Bigfoot: Flesh & Blood or Paranormal ?

Yesterday at our monthly bigfoot meeting we had a presentation by Eric Beckjord. As usual he spoke about Bigfoot being a shapeshifting, paranormal being. He talked about the various little pictoglphs that he says appear in the light and dark patterns on the hair of the subject in the Patterson-Gimlin Film. This lead me to question exactly why is it that Paranormalists and Flesh and Blooders have to be at odds in this ongoing quest to solve the mystery of global bipedal primates.

"If it's paranormal, do we need to use special tactics in our search for evidence?" I asked Mr Beckjord. "No," he replied, "we still need to find a property owner who is experiencing ongoing bigfoot events who is willing to share that information and allow bigfooters to camp out and attempt habituation." At least he doesn't advocate shooting one, but then what good would that do if it's paranormal?

Some people go out in the woods and scream or play alleged Bigfoot recordings into the night, in hopes they'll get a response they can record for posterity. Others go to areas where they believe bigfoot hang out and leave food treats to try and lure them out in the open over a period of time. Still others hang out in the woods in the dark, packing heavy artillary, hoping an unsuspecting (or perhaps previously habituated) bigfoot might come in close enough to be fired upon with the conviction that a bigfoot body will bring fame and fortune.

What's common to all these scenarios is that the basic methodology is generally the same. First you have to locate a bigfoot and then somehow document that you did so. So whether bigfoot turns out to be paranormal or flesh and blood, the methods of garnering proof are still the same. For this reason, I propose that arguing over issues like this are essentially a waste of time. So why don't we stop the bickering about what they might turn out to be and pool our resources to proove they're out there.?