Believing in such things as Bigfoot and UFOs carries a heavy price sometimes. There is a stigma that we believers have to endure on an ongoing basis. We are called crazy, nuts and are often ask if we are on drugs. It's not very pleasant to hear these things but it happens very often.

Recently, I had made a comment on a totally different subject and of course the first reply back was a degrading comment about me believing in Bigfoot and UFOs. It's like if you believe in those types of things, you can't have any opinion or knowledge about anything thing else. If you believe in that then you are just a dumb, uneducated person or you have some serious mental issues.

Read More

The Burden of Proof is a phrase that I'm sure most of you have heard many times. It is used in the court of law probably everyday. It is also used very often in the Bigfoot world, but before I get into some of that, lets look at what "Burden of proof" means.

The Burden of proof is a duty placed on a person to prove or disprove some stated or disputed fact. In the court of law, in criminal cases, it is normally the prosecution that has the burden of proof. In plain words, the prosecution has the burden (duty) to prove that the defendant is guilty of a crime. In doing so the person would get convicted of the crime. On some occasions, the defendant (the person accused of a crime) has the burden of proof. In cases where the defendant is pleading insanity, the duty of the defendant's lawyers is to present proof that the person has mental health issues.

If the prosecution can present their proof to the jury in a way that leaves no doubt, then the person is normally found guilty of the crime. The long and short of it is, the prosecution is accusing a person of a crime and must prove it. Hence, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty".

Now, lets take this novel concept over to the bigfoot world. It seems that if you have seen a bigfoot, have found things possibly associated with bigfoot, you get the ol "Burden of proof" phrase. So, for instance, you make a statement like " I seen a bigfoot carrying a live chicken", you will get the reaction that you must prove it. The problem is, the people who don't believe your statement, are accusing you of lying and asking you to prove your statement. They are acting like the prosecution, which to me, puts the burden of proof on them, not the witness. Beside, sometimes, there are things that you just can not prove when it comes to something you seen. The value of the witness comes into play. Is the witness a honest person, does the witness have a history of being truthful, in other words is the witness someone to be believed.

Some may say, "you have to be able to prove your claims", but sometimes it just can not be done when it comes to something you and only you have seen. There was no picture taken, there was no other witnesses, no evidence left behind. There is no way to prove it. Does that make you guilty? I don't think it does. The person or people accusing you has to prove you are guilty. They would have to prove you have a history of lying, or making up stories. Can they do that? For some people, yes they can, for others not they can't.

Now, for the sad part. The sad part and the one that hurts the bigfoot world in general, is not only that skeptic slam researchers and witnesses with the "burden of poof" phrase but other researchers use it. People and researchers who supposedly believe in bigfoot, run bigfoot groups and who do research, will slam other researchers and lay the "burden of proof" on them. Then the researcher who is sharing their research will often try to appease these so called fellow researchers by providing pictures, videos or witnesses. But, it is normally not ever enough. Now, I'm not saying accept all claims and never check into a person's story but some of these folks take it way over the line and try to tear down a person. In general, the people in the bigfoot world rip each other apart, all the while supposedly having a common goal.

In the event, that the researcher/witness does provide some type of evidence to strengthen their story, it is often rejected by these folks calling for the "burden of proof". Nothing seems to be good enough. Evidence presented is normally dismissed with claims of "they faked it". Well, prove they fake it. Present your evidence that it's fake. It is my opinion that some of these people ripping into claims, probably just do not believe that bigfoot is real at all, so nothing would satisfy them.

There seems to be a pretty large group of these people in the bigfoot community. Many are researchers themselves but seem to continually rip down other researchers. Then they high five each other and pat each other on the back to celebrate ruining someones reputation or claim.

Now, I'm not trying to be too hard on these folks who rip into other researchers, because I know that most of us have fallen into that trap at one time or another. But, at some point, we will have to raise above some of the antics going on in the bigfoot community and work towards our common goal.
A common goal of learning more about bigfoot.

I hear some of the claims being made, and no I'm not buying into it. But I can't just go barreling into someone because I don't see it like they do. It seems the wildest claims will still have supporters.

We would probably all be better off, if we would just share what we know, what we have experienced, what we have found, and what we have seen and see where all of it crosses and intersects. That would seem to be better than researchers ripping into each other over personal experiences. Its no wonder that some witness are reluctant to come forward, it is like volunteering to join in on a gang fight.

With all that said, and yes I ramble some, I think hoaxers and hoaxes should be exposed. But it should be done with some tact.

I'm reminded of a verse in the bible, that I will paraphrase like this " ... if this work is not of God but is only of men, it will come to nothing."  And so it is in the Bigfoot world, If a person is a hoaxer, or a liar, it will eventually come out and their research will amount to nothing.

As for me, all I can do is share my research, what I know and my opinions. I can't make you believe any of it. But what I know does not hinge on whether you believe me or not.                    



Thanks
~Tom~


This post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet



This post sponsored in part by

Read More

Really? is that Factual?

A favorite new phrase has surfaced in the world of Bigfoot skeptics when they present their arguments against the case for the existence of the creature. "Factual reality" is supposed to end all debate and bring reason and logic to the conversation. But the trouble is, given the nature of science, factual reality itself can’t possibly exist.

What is reality after all? Physicists are attempting to answer this question as we speak, while, at the same time, only creating more questions as they learn. But with the knowledge that’s available, it’s becoming clearer that reality isn’t what we think it is. Well, actually it is...but it isn’t.

But the one thing that is clear is that reality cannot be determined by one person or one group of people. Reality is quite a personal thing, unique to each individual human, and created by that person’s personal perceptions. Are you confused yet?

Imagine that two different people from two different walks of life board a plane. The plane crashes and one of those people is killed while the other survives. For the family of the person who is killed, the event is a tragedy. While for the family of the survivor, it was a miracle. The two families, having had different experiences of the event will perceive the event two different ways. Two different perceptions, two completely different realities. Therefore, there is NO absolute reality that everyone should be able to recognize because they have not had the same experiences.

Law enforcement is now forced to decide if eye witness testimony is dependable. If there were three eye witnesses to a particular event, when asked to describe it, each will give a slightly different story. A positive person will try to see the bright side. A negative person will perceive it as negative. And a dramatic person will see it as a terrible tragedy or miraculous event, nothing short of a miracle. Three people, three completely different lives, three different sets of perceptions describing the same event, three different ways. So who’s right?

Our personal perceptions decide. If we’re basically a positive person, we’ll believe the positive witness. If we’re a bit on the negative side, we’ll buy into the gloom and doom sided witness. And you get the picture. So who IS right? Well, nobody....and everybody. Depending on their perceptions.

One person cannot possibly understand another’s point of view, albeit reality, unless they’ve lived exactly the same life, had exactly the same experiences, and done exactly the same things. But many will argue their point because their reality tells them one thing. But they’re arguing with someone that has different perceptions and can’t possibly see that same reality. The can only see their own. How could they understand anything else?

So the term "factual reality" is an oxymoron.

And, now, what is a fact?

According to the Oxford dictionary a fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true."

There are a few things we can all accept as fact...for the most part. The sky is blue, the grass is green, etc. But after that there is a human problem with a fact. Who decides what is fact and what is not? Since a fact is also determined by personal perceptions of the interpreter.

Science is a well-respected medium of fact-finding, but it’s not flawless. It’s more of a collection of theories that are broadly accepted. Some things that were once considered facts, are now old wives’ tales. They’ve been debunked and replaced with the new "facts." Since new knowledge has replaced the old, was the old knowledge ever really a fact, by definition, in the first place? It was accepted as fact at the time, but science changes. What was considered scientific fact yesterday can very well change tomorrow. What some may have considered fact was nothing more than an idea that people aspired to. And when told something different backed by "evidence," they aspired to the new "fact." So how many things can we really determine to be fact? Almost nothing is cut and dry, folks. There’s all this gray area, and that’s where our hairy friends live.

So what about that "solid, factual evidence? That stuff that we can see and touch? Isn’t it a fact?

Sorry, but here’s where serious science comes into play: quantum physics. Matter, as we term it in science, is not solid. The chair you’re sitting in, the computer you’re working on, and everything else you see and determine to be real, they are not solid; not really. They are just masses of particles vibrating at a certain frequency. All those things you can see, taste, touch, and hold are not real in the sense you understand "real" to be.

So when we understand a little bit more about the real nature of reality, things start to seem a bit hazy and chaotic in the universe, like we have no control over anything, and that nothing is real at all. And it’s a bit scary and often hard for some to accept. Humans need order and structure, and they’ll try desperately to get it. So they’ll spin the whole idea of reality in their favor...just to make themselves feel better...or justify their opinions.

But here’s the interesting part. Humans are the ones that control reality. Each one of us individually creates our own reality as we go. We are the ones who bring order to chaos, and here’s how it’s known: Scientists placed photons, those little particles of light that everything is made of, inside a glass tube. As they observed the photons, they saw that they were chaotic, moving randomly and sporadically. But then they introduced human DNA into the tube. And when they did that, the photons suddenly became ordered. The chaos was ended. Something about introducing human DNA into the tube, caused the photons to start behaving differently. This suggests that human energy brings order to the universe.

Quantum physics has also found that matter behaves a certain way under normal circumstances. But it’s behavior changes dramatically WHEN it’s being observed by humans. Matter changes what it does when we’re watching it, as can be observed in Dr. Quantum’s double slit experiment at the bottom of this page.

But what does all this mean for the case for factual reality? It suggests that humans have a great deal more power over reality than we know. If matter, the stuff that makes up everything we see, changes when we humans are entered into the equation, what does that say? And if our personal reality is created by our very diverse personal perceptions, what does that say about reality? It says that we all see things a bit differently and that creates our own personal reality. And each and every once of us has a different reality that we’ve created for ourselves.

But what does this mean for the debate of the existence of bigfoot? It means that debate about the subject is completely pointless. Since reality is unique to each individual and there is no absolute reality, only individual perceptions, reality can’t possibly be debated. THERE IS NO SINGLE REALITY THAT EVERYONE CAN RECOGNIZE. We all have a different one. Period. End of story.

There is no right and wrong in the debate. Only different views, all which can be supported by some kind of evidence.

Bigfoot exists for some by way of personal perception (they’ve seen them for themselves) and is a myth for others...by way of personal perception... (they haven’t seen them and don’t recognize any evidence of them as being tangible). Those who’ve seen them don’t really need evidence to know they exist. And those that haven’t seen them need factual evidence based on factual reality that doesn’t really exist...or at least is determined by the perceptions of the interpreter.

So what are we left with? Nothing. Different perceptions, different ideas, different realities. 7 billion different, separate, unique realities worldwide.

Albert Einstein once said, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one." And that’s the point of it all. So we should all be more tolerant of others’ ideas about reality. Their ideas come from their own observances and experiences as your ideas come from yours. So IN REALITY nobody’s wrong. Chew on that for a while. *******DF






This post sponsored in part by

Read More

The Skeptic

Read More