Let us pause for a moment and reflect upon the fact that bigfoot means a great number of different things to an even greater number of people. The very fact that I could have inserted (wood ape, sasquatch, forest people… okay maybe not forest people) into the above sentence and had it retain the same effect speaks greatly to this.
Let us also pause and reflect upon the fact that even though it lacks Linnaean classification, this hasn’t stopped it from creating an indelible impression upon our culture and our lives. From movies to documentaries, fairs to symposiums, folk art to internet forums, the wily wood ape holds sway over our collective imaginations and attention spans in a way usually reserved for extremely cute, extremely DISCOVERED animals. It’s safe to argue that The Bigfoot Show itself would not exist were it not for this great draw that the sasquattle has upon the public at large.
To put it simply bigfoot and anything bigfoot related is an attention grabber, a strong draw, an easy foundation upon which to focus the public’s attention and capture their imagination. With that in mind is it any wonder that the subject attracts such a wide and varied audience? Anyone who has taken even a moment to peruse the online discussions available will quickly see that there is no one size fits all description for those partaking in the discussion. From ardent skeptic to the most credulous of wishful thinkers, bigfoot draws a crowd. A very large crowd. Each with their own opinion and their own outlook, but all willing and eager to express their opinions and thoughts upon the subject (with predictable and often humorous results). The Bigfoot Show itself represents this varied pantheon of pro and con, with the cast filling the range from proponent to skeptic and areas in-between (with predictable and often humorous results).
When your tent is so big and so encompassing there are bound to be conflicts, bound to be strife. Yet it is important to remember what it is that brings us all here. What is it that attracts the non-believer, the hopeful, the dyed-in-the-wool true believer, to congregate together and discuss a subject that hasn’t even been proven to exist? It is the very nature of the subject itself that accomplishes this. Sasquatch transcends the need to bequantitatively verified and classified.
The very concept alone is enough to draw a crowd. Put simply the idea of a giant, stealthy, mythical beast lurking in the forests and fringes of our world is cool. What’s more, it’s okay that it is cool. It is okay that the concept alone (and not the actual animal) is enough to lure people in to discussion and in to focusing upon the subject. So don’t be surprised when you find yourself sitting across from someone, or interacting with someone online, who is equally as eager as you to discuss bigfoot while harboring a wildly differing opinion than yours, because they have simply fallen sway to the same attention grabbing force as you.
Bigfoot is cool and no one is to blame, be they romantic or skeptic, for falling under that sway.
I always enjoy your thoughts on the Bigfoot Show and glad to see you as a member if the team. I thought your article was a good reflection on the way the “big tent” of Sasquatch harbors so many different points of view. You are geat at articulating your thoughts on the subject. No real criticism hear just please keep posting.
Thanks John. It’s good to hear I don’t sound like a rambling man too often.
Ramblin’ man? What’s wrong with being one of those!?
Yes, a big enough tent to encompass serious to casual interest and those who think that to even entertain the thought that such an animal exsists requires some sort of psychological intervention. The tent also encompasses the honest to the person looking to defraud.
I find that a certain trigger has to happen to get someone to peek inside the door (flap) of the tent whether believer or skeptic and that, for me at least was to hear a person I considered smart and objective give the slightest nod to the idea that such beings exsist. It was a fairly level headed political commentator who, unlike many, is usually thoughful and even handed. He took on the subject and reported it in such a way to give it real cogency. It got me traversing the enternet back in ’06 and, being an outdoorsy nature nut, I admit I like the idea that and bipedal hominin may inhabit some of the places I like to hike and hang and the subject has been a welcome rest stop for my “regular life ” …like a ball game or soup opera might be to some…an interesring diversion. However I reject the explaination made by so many academics (usually psychologists) that Bigfoot has a place in our consciencness because we NEED such mysteries “out there” to exsist… to lift our lives out of the mundane and/or give life some mystery. I found life, and nature in particular, to be mysterious enough in all it’s utter complexity to ever feel the need bigfoot or dogman or UFO’s and I don’t think I’ve ever met a person with that need. Your thoughts on that (?)
Also, I thought Karl L. listed a Homo Trogliditus (sp) through second and third hand info as the second species in genus homo…I read it in Wikipidia…it must be true. Actually Bayonov (sp) mentions this in his paper from a couple of years back but I’m not sure where he stands in trustwhothiness.
I really like what you add to the BFS…glad you’re there.