Confessions of a Bigfoot Junkie

Ramblings by a man who has spent the last 50 years contemplating all the unidentified hairy bipeds roaming the globe


Omigod...Creationist Museum Embraces Cryptozoology

Have you heard about the new Creationism Museum that is being assembled in Kentucky? I noticed that they intend to have a section dedicated to Cryptozoology. Does that make you nervous? It does me.

Evidently they like the things that monster hunters seek. The reason for that is the possibility of "living fossils" or other life forms that remain a mystery to science. You see, conventional science not only denies the existence of mystery bipedal primates and living dinosaurs, they tend to ridicule or demean those who dare to look into the possibility of such things. That's because the evidence for these cryptids is largely anecdotal. Creationists are hopeful the cryptozoologists are right, as that will prove conventional science wrong (Creationists claim that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together--contrary to the lesson in the fossils--and they figure a living dinosaur will make their case.) I think the scientific establishment needs to take heed, and change their evil ways.

People experience anomolous creatures all over the planet. Science denies these creatures exist. This creates a credibilty gap between the average person and our "scientific authorities." This can lead to a lack of confidence in the teachings of science and open the door to all sorts of weird belief systems and superstitions. Witness the use of crytids such as Bigfoot to bolster the concept of creationism! If anything, Bigfoot should be recognized as further proof of evolution.

A simple survey of the history of science shows that most discoveries of "new" animal species are preceeded by travelers' tales and the "mythology" of local eye witnesses. So why are so many scientists so extremely closed to the concept of studying these anecdotal accounts? This attitude transfers over to popular media: news anchors, not wanting to appear "unsophisticated," assume the wink, wink, nudge, nudge jokes when they report such stories.

I, for one, am darn tired of this attitude. Its this sort of thing that makes it so difficult for the amateur, volunteer seekers who do pursue answers to these mysteries, to get respect (not to mention funding). Isn't it about time to embrace anecdotal information as a viable starting point for the study of new life forms? Once the number of reports reach into the thousands and include physical traces such as tracks and scat, looking into the source of the reports certainly doesn't deserve the attitude exhibited by most skeptical scientists.


Mythbuster Challenge: Debunk the Bigfoot Debunkers

There’s a major ripple going through the bigfoot community (people who try to keep track of the latest BF knowledge) caused by the Mythbusters promo that's currently being aired on TV. You’ve probably seen it... a guy in a sasquatch suit speaking with a French Canadian accent reporting that no myth is safe (including him.) In case you haven’t seen it:

The BFRO contends that the Mythbusters will NOT attempt to debunk bigfoot, but they are shamelessly furthering another myth with the promo: The myth that bigfoot has been proven to be a hoax.

The program centers on two Hollywood special FX types who systematically test various myths or apocryphal tales by using technology and scientific experiments that either debunk or authenticate the “myth” of the week. They pretty much stay away from tales involving animal sightings because its pretty difficult to prove a negative. (And even if a particular photo of Nessie or Bigfoot is proven fake, the existence of the animal remains possible.)

But in the case of bigfoot evidence, there IS a current myth that has been perpetrated by a number of individuals via the sloppy work of the media. The fact is that the Patterson/Gimlin Film has never been debunked, even though a number of pretenders have made claims to the contrary, and the press has been remise in pointing this out. This is the single best piece of evidence for bigfoot and it is this footage (along with hundreds of footprints) that has gotten science to take a second look at the subject of sasquatch.

So here’s a challenge to the Mythbusters that is “well suited” to their techniques (pun intended). All they have to do is get a 1967 vintage gorilla suit and attempt to “recreate” the P/G Film by modifying the costume utilizing Patterson’s skill set and the tools and techniques available to him at the time the film was shot. (Don’t make a state-of-the-art 2006 Bigfoot suit and have a guy walk with an exaggerated arm swing and say that’s a match.) When they try to recreate what Patterson is supposed to have done 38 years ago, and fail, they’ll put and end to the “Its a man in a suit” myth once and for all. What’s more, with a tiny bit of research they can easily come up with evidence to debunk the Wallace and Chambers claims as well.


Confessions of a Bigfoot Junkie

Hello there in Bigfoot Land. This is my first test post. Since I spend pretty much 100% of my time researching and otherwise thinking about this subject I guess its time to get on a soapbox--so to speak--and get my spin in the mix. I'm not much of an HTML user, so bear with me as this blog progresses. I've lived in the Santa Cruz Mountains as long as the term "Bigfoot" has been in use by the media to describe unidentified hairy bipeds. I thought the last bigfoot sighting in this area took place almost thirty years ago. Not so!

Since the Bigfoot Discovery Museum opened in July of 2004 we've had dozens of sightings and encounters that have been reported from over 100 years ago right up to just a few weeks ago! Skeptics would probably attribute all the incoming anecdotes to some sort of mass hysteria caused by the opening of a Bigfoot Museum. No sooner does a local paper print a story on the new museum and BINGO... people suddenly see bigfoot behind every tree? That's what some skeptical, opportunistic anthropologist authors might suggest, but I think not.

When folks come in to report their encounters of the hairy biped kind, they're relieved to get it off their chests! (No, I don't mean the hair... I'm talking about THE STORY.) They're THANKFUL to us for "being there" to listen to their reports without treating them like a liar or a fool. If you give people an opportunity to come forward, without fear of ridicule, and share their "unusual" experience, they're anxious to do so. And we've heard 'em all. Bigfoot, ghosts, ETs and then some.

When somebody tells you the study of Bigfoot does not really belong under the rubric of "Paranormal" (usually because they fear the stigma attached to that term), I ask this question: Where do they put the Bigfoot titles in the bookstores? Under "Science" or "Nature"? No... they're listed under "Occult, New Age or Paranormal!" "Nuff said?