Messing With Sasquatch

As reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel newspaper (6/9/2012), the Bigfoot Museum, the one located in Felton, California, is one of a handful of registered Santa Cruz county businesses under threat of the auctioneer's gavel for being delinquent in paying their property taxes. I didn't even know there was a Bigfoot museum, which saddens me because here I was going about my life thinking I knew everything when I actually didn't. My wife will no doubt rejoice to learn I was wrong. For once.

Something I do know is Bigfoot does not exist. I state this boldly, without reservation, based on the fact Bigfoot hasn't been proven to exist. This preface, by the way, is necessary to counter believers who point out the numerous, previously unknown animal species being discovered on a regular basis in places like remote rain forests. Apples and oranges, folks. I get that there are species of life yet to be found in the world. But there is a difference between a two inch arboreal frog living undetected in the tree canopy of a rain forest where people aren't and an eight-foot, foul-smelling, bipedal primate rocking your truck in a campsite in the middle of the night. It's also hard for me to buy into the notion of mysterious creatures living for hundreds of years in close proximity to modern humans that have not been killed or tamed, let alone have not been captured on a camera made with technology available after 1970. We have cell phones that can take clear, convincing videos of police beatings on dark streets, yet we can't seem to get a clear shot of some monstrous hairy fucker walking along the side of a highway? Something, I dare say, is amiss.

In hindsight, I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised

to discover that all of my pictures of the Bigfoot Museum

came out grainy and blurred.

I've driven by the Bigfoot Museum, but never set my big feet inside. While I'm sure the interior holds many curious "artifacts" supporting the theory that this beast lives, I don't know if my mind is open enough to a Bigfoot enthusiast's explanations of how there can be so much physical shit - literally, they claim to have Bigfoot feces - that can only be speculated as coming from the animal. Shit and hair and recordings of wild screams in the night and rancid smells and...nothing absolute. The premise central to the phenomenon is the "fact" that Bigfoot has yet to be disproved, therefore it exists. Bigfooters are good at doing this, as are Area 51ists, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists, people who work for SETI, and every known religion. That's the predominant argument. No one can prove Bigfoot or UFOs or a grassy knoll shooter or alien life or God doesn't exist, therefore...

The curators of local, tax-burdened Bigfoot museums are only running small chapels compared to the BFRO, the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, whose website makes you think they're like the Vatican. Similar to the catholic church, the BFRO is the "largest organization of its kind." Want to join? It's membership is strictly controlled via invitation, which to me means only die-hard cultists believers can participate. There's a mandatory initiation rite to test your faith expedition in locations where the group has had time to set up evidence the existence of evidence of Bigfoot has previously been found. And, oh yeah, send them an "organizational fee" of $300-$500 with your application.

Among other things, the BFRO investigates and classifies reported Bigfoot sighting/encounters. As I picked through the reports on their website, I became rather unimpressed with what I found was a common theme: the witnesses believed they saw or heard something they couldn't identify, and the investigators verified the witnesses believed they saw or heard something that couldn't be identified. One investigator began a report with "the witness is a close family friend...she is as candid and frank as they come." How's that for establishing credibility? If I don't know how credible you are, how does that make your witness credible? In the legal profession, that's called hearsay, which is inadmissible as evidence, making the report nothing more than a biased opinion. Overall, these investigators, based on how I read their follow-up reports, appear genuinely qualified as experts in the field of applying subjective language to possibly indicate that maybe an encounter of some kind could have occurred that might not conclusively disprove the probability an animal that resembles a bear, but isn't, is real.

The BFRO classifies encounters into one of three classes - A, B or C - based on this rather loose criteria:

Class A reports involve clear sightings in circumstances "where misinterpretation or misidentification of other animals can be ruled out with greater confidence."

Class B reports involve possible sasquatch observations "at a great distance or in poor lighting conditions and incidents in any other circumstance that did not afford a clear view of the subject."

Class C reports are "second-hand reports, and any third-hand reports, or stories with an untraceable sources" which have a "high potential for inaccuracy."

I found a noticeable omission here. There's no class for a confirmed sighting. If I devised a classification system for anything, I think I would have one designation that confirmed whatever it was I was classifying. Could be an oversight, or it could be that the BFRO doesn't want to show a statistical reference that consistently has a big "0" next to it.

The BFRO  and other Bigfoot organizations claim to have had successful expeditions, yet never produce anything concrete to publicly tout their accomplishments. They have thermal imaging and high-res video equipment, but all they provide are blurry, color shadows and a bunch of Blair Witch videos. I'm not impressed with unfocused snapshots, footprint casts that may be, strands of hair that could be, etc., I want something substantive. I'm not suggesting they go out and capture a Bigfoot, but you'd think with a state-of-the-art, motion sensitive digital camera and a case of Jack Link's Beef Jerky they could at least get a clear photo of it.

I'd like to believe Bigfoot is real, but I have difficulty with concepts where the only supporting argument is "you can't prove it otherwise," where any purported artifact eventually explained away is off-handedly dismissed with "okay, that one wasn't, but others could be." Believers will always find one more reason, one more answer, one more thing that can't be proved or disproved. And when they run out of reasons or answers or things, they say, "Obviously there's nothing I can say or do that will convince you, so let's just agree to disagree." No, let's agree there is something you can do to convince me, and that you are incapable of doing it. But Bigfoot organizations don't seem to be too inclined to take that next step beyond supposition. They seem content spending their time and energy arguing against the naysayers rather than backing up their own claims with proof. On the other hand, I have scientific proof Bigfoot doesn't exist: the mainstream (read: legitimate) scientific community doesn't care. If they did, you bet the bottom dollar of whatever government grant was available they'd be out in force. 

Regardless of how much is disproved, Bigfooters will always keep looking, probing, tracking, interpreting, justifying for the sake of their belief. While these people appear to be confident in the existence of Bigfoot, I have to think there's a part of them that doesn't want to know. It'd be like a kid finding out the truth about Santa Claus. I, for one, am glad Bigfoot doesn't exist. Judging by the way man has messed up religion and politics and Santa and just about every other social, environmental and existential thing he's been involved with in my lifetime - passively or actively - in the name of a belief, a Bigfoot would be better off.