Research Through Trust
In The Footsteps Of Jane Goodall
In December, 1964, American television premiered "Miss Goodall and the Wild Chimpanzees." I vividly remember that documentary starring the very young Ms. Jane Goodall. She observed and studied Chimpanzees in Tanzania and the film was actually National Geographic's first tv documentary. Movies about Africa were my favorite and very popular at the time. Do you know how long it actually took Ms. Goodall to actually see a chimp in the wild? Would you believe 2 years? When she first tried to observe the chimps, her attempts failed. They would not let her or anyone else come within 500 yards!! After a few months, she found another group of chimps and established a non-threatening pattern of observation. She would return every morning to the same feeding spot and within a year, they allowed her to get within 30 yards. After 2 years of seeing her everyday, they became accustomed to her presence and finally accepted her into their group. She allowed them to make the choice. They came to her.
This is one of those stories where you have to ask yourself, how could anyone be so dedicated and disciplined? How could anyone continue despite that degree of disappointment day after day? Trying different techniques with no results because, frankly, no one had done anything like this before. Facing uncertainty, she braved the African bush for months trying to attempt contact . The key to her success was that Ms. Goodall believed in her mission. She realized that the chimp's future was in danger through loss of habitat and poaching. She worked very long, tedious hours, oftentimes in harsh conditions (including a hugely chauvinistic scientific world in 1964), but she persevered. It is in this spirit that I attempt to study the American Sasquatch.
We now must identify the most critical obstacle in Sasquatch research today, the fact that science will not look at the evidence. Researchers have acquired DNA but since Sasquatch are so closely related to us, the results come back "human" or "tainted sample". Field researchers have collected hairs that are unidentifiable or belong to no known mammal but are primate in structure. Casted tracks that hold dermal ridges which are the same ridges that make up our finger prints have been cast and verified. Primate dermal ridges are larger and tend to run longitudinal with the foot which adds to the mystery. Did you know that several animals that exist today were at first doubted by science because of the lack of a body? The Giant Panda, Mountain Gorilla, Okapi, Beaked Whale, Duck-billed Platypus and Komodo Dragon are just a few. These animals were all "legends" until a specimen was recovered so why should Sasquatch be treated any different by science? Eyewitnesses who have seen a Sasquatch in the wild or through binoculars or a rifle scope, continue to report how human they look and shooting one NEVER enters their mind. So how are we ever going to get a specimen? Who's going to shoot one of these "people?" Even if someone were to shoot one dead and make it out of the woods, where would you take it? A university? A taxidermist? A veterinarian? The minute you approached any of those or a news station or law enforcement agency, your position would be swarmed by unidentifiable agents, the carcass removed and you and your family would be severely threatened and told "This event never took place!"
In addition there are no university or government grants being handed out to support serious researchers today. Primarily because of the previously aforementioned scenario and the carnival elements that have muddied this subject for years. Often, these careless, unprofessional self proclaimed "researchers" only want fame and fortune. I'm not one of those researchers. I bring only positive, good intentions and only wish to save the habitat Sasquatch require and study them in detail. I can only think of Jane Goodall and what it must have been like to be a pioneer. To be the first to observe and study a breed of primate most did not believe existed. I would also like to mention that Jane Goodall was one of only 8 people ever allowed to pursue a Ph.D at Cambridge University without a BS. Her passion filled in the gaps she lacked in academics, that is my strong suit as well. To sum up the Bigfoot mystery, it's a classic "catch 22". Scientists will not examine any evidence, and any evidence they examine will be scoffed at. The question: IS THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE?