To Theorize Incessantly

I promised on the main page that I would explain in more detail why I created this site. I was elated to find that Ranae Holland, from Animal Planet’s Finding Bigfoot, actually answered a Tweet I sent her about coyote calls. In the Tweet, she admitted that many people mistake coyote, and other animal calls, for Bigfoot Calls.

I then proposed a 2 part theory to her. The first was whether she believed that Bigfoot ever interacted with bears? Ranae replied that it was possible since, Bigfoot were believed to live in the same type of forested areas.

With that confirmation, from a “scientist”, I then proposed that if Bigfoot and bears lived in the same area, and Bigfoot were believed to be extremely territorial and aggressive at times, even killing deer, that could it be possible for Bigfoot and bears to fight each other? Since bears were known to even fight to the death with each other, is it possible that a bear might kill a Bigfoot, or vice versa? What if a Bigfoot was killed, and a hunter stumbled upon the kill and mistook that “bear kill” to simply be a moose kill?

Ranae’s response was, “the question is, would the moose be mistaken for a unicorn?” She then scolded me that I “theorized incessantly” and science was done by going out into the field and not making up theories while sitting at home. Of course, I was infuriated, and wondered if Einstein, who sat at a patent desk all day, theorizing about quantum physics, would agree.

You see, my theory was that a moose is a huge animal, with a huge rib cage. Bigfoot is supposed to be a huge animal, with by description a huge rib cage. When an animal is killed, after the main predator has their fill, other predatory animals come in and take what pieces they can carry away. That is why old kills often do not have all the pieces together in the same area. An entire carcass is hardly ever found whole, and all together. It is often scattered through out the area. So, my theory was that a hunter might stumble upon a carcass, and simply chock it up to be a moose kill from a bear, when in fact it could be a dead Bigfoot, whether by natural causes, or even a bear. My point to presenting this to Ranae was that her group, that was actually out investigating should examine and take in the evidence found by hunters. Maybe even invite hunters to report kills found, so that they could be investigated and confirmed as to what animal it was, and what animal killed it. Even if the body wasn’t a Bigfoot, maybe a Bigfoot killed it and thus DNA and hair might be left behind on the carcass. Proof from a carcass would be solid evidence of Bigfoot, and change the direction investigations were done. Instead of simply going out into the woods and waiting for noises, and wondering if they were pranksters or not. This method could provide the solid evidence needed.

The one thing I can thank Ranae for is her utter disregard to discussing other people’s theories and her belief that just because I don’t have the capability or funding to go out and do research, that my ideas were not even worth contemplating. I was infuriated that she so flippantly pushed me aside and openly mocked me, that she inspired me to create a place where others like me can discuss our theories openly.

In case you want to side with Ranae that only people who can investigate should theorize, then I suggest you talk to NASA who takes hypothesis from students and has the astronauts on the space station implement the experiments.

Check out additional Posts on Bigfoot below:

[postlist 1]

Don’t forget to look up new posts and theories on Bigfoot by clicking on the Bigfoot Category from the top left link.