Prove it …



The lesser-known "Frame 253" ...
did they stumble on the Bumble?

     Howdy!  How many of y’all out there have actually had an encounter with somethin’ tall, dark & hairy wanderin’ ‘round on two legs out there in them woods?  If you truly have had an experience, can you prove it?  Well, I’ve had an experience … and sad to say, I really couldn’t prove it.  At the time, I was fishin’ with my son … who actually got a much better look at it than I did.  He even had a video camera; but because the foliage was so thick, he couldn’t get focused on the critter to get any footage.  Does that mean that we were mistaken?  Nope.  Does that mean we were hallucinatin’?  Nope.  Does that mean that what we saw just doesn’t exist?  Well, it obviously exists; but in the eyes of skeptics, without the burden of proof ... it obviously doesn’t.  So if we say it’s real but the skeptics say otherwise, here is the real question … why do we have to prove it?  Well, let’s just weigh this question …
 

This was two years ago; I hope Caddo Lake gets a bunch of
snow soon ... and it freezes all that friggin' giant salvinia!

     As much as I’d like to prove it, so far I’ve come up zero!  Four years of scoutin’ and maintainin’ five game-cams in the area of Our Encounter have so far been a bust.  No tracks, no pictures and no video.  Them sloughs & woods around Caddo Lake definitely ain’t sparse … even if you just narrowed-it down to the specific area where we happened upon this critter.  It would be comparable to findin’ your contact lens in an Olympic-sized swimmin’ pool; it can be done, but you’d be pretty-dang lucky at best.  And considerin’ the elusiveness of the quarry, bein’ overwhelmed by the vast area to search and your stick-to-itiveness to find it … it actually is a possible task if you are patient and persistent.



     I can honestly say that I really don’t believe in "Bigfoot".  Really.  I do believe, however … that I know what we saw.  Even though we couldn’t readily identify this animal … it was real, it was there and we experienced it.  But sad to say, we have no physical evidence to prove it.  No video, no photos and nothin' material; sh¡t happens ... oh, well.  So now, let’s weigh the other side of the aforementioned question: can the skeptics actually prove that this animal doesn’t exist?  Nope.  They can’t.  How can someone prove that there cannot possibly be some large, intelligent bipedal hominoids thrivin’ somewhere in the thousands upon thousands of forested, uninhabited acreage on this continent?  Haven't there been many a folk (includin' those of us who have witnessed this mystery animal) who've made a concerted effort to try and prove its existence?  Sure … there’s actually been quite a few.  But I’ll bet you that there ain’t really been much of an effort made by the scores of skeptics for positive proof that it doesn’t exist.

     So can anyone prove it?  C’mon now, y’all remember … folks were once skeptical of gorillas, right?  And I ain’t tryin’ to beat a dead horse, but none of them skeptics have yet to definitively prove that the subject of the Patterson-Gimlin film was a person in a costume.  Now, they’ve attempted to debunk Patty … but none of ‘em has fabricated any sort of costume or suit that looks anything like a livin’ critter!  So … exactly who’s fabricatin’ what?  If the skeptics are gonna say that somethin’ like this can’t possibly exist … then I say that they need to prove it!  Show me the costume or gorilla suit used for the so-called money shot.  No lame attempts, no second-hand hearsay … and no antagonistic costume maker turned carnival-barker tryin’ to make a quick buck.  And since when was Patty a red-head?  Good God ... at least get the friggin’ hair-color color right!

     I’ll admit that I was semi-skeptical of this mystery biped until I witnessed it for myself.  What’s “semi-skeptical” mean, you ask?  Well … let me try to explain.  I’ve been huntin’ & fishin’ since I was six, and until June of 2009 when I actually witnessed one of these critters in the wild … I was pretty much-well on the fence whether I’d been sharin’ them woods with “Bigfoot”.  Now, in my defense … I never thought the existence of such an animal was impossible.  After all, I had witnessed all kinds of different critters, and I ain’t talkin’ ‘bout watchin’ ‘em on National Geographic specials, Wild Kingdom with Marlin Perkins or Jack Hanna’s guest appearances on The Tonight Show.  I’m talkin’ about runnin’ ‘round out there in them woods and seein’ all manner of nature. But mystery bipeds?  They just weren’t somethin’ I’d ever seen ...

     But I was also one of them kids that had seen almost every kind of science fiction & monster movie ever made.  I collected fanzines ‘cause I wanted to know exactly how "the masters” created the make-up and special effects for these film creatures that I had idolized.  Now, can anyone out there name just one featured-creature that looks anywhere near as authentic as Patty?  I can’t.  The closest I’ve ever seen were them primates in the “Dawn of Man” sequence of 2001: A Space Odyssey.  And 37 years later, even though I loved Peter Jackson’s King Kong, it was CGI.  So, when someone tries to tell me that Patty was a person in a suit … I simply say, prove it.  Really.  And good luck with that ...

     People like myself have been labeled as Bigfoot believers, Bigfoot enthusiasts, or just recently by our friends from across the pond as “Bigfootologists”.  Really?  Well now ... the noun ology is an informal word for some unidentified branch of knowledge.  Hmmm, that’s sort-of interestin’ … I might just take that as a compliment.  Let’s see, I'm kinda informal, and I am seekin’ knowledge on somethin’ that’s definitely unidentified ... cool!  Hell, I kinda like it!  But the fact is, I’m at least tryin’ to figure-out what this critter is.  So I guess that I really don’t mind bein’ labeled … just as long as I ain’t bein’ labeled as a skeptic.  At least I ain’t cynically peein’ in someone’s Cheerios by sayin’ that these animals simply cannot exist!

 

     Now, if I actually believed in that sort of ideology, I’d at least try and definitively prove it!  “Bigfootologists” are tryin'; but the fact is, the skeptics can’t.  This ain’t some Miracle on 34th Street scenario; Kris Kringle ain’t the one on trial here for believin’ he’s Santa.  Come to think about it, most folks may agree that Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer might just be a little far-fetched.  However, I’d be willin’ to bet y’all that Yukon Cornelius might agree that The Bumble may have been based on somethin’ a little more ... tangible.  So as far as I'm concerned, them skeptics can say “Bah, humbug!” all they want; but first … they ought to at least have to prove it!

 

 

     So, I say to all of the amateur field researchers and fellow “Bigfootologists” out there … kudos, y’all!  Given enough time and effort, one of us may soon be able to prove it.  That’s right … definitive proof that what folks have been seein’ for the past couple of hundred years out there in them woods is just an animal.  Proof perhaps, that this critter is simply just a species that we haven’t yet been able to document.  And just because it ain’t yet been documented doesn’t mean that it doesn’t or cannot exist.  And I say to all of them skeptics … y’all just need to grow a pair and get out there!  Really ... actually sweat a little and do some time in the grime to at least attempt to prove to us that it doesn’t exist.  Seriously, if that’s what y’all believe … then get out there and friggin' prove it!  But then again, I might be a little skeptical to think that y’all actually could …

 

To all of you and yours, whether you just believe ... or for those of us who actually know, I hope and pray that y'all have a safe & happy holiday.

Good luck to y'all in all your future endeavors in the upcomin' New Year!

*The photo titled, "Frame 253 ..." is obviously a hoax, and was created while havin' some fun with Photoshop.  The image used of Bluff Creek was found on Google Images, and was obviously taken by someone else.  One would have to assume that it is obviously the iconic frame 352 taken by Roger Patterson, which in all probability is not a hoax and is subject to Copyright.  The Bumble, however, is mine ... posed in the iconic Patty stance ... and photographed by me.  I just wanted to be perfectly clear that The Bumble was not harmed in the process, and currently resides comfortably perched upon our bar ... enjoyin' some holiday cheer!