The Blogsquatcher: A Glitch?

In my "follow" list thingie I still have The Blogsquatcher on the list. Even though that blog has been gone now for some time, I kept it on there, hoping that maybe, he would return. That was a great blog. I noticed the other day a new post! Excited, thinking Blogsquatcher has indeed returned to us, I clicked, but found, not The Blogsquatcher, but this: Legend of Bigfoot: Bigfoot

It's not The Blogsquatcher, but a seemingly new blog run by Clark Anderson, who comments in his profile:

i am Clark, i am new here, to set up some blogs & be worldwide

I don't know how one link (Blogsquatcher) came to be this new link; maybe it has something to do with Blogger's set-up -- inactive blogs can be taken over? So, no return of The Blogsquatcher. But maybe this new blog will be something to look forward to.

Area Man Kicked Off Mineola Nature Preserve Trying to Bait Bigfoot in His Toyota - Dallas News - Unfair Park

A Texas man went looking for Bigfoot, attempting to lure the creature out with pieces of orange and nuts. Turns out someone called the police, for the guy was on private property, unbeknownst to him.

Some funny little phrasings in this article; the man was not armed, he just had a camera, but some see a camera has a potential threat:

Green [caretaker of private property] says the man had a camera in his car; KMOO reports he was otherwise unarmed.

Caretaker Green doesn't put much stock in Bigfoot's abilities. Referring to  the would be Bigfoot explorer, Green said:

"He was a big boy. He's over six-foot, 230-ish," Green says. "He didn't need nothing to be hunting Bigfoot. He could've gone down there with just a switch."

Area Man Kicked Off Mineola Nature Preserve Trying to Bait Bigfoot in His Toyota - Dallas News - Unfair Park

From Thom Powell: "Bigfoot Research: Intel not Science"

 "...we should regard them as guerrillas, not gorillas." ~ (Thom Powell on how we need to think about Bigfoot.)

Author of The Locals and Bigfoot researcher Thom Powell has a great post at his blog on Bigfoot research, and why the "scientific" approach is just not sensible. Powell comments that Bigfoot are intelligent, highly, extremely intelligent, and not "...dumb apes or wild animals." As I've ranted here on Frame 342 and elsewhere many times, Bigfoot/Sasquatch research still surprises me with the attitude, the innate assumption, that Bigfoot is basically just a big animal. Many acknowledge that Bigfoot is intelligent, but "just", really, a big animal. Still "lesser than" us, in every way, and an animal as yet unidentified but in the end, nothing more than an extremely smart bear or ape or even some entirely new creature but, "just" an animal that is below us, even if just a notch. Part of that assumption that Bigfoot is below us, no matter how short that distance may be; includes the attitude that this "less than" no matter how slight, gives us the right to hunt, trap, trick, kill, dissect, and or exploit. Often, "in the name of science" is invoked as justification, but sometimes it's just an arrogance, the assumption that we, as humans have the right because we want to, because we can, because "it" (Bigfoot) is there, because it'd be astoundingly way cool. But I don't want to get off on a rant :)...

As to using scientific means with equipment and methods, Powell writes:

While I am saying you'll never collect truly valid scientific evidence, I'm not saying you should find another hobby. I'm just saying you will not be able to satisfy that rigorous expectation called scientific proof. That's because you cannot do science on an intelligent and elusive being that does not intend to cooperate with our attempts to scientifically document its existence. Even though various items of credible evidence have been gathered over the years, such as the PGF, the Skookum Cast, and more track casts and hair samples than you can shake a bag of plaster at, they all fail the rigors of science in one important regard: they cannot be replicated.

Thom doesn't say we should give up looking for Bigfoot, but that we need to change our perspectives, our assumptions, and our approach when we do go out in the field:

...you are making a mistake by trying to be utterly scientific in your approach.  Instead, you should recognize the difference between science and intelligence gathering, and recognize that it is more pragmatic to settle for collecting intel as opposed to unassailable scientific data. 

Intel. Like the CIA, government spooks, spy stuff. Intelligence gathering. This is the shift in thinking and approach that needs to happen. As I frequently do, I see parallels to UFO research. After sixty years or so of research, we haven't found any answers to the UFO phenomenon. Well, that's arguable but also another article for another day. But  the following comments from Powell on research methods concerning Bigfoot and using an intelligence gathering mind-set can be applied ot the shift that needs to happen in UFO research as well:

Everything they [intelligence ops] gather is a bit uncertain but this does not justify throwing that data away . . .  That's how intel goes. It ain't science, but it ain't worthless, either.  It's all we got and it may someday be useful in designing and executing a truly scientific experiment but we aren't there yet. 

Powell is not "against' science, and this isn't about bashing science. The entire article is excellent and, a brave one in the sense that, in my experience, Bigfoot research is a conservative arena, more so than UFO Land. I think things are shifting though, in a new and creative direction.

Bigfoot attack in campground kills campers, BLM & Dept of Interior involved Inyo County mid 1970's...

Does the government know that Bigfoot exists? The idea that the government know there are creatures we call Bigfoot, and that they're keeping that news from the rest of us, has been around for a long time. Here's a story from the 1990s about Bigfoot in Bishop, California, the government's knowledge of its existence, and its tactics in keeping this secret. (Also, in this story, a violent Bigfoot is mentioned.)

Bigfoot attack in campground kills campers, BLM & Dept of Interior involved Inyo County mid 1970's...

Bigfoot Lunch Club: Bigfoot sightings return to Eugene, California and alarm residents

Bigfoot has been seen in my (now) home town of Eugene in Oregon. Actually, Alpine, which is about 28 miles from here. I know Bigfoot has been seen in the area for years.


Bigfoot Lunch Club: Bigfoot sightings return to Eugene, California and alarm residents

Award

 Very nice, two of my blogs, Mothman Flutterings, and this one, Frame 352, was named in Forensic Science.net's  list of top 30 cryptozoology blogs. Thank you!

Forensic Science

Top Cryptozoology Blogs

Levels of "Intelligence", Supernatural Sasquatch, and the No Kill/Kill Debate

Some are adamant about their opinions on this debate: kill, or, no kill. I'm adamant -- I won't budge -- I'm for a No Kill stance and that's that. Some are less adamant; they qualify their opinions depending on the perceived state of intelligence of the creature. The more human like Sasquatch appears to be, the less likely this type of person would attempt to kill one, but, if the creature is perceived to be "ape like," and more ape, less human, the kill policy reigns. Sasquatch is considered, by some, an animal, less than us, and while clearly intelligent, and astounding in its very existence in terms of scientific discovery, it's still "just" an animal. Still less than us, somehow. And that alone gives some the justification they need to support their kill view.

I don't care if Sasquatch turns out to be "just a big ape," some kind of uber-bear, or an alien. I don't care if the intelligence of Sasquatch is below that of a pinto bean. The intelligence level of Sasquatch should have nothing to do with killing it. I have major issues with hunting, but I do understand the justification for it in terms of survival; if one needs to feed oneself, then I'd be a hypocrite to say one should not hunt for food. If I were to find myself in certain circumstances, I might have to find I'd have to hunt as well. That aside, killing a Sasquatch is a very different issue.

I'll reiterate what I've said so many times before; I don't give a damn if science finds proof of Sasquatch's existence, and certainly not at the expense of a dead body.

Maybe this view of mine is based on my personal experiences with the paranormal, anomalous encounters and interests and UFOs: I don't care if anyone believes me or not, and I don't owe anyone an explanation or proof. I share my experiences for my own reasons, many of which I am clear about, many which I'm not. Who knows why we do what we do? We're not as focused as we sometimes tell ourselves we are. That's okay however... we're human.

My personal experiences involving the above mentioned phenomena is no doubt the reason why I am open to so-called "paranormal Bigfoot" encounters. I've never seen a Bigfoot (yet, :) and never had a supernatural Bigfoot experience (although, I suspect my cone of light experience related to Stan Johnson might be considered one such experience in some ways) but I accept these high strangeness stories. I accept them as interesting, true, and valuable. True, not necessarily literal.

So in some ways it's a non-argument; killing Sasquatch, if the creature is supernatural. Can you kill a fairy? On the other hand, we can't be too sure, and might as well continue the good fight against those who, regardless of where they fall on the kill policy continuum, would support killing one under certain circumstances.

On UFOs, et al: Stan Johnson Encounters a Sasquatch

From the UFOs, et al blog: Stan Johnson Encounters A Sasquatch.

I've been following Stan's story for many years, --he is deceased, but his story lives on. Johnson was a Sutherlin, Oregon resident who many experiences with Sasquatch of the high strangeness kind.

I met Stan once at a UFO conference in Eugene. Very charismatic man. I also had my own odd moment of high strangeness involving Stan regarding Sasquatch which I've discussed on-line many times. You can hear my description of this here; where Mike Clelland at thehidden experienceblog, interviewed me for his podcast.

Also a bit of synchronicity; just last night I was working on my manuscript of a similar case in Oregon, frustrated, once again, that I can't seem to get it done. Then I realized: it's because I haven't committed to what I think about "paranormal Bigfoot," -- I haven't gotten off the fence, and just say it. So I did, in the introduction, which caused everything else to fall into place. My next project concerns Johnson, and here I wake up to find this item on Johnson on UFOs, et al blog. Small synchronicitous Sasquatch world!

Bigfoot Lunch Club: Silent Invasion: The Pennsylvania UFO-Bigfoot Casebook

Bigfoot Lunch Club: Silent Invasion: The Pennsylvania UFO-Bigfoot Casebook

Endless PG Debate; Yeah, But There's Just One Thing . . .

For some perverse reason, I found myself once again lurking on the JREF message board in the surreal and looooooooooooooooonnnngggg (oh, so very long) thread Calling All Skeptics! Help Kitakaze End PGF Controversy - Pitch to Discovery Channel. As usual, I was struck by the bizarre and pathological - obsession of skeptics and debunkers to discuss, mock, and argue the non-existence of Sasquatch. And in particular, as on the above mentioned thread, the Patterson-Gimlin footage. "Kitakaze," as we know, has been on that hobby horse for some time; his crusade has been, well, interesting, as well as unnerving. (For example, see Melissa Hovey's comments about this on her blog The Search for Bigfoot.)

So, reading the last couple of pages in this thread, the sheer number of which boggles the mind -- it's what, around elevenity-million or something -- I had the idle thought that it doesn't matter if the P-G footage is a hoax or not, because, because, because: people have seen Bigfoot! Very simple.

Of course it does matter if the P-G film is of a real Sasquatch; my point is, in the great scheme of things, proving the P-G film is a hoax doesn't prove at all that Bigfoot does not not exist.

My question (rhetorical; please, if you're a skeptoid do not attempt to engage) is: if it's proven the P-G film is a hoax, will the discussion of Bigfoot's existence end for you all?  I doubt it; look at how many threads on the JREF there are about Bigfoot. A few dozen, easily. Not the first time I've asked this but I am intrigued: why spend so much time on something you believe doesn't exist? That you believe couldn't possibly exist, despite the number of witness accounts? 

The Search For Bigfoot: Trouble in Florida?

On Melissa Hovey's blog, "Mike" leaves a comment as well. This time, his comment is longer; he insists the book Enoch is "fiction."

The Search For Bigfoot: Trouble in Florida?

conversation with Regan Lee

Mike Clelland of hidden experience posted the audio interview from awhile back, thanks mike!  Edited to add: in that interview, I talk about a strange experience I had involving a cone of light while discussing Bigfoot and Stan Johnson. Johnson was a so-called "Bigfoot contactee" though I dislike that term, who lived in Sutherlin, Oregon. Johnson had many encounters with a Sasquatch family and UFOs.
conversation with Regan Lee

North American Bigfoot: Jane Goodall in the News

Sharing a nice item on Jane Goodall from North American Bigfoot blog:

North American Bigfoot: Jane Goodall in the News

Bigfoot Lunch Club: Thom Powell Week: To true believers, Bigfoot lives

Bigfoot Lunch Club comments on Thom Powell, and a local (Eugene, Oregon) article in the Register-Guard on Bigfoot, and an upcoming Bigfoot presentation at the University of Oregon Nov. 3rd. Read more on Steve's blog:

Bigfoot Lunch Club: Thom Powell Week: To true believers, Bigfoot lives

Bigfoot Sighting? Just a Case of Input/Output

I love to lurk on the JREF paranormal and general skepticism message board, particularly the Bigfoot threads. As I've mentioned before here and on my blog Snarly Skepticism and Unofficial JREF Watch, the last time I counted there were well over fifty seperate threads about Bigfoot. For something they don't believe exists, that's a lot of wasted time and effort!

The latest post that caught my attention for its surreal example of a pathological skeptic moment is this response to a poster named WGBH, who had, in the past, posted about his Bigfoot sighting. "Drewbot" comes along and wonders where WGBH is, WGBH responds that, since "Drewbot" doesn't believe WGBH saw a Bigfoot, what's the point of going on? To which "Drewbot" posts:

I believe you had a sighting, I just don't think you saw an actual Bigfoot.

Look at this formula:

INPUT STIMULI I₁, I₂, I₃, I₄... = OUTPUT X

OUTPUT X = SIGHTING
A sighting is an output function

INPUT (I_X) could be any number of inputs that lead you to believe you had a sighting.

I don't believe that the input stimulus was an actual bigfoot. However I do believe that you had an input that created an output of a sighting.

I love it.

Squatchland: Bigfoot Ballyhoo

Here's a post on Linda Newton-Perry's "Bigfoot Ballyhoo" latest, from Squatchland blog:

Squatchland: Bigfoot Ballyhoo

"Going to kill it in 3 mths"

My post about a No Kill position concerning Bigfoot inspired this troll, calling himself "Brian Thexton," to send me the following email, which I just discovered in my email box this evening:

cant type this call me @ 503 *** **** found a big foot bed MtHood 9/18/2010 can show you 44rd-2730rd-200rd(flag point lookout) call me asap "going to kill it in 3 mths "threw 8"rock @ me last nite i called it in with a cow call but it wasnt a elk

He left a phone number with an Oregon area code; I won't call it but I did various internet searches on it for fun: it's a cell, it's in Portland, that's about it and all I'm inclined to do.

"Going to kill it in 3 mths"  Why in 3 months? Wouldn't that be in late December/January, when the weather and conditions on Mt. Hood are, well, a bit on the dicey side? Why is "going to kill it in 3 months" and "threw 8" in quotes?

Did he think that I'd want to go out in the snow and watch him try to kill a Bigfoot? Note to future trolls: I hate the snow. The last thing I'm going to ever do is go out in the snow for what some call recreation?. . . that's a weird concept for me.

New Bigfoot Thread on JREF: "Mormon Bigfoot Genesis Theory"

The JREF (James Randi Educational Forum) has a new thread on Bigfoot; this one is titled "Mormon Bigfoot Genesis Theory." I stopped counting long ago how many Bigfoot threads there are on the JREF but at last estimation, it was around sixty. Sixty seperate threads on a "skeptic" site about a creature the majority of posters don't believe exists.

Interesting thread, on the Mormon folklore about Sasquatch. And, about UFOs. Not connected, according to the OP, and I'm not that familiar with Mormon doctrine. But it is an interesting juxtaposition.

Naturally, the skeptoids scoff at this; because it's Bigfoot, because it's religion. (The only valid point made by the OP is the potential racism inherent in this folklore -- kind of like David Icke's and other Illuminati loving theorists, who disguise their anti-Semitism with code phrases like reptilians, world bankers, etc.)

But in reading about Mormon founder Joseph Smith's experiences, it's clear he had contact with something that is very close to alien/UFO encounters. And in reading the book of Mormon, with different tribes stealing chests full of DNA, -- it reads like a sci fi novel. Parallels are clear, as Biblical/religious text UFO researchers know.

Bigfoot Lunch Club's "A Man Who Would Kill Bigfoot"

Bigfoot Lunch Club has a post about "Dave" who is getting up an expedition to kill himself a Bigfoot:Interview: A man who would kill Bigfoot "Dave" is not his real name, which I find interesting. As I posted in the comment section to the post:

And by the way, why doesn't "Dave" use his real name? It strikes me as being cowardly. Yes, there are avid anti-No Kill Bigfoot folks out there, but, tough. He choose this path, deal with it.

Bigfoot Lunch Club posts some of the interview between J. Andersen, described as a "free lance writer for Associated Content" and "Dave":

J. Andersen: Are you concerned with the Ethics of shooting a bigfoot?

Dave: Yes and No, there's no law against hunting Bigfoot where I'm from. Most people hate me for what I'm doing and that's fine but the only way to prove 100% that it exists is by capturing one dead or alive.

To that, I also commented that law has nothing to do with this either. A law is simply a law, it isn't moral or ethical on the face of it simply because it is, or isn't, the law. I simply don't understand the thinking and motivations behind those that support a Kill Policy, and that includes some of the otherwise esteemed researchers in the field.

The BLC quotes from the article, which cites Loren Coleman's views on killing Bigfoot. Coleman's against it, but to my mind, not much, for he believes having one in captivity is better than killing one:

The first large unknown hairy hominoid captured will live its life in captivity, no doubt, and there it may be examined internally. MRIs, CAT scans, EKGs, and a whole battery of medical and other procedures may be used to examine it.

It is doubtful the first one will be returned to the wild, so, of course, it will die someday within the reach of future scientific examinations. Then it will be dissected, just as newly discovered animals, including various kinds of humans, have been for further study. But in the meantime, why not study the living animal’s captive and adaptive behaviors?

The days of Queen Victoria, when only killing an animal would establish it was real and not folklore, are, indeed, long gone. --Loren Coleman 2/6/2006

To be fair, it's possible Coleman was describing a scenario, and not promoting a personal viewpoint on what should be done.

As I said in my comment at Bigfoot Lunch Club, witnesses know Bigfoot exists. No proof is necessary for them, but, for some witnesses the torment they go through in not being believed, in having their sanity questioned, having their spouses, children, close friends mock them; well, Bigfoot body, dead or captured, would put a stop to all that. And yet, even in those cases, it's not enough. It's just not enough to condone killing or capturing a Bigfoot. I'll amend that and exchange killing for murdering.

People who support a Kill Policy, (as well as a captured one) also neglect to think their murdering-of-a-mystery-beast-quest through. Researcher Autumn Williams brought up this issue at her presentation at the Oregon Sasquatch Symposium in June. So a BF has been murdered or captured, now what? What laws will be put in place to protect the creature? What agencies will be involved, who will have jurisdiction? Will laws vary from state to state -- from county to county?-- and should they? What about habitats? How does that impact humans? Local economies? And so on, oh what a can of worms will be opened if that ever happens.

But for me, it gets down to only one thing: an unhealthy obsession with satisfying a personal thrill-kill blood thirst. For some its buried pretty deep, hidden under what strikes me as self-righteous pronouncements about "in the name of science," for others, they're more overt and upfront, and are simply out to solve a mystery -- if killing murdering a Bigfoot is the way to do it, so be it. Whatever the level of murder-lust, capturing or killing murdering a Bigfoot is wrong. It's not something I support, and never will.

Snarly Skepticism . . . (and Unofficial JREF Watch): The Search For Bigfoot: Kitakaze and his "Accusations"

I comment a bit at my blog Snarly Skepticism on Melissa Hovey's (The Search for Bigfoot) post on uber-skeptoid "Kitakaze" :

Snarly Skepticism . . . (and Unofficial JREF Watch): The Search For Bigfoot: Kitakaze and his "Accusations"