Skip to main content

See also:

Bigfoot Question and Answers Part 3

Blending in
Blending in
Mitch Waite

This is the wrap up of the introductions to Bigfoot Questions and Answers from Part 1 and Part 2

When it comes to Bigfoot, I am a “no kill/no harm” person. I would never take a creature’s life just to attempt to satisfy skeptic man’s curiosity. And this is because I consider myself a Bigfoot Researcher and not a Bigfoot Hunter. Bigfoot hunters are in it for the proof, glory, money, and fame. They would not even balk at killing such a rare creature. A researcher is more like Jane Goodall who spent a life time researching the chimpanzees. Romain Baertsoen who brought us the Gorillas from the Heart of Darkness featured in National Geographic. Neither of which killed any of their subjects. Now do not get me wrong, I will protect myself or any other human from attack, but I will try not to provoke such an attack. If I did find a body (already dead), I would probably not take the body, but I would take a tooth or two and many other pictures and videos. The reason for taking the tooth is contamination of the innards of a tooth is nearly impossible when it comes to DNA. If the science is solid, it should be enough to prove existence. The body, I would leave for loved ones (Bigfoot) to recover. It is theirs.
As for those who claim we need a body to prove the existence of Bigfoot, I say that is pretty short minded and typical of the skeptic and is a precept of old, outdated science/academic standards. It reminds me of the early English explorers that had to shoot everything to discover anything. The Great Panda was not proven (to Science) to exist until the mid-1900’s, even though the local people had reported them since the beginning of records. Even though Pandas were very rare and endangered, it took science or those who had to “prove” the existence of the panda fifteen bodies. And then the proof came from a nonprofessional collector who managed to keep one alive until it was placed in an American zoo. Man greatly reduced the species to near extinction just to prove they existed. Unacceptable. And, it was not a professional, academic, or government sponsored person that brought the elusive live Panda for "proof of existence."