Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Why no one takes Bigfoot sightings seriously ...

There are 2 major reasons why no one takes Bigfoot sightings seriously these days:

1. The hoaxers who claim to have killed a Bigfoot and that they have the body. Of course, they never do. It is a complete lie. They demean the serious pursuits.

2. Absolutely inaccurate basic information in sighting reports

Example: in January of 2014, Animal Planet posts a top 10 sightings list of Bigfoot encounters.
For their No. 9 ranking, in Utah, they butcher not only the location place, but they are hundreds of miles off in their geography.
Anyone can misspell something, but no one did any homework here, in this report.
There's just no excuse for this kind of sloppy reporting.
Two minutes on a simple Google search could have avoided all of this.

In the listing, the problem is the Utah town Scipio is misspelled "Scripio" and Scipio is actually 180 miles north of St. George, so it is far loser to Provo or even Salt Lake City.
To use St. George as a nearby major town makes no sense.

A link to the story:

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Why so few pre-1950s Bigfoot sightings?

"Bigfoot" wasn't even a term coined until 1958 and begs the key question, why are there so relatively few Sasquatch sightings before the 1950s?
Sure, there are some Native American tales of what could be Bigfoot, but Bigfoot sightings didn't really escalate into widespread notoriety until the latter half of the 20th Century.
Again, why?
Naturally, surely the lack of a name for such a creature, before 1958, didn't help the reporting of sightings either.
However,  if Bigfoots are natural animals, as many suggest, how did they remain hidden so long?
Wouldn't advancing and increasing settlers in North America -- especially in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains -- have displaced the usual stalking grounds of Bigfoots in the 1800s?
Buffalo were all but wiped out. Native Americas were displaced to reservations. Grizzlies were left in only a few locations.
How did Bigfoots escape the same fate?
Just to be fair, I recently spent hours scanning through recently digitized newspapers from Northern Utah in the late 19th Century into the 1920s, searching for anything unusual reported, that could be a Bigfoot.
I looked under a variety of keywords -- things like: monster, creature, beast, gorilla, ape, etc. I even searched for "footprints"
I found zero in Utah Territory.
I did find an 1892 report of a "wild man" that was shot in Africa as it attacked a group of explorers. But nothing about the man being hairy or Bigfoot monster-like, just that he was very muscular.
I also found a Canadian report from 1927 about the "Gorilla Man" being captured. However, this was simply a fugitive from the law, who somehow received that nickname by living in the outdoors to avoid capture.
(Also, there are few non-Utah old tales around, of "Wild Men," or "Old Shep" and the like, but nothing in real quantity.)
Yes, some people might not have reported weird things, like a Bigfoot, for fear of ridicule (a fear some have today too), but wouldn't someone have been brave and convinced enough to come forward?
After all, there are reports of three lake monsters in early northern Utah -- the Bear Lake, Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake monsters.
Why not Bigfoot? Or, am I right that there were simply few sightings until more modern times ....?
This brings up my continuing conundrum on this blog -- Bigfoot simply can't be an unknown beast as most of the seekers, like the BFRO, professes it to be.
I'm insulted by all the TV shows now where people "whoop" call for Bigfoot, look for game in the area, test animal feces, etc., all as if Bigfoot is just some unknown animal.
There's one new TV reality show now airing that offers a $10 million prize to which ever team on the series finds the most evidence of the creature.
That's baloney to me.
Yes, I agree Bigfoot is absolutely out there. He's real.
But, he's simply supernatural and only that aspect alone explains his existence and his secrets. He can't be tracked, or photographed  like other animals.
(With all the camera phones and like around today, surely someone would finally snap a clear photo of the creature?)
Bigfoot is more like a ghost, of something that can cloak itself at will. He finds you, not the opposite.
So, why then did Bigfoot not gain fame until the latter half of the 20th Century?
I believe Bigfoot is a supernatural demon of sorts. He gains power to be seen more often as the world becomes more evil and wicked itself. Hence, the increase in sightings from the 1960s on, as the planet's population  becomes more sinful.
If the world were more good and god-like, there would be more angelic sightings. Now, the planet is tilted to the dark side.
Why is it so hard to other Bigfoot enthusiasts to believe this? Many of them believe in God and this is simply the opposite of God -- demons who counterbalance good, like Satan, the Devil himself.
On the one hand, yes, I'd like to see a Bigfoot for curiosity's sake. Yet, to do so, means you have to see and be near a "devil" and that would be a frightening experience. Angel-seeking would be a more worthy endeavor, but yes, I'm drawn to mysteries.
-Perhaps I or someone needs to start a new group -- The BISO (Bigfoot Is Supernatural Organization), to look outside the box of the normal sighting seekers and consider new options.