|Bigfoot on trial|
This post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet.
Bigfoot - Evidence, No Evidence and Debunkers
When talking about Bigfoot one can expect to get some raised eyebrows and maybe a few smirks. But mention that you have actually encountered the elusive creature and/or found evidence to support it and many people will quickly start calling you crazy, delusional or ask what drugs you are on. In other words they really bring into question your character.
The Bigfoot research field is full of lovable, but wacky people who have good intentions but see 92 bigfoot in every photograph. So the label of delusional might fit in some cases. I think some of them know there is nothing in their photos and they just do it to cause a stir or get attention, or maybe it's just for kicks.
The people most difficult to deal with are the people who hide behind the façade of being a true bigfoot believer and/or researcher, but continually discredit any and all evidence. They are the ones that say there is no evidence or proof of bigfoot and they use the same old rehearsed lines we all have heard many times over. They join Bigfoot group after Bigfoot group and follow the topic heavily. Any evidence that is presented is quickly shot down and statements made about no real evidence.
If someone states they have actually seen a Bigfoot, these phony Bigfoot Debunking believers quickly tell them they were mistaken and that it was probably a bear or tree stump. This could just be a play to get a "debate" started. They attempt to debunk any and all evidence, all the while saying they believe in Bigfoot and have years of experience and vast knowledge of ....well everything.
The thing is, they don't understand what constitutes evidence or what is considered evidence.
Lets look at three types of evidence - 1. Circumstantial evidence 2. Direct evidence and 3. Shoe and Tire Tread evidence.
Circumstantial Evidence - is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime, or in this case a Bigfoot track at a sighting area. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Now the reason I brought this up is that these Bigfoot debunkers always dismiss witness testimony. This brings us to Direct evidence.
Direct Evidence - Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. If the witness claims they saw the crime take place, this is considered direct evidence. For instance, a witness saying that the defendant stabbed the victim is direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence.
So, if we have a creditable witness that says they saw a Bigfoot, this is direct evidence and should not be dismissed. Of course, the creditability of the witness can be questioned but when it comes to Bigfoot there have been witnesses from all walks of life including Policemen, Ministers, Firefighters, and many more good common down to earth people. Yet it is all dismissed by these Bigfoot believing debunkers.
Another type of evidence I want to cover is Shoe and Tire Tread Evidence.
Shoe and Tire Tread Evidence - Evidence which falls within this category includes shoes, tires, plaster casts, prints, and photographs of shoe or tire prints and impressions.
Shoe or tire "prints" are of a two-dimensional nature, having length and width. These are commonly found on pieces of paper as dust prints or can be made by tracking through mediums such as blood, water, oil, and dirt.
Shoe or tire "impressions" are three-dimensional in nature, having length, width, and height. This type of evidence is usually found in soil and is collected and reserved by the use of a plaster cast.
But yet, plaster casting of Bigfoot tracks are, for the most part, dismissed by these debunkers. They always say they are faked. Again, witness creditability would come into play.
Now, looking at these three types of evidence, it is very clear there IS plenty of evidence surrounding Bigfoot, now whether you accept it or not is on you but don't say there is no evidence when in fact there is a lot of it.
Also, don't kid yourself, the government and some scientist have to know about Bigfoot. I just can't see a way that they couldn't.
But I have to ask, does it really matter or make a difference if Bigfoot is recognized by science, the general public or the government?
Would it mean that there would be more bigfoot? I'm sure it would have some positive and some negative effects, most of them directly effecting Bigfoot itself. Would the government, science or the general public recognizing Bigfoot change what you saw? Other than feeling validated, it would not change the fact of what you saw. Many hair samples have been tested over the years. Some results came back as "Unknown" or "Unknown primate", did it change anything? Not really.
It's just funny how some people go to great lengths telling others what they saw or didn't see.
While I do like science and trust science for the most part, but it does not have all the answers. I'll take an actual experience over science just about every time. Would you rather have a doctor who had only read books but never preformed a heart surgery working on you or the guy who had preformed over 1000 heart operations. Maybe not the best example because doctors have to do both but it should illustrate that experience is the best teacher. I often use this example, it's like someone who has never ate an apple telling you what one taste and feels like, it's just not the same as the person who has actually ate an apple.
In many cases it is just going to take having a personal experience or sighting of a Bigfoot to convince some people.
But the question remains, Why would people, who say they believe in Bigfoot go to such great lengths to try and prove it don't exist? Could they be party of some attempt to discredit belief in Bigfoot? We have seen this for years in the UFO community. Could it be that these people just like to argue and fight on the Internet? Maybe in some cases. Could some of these debunkers be hired or work for some disinformation or discrediting agency? I think it is possible, it was done and now admitted to, in the UFO community. Watch the movie Mirage Men, it tells about it.
Now, here is my pitch of a TV show idea - We get a judge, a jury, and some lawyers and put Bigfoot on trial. We have the "Skeptics and Debunkers" Vs. the "Believers and Researchers". Both sides would present evidence, witnesses and experts, the jury would come back with a verdict, is Bigfoot Real or Fake? I'm sure the answer would be "The jury finds that there is sufficient evidence leading to the conclusion that Bigfoot is indeed Real!" Sounds like a good show to me. (I'll take a 20 Percent lifetime royalty, please)
I guess in the end it really don't matter, at lest to me. No amount of doubt, belittling, debate or skepticism could ever change the fact of what I have found and encountered, Bigfoot is real.
It also does not change people who have had a real Bigfoot sighting. They, like me, don't really care who believes them or not. They know what they saw and you could never change their minds.
One thing about it, the Bigfoot community is full of the wild, the wacky and the wonderful. Just pick a side. You're gonna love it!
[Sources: firearmsid, Wikipedia]