I am fascinated by mysterious things. I love finding mysteries in history, mysteries in science, mysteries in music, mysteries in art, basically... I like mysterious topics. I have liked mysterious topics for as long as I can recall. I remember hearing UFO, Ghost, and Bigfoot stories as a very young kid, and I'd often check out such books from libraries when I was in elementary school.

Now some people may have their skeptic brain kick in and immediately call me a quack, or an idiot for even considering such things...

I've often wondered why...

Source: giphy.com

You see science is great at PROVING THINGS if they can be measured. It is not particularly useful for proving or disproving things it cannot measure. In fact, there is no clause or step in the scientific method that states because something has not been measured it does not exist. This would be foolish as there are many observable phenomena that we have not managed to properly measure and they are purely hypothesis (aka speculation based upon observation) at this point.

So there is a common mistake people make. They say something SCIENTIFICALLY does not exist based upon lack of measurement, repeatable observation, etc. Yet this is NOT scientific. Science is great for PROVING things that we can measure.

What is my point? Lack of measurement or proof does NOT instantly mean something does not exist. It also does not mean it does exist. It is a hypothesis/speculation based upon observation.

Source: giphy.com

The next step of the scientific method is to determine something testable to prove the hypothesis. Testable should also be repeatable by others. Yet that requires a way to measure, or capture the information. Many topics cannot proceed to this stage simply due to us not yet having a way to measure a thing. That scientifically does not mean they do not exist. It also does not mean they exist.

Scientists embrace hypothetical concepts like Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity Waves, etc as being plausible before they have been measured. This is usually because they help balance out the equations. If the equations don't balance then that means there is something wrong with them. Theoretical Physicists will hypothesize solutions that can explain the oddities in an equation. If we're lucky we'll eventually measure these things and prove their existence. This has happened in the past and I have zero doubt it will continue to happen.

So why is their resistance to hypothesis surrounding UFOs, Bigfoot, Ghosts, etc? There are many recorded observations of all of these things from very credible witnesses. Yet these are things that people will gladly shield their mind and say with certainty "they don't exist" without actually having any proof to back that statement. Why are there certain topics that we throw reason right out the door when considering? Should not we give equal treatment to all ideas, and hypothesis?

Bigfoot

I wanted to talk about bigfoot as that is a topic that I see some common skeptical statements about.

"If it is real, then where are the bodies?"

The Mountain Gorilla was a legend reported by tribesmen until 1902. They are illusive and hard to track. They are also near impossible to find the bodies of. A German Officer, Captain Robert von Beringe discovered them in 1902 if we are talking about modern times and repeatable actions. The tribesmen knew of them far before that.

Finding bodies is not always as obvious as people think. It is also not uncommon for finding them to be difficult when dealing with some large primates.

Gorillas are interesting as we've found other Gorilla species since then that are not of the Mountain Gorilla variety. Did these things not exist until we observed them? Are people attempting to apply the Schrodinger's Cat hypothesis to cryptozoological animals?

Source: giphy.com

Silly TV Shows

"With all the silly TV shows hunting for bigfoot you think we would have found one by now if they were real..."

Watch one of those shows. When a person is supposedly on a SOLO night out investigating you'll get all of these amazing camera angles from far away, from above, from inside caves as the person crawls into it, etc. It becomes apparent if you stop to consider these things that these are not SOLO. The person is not holding a camera, they may have a camera it goes to some times, but there are always shots outside of what that person can do themselves with them. They may have sound booms and other things. The obvious thing is they are far from solo.

Source: CliffBarackman.com

When you have a team of them running around giving you the impression there are only 2 to 4 people there you'll see tons of camera shots from different angles. Again, they have an entire camera crew with them.

Then they also decide they need to do stupid howls EVERY single investigation they do. In the witness testimonies it is VERY rare to hear that the witness was howling to try to get a response. Furthermore, so many of the responses to that could easily be attributed to Coyote or other animals. Perhaps not all, but the doubt and veracity is still there.

Yet, if you think a big camera crew stomping through the woods, worried about whether they got a good angle or good shot is going to catch an intelligent animal then your impression/understanding of intelligence is far different from my own.

How Intelligent are they?

If these things exist how intelligent are they? I believe we make some assumptions. We assume because they are hairy that they are inferior to man. Somehow people think the presence of extensive body hair has something to do with brain capacity and ability.

For all we know these animals (if they exist) may be very intelligent. They may not choose to approach the world as we do, but in some areas they may be more intelligent than us. We make a lot of assumptions.

What if they don't exist?

It has not been proven they exist. So it is possible they don't exist. When I say PROVEN I mean some replicable way to prove it. This is required to go beyond the hypothesis stage. This does not mean they exist, and it doesn't mean they don't exist. Neither state has been proven. There is enough observational and physical data that exists that it is actually probable that in many of these cases there is something to them.

To prove it we will need something observable, and repeat observable. This could be capturing one, or it could be finding a habitat that consistently reveals observational moments that allows many independent observers to verify it on different occasions.

Source: Uncyclopedia.com

This has not happened. IT also is not likely to happen with some large camera crew, and howling yahoos trudging around.

Personal Opinion

I believe there is something to them. I believe that something does exist. I've been hearing stories about them since the early 70s. My mother and her family would travel to Oregon in the 60s, and she remembers their family being turned away from a camping spot with broken picnic tables by Forest Rangers who stated that the park was closed and that there were recent bigfoot sightings. So I heard about this from my mother in the early 70s. That fascinated me right along with my fascination for dinosaurs and sharks.

Source: youtube

Source: Affinity Magazine

Long before this reality show movement I collected some strange stories from remote parts of Colorado that I lived in. There seemed to be some indicators something was out there. I lived in one of the least populated counties in the United States with heavy forestation, and within a short distance from multiple 14,000+ foot mountain peaks... rolling canyons, mountains, and massive amounts of forests with tons of Elk, Fish, Deer, Bear, etc.

Source: SummitPost

I'd have a few personal encounters with both bear, and Mountain lions (aka Cougar) growing up. Some of them precariously dangerous.

I never encountered a BIGFOOT, but I had some stories from friends that they couldn't explain, and one person did think they saw something like that running across a meadow high in the mountains as they were driving along a mountain road up there.

Do I believe they exist? Personally, I believe there is something there. I do believe that many of the accounts could be false identification of something else, but some of them I believe may be legit.

So how would we catch them?

The same way you hunt any animal, intelligent, or otherwise. Attempt to mask the scent of man. Most animals have a good sense of smell. The average soap covered man/woman is pretty obvious to animals from a distance. If they smoke or do activities that also cause other scents to cling to them then this is even more of an issue.

Source: Field & Stream

Don't act as an alien to the environment. Act like you belong there, rather than simply being a visitor. If the animals think you belong there then they are less likely to be skittish around you.

Keep notes, journals, and be meticulous on how you proceed. Minimize the size of your group, and be consistent. Listen to the activities witnesses were doing, and try to do similar things. Don't bring your own bias and preconceived ideas in and start howling and expect that to work.

Source: LoveThisPic

These are intelligent animals, and with the popularity of the reality shows we have people howling in the woods all over the place. As an intelligent animal that'd tell me these days where NOT to go. Furthermore, there are so many howling yahoos if you get a response to your howls there is no guarantee it is not another group of howling yahoos howling back at you.

Open Mind

I keep an open mind and don't close it simply because I DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE something. Truth and Facts really could care less what I want or don't want.