What Would You Do If You Discovered Bigfoot??

Bigfoot Discovery - Autumn Williams, Oregonbigfoot.com

Discovering Bigfoot Part One: An Overview October 17, 2009

It’s 5:30 in the morning as I begin this post..

I should be sleeping, but I can’t. I have a busy weekend ahead, a busy day ahead today, and I’m tired… but this topic has been swirling around in my brain and I know that if I don’t start on this, I won’t sleep. I also know that if I go back to bed,  I won’t have a chance to write again today. Rowan wakes up early and once she’s up, I usually don’t get a chance to sit back down (which is the reason why the “daily” blog isn’t always daily!).

This will be a multi-post series, since there is no way that I can even attempt to cover everything I want to about this topic in one post. It’s multifaceted, multidimensional, and possibly one of the most in-depth discussions we can have about this subject. Rather than biting off more than I can chew, I’ll do my best to organize my thoughts and share them in small doses. I’ll try to link each post to those previous, to keep things in context and I’ll do my best not to jump around too much. Just know that as I share my thoughts with you on this, whether you agree or disagree with them, whatever I say is probably never going to be the final word I’ll have on the subject because it’s just too complex. As always, your thoughts and feedback are always welcome – and encouraged – as I make a meager attempt to address a subject as intense as this one and I’ll do my best to share my thoughts on your questions, concerns and opinions as we go.

Context. In the end, maybe that’s what it all boils down to.

The first question I ask myself is this: To prove, given the chance, or not to prove?

Please note how that question is worded. The headline that sets Bigfoot forums buzzing and starts flames wars is usually “To kill or not to kill”… but this topic, in my mind, encompasses more than that.

I’ve been doing research for 20 years now. I’ll be 36 on Tuesday. That’s more than half of my life. And I’ve been wrestling with this subject nearly  every day during these last two decades…

What, ultimately, would constitute proof? What would a “proof” scenario look like? Do we have the right to potentially destroy something simply to assuage our curiosity? What are the possible ramifications, on our world and theirs, of “proving” that they exist? Will proving THAT they are prove WHAT they are?

I know I’ve said this before, but I’ll reiterate it here: A body on a slab will tell us that they exist. It will ultimately prove THAT they are. But in the end, what will it tell us about WHAT they are?

Which question, really, would you like answered?

And if a body is acquired, will you or I ever hear about it?

That’s why the possible consequences to US  matter. Because those consequences will inevitably be taken into account by any agency or individuals involved in the dissemination of that information. Whoever has a body, or any kind of proof in hand, has the opportunity to make a bigger impact on this world than they may realize.

To kill or not to kill… is that the question?

Since this seems to be the part of the equation most often focused on, let me address this first so we can move on to the rest of it.

I have always been firmly against harming a Sasquatch in any way, shape or form Except, perhaps, in self defense – which would be a questionable scenario to begin with, since these creatures rarely seem directly aggressive unless stupidly provoked and whether killing something because you stupidly provoked it can really be considered “self defense” is another thing entirely. *grin* But I digress.

I don’t believe we have the right to “take a specimen”. Yep. I used the word “believe” and that’s something you’ll rarely see me do.

For me, it’s simply a moral dilemma. Over the years, I’ve listened to my peers in the research field talk about taking “just one” specimen to put the subject to rest once and for all. Often, somewhere within all of the initial bloodlust, there are vaguely altruistic murmurings about “proving they exist so they can be protected”. This strikes me as being very short-sighted. First of all, I’m fairly positive that “just one” wouldn’t be enough. Secondly, the idea that proving something exists will automatically cause us to subsequently “protect it” – with our track record as humans of destroying most everything we touch – is just… well, rather asinine and smacks of ignorance.

“What is it?”

“I don’t know! Let’s kill it! Wait… that sounded bad. I know: Let’s say we’re killing it so we can identify it and protect it!”

Asinine.

“But,” the doubters say, “how can you prove it exists without a body? How can you protect it if you can’t prove it?”

First of all, there are likely ways to prove it exists – at least enough to garner “protection – without a corpse or a captured creature. Second of all, who says we CAN protect them? Third, do they even NEED our protection? What would constitute “protection”?

We’ll explore these ideas in upcoming posts. Meanwhile, please share your thoughts with me. :)

Bigfoot Discovery Part Two: Winning the lottery October 18, 2009

Here I am, up at 6 a.m. This will be the last post for a couple of days… I’ve got company coming for my birthday weekend and I plan on taking a much-needed break, playing in the woods and generally just getting my butt out of this computer chair. The blog should be back online as usual on Wednesday morning. :)

If you’re reading this post and haven’t read Part One, please do so now to keep things in context…

In the last post, I touched briefly on the “To Kill or Not to Kill” topic. Before I go any further, let me reiterate that I am firmly of the no-kill persuasion.

That said, let’s carefully examine what might happen to someone who IS successful in “bagging a bigfoot” (as those who would so often put it, while I sit here and cringe).

Great. So you “won the lottery”. Now what?

It’s a popular idea that a dead bigfoot would bring millions of dollars. And fame. Well, gee… what’s the downside?

Consider this scenario (which is entirely fictional, of course, but is certainly realistic):

Josh is an avid hunter. He lives in Louisiana – land of the booger monsters. He’s bound and determined to bag himself a bigfoot, become stinking rich and go down in infamy as the guy who “proved” it once and for all. Hell, maybe they’ll even name it after him with one of those big, long scientific-sounding names, like Joshipitchecus Americanus.

Josh and his buddy Carl head into the swamp for the day. They’re good trackers and have been following this booger for weeks. They’re armed to the teeth, aren’t afraid of shit, and that sucker ain’t gettin’ away this time.

They hike two miles to the spot and climb into the deer stands just before dawn, high in the trees. They got here without speaking a word. They’re scent-blocked, covered in camo and don’t make a sound. Hand signals is all they need. They’re good at what they do.

After an hour or so, Josh hears something moving through the swamp, coming at a good clip on Carl’s right. He signals Carl that he’ll have a shot. In the gray morning light, he makes out a huge, hairy form moving through the cypress knees, almost gliding, making little sound as it moves through ankle-deep water. He waits. He knows he only gets one shot. He holds his breath as he pulls the trigger.

The shot hits its mark. Blood sprays from the creature’s chest; it’s a kill shot, just like he knew it would be. Some of those assholes on the forum said the gun wouldn’t be big enough, but he knew better. He lets out an exhilerated whoop as the giant body falls backward into the water with a huge splash.

“You got him! You got the sonofabitch!” Carl yells.

The morning is preternaturally still as they climb down from the tree stands, adrenaline pumping. They slowly approach the huge, hairy body lying motionless at the edge of the bayou, guns trained on it. Josh approaches cautiously and kicks one enormous foot. It’s heavy. Dead weight. Blood fills the dark, tea-colored water around the body. Its dark eyes are closed, the lips slack.

They just won the lottery.

Carl’s voice breaks the silence. “Um… now what, dude?”

The thing is massive. Maybe 800 lbs.

“Now we drag his ass out of here and call the press.”

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

It’s time for a little game called “choose your own adventure”.

Do Josh and Carl successfully drag the body out of the swamp? Or do they end up on a missing persons list because they didn’t see the other two creatures watching from the trees back there in the bayou, who charge in screaming with bared teeth – another 1600 pounds of righteous fury – as the men try to put together the travois?

Let’s say they manage to drag 800 pounds two miles back to the truck and somehow load the body in with Josh’s winch. They get the body home, buy a freezer (this is feeling more and more like the Georgia hoax fiasco all the time…), and stuff the body in. Again, the question is raised. Now what?

They’re in a hurry to make some money. Josh and Carl call the press. They tell CNN  that they have a bigfoot body on ice – a REAL one, not like them idiots from Georgia – and that CNN can have an exclusive on it for a million bucks. Then they call FOX News. They up the ante to two million and play the two networks against each other until they get to $3.5 million. That calls for a high-five.

The film crew shows up. Our boys, proud as peacocks, tell about how they tracked this thing and took it down successfully. CNN airs a full-hour special, the guys get paid, split the money and everything’s great.

Suddenly, Josh and Carl are rich. And famous. Every media outlet in the country wants to interview them. They become household names,  flying all over the country for interviews. Good Morning America. Letterman. The Discovery Channel has contacted them about doing a special; they want to bring in scientists to examine the corpse. The local university wants a look. Every individual bigfoot researcher in the free world is calling their home phone numbers, which were posted on a public forum fifteen minutes after the first CNN special aired.They’re overwhelmed within days and decide to hire someone to deal with all of the media contacts.

That gets expensive, but heck… they’re millionaires, and are being offered exorbitant amounts of money for appearance fees. One guy even offered to buy the thing for $10 million. Life is good.

Until the Feds get involved. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. The Department of Natural Resources. PETA. Maybe even the ACLU. The hammer of justice falls swiftly, and everyone has an opinion.

The men are arrested. Charges are brought against Josh and Carl for hunting an animal out of season without a license. Pending scientific study, murder or manslaughter charges may be brought as well. The body is confiscated by the government as evidence, and Josh and Carl find themselves posting bail and hiring lawyers. Self-defense is out of the question since they’ve already crowed to the world how they were out to kill the thing and made no bones about how their skills and stealth got the job done. The lawyers tell them not to talk about the case. So much for appearance fees.

Suddenly, there isn’t enough money in the world to get them out of this mess.

By the time all is said and done, Josh and Carl will wish they had never, ever heard of bigfoot.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

More coming soon. I’ll be back on Wednesday. In the meantime, feel free toemail me your thoughts. Thanks to each of you for your well-thought feedback so far! I’ll be sharing some of your comments in upcoming posts, so keep ‘em coming!

Bigfoot Discovery Part Three: “Proof” October 21, 2009

Thanks to everyone for the birthday wishes. I spent a quiet evening at home recording some new songs and I don’t guess I feel any worse for wear being 36 now. :)

Before we get started… please read through parts ONE and TWO if you haven’t already.

In the first two articles in this series, we talked about “taking a specimen” and what types of possible consequences might befall someone who was actually successful.

Today, I want to discuss “proof” in general.

What might constitute proof that Bigfoot exists? Surprisingly, I think the answer to that question is somewhat relative and begs yet another question: Proof to whom?

There are those who already accept the existence of these creatures – the vast majority of readers here will probably fall into that category. Maybe you had a sighting or encounter yourself (”seeing is believing”).  Perhaps your imagination was captured as a child by The Legend of Boggy Creek or the Patterson/Gimlin footage and it sparked your interest enough to cause you to look more closely at the evidence, or perhaps you know someone who had a sighting and you simply believe them. Or maybe you have an openly curious personality and just find yourself intrigued by the possibility. The fact is, people who believe in bigfoot… believe in bigfoot. Over the years, I’ve heard plenty of reasons why people do, and they’re generally pretty emphatic about it.

Conversely, those who don’t believe that bigfoot exists… don’t. Period. It seems to me that people who vehemently discount the existence of such a creature do so because they feel the need to. Maybe the idea of bigfoot existence threatens their “sensibilities”, their dogma – be it scientific, religious, or otherwise.

A skeptical hunter who has spent thirty years hunting the same woods and has “never seen anything like that” might feel that the existence of such a creature threatens his perceived knowledge about everything that’s out there. And maybe the thought of running into one just plain scares the daylights out of him deep down inside, so he discounts it because he’s a big, burly fella and skeptical anger is more comfortable to him than fear. (He’s woods savvy, and knows what to expect when he’s out there. Something in the woods that he doesn’t understand scares him and takes away his feeling of control.)

A skeptical scientist who is snidely skeptical, explaining that “there simply aren’t enough food sources available in the Pacific Northwest” in an attempt to close the book on the subject might feel deeply threatened by the idea that there are still things in this world that his many years of expensive and time-consuming schooling didn’t cover.  Accepting the idea that something like that exists, publicly, would threaten his crediblity. And therefore his ego. (It’s something he can’t control with hard facts and data and place neatly in a little box marked “Explained”.)

A skeptical, deeply religious man might discount the existence of Bigfoot simply because it doesn’t fit in with his belief system. (It threatens his carefully accepted dogma about how the world is and it scares him that there may be an unknown quantity out there that isn’t explained within the context of his belief system.)

In all three of these examples, it’s the UNEXPLAINED that causes the fear – and thus the carefully crafted yet vehement disregard for the creatures’ existence. Something that is unexplained – and therefore not understood – cannot be controlled. Fear begets anger. That anger might be expressed in many different ways:  “I been in these woods 30 years and there ain’t nothin’ like that out there!”, “”There aren’t enough food sources to support an 800 lb. primate in the forests of North America, therefore they simply cannot exist”, or “It doesn’t say anything about Bigfoot in the Bible/Koran/etc.” The words are different. The ‘logic” is different. The individuals speaking come from vastly diverse backgrounds.

But the fear is the same.

The point is that people who dismiss the existence of Bigfoot vehemently do so because they are threatened by the subject for one reason or another. Yes, I realize that’s a strong statement. And yes, I’m standing by it. *grin*

The other folks who “don’t believe in bigfoot” are simply ignorant of the subject. It’s not that they have a problem with its existence. They simply really don’t understand the subject at all. They disregarded it a long time ago based on what little exposure they’ve had to it – mainly tongue-in-cheek newscasters, misinformation in the press and a general disregard for anything but the smarmiest and most sensational bigfoot headlines in the mass media. “I thought that whole thing was proven to be a hoax years ago. Didn’t some guy come forward and confess to making all those footprints?”

But the root of the word “ignorance” is to IGNORE. It doesn’t mean there isn’t more information available. It just means these people aren’t paying very close attention.

And they are, very simply, not QUALIFIED to be skeptics. Your skepticism has no weight, no credibility, when you’re coming from a place of ignorance, disinformation and a lack of education to base your opinion on. But we’re supposed to have an opinion one way or another, I guess, about most everything and being skeptical is easier than getting off your duff and actually learning about something about the subject. And these folks honestly don’t care one way or another. iPods and Wii gaming systems and reality TV shows are much, much more interesting than the existence of a bipedal primate roaming around in the forests of North America. Woods that they’ve only seen on television. Bigfoot really doesn’t matter one way or another when the only wilderness you’ve ever been exposed to is a KOA campground.

So… what exactly would constitute “proof” for all of these skeptical folks?

Imagine the following scenarios:

A body is discovered. Scientists examine the body, determine it to be a North American bipedal primate of unknown origin. It hits the news.

The hunter watches with interest. “Huh. Well, there ain’t none of them things in MY woods. I woulda seen him.”

The scientist now accepts the existence of Sasquatch because it’s fashionable to do so. “We’ve determined that these creatures are omnivores and spend a great deal of their time searching for food.” He never mentions the fact that he summarily dismissed their existence based upon a lack of viable food sources, and hopes no one brings it up.

The religious man carefully places the creature in amongst all of God’s other “animals” and dismisses any possible evidence to the contrary – the same way he does when he sees a Discovery Channel special about evolution.

The Ignorants? They remain ignorant. “I thought they killed that bigfoot creature and dissected him.” Because in their minds, there was always ONLY ONE bigfoot and the subject is no more important to them now than it ever was. Back to playing Halo…

I strongly contend that skeptics are skeptics for a reason and even a body on a slab will do little to educate or inform those who have a personal agenda or choose to remain ignorant. Will the body on a slab REALLY “show all of the skeptics” and put an end to the mystery? In the end, who is the proof FOR? What purpose will it ultimately serve?

Bigfoot Discovery Part Four: Context and Celebrity October 22, 2009

In case you missed it… :)

Discovering Bigfoot Part One: An OverviewBigfoot Discovery Part Two: Winning the lotteryBigfoot Discovery Part Three: “Proof”

Today, I want to talk a couple of things that I feel are imperative to any discussion of Bigfoot “proof”.



Context

In 1967, Roger Patterson, with the help of Bob Gimlin, set out to film a bigfoot documentary in Bluff Creek, CA. On October 20, Roger took 24 feet of color film on a handheld 16mm Kodak movie camera that would change history for many.

While nearly everyone in the free world has seen the footage of the creature they filmed that day, striding up Bluff Creek, very few people have seen any of the other footage shot while the men were on that expedition. Why?

In his excitement over the “creature footage”, I think Roger Patterson made a very understandable, though very important, mistake.

The Patterson/Gimlin footage was not released IN CONTEXT. The creature  footage itself  has been played and replayed ad nauseum as a curiosity and the images therein have become synonymous with the subject of bigfoot. But the details regarding the footage – how it was obtained, what was happening at the time, what was done with the footage shortly after it was obtained, what the men were doing prior to that fateful moment – have been hard to come by.

BECAUSE THE FOOTAGE WAS NOT RELEASED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF AN EXPLANATORY DOCUMENTARY.

Had the footage been released as part of a full-length film detailing the backstory and profiling the men involved and their thoughts and actions on that trip, the public’s ultimate perception of the subject today might be very, very different.

Context – or backstory, if you will – provides a starting point for one’s ability to gauge the truthfulness and authenticity of a piece of evidence. The Patterson/Gimlin bigfoot has become the poster child for just about every print and news media dissertation on bigfoot, tongue-in-cheek or not, and the constant exposure has turned “Patty”, and bigfoot in general, into a bit of a celebrity. That’s not a good thing, Martha.



Bigfoot Paparazzi

In the last few years, I’ve experienced this bizarre phenomenon to a certain extent. I call it the Celebrity Swoon. *grin* It’s been awkward, to say the least, but it has given me an interesting perspective on the bigfoot phenomenon.

It started after Mysterious Encounters began airing. Suddenly, this girl who grew up in a town with a population of 210 people and had quietly been doing bigfoot research in her own backyard in Oregon was showing up two-dimensionally on people’s television sets all across the country.

Now, “Autumn Williams” hardly became a household name. Unless you were a bigfoot aficionado, liked watching professional bull-riding on OLN and your usual prime-time PBR schedule was rudely interrupted with “some show about Bigfoot”, or you were channel surfing and happened to land on it, you wouldn’t know me from Adam. Or Eve, rather.

But those people who found the show and tuned in regularly saw thirteen episodes of this blond chick running around the country chasing bigfoot. Everyone became intimately acquainted with the inside of my nose thanks to the retarded “backpack” cam they made me wear. Me and my deviated septum were blazoned across millions of TV sets in living rooms from Florida to Washington.

And something weird started to happen.

I first noticed it on the public bigfoot forums. People began talking about me as if I were some thing… not someone. The initial criticisms of  the show from the armchair quarterbacks were brutal. “Autumn Williams” was fair game, and it was hunting season. I read lewd comments about my physical… erm… “attributes”, snide commentary on everything from my clothing to my nose to my manner of speaking… Anything in the show that they didn’t like was my fault. I was the host of the show, after all – therefore,  I MUST have complete control over every aspect of the series. I was publicly tried and found guilty of being less-than-perfect in a hundred different ways. And how dare I be? I was on their televisions, after all, and only perfect people end up on television!

It was hurtful. I had been a member of these forums and these peoples’ peer in the research field for years and suddenly they were talking about me as if I didn’t exist and couldn’t read the horrible things they were saying. And I guess, in a way, I DIDN’T exist anymore. I had suddenly become two-dimensional. I was “different”. I was on TV. I was suddenly, as one guy put it, “Ms. Hollywood”.

After the initial hubbub died down, another aspect of the phenomenon began to take hold. People started acting… weird. They’d hang back quietly at conferences, staring at me, finally coming up with a permagrin and saying things like, “I’ve seen all of your shows. I can’t believe I’m meeting you. Will you sign this?” Or I’d call someone to discuss an issue they were having with logging in to their member’s account on the website and they’d say, “I can’t believe I’m talking to ‘Autumn Williams’!”

Egads.

I went from being publicly tarred and feathered to dealing with starstruck “fans”, all in the course of a few months. And I was completely bewildered. I was the same girl who’d grown up in a small town, the same down-to-earth, approachable, everyday person I always was.

But I had suddenly, in a way, become an “icon” of sorts. A two-dimensional creature on a film screen. A poster child for a cause.

Suddenly, I felt like Patty. And I didn’t like it one bit.

We are constantly exposed to celebrities in two-dimensional settings. On TV. On film. In papers, magazines and print. We “learn” about them through those two-dimensional means. And we think we know them. Their names become synonymous with what we think we know about them. The name “Michael Jackson” brings to mind all sorts of preconceived notions and connotations – some positive, many negative, but all are a conglomeration of what we’ve “learned” about that person through two-dimensional exposure. Did any of us really KNOW Michael Jackson? Has any one of us really thought about the fact that he would wake up in the morning, maybe rub the goop out of his eyes, pour a bowl of cereal and channel-surf, just like everyone else? It’s difficult to get past all of the sensationalism and picture him that way, isn’t it?

If I’ve learned anything about “celebrity”, it’s that it is somewhat uncomfortable and often dehumanizing.

You can tell when you’ve become a celebrity, because people seem SURPRISED to see you in the flesh, living and breathing, in a three dimensional “real world” setting. And they let you know they’re surprised. “I can’t believe I’m actually talking to you!”

It would almost be funny… if it wasn’t so damned creepy.

That’s why the paparazzi make the big bucks. It’s almost unfathomable that Britney Spears might actually drive through Taco Bell like everyone else. Capturing images of two-dimensional, celebrity ICONS doing everyday things in the “real” world is big business.

Think Bigfoot hasn’t become a celebrity? Isn’t Patty’s image instantly recognizable? What are we, really, besides a bunch of bigfoot paparazzi, running around with cameras trying to capture the “money shot” of this two-dimensional icon doing normal, everyday things in the “real” world?

What was Patty doing on that fateful morning? What had she had for breakfast? Where was she GOING when she was captured on film, striding purposefully across that sandbar? What was she feeling? Where did she sleep later on? What was she thinking about these two little hairless fellas who pointed those things at her and showed such interest in her footprints?

How would YOU feel if someone walked up to you and said, “I can’t believe you’re real!”?

Bigfoot Discovery Part Five: “Proof” without blood October 23, 2009

Discovering Bigfoot Part One: An Overview
Bigfoot Discovery Part Two: Winning the lottery
Bigfoot Discovery Part Three: “Proof”
Bigfoot Discovery Part Four: Context and Celebrity

Here’s where we’ve been, in a nutshell. I’m against taking a specimen for the sake of “proof”. I think that a corpse will create a whole host of potential problems for someone who acquires it. “Proof” is subjective: those who believe do so for a reason, and those who are skeptical are skeptical for their own reasons. Even a body may not change that. Evidence of any kind needs to be delivered in a thorough context. Bigfoot is a celebrity, and we are the bigfoot paparazzi.

Now… that last statement (and my entire rant about it in the last blog post) may seem like it’s coming out of left field, but I think it’s incredibly relevant.

Understanding the quarry

As any good hunter will tell you, if you underestimate the nature of your quarry, you’re going to come up empty handed every time.

When we view Bigfoot as a two-dimensional subject, when we fail to read between the lines and understand the nature of that which we seek, we fail to find it.

After 20 years of listening to eyewitnesses, studying reports carefully and having my own experiences in the field, there are a bunch of things that I’ve come to suspect about the nature of these creatures, their behavior, their attitudes, their lifestyle, and even their PLACE in the big picture. For reasons I’ll explain below, I’m not going to delve deeply into that subject. But what I will say is that I honestly believe (yes, I used THE word) that the vast majority of bigfoot researchers are searching for a creature that DOES NOT EXIST.

Come again?

It’s not that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. It’s that the creature, AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE MAINSTREAM RESEARCH FIELD, does not exist.

Does that mean that my experience has led me to suspect that bigfoot is some dimension-hopping, extraterrestrial freak of nature?

Nope. Not at all.

What it does mean, though, is that these observations – direct and indirect – have led me to an “understanding”, for lack of a better word, of subtle details that make all the difference in the world for those conducting field research.

Now, what does one DO with that information? Do you share it widely and hope that those who would use it would do so responsibly? Probably not.

And there, unfortunately, is the conundrum. For years now I’ve walked a fine line between sharing information and protecting these creatures. I want to share what I’ve learned, share the beauty and the mystery of the subject with those who will appreciate it. But at the same time, the last thing I want to see is a bigfoot’s body on a slab because of something I said or did. Would you publicize when and where a group of mountain gorillas are hanging out, and a possible means of approaching them, to a group of interested parties when many of them are self-proclaimed poachers?

Proof without blood

What will it take? Most people say, unequivocally, “A body.”

But what if I shared with you a videotape, digital quality, of myself or someone else interacting with a Sasquatch, IN THE PROCESS OF obtaining hair and saliva evidence? Not a shaky piece of footage, but a clear, lengthy documentation of the creature interacting with a human, taking food, and leaving behind physical evidence? In addition, what if there was a traceable chain of custody of that evidence and a DNA test that resulted in a primate of no known origin? What if, in addition, there was a close up of the foot, and casts of the tracks it made to be studied? What if that close-up of the foot were enough of a holy grail to validate Dr. Jeff Meldrum and a host of other scientists who have already stuck their necks out there on behalf of the evidence that already exists?

Would that be proof enough?

Evidence is evidence. How MUCH evidence would it take to constitute “proof”?

If this evidence were in my possession this very moment, what should I do with it? On which part of the line does that fall between educating the public, sharing information with those who care, and protecting these creatures responsibly?

I’ve asked myself these questions thousands of times, and I still don’t know that I have the answers.

Having that kind of evidence would be a devastating responsibility. Releasing it in the wrong way, or at all, could wreak havoc in any number of ways.  Is it really possible to second-guess every scenario, every potential implication on their world and ours?

If this evidence were available, would YOU want to see it?

Autumn Williams – Oregon Bigfoot

top of the page