Thanks to everyone for the birthday wishes. I spent a quiet evening at home recording some new songs and I don’t guess I feel any worse for wear being 36 now. :)
Before we get started… please read through parts ONE and TWO if you haven’t already.
In the first two articles in this series, we talked about “taking a specimen” and what types of possible consequences might befall someone who was actually successful.
Today, I want to discuss “proof” in general.
What might constitute proof that Bigfoot exists? Surprisingly, I think the answer to that question is somewhat relative and begs yet another question: Proof to whom?
There are those who already accept the existence of these creatures – the vast majority of readers here will probably fall into that category. Maybe you had a sighting or encounter yourself (”seeing is believing”). Perhaps your imagination was captured as a child by The Legend of Boggy Creek or the Patterson/Gimlin footage and it sparked your interest enough to cause you to look more closely at the evidence, or perhaps you know someone who had a sighting and you simply believe them. Or maybe you have an openly curious personality and just find yourself intrigued by the possibility. The fact is, people who believe in bigfoot… believe in bigfoot. Over the years, I’ve heard plenty of reasons why people do, and they’re generally pretty emphatic about it.
Conversely, those who don’t believe that bigfoot exists… don’t. Period. It seems to me that people who vehemently discount the existence of such a creature do so because they feel the need to. Maybe the idea of bigfoot existence threatens their “sensibilities”, their dogma – be it scientific, religious, or otherwise.
A skeptical hunter who has spent thirty years hunting the same woods and has “never seen anything like that” might feel that the existence of such a creature threatens his perceived knowledge about everything that’s out there. And maybe the thought of running into one just plain scares the daylights out of him deep down inside, so he discounts it because he’s a big, burly fella and skeptical anger is more comfortable to him than fear. (He’s woods savvy, and knows what to expect when he’s out there. Something in the woods that he doesn’t understand scares him and takes away his feeling of control.)
A skeptical scientist who is snidely skeptical, explaining that “there simply aren’t enough food sources available in the Pacific Northwest” in an attempt to close the book on the subject might feel deeply threatened by the idea that there are still things in this world that his many years of expensive and time-consuming schooling didn’t cover. Accepting the idea that something like that exists, publicly, would threaten his crediblity. And therefore his ego. (It’s something he can’t control with hard facts and data and place neatly in a little box marked “Explained”.)
A skeptical, deeply religious man might discount the existence of Bigfoot simply because it doesn’t fit in with his belief system. (It threatens his carefully accepted dogma about how the world is and it scares him that there may be an unknown quantity out there that isn’t explained within the context of his belief system.)
In all three of these examples, it’s the UNEXPLAINED that causes the fear – and thus the carefully crafted yet vehement disregard for the creatures’ existence. Something that is unexplained – and therefore not understood – cannot be controlled. Fear begets anger. That anger might be expressed in many different ways: “I been in these woods 30 years and there ain’t nothin’ like that out there!”, “”There aren’t enough food sources to support an 800 lb. primate in the forests of North America, therefore they simply cannot exist”, or “It doesn’t say anything about Bigfoot in the Bible/Koran/etc.” The words are different. The ‘logic” is different. The individuals speaking come from vastly diverse backgrounds.
But the fear is the same.
The point is that people who dismiss the existence of Bigfoot vehemently do so because they are threatened by the subject for one reason or another. Yes, I realize that’s a strong statement. And yes, I’m standing by it. *grin*
The other folks who “don’t believe in bigfoot” are simply ignorant of the subject. It’s not that they have a problem with its existence. They simply really don’t understand the subject at all. They disregarded it a long time ago based on what little exposure they’ve had to it – mainly tongue-in-cheek newscasters, misinformation in the press and a general disregard for anything but the smarmiest and most sensational bigfoot headlines in the mass media. “I thought that whole thing was proven to be a hoax years ago. Didn’t some guy come forward and confess to making all those footprints?”
But the root of the word “ignorance” is to IGNORE. It doesn’t mean there isn’t more information available. It just means these people aren’t paying very close attention.
And they are, very simply, not QUALIFIED to be skeptics. Your skepticism has no weight, no credibility, when you’re coming from a place of ignorance, disinformation and a lack of education to base your opinion on. But we’re supposed to have an opinion one way or another, I guess, about most everything and being skeptical is easier than getting off your duff and actually learning about something about the subject. And these folks honestly don’t care one way or another. iPods and Wii gaming systems and reality TV shows are much, much more interesting than the existence of a bipedal primate roaming around in the forests of North America. Woods that they’ve only seen on television. Bigfoot really doesn’t matter one way or another when the only wilderness you’ve ever been exposed to is a KOA campground.
So… what exactly would constitute “proof” for all of these skeptical folks?
Imagine the following scenarios:
A body is discovered. Scientists examine the body, determine it to be a North American bipedal primate of unknown origin. It hits the news.
The hunter watches with interest. “Huh. Well, there ain’t none of them things in MY woods. I woulda seen him.”
The scientist now accepts the existence of Sasquatch because it’s fashionable to do so. “We’ve determined that these creatures are omnivores and spend a great deal of their time searching for food.” He never mentions the fact that he summarily dismissed their existence based upon a lack of viable food sources, and hopes no one brings it up.
The religious man carefully places the creature in amongst all of God’s other “animals” and dismisses any possible evidence to the contrary – the same way he does when he sees a Discovery Channel special about evolution.
The Ignorants? They remain ignorant. “I thought they killed that bigfoot creature and dissected him.” Because in their minds, there was always ONLY ONE bigfoot and the subject is no more important to them now than it ever was. Back to playing Halo…
I strongly contend that skeptics are skeptics for a reason and even a body on a slab will do little to educate or inform those who have a personal agenda or choose to remain ignorant. Will the body on a slab REALLY “show all of the skeptics” and put an end to the mystery? In the end, who is the proof FOR? What purpose will it ultimately serve?
You all have been sending me AMAZING feedback on these articles. Keep it coming, will you? I’ll post some of your thoughts when this series is all said and done! :)
