The Conceptual Bigfoot

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

by M.K Davis

 

Bigfoot shows, in recent years, have catapulted to the forefront of the public consciousness. What exactly makes Bigfoot such a focus for all the fanfare? The very subject of Bigfoot is one of very scant hard evidence. So…what is it that people are so enamored with?

 

Bigfoot has the distinction of surviving in two realms at the same time. The first realm is the realm of hard proof. While there is not a lot of hard proof, it is not without at least SOME evidence that makes a person scratch their head. Several films have been made with at least one showing some decent images which are good enough to determine that it’s either a Bigfoot or someone trying to look like one. In other words…not a mistake.

 

A second realm, where most aficionados and newbies are at, is the realm of the conceptual Bigfoot. Generally the less hard evidence there is, the more concepts flourish. A concept is simply an idea in your head about a certain subject. Some concepts are formed quickly and disappear quickly. Here’s an example of a concept. “Bigfoot are immune to snake venom.†Where did that come from? Well…how many Bigfoot have we seen dead from snake bite: “someone might say� Well…none actually. Bingo says the conceptual mind. But…how many Bigfoot have we seen dead from being run over by trains? The conceptual mind may deduce that Bigfoot will not cross railroad tracks. There is no limits to what can be learned about the conceptual Bigfoot, nor is there a limit to how wrong the concepts might be.

 

People, who are pursuers of the conceptual Bigfoot, tend to also pursue the more famous of the Bigfoot pursuers. Perhaps they feel that these people may be a link for them to the other realm of hard proof. “I’ll follow him or her because they saw Bigfoot, or, they filmed Bigfoot, or in some cases, they shot Bigfoot.†This has never proved fruitful, and in many cases leads to disappointment.

 

Sometimes the hard evidence spawns a universe of concepts. This is what has occurred with the Patterson Bigfoot film of 1967. Less than a minute of film has exploded into an ocean of concepts about what a Bigfoot is, how it lives, what it eats, and the list goes on for miles. Even the academic world has fallen prey to this type of thing. Here’s an example: “Bigfoot is a giant bipedal ape.†Why is that? “Because I see it in the Patterson film.†Can a concept be based upon a hard evidence event? Well…in some cases, but in most cases people are more in love with the concept than any hard evidence there might be. The concept that Bigfoot is an ape is an old one. When the Patterson Bigfoot film came along, people were so enamored with the concept that the film and the subject of the film was retailored to fit that concept. How was this done? By using bad copies of the film where 2/3 of everything on the film was ambiguous. Then an overemphasis on the person’s level of expertise and education was followed by session of training the mind to see the ape. In recent years, however, better versions of the film have surfaced and it has become apparent that the realm of hard evidence, at least for the Patterson Bigfoot film, does not lean toward any ape. All the tools are there to describe a human being. Large size does not disqualify it as a human, neither does unusual Body hair. All other features are there exactly as are the features of a human being. Anything beyond that is conceptual. Concepts should never trump hard evidence.

 

Science is the “truth…in it’s simplest form.†If a person tries to pass off a concept as fact by the over use of scientific jargon, it is a good sign that the person is enamored with that concept and is not likely to follow facts or even acknowledge them. They may even go as far as to try and destroy hard evidence so that their concept can flourish. They will indeed throw out the baby with the bathwater, and not even blink an eye. Beware of such ones in the academic field. They love to write papers and acquire grants. They are marching madly to nowhere. Don’t get in their way.________________M.K.Davis

[Old Dog]

In other words......we don't really know squat, one way or the other, about Bigfoot.  It is all just supposition on both sides of the fence.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Old MK has presented a few postulations that IMO sent him to the back of the rational credibility bus.  Yes it's true nobody knows anything and that hasn't changed in 100 years.

[hiflier]

Hello Crowlogic,

...Yes it's true nobody knows anything and that hasn't changed in 100 years.

Good to be reminded lest I get stupid enough to forget

[LeafTalker]

I don't think M.K. Davis is saying we know squat about Bigfoot. 

 

I think he is saying that certain people have fallen in love with the idea that Bigfoot is an ape, instead of a person, and they pursue this romance by overlooking the visual evidence to the contrary offered in the Patterson-Gimlin film: "In recent years, however, better versions of the film have surfaced and it has become apparent that the realm of hard evidence, at least for the Patterson Bigfoot film, does not lean toward any ape. All the tools are there to describe a human being. Large size does not disqualify it as a human, neither does unusual Body hair. All other features are there exactly as are the features of a human being. Anything beyond that is conceptual. Concepts should never trump hard evidence."

 

He is saying that even academics, who are supposed to be careful studiers of evidence, discount and throw out evidence right in front of them, if it interferes with their theses. 

 

He is kind of saying, Trust you own eyes. Trust the film. Do not be fooled by people who are pursuing money and fame by proposing theories that do not fit the facts as they appear in the film in front of you.  

[Old Dog]

^ Sure, we can lean towards human, or we can lean towards ape.  But taking all he has said in that piece, he is basically saying we know nothing for sure about Bigfoot.  Unless there is something I missed in the last few decades, what do we actually KNOW about Bigfoot?  We have plenty of theories and suppositions, but no hard facts as MK has pointed out.  I'm hoping that someday soon we will have all of these missing knowns.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The main takeaway is that false ideas that researchers in this field hold onto can get in the way of progress.

 

Here are some examples of questionable concepts:

 

"Sasquatch are a relic hominid"

"They exist only in the Pacific Northwest"

"They are endangered"

"No one has ever killed one"

"We won't know anything about them until we have proof"

[LeafTalker]

Old Dog, M.K. Davis is not saying we know nothing for sure about Bigfoot. Exactly the opposite. There IS something we know for sure, in his view. He is saying that what we absolutely DO know for sure about Bigfoot is that Bigfoot is human, and not an ape. There is no leaning toward one or the other. For him, the record (the Patterson-Gimlin film) is 100% clear that Bigfoot is human. 

 

He is trying to say, look at the evidence. Don't let scientists who are in search of fame and money fool you with their razzle-dazzle made-up stuff. That's all he's saying. 

 

And OntarioSquatch, yeah, that's pretty much it. Although again, Davis is bothered by a very particular questionable concept. But yeah, I'm pretty much in agreement that everything on your list is dead wrong, except for the first one -- because, to be honest, I'm not really sure what a "relict hominid" is. If one of the implications of the label "relict hominid" is that there are few to zero individuals still here in current times, that's clearly wrong. But from what I understand, they are certainly hominids, and they are certainly more likely (according to Lloyd Pye) to have sprung from (or be more closely related to) all the beings we've been accustomed to claiming as our direct ancestors than we are.   

Edited December 28, 2015 by LeafTalker

[Yuchi1]

First time I met M.K. Davis was on the (now infamous) Louisiana Hunt. He went into the bush with us that night after "the shot" to retrieve the body armed with a flashlight and camera. IMO, the man has stones the size of grapefruit and to the best of my knowledge and belief, always been truthful.

[LeafTalker]

I admire him too, Yuchi. He is smart and morally courageous. I'm glad (but not surprised) to hear that he is courageous in other ways, as well.  

[bipedalist]

Old MK has presented a few postulations that IMO sent him to the back of the rational credibility bus.  Yes it's true nobody knows anything and that hasn't changed in 100 years.

 

I loved his stabilization work on the PGF, not so much his massacre theory which took a lot of good researchers on a bozo bus ride including Bobbie Short.

 

I'll never forgive him for that trash, don't care whether his stones are of Rosetta quality, he flunked Bigfoot hieroglyphics 101 in my mind.  Of course, BF is not an ape in the tradition of an old world or rather new world monkey.  Even the ape-camp is fluid in this respect more than many will admit now. 

Edited December 28, 2015 by bipedalist

[Yuchi1]

IIRC, his massacre theory had some of its basis from conversations with Hoopa tribe members and others in the locale which indicated a commercial interest in potentially eliminating the "problem". FWIW.

[LeafTalker]

That's interesting, Yuchi1. I didn't know that. But it's certainly consistent with other things that are known about that event.  

 

Thanks for pointing that out. 

[Rockape]

 

 

 What exactly makes Bigfoot such a focus for all the fanfare? The very subject of Bigfoot is one of very scant hard evidence. So…what is it that people are so enamored with?

 

 

Believing bigfoot exists is more fun that believing it doesn't exist.

 

"I reject your reality and substitute my own"!

[hiflier]

Hello Yuchi1,

 

 

IIRC, his massacre theory had some of its basis from conversations with Hoopa tribe members and others in the locale which indicated a commercial interest in potentially eliminating the "problem". FWIW.

 

This has been my contention as well. The existence debate is one thing but for those who are proponents (or skeptics leaning toward existence)  this should be an unsettling thing to consider that may need it's own thread to discuss in greater depth.