Saturday, December 31, 2005
The Preponderence of the Evidence
Over the years, Bigfoot evidence has been collected all over the United States by different researchers. Hair, feces, footprints, even alleged blood have been collected since 1958. There have even been several films, most notably the Patterson/Gimlin film, but those are not really considered"hard" evidence. There was even a 2/3 body impression called the "Skookum Cast" that may or may not be from a Bigfoot collected in 2000 which has some very unusual heel impressions and even an achilles tendon. Most of the other pieces of evidence, according to the skeptics, are also not considered "hard" evidence. All of the evidence that has been collected has been deemed "inconclusive" or diagnosed as "unknown primate". Many believe this is because the evidence has not been collected properly and contamination risks are common. Many investigators do not use rubber gloves or tweezers or even paper bags (not plastic) to collect the evidence. Evidence collection should be conducted ala' C.S.I. because if the evidence is contaminated, the evidence will come out inconclusive, when we absolutely want to have good evidence that proves these creatures' existence. The Bigfoot field needs to get its act together and use better methods of obtaining evidence.
To satisfy the scientific community a hunter would have to kill one with a high powered rifle. In Skamania County in WA this is against the law. As Professor Krantz of WWU who has anthropologically studied Sasquatch, has stated one could be charged for murder. It has not been scientifically proven that they are intellectually categorized as human, but the obverse is that they are highly intellectual and probably superior than a primate. if one were to kill one suggest you cut off a hand,foot or skull and leave the back country immediately if you in fact get out of the back country. because they are known not to travel alone for any far distance, and they generaly travel a range of 5-8 miles home range and in a family of three. It is a shame that this is the way we have to "prove" something.
ReplyDeleteWe are not alone.