Okay, I’ve been on this site for 30 days and I realize that this is a kind community and able to discuss topics respectfully.
My position on Bigoot is not belief driven. Science is my primary way of knowing the world and I find beliefs to be too expensive for scientific thinking. How can you argue with a belief? Also, you can’t prove a negative. Therefore, I find myself curious about the topic of Bigfoot, even if the current scientific paradigm ignores it.
Let’s be honest about Bigfoot experiencers. I divide them into 3 categories:
Hoaxers - straight up fakers
Honest mistakes - it can be easy to misidentify animals in the woods. Bears for example. They probably are mistaken for Bigfoot quite often. But this group of people are honest brokers. They are not liars, just mistaken.
Credible sightings. These come from ppl who are trained observers or are credible members of a community that have a lot to lose as a result of disclosure.
Scientists. Like Jeffrey Melburn. He specializes in studying feet, can spot a fake track, and has discovered morphological distinctions between Bigfoot and human tracks.
It’s amazing how much Bigfoot is a part of Native American folklore. These people report having interacted with Bigfoot so much that he is a part of their folklore, legends, and totemics. The 1975 expedition near Mt. Saint Helens chose their research location by centering it in the middle of towns named for Bigfoot.
I love to listen to peoples’ anecdotal accounts of their experiences. There’s a lot of that on YouTube. It serves as as a form of folklore for me. Remember, there can be truth in folklore.
If anyone wants to disclose a personal encounter (maybe while in the woods growing weed) please feel free to disclose it. Based on the OG cultural norms you should be embraced, not ridiculed.
Let’s see if anyone is interested in this topic…