About two weeks ago, I wrote an editorial about the Jacobs photos from Pennsylvania which show some kind of object which appears to some to be a primate, although some have said it is a sick bear with mange. The latter is the direction I lean in, but it seems like these photos inspired a lot of debate not only within the Bigfoot community, but also in all the major news outlets, including the AP, Yahoo! News, Fox News, MSNBC (Keith Olbermann even made it his number-1 story last Monday night, talking to Bob Kiviat, producer of World's Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed about the photos) and CNN. Our local newspaper on Halloween last week even put the AP story
in the paper (conveniently on the back page). My point is, why so much hullabaloo over some questionable photos which most Bigfooters and Mr. Jacobs himself are not calling Sasquatch photos to begin with? Why do we have to spend so much time on these trivial photos which will not prove anything one way or the other when we could be out looking for fresh evidence and absolute proof that there are hairy bipeds out there? The only place where these photos are being absolutely called Sasquatch is in a certain well-known organization which already put its foot in its mouth once with a video which turned out to be a hoax, and they are doing it again with these photos before checking out all the facts and taking measurements to approximate exactly how big the tree is in comparison to whatever is captured in the two images. I say that like the Patterson/Gimlin Movie, we put these photos behind us because they will never prove one way or the other that Sasquatch exists, and move on to other more tangible forms of evidence, something which will prove once and for all there are hairy bipeds instead of wasting blog space (or airwave space) rehashing this old story.
No comments:
Post a Comment