Bigfoot's Playground Rules

I find that the largest of groups where Bigfoot interest is topic have certain stipulations that hinder members from allowing their Bigfoot thought process to roam free. I know what you're thinking. The fantastical sort of roaming. The kind that leads to Bigfoot being every type of being imaginable. Actually, that isn't wasn't what I'm talking about. Free roaming to the extent of invisible but just a notch before non existent are these group's business in some cases. 

Even not so large groups that conduct serious, scientific discussion sometimes have the same cut off. 

I'm looking for something more and I'm afraid I won't be finding it. I'm not at a level of understanding that ushers me to the front of the line. It's quite opposite. I've found that all of my previous understandings and free roaming thoughts on the subject have been deemed null and void. I'm fine with starting over, I just have no idea where to begin again. 

I can appreciate enthusiasm, but I'd also like grit. I'm a fan of independent thinking, but I also need grounded. I am all for like minded, but I want the truth. 

If in the grand scheme of all things Bigfoot there is a harsh, underlying tone that disrupts the fantasy, I want it. I want to discuss or watch it be discussed beyond literal disgust. I don't want a cutoff. I don't want a regulated line of black and white questioning that can't be surpassed because it might offend the understanding of others. 

My intentions are never to offend, but we should be in constant motion. Our thought processes anyway. I see no reason why anyone should have come to an ultimate conclusion. I've changed my mind a million times. I find it funny how those who do not believe in Bigfoot are often dubbed closed minded when in reality those doing the labeling have been closed off themselves. 

So, I guess my plea is for the gates to be opened and restrictions to be lifted. I understand the consequences of this action. I realize we'll be open to a lot more claims of the egotistical, the imaginative, the compulsive, etc., but if you think about it that's who's running the show, unhindered,  presently. By loosening our muzzles and harnesses a bit we may be able to sift more quickly through the blah aspects skirting the issue and delve further into the heart of the matter. Really get in there. 

Everyone put their nonsensical, playground rules to the side and get dirty outside the fence. Guaranteed, the kids who jump that fence come back with far more insight and intriguing thoughts to add to those who stay contained in the squared off confines of the schoolyard. 

Do You Even Skunk, Bro?

I've noticed that there seems to be somewhat of a prejudice against those who don't actually conduct field work. As though unless you actually spend time in the woods you're not really permitted an opinion as far as commenting on evidence presented. 

It seems unfair because in reality I have spent time in the field. 32 yrs to be exact. In those 32 years I could have been absolutely dedicated to finding a kangaroo or evidence thereof. No matter how much I wanted it to happen, it never would have. Well, with the exception of a zoo visit. But I'm talking in the wild. 

If I'm not making sense yet, good! You're getting a dose of your own medicine. Lol. 

In my 32 years in the field I've seen deer on many occasions, raccoons galore and an occasional opossum. I've seen a skunk twice. I believe I've smelled them several times, but I can't say that for certain.  I don't care if you don't believe me, it's true :p. That's a skunk. A scientifically documented member of the family mammalian. Twice. Now, I've also had two believed bear encounters. Once I believe I witnessed actual hindquarters crossing the road and the other encounter I'll keep to myself because there is a 0.00002% chance it was a Bigfoot, if they exist, and if it was, that moment in time belongs to me. I can't go back, I can't research it further, I can't prove or disprove. 

So, I've witnessed many animals during my years in the field and guess what? I couldn't tell you shit about them. I witnessed skunk twice. I don't know where they live, what they eat, what their preferences are, temperament, mating seasons, territory radius, height, weight, etc....

See what I'm getting at? Surely I could research and find out, but we're going based strictly on sightings/encounters. 

For me to spout off my skunk encounters and encourage people to follow me and support me in my research efforts would be odd. Right? For me to offer up knowledgable theories to those who haven't seen a skunk would be odd. Right?

For me to condescend those who don't believe I saw two skunks by challenging them to go out and find a skunk of their own or inquiring about their daily activities would be odd. Right? 

For me to find evidence often because I've had two sightings would be odd. Right?

I believe in skunks! Scratch that, I know skunks! 

*This posting has absolutely nothing to do with skunks of the ape sort. No names were changed and any similarities of my skunks and the skunk ape were purely coincidentally and truly unintentional.

Tree Breaks

I could go the rest of the year without hearing about tree breaks being associated with Bigfoot. Unless, of course, in addition to the broken sapling you've evidence also of footprints, lifted fingerprints, found hairs or a splinter believed to have been dislodged from the hand of the Bigfoot who twisted the tree itself within the immediate area. Which I'm sure you do. 

To be so closed minded as to come across a broken limb or tree and auto assume it was Bigfoot is beyond ridiculous and a waste of time if neither of the former pieces of evidence mentioned are also present. 

If you're under the impression that Mother Nature herself doesn't live by the rule of "I brought you into this world, I can take you out" you're sadly mistaken. There are a number of naturally occurring acts that could be responsible for snapping a tree. Even if it's 6" in diameter. By overestimating the power and strength of Bigfoot you are underestimating the power and strength of nature and that, to me, seems very contradictory. 

Once again, irresponsible and leading. Stick to the facts and by those understandings we can eliminate fiction. Everyone loves a good fairy tale. 

No Comment

I must get this off my chest. For if I don't, I may explode.

While making my rounds through various FB Bigfoot groups last week I found myself among a couple posts that caught my attention. So, like I do, I jumped in and commented on the topics posted. I had had a recent "hey now" moment concerning some of the goings on in the community. I happened to be in an unfamiliar group (strike one) and I happened to have an unpopular opinion concerning the topics (strike two) then I commented (strike three). 

Had I known the outcome beforehand I may not have offered any comments at all. But I'm glad I did. You see, my experience was cause for yet another change in my Bigfoot direction, if you will. 

I tend to try to humorize when it's unnecessary and in this particular instance my attempt at humor only dug me deeper into the ill reception that I couldn't grasp. I was not treated badly, I was simply brushed off as a silly, ignorant, newbie, bully skeptic. :) I kinda liked my new title. But I couldn't fit it in my non existent resume. 

I've commented similarly in other groups concerning other topics. Usually it was an opinion that went with the grain. You know the posts. A bunch of trees claiming 20 creatures, an ultra pixelated blob squatch, etc. etc. You see bullshit so you call it, "Bullshit!"

The difference in this case was that the bullshit I saw was the product of a more highly regarded research group (if there were four strikes in baseball this would've been it). What I didn't realize was the picture was not up for discussion and the majority had already decided upon its validity based on the presenters alone. 

My bad. I commented away unaware of the other's standing. I was being held at bay with promises of "wait and see". I was slightly condescended with offers of my own ignorance and shortcomings, to which I owned. Even though I led with the headings of no disrespect to the men or their work, just a simple distaste for the image, I became the enemy. I found it funny actually because my intentions have never been harmful or disrespectful. 

I went against the grain, purely by accident. And I'm so glad I did. I got the chance to see things from a different perspective. I got the chance to see what happens if you threaten to take away the fibers that weave this Bigfoot together. Again, not my intention. It was one piece of evidence and not a very good one. I'm not sure why it was held to so strongly, but I can't Bigfoot that way.  I'm glad that I still have the ability to separate myself from bullshit and have a clear line of sight into this never ending sea of info. 

Having friends is fine, having favorites may be harmful. If you are okay with celebrating less than mediocre evidence don't complain when you're sitting in the same boat 20 yrs from now. If you're going to be a part of a fan club hold the superstars responsible for their production. If they release a shitty album, say so. If they're offended rather than motivated there may be an issue.