There are two camps.
Kill. And Study.
The first I heard of these was during my earliest readings on Sasquatch and the pioneers of Sasquatchery. The Four Horseman of the ‘Quatchalypse; Peter Byrne, Grover Krantz, John Green and Rene Dahinden.
Two advocated that the quickest way to get proof was by killing one.
It’s an animal. Most likely some sort of primate. Send out some hunters and shoot one.
A simple, straightforward, logical no-brainer. Right?
Or is it?
The other two called for humanity to take the moral high ground.
Our understanding of this creature is so limited, that it borders on non-existent. The only thing that buoys it above the zero mark is conjecture, based on the barest of evidence.
This lack of quantifiable information - and the possibility that it MAY be more than just another animal muddies the water rather than making it clearer.
How do we know it’s JUST an animal? When described by eye witnesses - and corroborated by a copious and growing collection of questionable photos and videos - we can see that its description as a primate is only partially accurate.
If anything, they are more often described as looking like a man, rather than some ape or monkey.
That being the case, the idea that deliberately shooting a Sasquatch COULD BE like deliberately shooting another human being. Interestingly, this concept seems to have taken root in several countries around the world. In fact, there are now laws written SPECIFICALLY to protect Sasquatch.
Should he be proven to exist, that is.
So . . . do we simply study this enigmatic creature?
Skeptics would say that there is nothing to study.
And rightly so.
How do we study something that we have yet to prove even exists? What criteria do we use to establish the existence of Sasquatch?
The evidence collected, thus far, in favour of a Sasquatch type creature existing at all falls short of convincing by, well, a lot.
Empirical evidence is what we are missing. Empirical evidence collected through empirical research based on direct observation of the subject matter.
DIRECT observation.
Not second hand or third hand accounts. Not grainy or trembling footage. Not plaster casted indents left in the mud banks of a creek.
Pictures, video, eye-witness reports and a sundry collection of dubious artifacts are all subject to doubt.
And doubt, as we all know, is a buzz kill.
How, then, do we get empirical evidence by observing?
Sadly, you can’t.
Human nature forbids it.
We need to dissect. We need to measure. We need to swab. We need to catalogue. We need to pickle. We need to own.
We need a body.
And it won’t be just one.
Knowledge demands a bloody sacrifice upon the altar of Science.
And when the blood drips into the water, our legendary human patience won’t be a match for its frenzy inducing scent.
We won’t be sitting around waiting for a body to expire under natural circumstances.
Our best intentions cannot prevent the inevitable. We may not set out with thoughts of slaughter just for the sake of slaughter, but that doesn’t mean we won’t justify it as a necessary means to an end. And while our purpose may be a noble one, the clinical apologies we make to our consciences will be of trivial consequence when it comes right down to what must be done if we want to get to the truth.
As much as I look forward to someone, somewhere proving that Sasquatch is indeed real, I do not look forward to the methods necessary to achieve that goal.
Murdering a Bigfoot is easy.
Just set out to prove he exists.
And when you find your proof, you’ll also have to figure out what to do with the body.
What a bitter pill.
