|
Basically, the mystery has not been solved. Yeah, big deal, right? Where's Jimmy Hoffa? Who shot Kennedy? Who shot J.R.? (I never watched that show - they ever figure it out?) Where did the mullet come from? I suppose that I find it compelling because I've been interested in the subject for so long, and while the thing should have disappeared with other childhood fascinations, it seems fairly amazing that with the advances we've had in technology information dissemination in the last couple of decades, the question of Bigfoot's existence had become larger, not smaller. Part of the thing that keeps us from reaching a conclusion may be the disparity of opinions of what constitutes conclusive evidence. While nearly all skeptics, and quite a few advocates agree that only physical remains (body, bones, skin, skull, teeth, etc..) will fully prove the existence of the creature, and I myself basically fall into this category, how can anyone scientifically and categorically disprove that Bigfoot exists? I recently read "Bigfoot Exposed"* by David Daegling, Ph.D., an Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Until I read this, most skeptical arguments regarding the possibility of a Bigfoot creature were, to my view, incomplete and highly speculative. In fact many were, frankly, unscientific. I'm speaking of the type of stance that says "such a creature does not exist, because it could not exist", with little or no further explanation. Daegling's work is to date the most complete and structured denunciation of the possibility of Bigfoot, the animal, that I've seen. I applaud Dr. Daegling for taking the time and effort to address a number of points, which I'll skip for now. I'd recommend reading the book with an open mind. The author is courteous and empathetic to those who argue for the existence of Bigfoot, and deserves the same reprieve from those who disagree with his view. I'll admit that reading Bigfoot Exposed my view of the possibility of a physical Bigfoot species has been altered. A huge body of the material we see as evidence of the animal really can be explained as misinterpretation and hoaxing, and is scientifically not compelling. There is nothing to say that hoaxers are necessarily un-resourceful - the better the hoax, the more laughs (if humor is really what they're after...). Scott Herriott, a documentary filmmaker with a keen interest in the Bigfoot phenomenon, asks several of the people who appear in his film "Squatching"** to rate their belief level is on a scale of one to ten; ten being an absolute belief in the existence of Bigfoot, one being an absolute disbelief. At this point, I would put myself in the three to four range. With an awareness that there could be a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon without the need for an animal, coupled with my lack of personal experience with finding any evidence in the field or actually seeing one myself (not that this should mean much...I still don't spend that much time out in the woods looking...), I tend to see the subject as mainly a cultural and a social interest. One thing that I had thought previously to my reading Daegling's book, and was further solidified by his views, is that the absence of an animal does not make the topic uninteresting. On the contrary - the idea that we could have such a long standing and common cultural belief that there is, not just any monster stalking the darkness of the surrounding wood, but this particular being - who appears as both animal and man, and who is described with relative consistency over vastly different times, in far-flung geographies, by so many different cultures...that is indeed interesting! So why, then, is my belief level a few notches above a complete relinquishment of the possibility of a real animal? Why is anyone's? Getting back to my earlier question of how one can absolutely disprove the existence of something - we cannot, actually. The best we can do is to demonstrate beyond all likelihood that the perception of an object can be and probably is explained by other demonstrable possibilities. In my view, Daegling has done a better job of this than anyone else, however, for me his explanations fall a bit short of explaining the quantity of reasonably consistent anecdotal evidence coming from seemingly reliable witnesses. When I see reports of Bigfoot incidents involving professional Wildlife Biologists and Law Enforcement Officers, realizing that no one is completely absolved of the possibility of misinterpretation or error, I do give the benefit of the doubt about their ability to observe and recall correctly. Not all incidents are like this, but I find it odd that the reports continue to come in from people who I'm sure are sane and reliable people, if there is actually no such thing as a Bigfoot. The assertion that people's ability to recall incidents correctly is, I'm sure, absolutely true. I'm also certain that many of the fringe sightings we hear about are actually stumps and shadows, or animals and people seen from a distance, but I seriously doubt that all sightings can be explained by this. If a squirrel jumps out on the road and runs in front of your car, no one except the most afflicted acid-head would remember the incident the next day as an upright-walking eight-foot ape that strode across fifty feet of asphalt in four steps. I also doubt that reports of wildly strange behavior of domestic animals at night on rural homesteads, or inexplicable fear striking hunters and outdoorsmen with decades of experience being alone in the woods, are so easily explained with an "isn't the human mind strange?" sort of reasoning. While none of the anecdotes are scientifically provable, I still think that a number of them warrant being taken seriously.
**"Squatching", 2002, Film on DVD, Directed by Scott
Herriott |