Playing blog-link tag, I found the following site very interesting. First saw it mentioned on Lesley’s Debris Field, who pointed the way to Nick Redfern’s
There’s Something in The Woods, where Nick talks briefly about the Gable film (not Clark Gable, something else entirely) which leads us here, the Michigan Dogman Encounters.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Official Statement From Mary Green
Mary Green on her views about her co-author Janice Carter. Not pretty; as usual, the people involved in both Bigfoot and UFO research are as fascinating as the phenomena itself. I don't know any of the parties involved and so have no comment; except to say, from what I've read, something of interest has gone on with Mary Green, from my perspective, and somehow, in typical Trickster behavior, it's gotten all mixed up with stuff like this. It's too bad because most Bigfoot researchers want to avoid this kind of stuff and so will stay away from Green.
Anyway, you can read her comments on Coleman's Cryptomundo blog.
Anyway, you can read her comments on Coleman's Cryptomundo blog.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Yeti and Bigfoot Art
For no reason, just because they're fun, here are some images of Yeti, Bigfoot, etc. from vintage comic books and other places:
Yeti Blog
Stumbling around the internets, I found this I Love the Yeti.
http://ilovetheyeti.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html
And another nifty blog, Monsterama.
http://monsterama.blogspot.com/
http://ilovetheyeti.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html
And another nifty blog, Monsterama.
http://monsterama.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Bigfoot Threads and Skeptics
Persistent, chronic, pathological skeptics can’t help themselves. I suppose they just love to hear themselves talk. After all, over on the JREF (James Randi “Educational” Forum) it’s their turf; if they base all of their beliefs on the creed that there’s no such thing as Sasquatch, no way, end- of -discussion -and -don’t -even -bring -up -ufo- paranormal- psychic-bigfoot, then why do they have four separate threads going about Bigfoot? One is something like over 200 pages long!
I have no desire to post over there, none, you can be assured of that. There are a few brave souls who give it a try. But I do lurk, and I tell you, it’s a study in human behavior all right.
There’s “Bigfoot is real, I have the proof.” at 38 pages.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96467
“Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film” at 241 pages.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42523
“Bigfoot: The Invisible Variety,” at 35 pages
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94981
“Simple Challenge for Bigfoot Supporters”, at 130 pages.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70782
That’s all a hell of a lot of discussion over something you’re convinced doesn’t exist.
I have no desire to post over there, none, you can be assured of that. There are a few brave souls who give it a try. But I do lurk, and I tell you, it’s a study in human behavior all right.
There’s “Bigfoot is real, I have the proof.” at 38 pages.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96467
“Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film” at 241 pages.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42523
“Bigfoot: The Invisible Variety,” at 35 pages
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94981
“Simple Challenge for Bigfoot Supporters”, at 130 pages.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70782
That’s all a hell of a lot of discussion over something you’re convinced doesn’t exist.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
New From Lisa Shiel
Lisa Shiel used to have the blog Bigfoot Quest. She's now reformed it to Backyard Phenomena. Shiel still focuses on Bigfoot, but the new blog isn't confined to just Bigfoot.
Cuta and paste if link doesn't work: http://backyardphenomena.blogspot.com/
Cuta and paste if link doesn't work: http://backyardphenomena.blogspot.com/
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Pinning Down
But what about the people?! . . .
I always want to pin down the chronic skeptics and others who flat out don't “believe in” Bigfoot.
I understand the genuine skeptical perspective of wanting evidence. But it’s also here we get into trouble. For plaster casts of footprints, reports and recordings of tree knocking and screams, grainy, fuzzy video and photos, and tantalizing but inconclusive results from hair samples are debatable, they are evidence. Not proof, but evidence. And as open to debate as they are, (for crying out loud, just take a look at the three or four Bigfoot threads on the uber faux skeptic forum JREF) those things are evidence.
There’s one kind of evidence that isn’t accepted, and that’s anecdotal evidence. The refusal to accept anecdotal evidence as valid has seeped from the infrastructure of scientism (you can’t prove anything with an oral report of an encounter from a witness in a lab) to the rest of the culture. Skeptics of all varieties, and even some who should know better, accept the idea that anecdotal evidence is really not evidence at all. It's not valid.
This stubbornly smug stance forgets that, without anecdotal evidence to begin with, there’d be nothing to go out and investigate in the first place. Observation is a much a part of science as anything else, and yet, the observers and their reports are rejected.
Even that’s beside the point. The point is, I want those who reject the idea Bigfoot exist to address the fact of witness stories.
What do they think of the people with stories to tell? Not just one or two cases, but several dozen, at least. Story after story of Bigfoot encounters. And yet the faux skeptic plods on with condescending explanations of how humans get scared in the woods, how under stress we mistake an elk or bear for a Sasquatch, how we’re influenced by other tales of Bigfoot and that’s what our belief systems make us think, etc.
How can anyone genuinely keep this up in the light of hundreds of witnesses? Allowing for the usual disclaimer of hoaxers, liars and the mentally ill (that last a very small percentage I’m sure) we still have a huge amount of data in the way of witness reports.
I always wonder what one of these skeptic types would do if their spouse, child or close relative or friend said they saw a Sasquatch. Believe me, if I saw a Sasquatch, and my husband insisted, with persistent smugness, that I was misidentifying a known animal, or I was fearful of the big dark woods, etc. I’d leave him. (And, in fact, I know personally someone who did divorce over not being believed in regards to UFOs )
After awhile, the insistence we "make things up," to quote skeptic Michael Shermer, really shows itself to be the flimsy excuse it is for not paying attention.
When faced with the reality of people’s -- fellow human beings -- experiences, I think it would be difficult to keep up the “you just mistook a bear you were scared you’re a liar were you drinking?” routine. That would be a real test, to step outside of the walls of scientism and really listen for a time. What do you hear in these stories, what do you see when the person you're sitting across from is telling you their story?
Observation. Listening. Hearing. For some, that's as scary as encountering a Bigfoot.
I always want to pin down the chronic skeptics and others who flat out don't “believe in” Bigfoot.
I understand the genuine skeptical perspective of wanting evidence. But it’s also here we get into trouble. For plaster casts of footprints, reports and recordings of tree knocking and screams, grainy, fuzzy video and photos, and tantalizing but inconclusive results from hair samples are debatable, they are evidence. Not proof, but evidence. And as open to debate as they are, (for crying out loud, just take a look at the three or four Bigfoot threads on the uber faux skeptic forum JREF) those things are evidence.
There’s one kind of evidence that isn’t accepted, and that’s anecdotal evidence. The refusal to accept anecdotal evidence as valid has seeped from the infrastructure of scientism (you can’t prove anything with an oral report of an encounter from a witness in a lab) to the rest of the culture. Skeptics of all varieties, and even some who should know better, accept the idea that anecdotal evidence is really not evidence at all. It's not valid.
This stubbornly smug stance forgets that, without anecdotal evidence to begin with, there’d be nothing to go out and investigate in the first place. Observation is a much a part of science as anything else, and yet, the observers and their reports are rejected.
Even that’s beside the point. The point is, I want those who reject the idea Bigfoot exist to address the fact of witness stories.
What do they think of the people with stories to tell? Not just one or two cases, but several dozen, at least. Story after story of Bigfoot encounters. And yet the faux skeptic plods on with condescending explanations of how humans get scared in the woods, how under stress we mistake an elk or bear for a Sasquatch, how we’re influenced by other tales of Bigfoot and that’s what our belief systems make us think, etc.
How can anyone genuinely keep this up in the light of hundreds of witnesses? Allowing for the usual disclaimer of hoaxers, liars and the mentally ill (that last a very small percentage I’m sure) we still have a huge amount of data in the way of witness reports.
I always wonder what one of these skeptic types would do if their spouse, child or close relative or friend said they saw a Sasquatch. Believe me, if I saw a Sasquatch, and my husband insisted, with persistent smugness, that I was misidentifying a known animal, or I was fearful of the big dark woods, etc. I’d leave him. (And, in fact, I know personally someone who did divorce over not being believed in regards to UFOs )
After awhile, the insistence we "make things up," to quote skeptic Michael Shermer, really shows itself to be the flimsy excuse it is for not paying attention.
When faced with the reality of people’s -- fellow human beings -- experiences, I think it would be difficult to keep up the “you just mistook a bear you were scared you’re a liar were you drinking?” routine. That would be a real test, to step outside of the walls of scientism and really listen for a time. What do you hear in these stories, what do you see when the person you're sitting across from is telling you their story?
Observation. Listening. Hearing. For some, that's as scary as encountering a Bigfoot.
“Show me the body”
Only a cold hard body will do . . .
In the article Bigfoot: Fact or Fiction as a sidebar to They’re on a mission to find Bigfoot in California, Michael Shermer, persistent uber skeptic, had this to say:
Anecdotal evidence is still evidence however, and valid evidence. It isn’t enough to shout to the world Sasquatch exists, but it’s a start. That isn’t what has me shaking my head in a moment of surreal cognitive dissonance ; it’s the following comment by Shermer in response to Dr. Jeff Medlrum's plans to start an on line journal (The Relic Hominoid Inquiry,”) devoted to discussion and research on the topic:
Yes, but isn’t looking for something not yet proven to exist kind of scientific and all? If you want to find out if a thing exists, and you reject anecdotal evidence, why reject other avenues of exploration? Particularly avenues of exploration from your colleagues? (Yes, Mr. Shermer, Dr. Meldrum is too a scientist.) Isn’t making available and encouraging discussion of the thing you want to find out about a right step on the road to scientific discovery? Or at least inquiry?
Do faux skeptics even want Bigfoot to be found?
Let’s do it the uber way for a moment; going about it following the proper channels of the Scientism Code of How We Do Things. Anecdotal evidence, out! Okay. So the only other way to see if Bigfoot exists is to go out and look for it, right? And take castings of prints that could be, might be, of the big hairy darling. And chronicle the associated events in the context of Bigfoot encounters/sightings; wood knocking, rock throwing, scents, calls. Gather data.
And even encouraging other scientific individuals -- instead of the average Joe these pathological skeptics dismiss with such snooty rejection -- to communicate with each other.
And yet, confusingly, the Shermers of the world don’t see these endeavors as good things, or even well meaning but misguided things. Their minds seem to be made up, even while making dramatic demands: don’t waste time looking for Bigfoot or seriously studying the topic, but do please bring me a dead body.
Mr. Shermer seems more concerned with the evils of the imagination than looking for Bigfoot:
Let’s play their game and ask for proof, or at least really good evidence, that this is so. Shermer made a statement, now let’s see him prove it. Why and how do we make things up, and to what end? Why would the Bigfoot encounters share similarities? How does that all work; how and why do our minds create a big ass hairy monster in the woods? And why is that this hallucination, for lack of a better word, appears to more than one person at times (multiple witnesses) ? If we are to use the stale and often abused Occam’s Razor, Shermer’s “explanation” seems the less likely one. Are we to seriously accept that people, particularly those that live in rural and remote areas, are so unfamiliar with the local flora and fauna, so out of touch with the natural rhythms of their environment, so distanced from the behavior and personalities of their own pets and animals (cattle, sheep, etc.) that they have to “make stuff up?”
In the article Bigfoot: Fact or Fiction as a sidebar to They’re on a mission to find Bigfoot in California, Michael Shermer, persistent uber skeptic, had this to say:
“Show me the body,” says Dr. Michael Shermer, executive director of the Altadena-based Skeptics society. “No one names a new species based on anecdotal evidence such as something spooky they heard in the night.”
Anecdotal evidence is still evidence however, and valid evidence. It isn’t enough to shout to the world Sasquatch exists, but it’s a start. That isn’t what has me shaking my head in a moment of surreal cognitive dissonance ; it’s the following comment by Shermer in response to Dr. Jeff Medlrum's plans to start an on line journal (The Relic Hominoid Inquiry,”) devoted to discussion and research on the topic:
Such efforts, Shermer says, are an exercise in futility.
Yes, but isn’t looking for something not yet proven to exist kind of scientific and all? If you want to find out if a thing exists, and you reject anecdotal evidence, why reject other avenues of exploration? Particularly avenues of exploration from your colleagues? (Yes, Mr. Shermer, Dr. Meldrum is too a scientist.) Isn’t making available and encouraging discussion of the thing you want to find out about a right step on the road to scientific discovery? Or at least inquiry?
Do faux skeptics even want Bigfoot to be found?
Let’s do it the uber way for a moment; going about it following the proper channels of the Scientism Code of How We Do Things. Anecdotal evidence, out! Okay. So the only other way to see if Bigfoot exists is to go out and look for it, right? And take castings of prints that could be, might be, of the big hairy darling. And chronicle the associated events in the context of Bigfoot encounters/sightings; wood knocking, rock throwing, scents, calls. Gather data.
And even encouraging other scientific individuals -- instead of the average Joe these pathological skeptics dismiss with such snooty rejection -- to communicate with each other.
And yet, confusingly, the Shermers of the world don’t see these endeavors as good things, or even well meaning but misguided things. Their minds seem to be made up, even while making dramatic demands: don’t waste time looking for Bigfoot or seriously studying the topic, but do please bring me a dead body.
Mr. Shermer seems more concerned with the evils of the imagination than looking for Bigfoot:
People have genuine experiences. The question is – what do those experiences represent?” Shermer says. “People have incredible imaginations. We're really good at just making stuff up.”
Let’s play their game and ask for proof, or at least really good evidence, that this is so. Shermer made a statement, now let’s see him prove it. Why and how do we make things up, and to what end? Why would the Bigfoot encounters share similarities? How does that all work; how and why do our minds create a big ass hairy monster in the woods? And why is that this hallucination, for lack of a better word, appears to more than one person at times (multiple witnesses) ? If we are to use the stale and often abused Occam’s Razor, Shermer’s “explanation” seems the less likely one. Are we to seriously accept that people, particularly those that live in rural and remote areas, are so unfamiliar with the local flora and fauna, so out of touch with the natural rhythms of their environment, so distanced from the behavior and personalities of their own pets and animals (cattle, sheep, etc.) that they have to “make stuff up?”
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Blogsquatcher: Bleating of the Goats Part 2
Part 2 of The Bleating of the Goats by Blogsquatcher. Good reading! I was intrigued the whole time, reading his report. The dream is interesting I think, as well. (What dream, you may ask. Well, go over there and read it!)
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Run, Bigfoot, Run!
Here's hoping Bigfoot stays hidden . . .
I’m conflicted. I enjoy watching television shows about Bigfoot. I’m right there with the field researchers, making plaster casts of prints, setting up game cameras, and tromping through the crunchy woods at night with night vision goggles strapped to my face. I’m interested in the evidence collected, and the conclusions on the analysis.
At the same time, I cringe when I see investigators coming up with twists on how to attract Bigfoot. Hanging CDs in the trees or wind chimes, playing recordings of animal sounds, pheromone traps, and so on. At some point, the idea of actively looking for Bigfoot changes from interesting to intrusive, as well as pointless.
I always have the feeling that Bigfoot is well aware of the team about to descend on its territory long before the team gets any whiff of Bigfoot. For that reason alone, the chances of Bigfoot being found seem slight.
For the people who’ve seen Bigfoot, no proof is needed. After all, they’ve seen it! (Although, for some of them -- naturally I can’t speak for any witness -- proof might be welcome, if only to prove to family, friends and community they’re not lying or crazy.)
What of the aftermath? Bigfoot is found to exist; now what? There are laws already in place in some areas protecting Bigfoot. For some unfathomable reason, this irks many a scofftoid. If we waited until after Bigfoot is found to create and implement such laws, there’s a window where harm to Bigfoot could be done, with no legal consequences to the one doing the harm.
Then there’s the issue of habitat; varied, it seems, since Bigfoot has been reported in many diverse areas all over the U.S. The time, money and creaky process of law will be a circus, while Bigfoot remains vulnerable and the less ethical and moral will be out in droves hunting down the creature.
So, I’m conflicted. I love the search even while hoping Bigfoot is never finally found. I like the elusive photos that are tantizling; just enough but not quite enough to satisfy. I like the continued debate over footprints (for example, see the JREF forum for endless debates over the usefullness of prints) and the weight it gives to Bigfoots existence. I like the personal experiences of researchers and witnesses; they remain elusive and “just” anecdotal eveidence which all too often is not valid for skeptics and others alike.
These kinds of things keeps Bigfoot in the shadows, which is where I hope it stays. Some may get glimpses, but never enough to bring out into the harsh light of “discovery.”
I’m conflicted. I enjoy watching television shows about Bigfoot. I’m right there with the field researchers, making plaster casts of prints, setting up game cameras, and tromping through the crunchy woods at night with night vision goggles strapped to my face. I’m interested in the evidence collected, and the conclusions on the analysis.
At the same time, I cringe when I see investigators coming up with twists on how to attract Bigfoot. Hanging CDs in the trees or wind chimes, playing recordings of animal sounds, pheromone traps, and so on. At some point, the idea of actively looking for Bigfoot changes from interesting to intrusive, as well as pointless.
I always have the feeling that Bigfoot is well aware of the team about to descend on its territory long before the team gets any whiff of Bigfoot. For that reason alone, the chances of Bigfoot being found seem slight.
For the people who’ve seen Bigfoot, no proof is needed. After all, they’ve seen it! (Although, for some of them -- naturally I can’t speak for any witness -- proof might be welcome, if only to prove to family, friends and community they’re not lying or crazy.)
What of the aftermath? Bigfoot is found to exist; now what? There are laws already in place in some areas protecting Bigfoot. For some unfathomable reason, this irks many a scofftoid. If we waited until after Bigfoot is found to create and implement such laws, there’s a window where harm to Bigfoot could be done, with no legal consequences to the one doing the harm.
Then there’s the issue of habitat; varied, it seems, since Bigfoot has been reported in many diverse areas all over the U.S. The time, money and creaky process of law will be a circus, while Bigfoot remains vulnerable and the less ethical and moral will be out in droves hunting down the creature.
So, I’m conflicted. I love the search even while hoping Bigfoot is never finally found. I like the elusive photos that are tantizling; just enough but not quite enough to satisfy. I like the continued debate over footprints (for example, see the JREF forum for endless debates over the usefullness of prints) and the weight it gives to Bigfoots existence. I like the personal experiences of researchers and witnesses; they remain elusive and “just” anecdotal eveidence which all too often is not valid for skeptics and others alike.
These kinds of things keeps Bigfoot in the shadows, which is where I hope it stays. Some may get glimpses, but never enough to bring out into the harsh light of “discovery.”
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Over on Blogsquatcher: Oregon "bigfoot" and a great story
As usual, Blogsquatcher has some good items. One is Part I of a story about following up on reports of Bigfoot sightings. As is often the case, the people invovled are as interesting as the Fortean/weird/anomalous thing they're going after.
There's also a video from my state of Oregon of a "Bigfoot."
There's also a video from my state of Oregon of a "Bigfoot."
About Those Yeti Tracks And Other Big Hairy Monsters
A sort of mini round-up of recent items . . .
Items popping up about the recent Yeti track, assuming it is a Yeti track.
On cryptomundo, Snowman Movie, Meditation and Mental Telepathy, which is intriguing!
Then there’s lThe Truth About the Abominable Snowman, which worries me. Anytime anyone claims to have “the truth” about the weird or religion, I know that I can’t take much of what they have to say too seriously. But then it is from the Live Science site, so they you go.
No comments:
Items popping up about the recent Yeti track, assuming it is a Yeti track.
On cryptomundo, Snowman Movie, Meditation and Mental Telepathy, which is intriguing!
Then there’s lThe Truth About the Abominable Snowman, which worries me. Anytime anyone claims to have “the truth” about the weird or religion, I know that I can’t take much of what they have to say too seriously. But then it is from the Live Science site, so they you go.
No comments:
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Greg Bishop, over on UFO Mystic, has an item about the Olympics mascot. And it’s . . . it’s . . . Bigfoot! Yes, it is.
There’s “Quatchi,” among others. And if you visit the creator's site
you’ll find Chuppy’s Crypto Zoo. Chuppy is:
I’m sure I’d be grumpy too if I were living in a “run down zoo” in the hot desert.
This seems pretty seedy to me; not your warm and fuzzy tales, but a sleazy cross cultural lost in the translation derelict cute-isfication of the anomalous.
The comments left by readers on UFO Mystic are worth reading as well. Be sure to take a look.
There’s “Quatchi,” among others. And if you visit the creator's site
you’ll find Chuppy’s Crypto Zoo. Chuppy is:
. . . a young girl raised by wild creatures (Chupacabras) in the desert of New Mexico. Chuppy and her friends operate a run-down zoo where there are sea monsters, yetis, faeries and grumpy unicorns.
I’m sure I’d be grumpy too if I were living in a “run down zoo” in the hot desert.
This seems pretty seedy to me; not your warm and fuzzy tales, but a sleazy cross cultural lost in the translation derelict cute-isfication of the anomalous.
The comments left by readers on UFO Mystic are worth reading as well. Be sure to take a look.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Yeti Footprints on Mt. Everest?
Destination Truth, a U.S. television program about “crypto-zoological creatures and unexplained phenomena” found three prints they believe are of the Yeti while filming in Nepal.
Cut and paste the url below for story.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071130/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_nepal_yeti;_ylt=AtdXPJCKEfWcVpzr4bSAwSbtiBIF
Cut and paste the url below for story.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071130/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_nepal_yeti;_ylt=AtdXPJCKEfWcVpzr4bSAwSbtiBIF
Blogsquatcher blog: Bigfoot Abduction?
The Blogsquatcher has become one of my favorite Bigfoot blogs, the other being Lisa Shiel’s Bigfoot Quest. Here’s an interesting account of a “bigfoot abduction” near Yosimite National Park in California:
Story of abduction by bigfoot? With descendants . . .
Story of abduction by bigfoot? With descendants . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)