Skip to main content

“Bigfoot Deniers” - Are They Bad?

Image result for bigfoot not real

If you bring up the words "nonbeliever" or "skeptic" in most cryptozoology circles (though it seems Bigfoot in particular), you will be met with copious amounts of backlash. I recently saw something on this subject on the Crypto Crew website in a post entitled "The Bigfoot Deniers." In it, Crypto Crew founder/head Thomas Marcum went on a bit of a rank about those who will steadfastly deny that Bigfoot exists. He noted the many times he has seen people who don't think a gigantic, hair-covered man-thing walks the forests of North America have been on Facebook chat groups and the like and denied any possibility of Bigfoot existing. He quotes the commonly used "a hunter will say they are always in the woods and have never seen Bigfoot" and argues that, just because they haven't seen Bigfoot, that "doesn't make it any less real." Or does it?

He then goes onto the common believer argument that "they [nonbelievers and such] will not even look at the evidence." There have been thousands of footprint casts taken and thousands of eyewitness reports. Okay, then, why is that all there is?

Marcum argues that nonbelievers are only the way they are because they do not "know" that Bigfoot actually exists like witnesses and believers. But how can any of these people "know" Bigfoot exists if there is no scientific evidence and it has never been proven? Yes, there have been reports of strange, Bigfoot-like things in the United States for a very, very long time (and this is something I wrote about in my latest book), but it's 2018, the world is more civilized and technological than ever, and still, Bigfoot is the monster in the woods that can't be found.

I'd like to point out that Marcum's main argument against nonbelievers really can't help believers at all. People who don't think Bigfoot is real just think that because they won't look at the evidence, he says. But is the "evidence" for Bigfoot actually evidence? The answer - no.

Let's take a look as to why. We'll look at Marcum's two he mentions in his post - tracks and eyewitness accounts - and, I'll throw in the Patterson film as well, since it is considered by many to be the "holy grail" of Bigfoot evidence.

First, the tracks and footprint casts. Yes, there are many of them. And, yes, they are easy to fake. Some may argue this by saying "yes, but some of them are so anatomically correct that they could not be faked." Why not? Why couldn't someone use something other than the stereotypical "wooden foot" to creature a fake footprint? And so what if there are "dermal ridges" on the bottom that look different than human? If they are actually dermal ridges and are from something unknown, we still don't know what it is.

Second, eyewitness accounts. It has been proven time and time again that eyewitness accounts are unreliable and a witness's memories of an event usually differ from what actually happened. So, why are "eyewitness accounts" the main thing cryptozoological investigators point to as evidence when asked why this-or-that cryptid is real? "There's too many for them to not be an actual [insert favorite cryptid]," they will say. Yes, there are lots, especially Bigfoot reports, but eyewitness accounts are not accepted as evidence in any science. An eyewitness accounts is a claim that someone saw something - having nothing at all to back it up does not make it trustworthy at all.

Lastly, the P-G film, which I thought would be appropriate to add to this discussion. The film is often hailed as the best evidence ever for Bigfoot. And that is a very bad thing. First of all, it's been almost 51 years and no one has been able to conclusive prove or disprove the authenticity of the film. Sure, some have looked at it and said it definitely shows a real animal, but just as many others have looked at it and said it does not (and this applies to other cryptid "evidence" as well). As an example, on the series finale of Finding Bigfoot last Sunday, part was filmed at the 50th anniversary celebration of the PG film and it showed Bill Munns, who wrote a book saying the film was authentic, when he was given a talk on the film. He had gotten several copies and put them together to get a clearer picture. Everyone in the audience gasped and applauded. But Munns only made the picture a little brighter - and a tiny bit more clear - and that still does not prove whether the film is authentic or not.

I think the biggest problem I have with the P-G film is that it was taken over 50 years ago. Since that time, no one has been able to get a clear video of Bigfoot that is not a definite hoax. And this is what hurts the film's (and Bigfoot's) credibility the most. Now, almost everyone is carrying around cameras in their pockets (constantly) that are many times better than the one Patterson had that day. And yet, no one else has managed to get a clear video of a sasquatch. If Bigfoot were real and out there, you would expect that someone would have by now. But I'm sure some believer has very good reasons to explain why there has not been.

One last thing I'd like to point out is some thoughts from my friend and fellow researcher Colin Schneider. Regarding nonbelievers, he correctly points out, most are online trolls trying to get people riled up. And, lots of fighting takes place within the groups themselves over person differences. But this is all something people must get past if they wish to ever get real answers to this cryptozoological mystery, and others as well.

But, the fighting and arguing will go on. People will question the existence of Bigfoot and other cryptids, and believers will stick to their pieces of "evidence" that are not so, and in turn will not listen to what the skeptical people have to say because it goes against their beliefs, the same thing the get upset about other people doing.

I'd be very interested to hear my readers' thoughts on the "believers vs. nonbelievers/skeptics" debate, especially those on the believers side.


Popular posts from this blog

The Burrunjor - A Present-Day Australian Dinosaur?

Australia is said to be home to a variety of cryptid creatures, from the aquatic Bunyip, the man-like Yowies and Wakkis, and the thylacine. There is another, however, that could be considered stranger than all the others. Why? Because its said to be something that should have gone extinct 65 million years ago!

The creature in question is called the Burrunjor, and is said to be a surviving dinosaur. Now, before you think that there is no possible way the Burrunjor could be real, remember that there are sightings and stories of other dinosaur-like creatures from around the world - for example, the mokele-mbembe, kongamato, and others in Africa, "Mounatin Boomers" in the U.S., the Partridge Creek Monster, and more.

Over the years there have been many sightings and stories of the Burrunjor in Australia, including this one from Rex and Heather Gilroy from the 1970s:

"In 1978, a Northern Territory bushman and explorer, Bryan Clark, related a story of his own that had taken pl…

Some Thoughts on Alaska Monsters: Bigfoot Edition

So far, two episodes of Alaska Monsters: Bigfoot Edition have aired. Here are some of my thoughts on the show.

First off, let's start with the team, the Midnight Sons. There are a few new members on the team this season. The old leader, Little Bear, is gone, and now Crusty (the guy with the bear claw in his beard) is leader of the team. Other members are: Dudley (new guy), the team "forensic expert," Todd, the "trap engineer," Bulldog (new guy), the "survival expert," Rhett, the "greenhorn" (rookie), and of course Face, the "veteran tracker."

Compared to the AIMS Team of Mountain Monsters, Crusty is Trapper, Todd is Willy, Rhett is Buck, Bulldog would probably be Huckleberry, Dudley would probably be Jeff, and Face would be Wild Bill.

I haven't seen the first episode, "Bigfoot of the Arctic Circle: Siberian Giant," but I did watch episode two, "Bigfoot of Denali: Wind Walker" last Saturday. I actually though…

Mountain Monsters - Coming Back in 2018?

Destination America's Mountain Monsters was a huge hit when it premiered in 2013. It's had five seasons through last year.

Season 3 started a "Bigfoot Edition" and season 4 introduced a "rogue team." Last season focused entirely on this "rogue team" and ended with really no conclusion.

Over the past 2 Saturdays, some old season 2 episodes of Mountain Monsters have been playing in the evenings. Could this be a sign that the show might be back for another season this year, or does it have no meaning at all?

If the show does come back, where can they go? Last season made absolutely no sense at all and the whole thing was pretty stupid. If it does come back, I think they should go back to just monster hunting like they did in the first two seasons. Once they went to just "Bigfoot Edition" things went downhill quick.