Bigfoot Research: Is It Okay To Defy Science? Just A Little Bit?
By Dorraine Alters-Fisher
When I’m conducting research, or simply thinking about it, and I come up with a new idea about how to do it, I often find myself thinking that if the scientists were here watching me right now, they’d be rolling their eyes.
That’s because it’s necessary to really think outside the box sometimes in order to learn anything new. And sometimes you find yourself doing some pretty strange things simply because this thought process has led you there.
But not all agree with this.
Science has their own set way of finding answers to questions. They let the evidence lead the way until they collect enough “facts” to prove the point to which the evidence has led them. It’s a very logical and concise system that sets the standard for everything scientists do. And it works…in that context.
But is that the only context? And what if we tried a different context?
I’ve taken a little heat before for challenging science a bit, and I get into a little trouble from time to time. But those of you who know me know I don’t really worry about that too much. Because some of the greatest knowledge and ideas we know about today started with someone imagining that the so-called evidence could be interpreted a different way.
And what the h--- am I talking about?
We’re taught that evidence is the vital element in finding the truth. And it certainly is. We’d be nowhere in bigfoot research without it.
But think about evidence for a minute. I often place quotations around the words evidence and facts. And that’s because, even though we’re taught to believe they are absolutely, unquestionably truthful entities, they are actually open to a bit of interpretation by the individual. How many people look at evidence and interpret it in a slightly different way than others that have looked at it? If you watch carefully, everyone who sees it will have a different take on it. And some will even reject it altogether. And that’s because evidence is, like everything else, open to the personal perception of the observer.
Bear with me while I attempt to explain what I mean. This is an example. I’ve talked to numerous bigfoot witnesses and people who think they may have them on their property who claim to mysteriously have fruit trees with the fruit removed from them to about 8 to 10 feet up. And the rest of the fruit on the higher branches is left unpicked. Now, if a scientist sees this and tries to solve the mystery of who did it, he or she weighs the visible evidence there (the missing fruit from the lower branches) and concludes that there are humans living in the area, and humans like fruit, and are capable of harvesting the fruit, and humans have been known to do such things before. So, therefore, it must have been humans that took the fruit.
Fair enough.
That’s a reasonable, logical conclusion…from someone who doesn’t necessarily believe in bigfoot. And if that scientist or any other person doesn’t believe in bigfoot, they are not even going to ask any pertinent questions in that context. Bigfoot has not been proved by science, therefore Bigfoot does not exist to science. So, as long as bigfoot doesn’t exist, then there’s no reason to believe that a bigfoot would have taken the fruit. So, the case is basically closed.
But if we’re a person that doesn’t believe in Bigfoot but, by some miracle, boldly decides to make a broad leap of faith and imagine that bigfoot MIGHT exist, how might that change the nature of the investigation of the missing fruit? Doesn’t the interpretation of the evidence change quite a bit?
I think it does.
If you start out as a bigfoot believer, homo sapiens might be the first culprit on your mind, but our hairy friends in the woods, even though they aren’t confirmed real by science, might be our second guess. And that’s because we’re going into the investigation with our minds more open to other possibilities. It doesn’t mean we have to drink the kool-aid. It just means we’re open to the idea of taking a little taste.
And of course, the critics might say that, with that way of thinking, it might also be a leprechaun on a ladder taking the fruit too. But let’s keep in mind, there is absolutely no physical evidence of leprechauns, no footprint casts, and no records of sightings of any kind, let alone sightings that go back hundreds or even thousands of years. Do you see where I’m going with this?
It’s kind of like being a little crazy…in the most sensible way possible. That’s how breakthroughs are made. Just because science hasn’t proved something to their own satisfaction, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just means science doesn’t have its evidence yet.
Don’t let the negative side of the equation guide your research. Do it however you want, but try to keep your mind open. Follow the evidence where it takes you, but don’t stick to rigid rules. And don’t get so clouded by science that you shoot yourself and your research in the foot.
So many people involved in bigfoot research try so hard to stay on the side of science because they believe that science is the only thing that will make bigfoot credible, and that we absolutely must stick to the scientific method in order to be taken seriously. And there is some validity to that. But a lot of great knowledge over centuries has come to light through the work of regular people with limited education, but rather a keen, out-of-the–box- thinking mind, and good hard work. And they forced science and the masses to pay attention. And that could be you someday. And you’ll be up there with the forward thinkers like the young apprentice, Leonardo DaVinci and modern independent thinkers like famed anthropologist Jane Goodall who started her career as a secretary. Both managed to make their marks on the world in spite of the status quo of their times.
If you can simply imagine that bigfoot might be real, then it makes all the so-called evidence seem a little different, and it would cause us to investigate in a completely different way. It would take you in a different direction and make you rethink everything you’ve seen and heard in the back yard. Some very puzzling events of the past might finally make perfect sense. How can we possibly learn anything new if we’re not open to it?
Science’s method is to let the evidence lead them to the truth. But what if it really was a bigfoot that took the fruit? If we keep our minds closed and approach the situation without being able to imagine another scenario, we’ll be blaming the neighbors for stealing the fruit. And we’ll never evolve. The evidence in this case is open to interpretation. If our minds are open.
I think of all those years I hiked in the woods and saw things I couldn’t really explain but labeled them as human activity because Bigfoot was barely a thought in anyone’s mind.; barely the stuff of legend or even myth. So, how could I have possibly imagined another scenario? Everyone would have said I was crazy.
And they could still do that, but things are different now. Should we acknowledge science? Of course, we should. We need science. It’s our best friend in the quest for bigfoot. And our scientists are some of our greatest allies even though most remain very skeptical.
But there’s enough evidence for the existence of bigfoot for us all to be a little more confident in what we’re doing. So, in my humble opinion, it’s okay to defy science just a bit (within reason) and slip outside the proverbial box in order to take the research to a higher level. Thinking positive is key. Go ahead and do your research like you’re looking for something that we already know exists, and don’t worry so much about what science might think of it. Maybe someday they’ll catch up. ***************DAF
This Post By TCC Team Member Dorraine Alters-Fisher. Dorraine is a Professional Writer, a nature, wildlife and Bigfoot enthusiast who has written for many magazines. Dorraine conducts research, special interviews and more for The Crypto Crew. Get Dorraine's book The Book Of Blackthorne!
Posts
