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.