping, extraterrestrial freak of nature?

Nope. Not at all.

What it does mean, though, is that these observations – direct and indirect – have led me to an “understanding”, for lack of a better word, of subtle details that make all the difference in the world for those conducting field research.

Now, what does one DO with that information? Do you share it widely and hope that those who would use it would do so responsibly? Probably not.

And there, unfortunately, is the conundrum. For years now I’ve walked a fine line between sharing information and protecting these creatures. I want to share what I’ve learned, share the beauty and the mystery of the subject with those who will appreciate it. But at the same time, the last thing I want to see is a bigfoot’s body on a slab because of something I said or did. Would you publicize when and where a group of mountain gorillas are hanging out, and a possible means of approaching them, to a group of interested parties when many of them are self-proclaimed poachers?

Proof without blood

What will it take? Most people say, unequivocally, “A body.”

But what if I shared with you a videotape, digital quality, of myself or someone else interacting with a Sasquatch, IN THE PROCESS OF obtaining hair and saliva evidence? Not a shaky piece of footage, but a clear, lengthy documentation of the creature interacting with a human, taking food, and leaving behind physical evidence? In addition, what if there was a traceable chain of custody of that evidence and a DNA test that resulted in a primate of no known origin? What if, in addition, there was a close up of the foot, and casts of the tracks it made to be studied? What if that close-up of the foot were enough of a holy grail to validate Dr. Jeff Meldrum and a host of other scientists who have already stuck their necks out there on behalf of the evidence that already exists?

Would that be proof enough?

Evidence is evidence. How MUCH evidence would it take to constitute “proof”?

If this evidence were in my possession this very moment, what should I do with it? On which part of the line does that fall between educating the public, sharing information with those who care, and protecting these creatures responsibly?

I’ve asked myself these questions thousands of times, and I still don’t know that I have the answers.

Having that kind of evidence would be a devastating responsibility. Releasing it in the wrong way, or at all, could wreak havoc in any number of ways.  Is it really possible to second-guess every scenario, every potential implication on their world and ours?

If this evidence were available, would YOU want to see it?

I know you’ll have thoughts on this. Let ’em fly. The email link is below. :)

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.