Sasquatch Spotting
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on December 14th, 2015
From Dr. Meldrum:
Perception is huge. I recently took part in a little exercise, in which a half-dozen or so 8-foot Bigfoot cutouts, similar to this one, were placed in the woods within 10 yards of the trail, scattered along a couple miles.
It was summer and so the foliage was thick. Some figures were placed rather obscurely and some were situated in “plain sight.” We made it a contest to not only spot them, but to see who did so first. It was surprising how easy it was to miss them. The entire group missed one altogether!
Of course movement would add a whole other dimension. We have a tough time spotting something that remains still.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
Very cool. When I first started getting “into” BF, I got to thinking, “How could someone NOT spot a dark shape 7-9 feet tall walking through the woods?”
The more I studied and looked at local woods, the more I began to realize that a dark color is the perfect camouflage in wilderness. As you look through lines of trees there are all kinds of dark shadows and shapes just from the foliage and something big and dark colored would have no trouble staying hidden at even thirty or forty yards away. If it actually stopped moving, it could blend in perfectly with the other shadows and dark colors. Especially if it was using trees and brush for partial cover.
Therefore, I think that is another check mark in favor of BF being a real, living critter: it is colored to fit in with its environment, creating natural camouflage (not the biggest point, but just icing on the cake). It makes sense, and for something as big as BF sightings relate, it’s got to have some sort of advantage to have kept it off our radar for so long.
Human perception, while it has the ability to become impressively acute, matters not a tiny bit as much as our ability to interpret those perceptions.
Holy shit Human perception can be terrible, but often our ability to interpret surprising perceptions is fucking horrible.
This, in my mind at least, is not enough reason for assumption that bigfoot (whatever the details of its biology) doesn’t exist, just a fact to know and include in your rational evaluation of the evidence. That is how I see it. I want to know about the good evidence that exists in support of an incredible claim, I really do. I want to know what good critical evaluation discovers, as well.
I may make a conclusion, based only on the evidence, removing the countless forms of bias that come from a conclusion based on more than the good evidence.
Holy shit, I’ve seriously wanted to get those words out of my system for such a long time, but the subject, much used in this great post, drew it out of me, finally.
All the best to all of you,
Woody