Experience Dictates Strength Of Bigfoot Claims

It happens all the time within the bigfoot research community. People make incredible claims. Depending on your own beliefs and position on the subject, some of these claims seem outrageous, while others seem perfectly acceptable. It varies from individual to individual on what is "acceptable" and what isn't. What a lot of us tend to forget, is that to the rest of the world, making the claim that bigfoot might actually exist is considered outrageous.

Many of us have had the pleasure of being around someone, a friend, family member, possibly a co-worker, and the subject comes up. Maybe someone else close to you calls it to their attention;

 "You know Matt, he believes in bigfoot." 

Instantly we get that gaping maw stare, the edges of their mouth start to curl upward in a condescending grin, and our blood pressure raises. We start fumbling for an explanation, a way to explain ourselves and defend our position;

"No, I don't BELIEVE IN bigfoot, I actually saw one, they really do exist..."

From there on we field a barrage of questions from someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject other than what they may have seen on television, but 9 times out of 10 they walk away having "won" the debate. At least in their minds. We "believers" like to fool ourselves into thinking otherwise.

In this field we hear the statement a lot that there are no experts. There's no such thing as a bigfoot expert. Until they are proven to exist, we don't KNOW anything. In my opinion, that's only half true. When we use the term expert to define someone's level of knowledge on a subject, we reach that conclusion by using a system of measurement. What they know compared to what information is available on a subject. A doctor of medicine is an expert on medicine because they know a lot of information about current medications. An expert marksman knows a lot of information on how to hit a bullseye. But this isn't a good example is it? In both of those instances there is a certain amount of known information. For something to be known, it has to be accepted by everyone. That certainly isn't the case for bigfoot. But known information isn't needed to be considered an expert. I know, it sounds like crazy talk, doesn't it? Let's look at the definition:

expert: having or showing special skill or knowledge because of what you have been taught or what you have experienced 

The word itself is derived from the word experience. Knowledge can be learned from experiences. And those experiences are not always shared, or are common to others, let alone everyone. So what does this mean? How is it applied to bigfoot? Well, it can be applied a couple of different ways.

When it comes to claims made by an individual, or a group of individuals, there has to be a certain amount of discernment used. Discernment goes hand in hand with logic and common sense. In case you aren't familiar with where I stand, I believe both of these traits are severely lacking in the bigfoot world. You have to be able to discern whether or not something could be true or possible based on information that we do know. I know this might be mind blowing for some of you, but you can learn things from other sources. For instance, if something falls within the realms of what we know about life on this planet, such as the statement "bigfoot eats both plants and animals" even though the "disclaimer" word (might, probably, could, possibly, etc.) is missing, it is still logical to accept this as a possibly true statement. Even if we don't know it for a fact. Now if I were to say "bigfoot can turn invisible" there is nothing else known that can do that biologically, so it's probably not true. Logic based discernment.

The important part of it is the experience aspect. We all know that each one of us have different experiences that occur in our lives. I don't know what it's like to swim with sharks, while others out there experience it on a regular basis. Therefore I have to rely on known information to discern whether or not I want to believe information on that subject. Just because I don't have experience in a certain area, does not mean neither does anyone else.

Another thing we have to keep in mind is that when something seems incredible to us, it can simply seem that way because of our own lack of knowledge, or experience, in regard to that information. The less we know about the subject(s) the more amazing or unbelievable it seems. Imagine a person from the 1800's being told that we have these tiny little devices that we carry in our pockets that allows us to communicate with someone anywhere on the planet, and access any information we want by simply touching the screen. Mind blown. But does that make it untrue?

We have to remember there are many different levels of experience when it comes to this subject. While one person may be fascinated if they find a possible bigfoot track, another may have seen bigfoot tracks dozens of times. If you are open to the real possibility that bigfoot exists, then you must be open to the possibility that there are individuals out there who have had more experiences with these creatures than others, and with those experiences comes more information that could be learned. Even if it can't be proven.

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. True enough. But if that person presents their supporting evidence in the form of their own personal experiences, therefore explaining how they reached their own personal conclusions, this does not open the door for others to call them liars, or tell them they are wrong. If you reach a different conclusion, that is perfectly fine. Nobody said anyone has to agree, but that difference in opinion doesn't make your position necessarily true, or their conclusions untrue. It is simply a difference in opinion. Which of course is going to happen a lot in a field such as this.

But this is where apples no longer compare to oranges.

"Bob" makes a claim. "Bob" reaches his conclusion based on his own experiences. "Bob" explains his thought process and the evidence that led him to forming his conclusion.

"Joe" listens to the claim. "Joe" listens to the explanation of how "Bob" reached that conclusion. At the end, "Joe" weighs the information, and decides that it isn't enough to convince him, and disagrees with "Bob".

The problem is "Joe" didn't have the experiences "Bob" had. While "Bob's" conclusion/opinion is an informed and educated one based on personal experiences and observations, "Joe's" opinion holds no weight. It is based on nothing other than assumption. "Joe" is assuming "Bob" is wrong, or made a mistake, or is lying. But "Joe" really has no clue because "Joe" doesn't have the experience in the situation that "Bob" has.

In what normal scenario would we accept that? If you're at work, and someone tells you about what they did last night, do you tell them that you disagree, and that they are wrong about what they did or observed? Of course not, because you weren't there. As long as they describe events that could possibly happen based on information we know from other situations and experiences, we have no problem accepting it. If your coworker told you they grew wings and flew all over town, you would laugh and tell them they were full of it. Once again, basing your conclusion on outside information and knowledge, in that case, humans don't grow wings and suddenly fly.

When it comes to bigfoot, we have to pull a lot of information from outside sources, because in reality we do not know much about these creatures. However, some do know more than others, and we need to be honest with ourselves when it comes to how much we really know based on our own experiences. Not only do we need to assess the claims people make, we have to remember to look at those who are arguing against or disagreeing with those claims. Do they have the the experience and knowledge to support their opposing position, or are they allowing their own ego to form an opinion for them?


  1. You're back! Very well spoken and thoughtful. Missed your articles like this one.

  2. Good article, I agree but will still not be using the "E-word" in connection with Anyone and knowledge of Bigfoot they may have accumulated.

  3. "There's no such thing as a bigfoot expert". It's not true. True is that academic establishment houghty rejects all the evidences collected for more than a half of century since the first Himalayan expeditions. That evidences were gathered by voluntary enthusiasts - by the way, notorious scientists between them, who were and are experts, but mostly just interested people, some of whom became experts for long time studies of the subject. As Russian professor dr. Porshnev (1905-1972)wrote,"there are Montblancs of proves, but they aren't taken into concideration".
    And now we may say - they are Himalayas of proves... But there is no judge, no court to issue the verdict...


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I don't Believe Todd Standing

Tsiatko: The Story Of The Stick Indians

Top Secret Bigfoot Habituation Area Exposed: Invasion Of The Bigfoot Skeptics