The last blog post I did was pretty serious in nature and, while I will be focusing a lot of my blogging efforts on literary analyses, my views on what's going on in our modern world, and the like, I thought it would be fun to sprinkle in some different content from time to time. Considering that The Demon Sight is centered on a concept that usually exists outside the "norm", I believe it would be both appropriate and enjoyable to take time to discuss other paranormal, cryptozoological, and spiritual questions that we come face to face with in our lives. These are my opinions and are not meant to indicate any sort of expertise on any of these topics. Okay, let's have fun with: Bigfoot!
For most people my age, Bigfoot is associated with those pseudo-scientific television shows that rely heavily on big starring personalities with little regard for method and research. Every piece of information they look at is conclusive proof (it's a real problem in this country on many different topics, but I digress). The shows, which fill cable television channels that used to be a source of actual educational programming (cough, cough, not naming names), last for an hour and in the end, the outcome is always the same. We believe it's there, but we didn't get any conclusive evidence. This time. (Or, "well clearly this, this, and this - which any person with three brain cells to rub together can tell isn't enough to provide any conclusion - is proof!").
The thing is, I LOVE watching those shows. And I love watching them for one simple reason: I can't get enough of criticizing their "scientific method" and clever editing. This is not for the reason you may be thinking. Quite the opposite actually. I do believe there is enough compelling evidence of non-human bipedal primates, especially in remote areas of the Pacific Northwest and the island rain forests around Indonesia. And there are plenty of scientists who openly believe that more research into the legend is warranted. Chief among them, for all Squatchers out there, is, of course, Dr. Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anthropology specializing in the study of the human evolution of bipedal locomotion. Put simply, this guy has spent his life studying why we walk on two legs. In his book, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, describes the certain supporting evidence in the over 300 foot casts that he has collected showing foot morphology containing a flatter sole (a creature that size wouldn't have an arch) that still contains a mid-tarsal break which allows for enough flexibility to walk an two legs. Dermal ridges (fingerprints for feet) and longer toes for gripping rough terrain are also observed. These particular specimens, he says, represent those that he's studied that cannot be debunked as forgeries or misidentification of a known animal (think bear's back paw stepping into its front paw to create something that looks like one big human-like print).
Next, we have to consider the lore of the indigenous peoples. Legends of large, hairy men in the forest have existed in their culture for hundreds if not thousands of years, even occurring in cave paintings next to known animals like deer and foxes. The fossil record indicates the existence of Gigantopithecus living in Eastern Asian around the time of the Bering Land Bridge and it is not outside the realm of possibility that they crossed with the early ancestors of modern humans, evolving separately in the remote forests. And science has proven a real world analog for the Indonesian legend of Orang Pendek (short person) in the fossils of Homo floresiensis, often called, "the real hobbit". The name Sasquatch is derived from the Halkomelem tongue of the first peoples of the Pacific Northwest. Many of these people even believe that Sasquatch is a benevolent protector of nature. I like to think they're right.
And, of course, discussion wouldn't be complete without touching on the Patterson Film. This has become, perhaps, the most scrutinized film in all of zoology (crypto or otherwise). For me, listening to locomotion and kinesiology experts give testimony on the near impossibility of faking the creature's distinctive gait and film experts enhancing the 16mm film to be able to discern breasts on the subject and muscle movement beneath the fur give me plenty of reason to accept the authenticity of the film. John Chambers, Academy Award winning artist responsible for the movable faces for Planet of the Apes has stated that he is "good, but not that good," when asked if he created a suit for Patterson. Additionally, no other Hollywood design company has claimed responsibility for creating a suit, though many state they could, but at a price tag of at least $10,000 (far more than Patterson could have afforded). Now, this is not to say there aren't problems. First off, Roger Patterson set out to Bluff Creek that day to specifically film a Bigfoot movie he hoped to sell to a production company. Patterson was also known as a bit of a story-teller and a huckster. He also died in 1972, so he never had the opportunity to really be questioned over a period of time. His partner that day, Bob Gimlin, on the other hand, notes that they never made any money from the film and, despite severe damage to his own reputation, asserted that they had seen what they filmed for the next 40 years of his life. I don't see a reason for Gimlin to lie. His friend and partner was dead, he didn't want the notoriety, and yet he sticks to the story. I still look at the film with a skeptical eye, always trying to find something new that can conclusively disprove it. I just haven't found that smoking gun yet.
So there you have it. We could go further into the Shipton photos in the Himalayas or the reports of the government relocating a family of Bigfoot during the Mount St. Helen's explosion, but that would go on forever. Is Bigfoot real? I think there's a very good possibility. When you think about the hundreds or thousands of new animals being discovered every year and consider the sheer wilderness that is still out there undiscovered, you can't help but wonder what we will find in the future. After all, the gorilla was thought to be a myth until the early 1900s. What else is out there?
I don't just write novels. I just like to write. This blog will not be polished, it won't be edited closely. There will be spelling and grammar errors and it might drag on in places. But it will be fun, off the cuff, genuine, and hopefully interesting to read!