Home

Six things a new BF Researcher should think about.

Details
Category: Uncategorised
Published: Friday, 03 January 2020 21:14
Written by Super User
Hits: 1180

This list was written by Steve Hyde quite a few years ago, and he has given the MABRC and the BFG permission to repost it for folks to read.

 

Six things a new Bigfoot researcher should think about by Steve Hyde I want to state right up front that I don't consider myself a particularly smart person or a very experienced researcher. I do however try to learn from observation and the successes and failures of others. If you're new to the field of Bigfoot research it's vitally important that you learn to develop this ability. You can learn a lot from watching what other people in the so-called "Bigfoot community" do, from what brings them good results and also what gets them into trouble. What follows are a few of the things that I have observed and learned over the years, and that you need to consider if you are new to this field. I hope that you will find them helpful. 1. BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE, HAVE A CLEAR IDEA OF EXACTLY WHAT IT IS YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH. It may seem an odd question, but now is the time to ask it. Just why do you want to go look for Bigfoot? Your answer may be that you simply want to satisfy your own curiosity, that you want to see it for yourself. That's fine. Or you may want to prove that it exists. That's fine too. But you need to ask this of yourself, because your answer will greatly affect how you go about the quest. If you only want to satisfy yourself, then congratulations! You're the one that will probably have the most fun doing this. Only you know what your standard of proof is and it can be as high or as low as you want. If you're out in the woods and see a strange shadow or hear an odd noise or see that faint mark that just might be a track and it makes your hair stand on end, maybe that's all that needs to happen for you to be convinced. That's great and nobody should have a problem with that. But you need to realize that your experiences are not going to matter to anyone but yourself. If you're out to prove the existence of Bigfoot to someone other than yourself, I'm afraid you have a much tougher journey ahead of you. It's no longer your own standard of proof that must be met, you must now meet the standard of proof of whomever you're trying to convince. Even if that other person believes in Bigfoot's existence in the same manner as you, he or she may not interpret your evidence or experience the same way you do. If you're going to prove the existence of Bigfoot to the world at large, you'll have to meet the standards of proof of the world at large, and the world looks to the mainstream scientific community to set those standards. And science demands concrete physical proof. If you claim to have discovered a previously unknown species of animal, you will have to produce substantial physical proof sufficient to be able to describe and classify it with scientific rigor. The only proof that will accomplish this is a body or a substantial piece of a body. Mainstream science has always demanded this, and it always will. You might as well get used to that fact now because it won't change, no matter how badly you may wish it to be otherwise and no matter how frustrated you may get at not being able to find it. Your only available options are to kill or capture one or look for one that died of other causes. Nothing else will do; not pictures, not casts, not hair, not trace DNA, not tape recordings, not film and not stories. You will discover quite quickly that the Bigfoot "community" is sharply divided between those who convey a willingness to obtain a specimen by deadly force and those who object to harming the animals on moral grounds. Although both sides can present good arguments to support their viewpoint, when it comes to proving the animals exist the researchers willing to kill or capture a specimen are the only ones who will have a reasonable chance of accomplishing their goal. Those who object to this method are left with the option of chance discovery of remains, the possibility of which is extremely remote.

2. BE WARY OF PEOPLE. YOU WILL LEARN MORE ABOUT HUMAN NATURE THAN YOU EVER WILL ABOUT BIGFOOT. This occurs in a number of ways. As with any group of people who interact with each other, there are always the fusses, fights and squabbles, the making and breaking of friendships and alliances. One thing you will learn is that the Bigfoot community is indeed a microcosm of society in general. Human weaknesses abound in this field. You will encounter the typical variety of ordinary folks, intellectuals, nut cases, pricks and morons. But there are some individuals to whom you should be particularly wary. There exists in the world a large group of people who think that anyone who believes in and/or spends time researching Bigfoot (or UFOs or paranormal phenomena) is by definition an idiot. There are a number of people within that group who decide to try and take advantage of the "idiots" by jerking them around psychologically for their own amusement. Look at any of the numerous Internet message boards and you'll see this happening. The most common tactic used is to bait someone into an exchange of personal attacks. This will quickly draw others into the fray, and any ongoing civil discussion degenerates hopelessly. The instigators usually try to portray themselves as believers of some sort, but it becomes apparent pretty quickly that they have little or no real knowledge of the subject. You will also encounter "eyewitnesses" who do the same thing. They will contact you and report a sighting or experience just to mess with you. The best policy is to blatantly ignore them. When they don't succeed in baiting you they will disappear. There are also a number of people who try to take advantage of the "idiots" by making money off of them. These people generally take great pains to elevate themselves in stature among the believers by constantly extolling their own virtues, exploits and discoveries but never seem to have any evidence to back any of it up. When questioned they become extremely defensive, almost to the point of hysterics in some cases. And they always seem to be trying to sell you something, be it a book, a membership to their organization, equipment, knowledge, merchandise, whatever. And cases of this are becoming more prevalent. Again, ignoring them is the best policy. As for the cynics (I differentiate them from mere skeptics), know that you will always have the advantage over them. It's very easy to be cynical, especially about a subject as elusive and complex as Bigfoot. Cynics think there is very little risk involved in taking their position, but there is one great risk. It is impossible for them to prove that Bigfoot does NOT exist; there is no practical way for them to do that. It is entirely possible for you TO prove it if it DOES exist, if you find that elusive body. Then you can pull the toilet handle and make them all swirl down into the septic tank of irrelevance, and the last word would be all yours.

3. BE OBJECTIVE. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A THEORY AND A BELIEF. People's ideas about Bigfoot are much like people's ideas about God. Each person has his or her own unique concept, and it will range from quite logical to seemingly drug-induced. I'm quite sure you have your own opinions about Bigfoot, but if you're going to be a good researcher you will need to consider your opinions in the light of theory and not of belief. The reason is simple; if you consider your opinions to be a working theory, then you can be flexible and modify or change your theory as necessary to fit the empirical evidence you gather and analyze. If your opinions constitute a heart-felt emotional belief, then you will tend to stick to that belief regardless of any evidence that would contradict it. At present my own working theory of Bigfoot is that it is a quite normal animal, a species of ape somewhat similar to the great apes we are familiar with. I call it a working theory simply because I conduct my research using assumptions I have made based on my theory. But I'm careful to keep an open mind and to try and be objective. If I were to come across good evidence that Bigfoot is a hominid more closely related to humans than the great apes or something else entirely, like the whole phenomenon is an extraordinary human hoax or some type of mass hysteria, then I wouldn't have much problem changing my working theory. But if I had a deep heart-felt emotional belief that Bigfoot was (for example) a humanlike being with near-human intelligence and I acted accordingly, my belief would constantly cloud my judgment and I could never be an effective researcher, even if my belief in the end proved to be correct.

4. ALWAYS QUESTION YOUR ASSUMPTIONS. Remember that all theories and beliefs are based on assumptions, some more valid than others. And it's important to question your basic assumptions occasionally. Most researchers automatically assume that Bigfoot actually does exist and that is always the first assumption in need of challenging, but there are others. For example, there is a popular theory that Bigfoot is (or is a descendant of) the fossil ape species Gigantopithecus Blacki. It's a perfectly logical theory; there is in fact a documented fossil species of large ape that is thought to have lived between 1 million to 300,000 years ago, and scientists have inferred from the fossils certain characteristics that match closely with the more consistent descriptions of Bigfoot. But there are some shaky assumptions involved. G. Blacki is the only fossil species of large ape we know about, but that doesn't mean it was the only species that ever existed. And we only have G. Blacki's jaws and teeth. No cranium or other remains have been found to date. In fact, the only thing we know for sure about G. Blacki is that it was apelike and had big jaws. There is also a popular theory that Bigfoot is a relic animal, an ancient species that somehow managed to survive the Pleistocene epoch and remain in its primitive form. This may indeed be the case, but on the other hand Bigfoot may be a species that has undergone as much or even more evolution in the last million years than we have. It may actually be a form quite advanced from its prehistoric ancestors. We simply don't know. But it shows that we must be mindful of the assumptions we make.

5. BE SKEPTICAL, OBJECTIVE AND REALISTIC ABOUT EVIDENCE AND KNOW ITS LIMITATIONS. We all get excited whenever we find evidence, especially if we think it's compelling or of high quality. You must realize that unless your find consists of a body, your evidence will be considered circumstantial. That is, the interpretation of the evidence depends a great deal on the circumstances of its acquisition; where it was found, how it was found, who found it, etc. and the predisposition of the interpreter to accept or reject it. We also have to be realistic about the possible impact the different types of evidence can have regardless of its quality. Footprint casts. These are probably the most famous pieces of Bigfoot evidence. This type of evidence tends to have very little effect in trying to prove anything because of the possibility of misinterpretation and of forgery. The ones with dermal evidence aren't really much better, since they can only further demonstrate what DIDN"T make the print. You can demonstrate that a human foot or a known ape foot DIDN'T make the impression by noting dermal or anatomical characteristics that are different from those feet, but you cannot adequately describe what DID make it. I personally don't think that footprint casts by themselves really matter much anymore, and I quit casting tracks some time ago. To me tracks are more valuable in context. I'm more concerned now with what they can tell me about where, when and why the animal goes on its travels. As you go in the field, don't be real concerned about bringing plaster with you. Except in very extraordinary circumstances casting tracks is a waste of time. You're better off learning how to study them in the ground. Photographs and film. Some very well known (to us, anyway) pieces of evidence fall into this category. They also tend to be the most controversial, and their actual value as evidence is hotly debated. You have the same problems here as with footprints since there is always the possibility of misinterpretation and forgery. As with casts, you can at most demonstrate only the possibility that something was indeed recorded on film. The Patterson film and the saga surrounding it should be an abject lesson to all those who think that film evidence by itself can be demonstrable proof of the animal's existence. It's valuable only if the person examining it is already predisposed to believe in the animal's existence. It will never constitute evidence to those who are not. If you are predisposed to accept it, film and video can be valuable. Much was learned about the animal's actual appearance and movement from the Patterson film by those who chose to accept it as genuine. So it is worthwhile to take a camera with you on your trips, just don't expect any real recognition to come from it no matter how good your results may be. The most you can hope for is to perhaps convince someone to pay closer attention to the phenomenon. Hair and trace DNA. I lumped these two together because they are both analyzed much the same way. They also have the same problems as the first two categories. At most, you can only demonstrate what it is NOT. Hair and DNA can only be tested by comparing them to known control samples. If they don't match to any known samples, then the result will be inconclusive. Think about it. The only way you could positively identify a hair or DNA sample as coming from a Bigfoot is if you had a known, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt sample of Bigfoot hair or DNA to compare it to. If you had such a substantial sample that it was known beyond all doubt to be Bigfoot then you wouldn't have to resort to the DNA analysis. The mystery would already have been solved by conventional means at that point. I always have to shake my head whenever I see or hear of someone chasing the unmatchable trace DNA in bits of hair and feces and the like trying to use it as proof, always to no avail. But I wouldn't tell you not to bother collecting this type of evidence, since it's as close as most of us will ever come to actually holding in our hands a bit of the unknown. If you're the sort who is into UFOs, it's sort of like going to Roswell and finding a sliver of metal in the side of that hill. There's no real way of knowing, but it could be. And that's personally satisfying for a lot of people. Anecdotal evidence. This includes eyewitness accounts and the second-hand stories that you always hear. Keep in mind that human eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, and no two people will describe anything, much less a Bigfoot, in exactly the same way. And since you weren't there when it happened, you not only have to deal with whatever facts the witness can give you but also the witness' own interpretation of those facts. Was it really a Bigfoot he heard screaming, was it really a panther, or was there really even a scream at all? Ultimately the witness might seem pretty sure, but you can never be. Two people may see the same animal at the same range at the same time. One will see a dark-colored animal with prominent ears; one may see a light-colored animal with no visible ears. The difference? Perhaps just the angle of the head and the angle of the ambient light on the hair with respect to each witness, which could be very different. The veracity, abilities and motives of the witness come into play too. For these reasons and many others, eyewitness testimonies and anecdotes are intriguing but not worth much in the way of solid evidence. They are often the only things you as a researcher have to work with, but your interpretation of them is entirely subjective and you alone have to decide how to act on them.

6. THE BIGFOOT MYSTERY IS SOLVABLE, AND YOU CAN BE THE ONE WHO SOLVES IT. If there is one great thing about the Bigfoot mystery above all other great mysteries, it's that it is within the reasonable capability of any ordinary person to decisively solve it. All it takes is to be at the right place at the right time and to be prepared. Think of all the other mysteries. Unless one crashed in my backyard, my chances of scientifically proving that alien spacecraft are visiting the Earth are pretty slim. I have absolutely no idea how I could go about scientifically proving the existence of a ghost even if I thought I knew where one was. I would have to live close by a large lake reputedly inhabited by a monster for it to be practical for me to try to find it, and even then the cost of the equipment necessary to make a realistic effort would be prohibitive. The sea serpent would be many times worse. I'm pretty sure some people will make the trip to Mars in my lifetime and I'm just as sure I won't be one of them, so I can't research the "structures" on Mars. Most all of the other natural and man-made mysteries always seem to be in exotic far-flung locales that I can't afford to go to, and the paranormal subjects are by their nature not scientifically approachable. But Bigfoot is different. Bigfoot is the only mystery for which there does exist some objective evidence to support it. That evidence indicates the presence of the phenomenon in places as far apart as Washington State and Georgia. If for the sake of argument we accept that evidence, then it stands to reason that it could be found in at least some areas in between. That means that the mystery is potentially accessible to a great many ordinary people. All they would need to do is think, study and plan logically, and occasionally visit an area that they think could be a viable habitat and be prepared for a possible encounter or to find evidence. Having a camera, tape recorder, sample bags and tweezers along with the normal camping and safety gear would be the only real necessities. Keep this in mind. There are people who have been actively in the field after Bigfoot for decades working in the best possible areas. What do they have? A few pieces of plaster, a hair or two, a few pictures and a lot of stories. Most of them still haven't seen one. I've been an active field researcher for about seven years. What do I have? A few pieces of plaster, a hair or two, a few pictures and a lot of stories. I do think I've seen one a couple of times, but I'm not really sure. Most all of the witnesses who have encountered Bigfoot weren't even looking for it. They were just out and about one day and there it was. So don't let all this "have to spend a lot of time in the woods and know all the secret knowledge and tricks" nonsense bother you. The real truth is that all that is factually known or reasonably speculated about Bigfoot to date can be learned in a few hours' reading. I don't know exactly what things it takes to find a Bigfoot, but one thing is obvious: sheer time spent in the field and lots of trivial knowledge certainly doesn’t seem to be among them. It doesn't matter how long you have or haven't been looking for Bigfoot; whenever you do go out there, know that you're on the same level as any of us. But above all, you should behave as if you always expect success. That way you will always be prepared.

The Bigfoot Field Guide Radio Show Archive

Details
Category: Articles
Published: Friday, 08 January 2021 20:17
Written by Super User
Hits: 107

The Bigfoot Field Guide Radio Show archives were lost when Talkshoe did an upgrade on their system, however, we have been able to recover all the episodes from my extensive data storage and with Don Lee's great help and have placed them here at the following link for now for those who wish to re-listen to the old shows.  

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1KsM0DwOUmmLQQjthl6VVlAEq-qbAWIhW

In the Shadows – Investigating Encounters

Details
Category: Articles
Published: Friday, 30 October 2020 06:24
Written by Super User
Hits: 856

One of the great opportunities a Bigfoot researcher can have, is to go investigate sightings and other encounters that occur.  In that capacity over the years, I have been involved in investigations of some really interesting events. 

      Perhaps one of my favorite investigations happened near Pumpkin Hollow near the Illinois River, in which a Chicken farmer, who had several large industrial chicken houses, had an encounter he would never forget.  It would seem strange with the number of chickens in a large chicken house to notice any missing, but this farmer had begun noticing that a fair number of chickens were disappearing.  After a week of this, the farmer was walking down the outside of one of the chicken houses when he turned the corner and ran smack into a Bigfoot carrying an armful of chickens knocking the farmer down.  Stunned apparently from being caught, the Bigfoot dropped the chickens and exchanged stares with the farmer for what seemed to be an eternity before scooping up several nearby chickens and heading off at a rapid pace towards the woods.

     The speculation was, that Bigfoot had been watching the farmer and his farmhands going and opening the doors, figuring out how to do it on its own.  Needless to say, the farmer sold his farm within several months and moved away, he continued to have bad dreams about the encounter.

     The wildest investigation I had done, was south of Stilwell where a local family had been encountering Bigfoot in the area and their sons had seen one down in a field behind their house.  My wife and I traveled up to do a night observation post in the field and was joined by the husband and wife whose sons had seen the Bigfoot along with their youngest son.  As it began to get dark, a large Bigfoot was spotted standing in the corner of the field with a night vision scope, only to duck down and make a lot of noise walking along the edge of the field in the woods.

     The couple with us had settled down to wait alongside us, with the wife playing on her cell phone, which lit her up in the darkness.  Presently, she began feeling something hitting her, and her son, thinking it was a bug flying around because of the light of her phone, went over to find it and remove the pest.  Instead of a bug, he discovered several “grass balls” laying at her feet where they had fallen after hitting her. 

     As investigators, my wife and I knew to watch the husband and the son to see if they were throwing them at the wife, just to make sure it wasn’t them.  However, now grass balls began landing nearby everyone there, and as we gathered them up, it was apparent that it wasn’t the family that was throwing them as we were all gathered around the small table looking at the collected grass balls when one came sailing in from above on us.

     Something was nearby laying in the tall grass throwing these at us, so after 20 minutes of these balls being thrown at us, I decided to walk into the field where I thought it was laying at.  As I neared the location, my wife hollered to me that a grass ball had just come from the opposite side of where we had been sitting.  Clearly, we had more than one individual throwing these at us.

     After an hour had passed by with no more incident, we decided to go home and come back the next day to see if we could find any sign of where the individual throwing at us would have been hiding and to look for more grass balls we might have missed in the dark. 

     Upon arriving the next day, it was easily discovered from the large grassy area that had been compressed from something laying on it, not more than 40 feet from where we had been sitting, that something had crawled up to that spot, covered by several large clumps of weeds, and picked the grass there.

     Having discovered this, we took several of the grass balls to see if we could throw them to the spot where we had sat at the night before, none of us could get more than halfway there.  None of us could also re-create the grass balls, including my 7-year-old grandson, who had smaller hands and we thought might be able to do it. 

     Was it a Bigfoot that was throwing these balls at us?  I can’t say it really was, outside of the fact that we had spotted a Bigfoot in the area just prior to getting these thrown. 

 

“While not actually a ball, these are some of the recovered “grass balls” from the night of the investigation.”

 

     While folks may see on Bigfoot TV shows where it appears that they have activity non-stop when doing research or investigations, please keep in mind, that researchers usually go for long periods of time with nothing happening.  Going back out to that location where the grass balls were thrown on multiple nights, didn’t provide any further activity.  Sometimes, a researcher will go months or years before encountering more activity.

     I hope you enjoy these articles, if you have had an encounter, please visit our website at www.mabrc.com and fill out a sighting report.  And don’t forget to attend the Oklahoma Bigfoot Symposium next March at CC Camp, where you can interact with the researchers themselves and discuss more about Bigfoot with them.

Let’s talk Bigfoot! - Sightings

Details
Category: Articles
Published: Thursday, 01 October 2020 01:49
Written by Super User
Hits: 2008

It appears there is no end to opinions to what an unknown critter called bigfoot is, let alone of what or does and does not do.  Where it lives and where it does not. Heck, there is not even an agreement of it is a naturally evolved critter or comes from ufos or another dimensions!

In this article let’s talk about sightings.

Some say Bigfoot can only live in the deepest most remote forests in areas that humans do not go so they can avoid them.  Ok.  Then how would there be any sightings?  People are not as a rule not in the deep forests.  We really are not able to survive out there as we have evolved not to have to.  I do agree that there are vast areas in the country and the world that man has probably never stepped.  Or if they did it was passing through and not living there.  There is a lot of documentation that shows that when critters are not used to having people around, they do not have a fear of them.  So, Bigfoot is in the forests to avoid people, that just does not make sense.   We all know that it takes a Bigfoot AND a person to have a sighting.  So, if people ain’t there Bigfoot wouldn’t even be known about. So apparently that is a false statement.  Now don’t get me wrong, there could easily be bigfoot in the deep forests, but without them being closer to human populations we would not have all the sightings we have each year let alone the any possible evidence for the existence of the critter.

One question I have always had is why wouldn’t a critter like bigfoot be able to live around people like all other forest critters do?  Pick a known critter that only roams the deep forest that has not been able to adapt to living around people.  Can you think of one?  I have not found one yet.  The many sightings each year seem to prove that bigfoot has adapted to being around people if not exploiting people as a lot of critters do.  Not that I believe that everything that people report as bigfoot is one.  Misidentifications happen all the time.  With Bigfoot being so prevalent in today’s society, it seems to be pretty common that when folks see something quick in the woods, they aren’t familiar with jumping to “it’s bigfoot” seems to be their thought. So, for those who are investigating sightings or trying to use sightings reports to set up a research area need to be skeptical.  With the hype on all the new TV shows exploiting bigfoot and all the sensational social media it would make it seem that bigfoot is seen more than mosquitos!  What else would be expect.

Anybody that goes camping or for a walk in the woods for the first time have all these stories of these fantastical experiences that they say is bigfoot.  Any evidence?  Did you see one?  Usually not but I read it or saw it on TV or Facebook and those experts say that is what a bigfoot does.  Then investigators give an eye roll and are declared to be assholes for not understanding.  So how can we use that as a sighting?  We cannot without a lot of investigation and skepticism. 

I wish people would quit lumping these types of “sightings” with true sightings or worse yet calling them misidentifications.  In my opinion a true misidentification is where one sees an animal let’s say it is a bear in a place where bears are not supposed to be and call it a possible bigfoot.  If they have been told bears don’t live there and they see a large black something a bear isn’t really a consideration.  I was told a story from a fella who said he saw a large brown bear walk out of the woods on two legs to cross the road but saw him on his motorcycle and turned and walked back into the woods.  The thing was huge said the fella at least 8-foot-tall and weighed 600 lbs.  Now I do know black bears are in the area but they sure ain’t that big.  And again, they are black, not brown.  Also bears do not walk on two feet with any fluidity especially when spooked.  Due to the details and it being within 10 miles of my main research area in Missouri, I honestly feel this is a misidentification.  Was it ever reported to any group?  Nope.  He said bigfoot is not real, so it had to be a bear.  Another sighting I was told about was a fella said he saw a bigfoot walking across this certain area away from the river.  All he saw was something black and big.  Could be a bigfoot, right? That is what the TV showed.  When going to the area and getting more details from the witness he said it was tall maybe 7-8 foot tall.  When it saw him, he said the bigfoot went down into 4x4 mode and headed back to the river.  Sounded interesting and we went to the tree line and looked for possible evidence of it being there.  At the tree line using a branch that he said he used to determine the height was measured and was only 6 foot off the ground not 8 foot like he thought it was.  People including me, a carpenter’s son, have a real hard time judging sizes and heights.  After realizing that the size was not as big as he thought it was, we looked for tracks if the critter left any in the sandy and rocky riverbed.  He found one and said it was proof that it was a bear.  The claws were easy to see in the one good track that was in sandier soil.  He apologized for as he said it wasting my time.  I assured him that it was not a waste as we both did some learning and made a definitive identification.   Here are two cases where they are both misidentifications.  One who knows bigfoot ain’t real and one who wanted bigfoot to be real.

I know some skeptics believe all bigfoot sightings are misidentifications.  I do not think that is even remotely true.  Most of us have had folks report to us that they thought it was a certain critter was this until it did something that the critter you thought it was could not do.  The one I was told early in my bigfoot investigating years has really stuck with me and is a good example of the other side of the misidentification coin.  There was a farmer who moved his herd of cows from a pasture on the east side of the road to one on the west side of the road.  Two day later he was on his way to check the herd when he saw what he thought was a big black cow in the east pasture.  Being a bit ticked off that she went back to that pasture and knowing he would have to move her again he pulled into the gate to the east pasture.  He got out and was opening the gate, looked over to the cow again that was headed towards the woods at the north end of the pasture.  All a sudden this cow stood up on its rear legs and stepped over the fence and walked into the woods on two legs.  It was not until then that he realized that this big black thing was not a cow.  This fella has lived in this area all his life and worked these pastures, roamed the woods, hunted the land, and had never even considered that there was a thing like bigfoot.  He actually thought people who said they saw them were mistaken on what they saw or was just plain crazy.  However, after this experience he began to question some of the odd stuff that has happened in years past.  Could that be the reason why the cows go through so much feed in the east pasture verses the others?  Was this the reason when he had to buy 4 salt blocks in two weeks just to find 3 on the wrong side of the fence close to each other in the woods during deer hunting a month later?   Of course, those answers are just conjecture with no proof.  Needless to say, this man’s world has been turned upside down.  He looks a lot different at things that he used to think he knew so well. 

So, misidentification in sightings is a two-sided coin for the investigators and researchers.  One size does not fit all like so many parts of life. 

Another thing that makes sightings difficult is that no two people see things the same.  Whether it is hardened researchers or a people that never gave bigfoot a thought.  Each sees things a bit differently.  One of the on-site investigations I did was with a family that had a sighting.  Three teens had a sighting a ½ miles from their house.  The two boys were deeply affected.  The younger of the two was so scared the other two had to literally drag him back to the house.  I talked with each of the boys separately and was amazed at the differences each had from the same sighting.  The older boy was amazed at the muscles in the thigh was so huge and was breathing really hard.  Other than a bit startled he wasn’t too affected.  The younger said the eyes were big and mean looking, heard what he said was it growling.  Both saw the critter from about 20 foot coming up a finger from a holler and when it saw them it turned and went back down the holler from which it came.  Both said it was dark brown, not black, and was huge.  So here are two witnesses that saw the same critter, and both saw different things of that critter.  The third person was a cousin that had went back home after spending the summer there, so I didn’t get the chance of talking to her.  Each with having the same experience with both boys being affected so much differently. 

It has been pretty much proven that when people see something that is so distressing three things can happen.  Fight.  Flight.  Or Freeze. I do think this also can be why we get some people that have a sighting it is so easy for them to turn to the ideas that the critter disappeared or cloaked.  How many times do we see someone close their eyes or cover their eyes during scary movies or traumatic events?  Seems like a natural involuntary thing for people to do in a lot of cases.  When they regain a little composure and open their eyes, it’s gone.  Either vanished or just see the brush and grass moving as they hear it leave the area.  If one is open to the paranormal it would be easy to contribute it to something fantastical rather than a very human condition in dealing with things that scare us.  It always amazes me; you can have 10 people see the same thing and each seems to have focused on something different of the same event.  Our minds apparently are incapable of processing 100% of an event especially when there is some sort of stress involved.

Even as researchers we are not immune to that condition.  We plan and spend a lot of time trying to condition ourselves in how we will react when and if we happen to see one.  Guess what?  When it happens, truly little of our plan goes as we thought it would.  I can only use my experience as an example.  I have been lucky enough to have 4 brief the longest maybe being 3 seconds, bigfooting sightings.  None were incredibly detailed.  The last one was the one that scared me the most.  Why?  The first ones were moving away from me.  The last one did something my mind couldn’t deal with in my past thoughts and experiences.  During a Memorial Weekend expedition, we were on the way back from the nights listening post when the lead 4x4 had one cross right to left.  With as long as he had been doing this his mind first thought it was a large white dog, even when there had been numerous sightings in the area of a white bigfoot, and he had seen it before.  Skepticism? Or the easiest way his brain could deal with it?  None the less, after the brief thought he realized what it was, and the crew stopped and headed to the area it had went and had eye shine and a decent look at it.  Then it dropped down out of their sight.  Then unexpectedly, I saw it pass behind us back over the trail from left to right.  I was in the cargo bed of the rear side by side 4x4.  This is when the fear hit me.  Why did it do that?  They never do that.  My mind went into protection mode as this is what I had not ever expected.  In all my planning and thinking of how I would react upon seeing one went out the window as what happened was not ever a consideration as a behavior.  To this day we can only speculate why it did what it did or even if it was the same one.  As far as we know maybe this has happened before but never observed and is a normal thing.

Sightings can be of great value to the investigators and researchers.  But the details of any sighting may be lacking, not because of the witness is not being factual, it’s because each person’s mind processes the event differently.  The ones for me that make me wonder the most of be factual and not exaggerated are the ones that are so detailed.  It has been proven that the mind will “fill in the blanks” as time goes along.  But for me those are the areas where I question the accounts the most as the mind is a complex thing.