By Dorraine Fisher

Skepticism has its place in the bigfoot world. It keeps us sharp. It keeps us airing on the side of logic, and it makes us careful what we believe…and what we fall for. It IS important for us to understand all sides of the question. So skeptics play a huge role in the research.

But in the time I’ve watched this community, I’ve found a different kind of skepticism literally creeping into the cultural zeitgeist, threatening to tear at the body of knowledge we’ve managed to accumulate on the subject in a very short time.

The research is making a lot of progress whether any of us feels it or not. In spite of all the sensationalism of bigfoot TV shows, many more people believe now…or at least want to find good reasons to believe. So it’s our job to give them something they can hang on to. Because we need it too. But while the research is making huge leaps, and more observations are being made, and patterns are starting to develop, and the argument is becoming more heated. And the big question is: Just what are these creatures/ people we call sasquatches? And what are they really capable of doing?

To some, they are regarded as fellow humans. Others want to be able to fit them into a highly developed animal category that is completely separate from any other creature. And still others see them as simply highly intelligent primates.

Some regard them as incredibly skilled survivors, while others claim they have amazing, inexplicable, almost magical skills that rival any other creature on earth. And this is where the argument begins. This comes down to the logicians vs. the eye witnesses that claim they have actually seen them doing some really incredible things. At least incredible to those who have never witnessed them. So what’s the real answer?

What if the answer lies somewhere in the middle, and what if we’re missing the point because we’re stopping the conversation before it even starts?

We say we want the answers to our questions, but are we prepared for those answers? Or, more importantly, are we prepared to hear answers that don’t fit into our own framework of what we think these creatures/people should be? Are we looking for the real answers to our questions, or are we looking for the answers we like? Or the answers that fit into our sense of logic?

I’ve often said I have one big problem with logic and I’ll say it again. Logic, like everything else, is a matter of personal perception. Something only seems logical to us if it fits within a framework we personally know and understand. And every individual has their personal idea of what’s logical. And my problem with it is that it doesn’t allow for anything outside that box. It doesn’t allow for new thinking. It doesn’t allow us to have an open mind to new possibilities.

Science is very similar. Science is made up of a lot of factoids and theories. All subject to change periodically as new information surfaces. But one thing science is not allowed to do is to try to mold reality around what it already believes or what it wants to believe. It has to be open to new ideas. It has to be willing to say, "We were wrong before." And need to be open also.

So, that all being said, what if the answers to our biggest questions about sasquatch are answers that don’t quite fit into our framework of logic? What if the real answers are somewhere beyond that? Are we open-minded enough to accept those answers? Or at least to accept, albeit reluctantly, that there might be some truth in them? A truth that could be explained scientifically and logically with the addition of important details?

Because if we’re not open to some seemingly outrageous answers, and we shut down our minds and therefore shut down the conversation, I think it’s important to understand that we may be too busy being skeptical and we’ll miss some very important information. And inadvertently, we may miss some very important details in our research.

I think the time is finally here to stop calling people crazy for what they believe and start listening a little closer to what’s actually being said. Because I’ve talked to researchers all over the world and they’re telling me a lot of the same kinds of stories. Stories they’re being ridiculed for. Because the stories don’t fit into everyone else’s framework of what they think should be possible. Hundreds of stories, all similar. Could it be that we need to reexamine this?

At what point do we start listening and entertaining the possibility that we might be entering into uncharted territory with sasquatch? At what point do we tell ourselves that maybe we don’t know everything we need to know about the biological world? What if there’s a whole body of knowledge we haven’t even discovered yet? At what point do we start thinking it’s possible that we might be wrong in shutting down to other, possibly more unusual possibilities?

Is it maybe time for us all to shift gears on the subject?

The biggest complaint I hear from skeptics is that there is too much mention of "magical powers, fairies, and pixie dust" that seeps into the discussions about sasquatch. But let’s keep in mind how many things the ancients long ago deemed to be magic that were eventually corroborated and explained by science. And let’s also keep in mind that this science didn’t exist before that. And let’s keep in mind that science is also a work in progress. It’s considered right…that is, until it’s proven wrong.

So what if we just simply broke the fairy stories apart and determined what they all have in common and decide if there’s something in them we can actually use? Something that might actually advance the research? Why would so many people tell the same supposedly "crazy" stories, knowing full well that they’ll be ridiculed and called crazy and their stories wouldn’t be accepted.

But here’s my two cents: I think that the only way we can truly be logical, have an open mind, and do bigfoot research the service it really deserves, is to never, ever, EVER let our personal beliefs start an argument and shut down the conversation. What if we actually listened to the stories that are being told and, rather than shutting down, try instead to fit them into something that might be scientifically and logically possible? What if we lean on the side the positive? We might advance the research further than we ever imagined. Anything’s possible. And with bigfoot, I think we’ve only scratched the surface. ********DF