Disturbing the Peace

In addition to stalking I've noted that researchers have a flair for dramatics. They wait until after dark, sometimes into the wee hours of night, and begin banging on trees and emitting blood curdling screams in an attempt to capture the attention of large, bipedal,hairy primates that supposedly populate the North American forests. 

I don't even have to say anything else. Let that sink in for a bit. 

Explaining Bigfoot Away

I think it'd be a whole lot healthier if people were to go out with an agenda to find no evidence of Bigfoot. I truly feel the concept of nature is being ignored and disrespected to a high degree. Many researchers are heading out with vast knowledge of Bigfoot activity they've heard or read about many times. I feel like they are aligning every natural happening with an association to Bigfoot. I'm not saying there is absolutely no Bigfoot activity but it appears there is too much being reported upon every return with too little basis to confirm. 

I'm curious which researchers would be willing to acknowledge that each instance of activity may be the cause of something else. I'm seeing this subject become a belief system and it's sort of scary. Open minded is being open to changing your mind when new information arises in favor of a likely, alternative possibility that may or may not coincide with your previously conceived notion. Also, I do not find explanation necessary. The need to find cause or reason for every happening, especially when it falls in favor if what you'd really like to be true, seems unrealistic. 

"Something Amazing, I Guess."

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YuWsa8IJblw

Recently I've been asked by a few different people what my agenda here in the community is. My driving force or goal. I don't really have an answer for them. I try to take a balanced approach and lend at least some critical/constructive thought to the many views and claims being offered. That approach has proven exhausting as of late, but I keep on driving forward. 

I'd like now to reverse the question to all of you. Where does your interest stem from? What is your driving force? What is your goal? What steps are you taking to properly achieve that goal? 

Bigfoot: Believers Only

I was aware groups like this existed. I didn't belong to any because I thought the name was pretty self explanatory. I left this particular group a few months back due to circumstances that I felt were touchy. The first being my non compliance. While skeptical by nature I still enjoy studying the info surrounding the Bigfoot subject. It's fascinating. But I'm not skeptic by definition given by some in the Bigfoot community. Here the word is a bad word and it describes a person who viciously attacks the idea that such a creature could exist and tears down or threatens the belief for innocent believers. That is not my game. In fact I'm just as hungry for info as those who've had a sighting/encounter or just have belief. 

Apparently the follow up to belief is all access pass to this type of group. It's a place where you are made to feel safe in your belief and free to ask questions without fear of backlash from those damn "skeptics". 

Somehow I was added back by mistake. I felt need to immediately post a thank you, but also let the group know I hadn't yet found belief. A few members seemed to think a skeptical view would be welcome so I said I'd hang out but I explained my purpose was not the vicious skeptic type. Then another member stepped in and stated that while I may be a nice person there is already far too much skepticism surrounding the subject, the group is more of a safe haven and perhaps not the place for me. 

I replied that a skeptical stance wasn't meant as a threat to belief and that it's sad that those in a position to gain an understanding or belief through the discussions are being turned away. 

Now, I don't really hold the subject in that high of a regard, it's simply an interest. So, I left on my own...again, as not to appear threatening. But I'm left to wonder what the point of this type group is. Is it to offer protection of belief? And in what way is that beneficial to the subject? I'm not upset, just curious. 

Bigfoot Community

I was ejected from a group today. It was a surprise banning. I appreciated the sentiment but was truly at a loss. I didn't even work a cuss into the conversation I'm assuming I was banned for. In fact, and this was since admitted by an admin them self, I had not broken one of the long list of Bigfoot harmony seeking, belief keeping, authority reaping rules that had been implemented approximately one year ago. So, I was left to wonder which part of my posting and comments had been deemed unacceptable and so downright futile it served as grounds for my removal and banning without any warning. And believe me this group is finely tuned and there is a process in place for hard core Bigfoot rule breakers. I think it goes

Warning, monkey pic, several more warnings, a million complaints to admins that a troll is ruining their belief, removal and finally a permanent ban. I got nothing. Not even a funky monkey. :(

Let's rewind. A few months ago I inquired within the group about their position within the community. Basically I asked if their name "Bigfoot Community" were an overall representation of the whole community and all aspects involved. Several members answered yes and conveyed that the group was pretty much an authority on the subject in all aspects. I left then and allowed them their ideals even though I knew it wasn't a true representation. 

I returned and left a couple more times without really following the flow of traffic within the group. 

Recently there's come an issue with others within the actual community attempting to make a play on the term community for their own Bigfoot groups. Apparently it's not allowed because "Bigfoot Community" group used it first and it will cause confusion among members. 

So again I felt compelled to question what the group felt their position was. Instead of asking I made it a statement. I was adamant about the fact that they were not a representation of the community as a whole. I said that the title belonged to researchers, enthusiasts, investigators, anyone with an interest and it was a falsehood for them to claim their group was the epitome of Bigfooting. (That's a loose quote) I was met with unhappiness, condescension and a ban. Not before making a few more observations like wondering if the group were concerned more with numbers, allowing only popular beliefs among the members, and ultimate authority. 

Yes, I know. It's silly as can be and yes I'm almost as ashamed of myself as you are with me. I'd had never delved so far except I'm a big believer in knowing your place. I'm not asking that you tsk tsk this group or even give this post a second thought. What I'm asking is to check in now and then and make sure new members to the actual community aren't being led to believe that this group is an authority on the subject. 

Disassembling Bigfoot Claims

I enjoy taking things apart and putting them back together. Usually it's a mechanical piece. Lately I've realized the same rules could, and probably should, be applied to Bigfoot claims. I'm sure in essence by delving into a claim we're taking it apart and putting it back together. We do this to learn the inner workings which are, in most cases, a very important part of the investigative process. 

Now, what usually happens when I dismantle a mechanical item is I find important clues and achieve a base knowledge of how and why it works. Then I reassemble the piece and try it out. Sometimes it takes a few tries to put it back together correctly, but with practice I usually restore it to it's original form. Sometimes it doesn't work when I get it back together, sometimes it does. Sometimes it's through fault of my own, sometimes it's not. 

Now that I'm no longer making sense, I'll stop here. I think my point was to disassemble claims, try to figure out the inner workings and see if it can be restored to the fully functioning original. 

Shake the Foundation

Is it unfair to analyze and find fault in a video that is shared within the community? I think not!

If your true intentions are to find evidence of Bigfoot and you think you have, I'd assume you were sharing to get feedback from others. 

I don't see that happening. What I see is thrusting, not sharing. Most who are producing video, photos, stories, etc aren't offering up possible evidence to be scoured over by those who are unbiased and otherwise emotionally detached from the claim. They're offering up truths. Their own ideals that mustn't be shaken. Information is not readily available and the claim wasn't shared at a point of ground breaking. It is being shared from the 51st floor of a structurally sound skyscraper. Its foundation is unwavering and you are free to do one of two things....accept it as truth or be thrown out by security. Because as well built as they claim the skyscraper is, all it may take is one slight shift in the foundation, a little too much pressure on a weak spot and that motherfucker could topple. That is not a risk these people are willing to take.  

Bigfoot Benchpress

When I begin an exercise regimen I do a very small amount of everything. I'm aware I could probably tackle 100 crunches on day 1, but instead I do 25. I do this because I'm also aware that 100 crunches on day 1 will make 100 crunches on day 2 less likely. Another thing I do is not expect grand results. Because I'm working at a slow pace I do not step on the scale on day 3 after I've completed my 29 crunches (add two per day). 

I think I've personally gotten ahead of myself in the land of Bigfooting. I've gone backward if you will. If Bigfooting were an exercise regimen I began at 500 crunches per day and have tapered off to 10 as well as becoming an unmotivational personal trainer for others interested in exercising. I sit flatly and lazily on the workout machines eating donuts and yell at them because they're being fat and lazy. So in my own way I've given up doing the work for myself and have demanded anyone who claims to have lost an inch to lose more. 

Perhaps tomorrow I will begin an exercise/Bigfoot regimen that is custom made for me. Maybe it will contain unconventional techniques and non traditional methods. I'm sure it will. Maybe I'll adhere to it. Maybe not. 

California Fruit Crate Label

So I'm reading Loren Coleman's 'Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America'

First I'd like to say I'm no longer put off by the title because I realize it does not necessarily reflect the idea that Bigfoot is truth. It's more a truthfulness of stories or ideas surrounding the idea of Bigfoot. 

Anyway, in one chapter it talks of Fruit Crate Labels. Apparently there are no known newspaper articles from California between the years 1900-1950. There were word of mouth and passed along tales but nothing recorded by newsprint. One thing that fell in favor of believed Bigfoot activity in California during those years was a Fruit Crate label. The company was California Giant (or just Giant) and it depicted a huge, hairy, humanoid.  One of the ways they were able to tell he was huge was because within the label the hairy guy was carrying a lettuce crate that depicted the exact label that he is featured on. Scaled against his smaller label it was thought he was close to ten feet tall and his feet maybe measured upwards of 24". 

Peddle Pushers!

There are facts in this world. So far Bigfoot isn't one of them. With that being said it seems strange that there are facts of their likeness surrounding them. They may not exist, but there is clear cut documentation of their habits. Ranging from habitat to diet. In some cases it's presumed. In others it's a given. There are people who've risen to the top of this rickety, old ladder and seated themselves firmly on a throne of unattainable knowledge. 

Recently I read an article listing the bigfooter's commandments, if you will. In it I realized you are only to state certainties when you have convincing evidence to support the fact and can identify the evidence while spewing facts. Also listed was a rule encouraging bigfooters to refrain from using terms like "possible" and "probable".

 Why? These two rules of research seem ass backward to me. I don't feel there has ever been an instance where stating fact was possible or probable. I do, however, find I would have been far more accepting if claims were stated as possible or probable. 

It seems to me that these rules are permitting heavy pushing as long as you're a smooth talker. You are allowed to sell Bigfoot but you must be super confident in your approach. You must not reduce yourself to doubt or allow your claim to be up for discussion. It's been stated with certainty, therefore, it is. 

Gigantobitchecus

Disclaimer* The title is a play on words in an effort to emphasize my feelings. No disrespect was intended toward the late giganto or their species. I'm sure they were a fine bunch and not bitchy at all. 

I just realized a majority of this community  is in the market for power. Not fame and fortune, but authority. Not the authoritative right to speak freely concerning a subject that very little is known, but the authority to rule. They simply enjoy being in a position where they have the ability to spew whatever garbage they like and then delete, block and ban anyone who crosses them. Or doesn't cross them. They sometimes reject another person with not much reason at all. At other times they quietly set upon their throne of judgement and oversee as peacekeepers. One minor slip up and you may be forever shunned. I've noted it a lot and find it absolutely hilarious. 

For a quick moment, well months actually, I was under the very naive impression that Bigfoot was the centerpiece of this community. Discussion of, debate over, hypothesis and theories of. Rarely is that the case. And when it is it's only available in certain places and in very short spurts. I've also found that most times when good discussion is proposed it receives far less attention than a post that instead offers an opportunity to analyze, rip down or tear apart another person. 

Ego is the centerpiece of this community and from what I see it has been for awhile. It's not a fight to the finish with the goal being Bigfoot. It's a fight to the finish where the ultimate prize is to be the last one standing.....all alone.....with not even one single Bigfoot for miles around. 

Bear Necessities

I've followed and followed up on a lot of different Bigfoot groups, researchers, claims, projects, initiatives, what have you, in the last few weeks. A lingering question of mine is how some of these folks happen upon Bigfoot activity quite often during their leisurely outings? I've no problem with their being well versed or experienced on the subject. In fact, I appreciate their gracious sharing of what they believe to be authentic activity. Whether they come across prints, structures, hairs, the creature itself, whether or not it's squatting, peeking, loping or casting stones. or they record howls, hoots, whoops or whistles in the night. Wonderful! 

Now my big question, why is it that while in these vast, forested areas, they rarely report stumbling upon the recognized species? I think it'd be more fascinating if they did. I mean, surely they're running into the more populated, officially recognized, well documented species within these habitats. Bears, moose, mountain lions, arctic hares(based on today's weather). At least evidence of them. You get me? 

I'd assume that any if those species along with many other would be easily accessible in some of these areas. More so than a large undiscovered primate. And I'm truly interested as some of these existing creatures are one the top reasons I keep my ass out of the woods. It seems pertinent that documentation be done to an extreme degree. Leaving out any other wildlife activity you may encounter seems hasty. It could be pertinent to your research. Unless you're only encountering bigfoot. Then it's fine to omit info on other various woodland creatures. At the same time it would appear odd that you only encounter activities that correlate with Bigfoot. It would seem you'd have a better chance of encountering the more populous species in average rather than the possibly diminishing, elusive, currently undiscovered species. 

So, if you are having run ins with what you consider to be the lesser impressive predators and forest foragers, please start including them in your documentation. I'm sure some folks would be very interested in those aspects of research as well. And at some point it may be crucial to your efforts. It's nature and you're in it. Tell us what's going on.