There is a Yeti in the back of everyone’s mind; only the blessed are not haunted by it. ~ old sherpa saying

Monday, January 30, 2012

The Bigfoot Filmography

Very cool; something I thought of doing a few years back. I'm sure many of us have! I even started collecting DVDs of BF films -- the good, the bad, the ridiculous. But quickly realized I just didn't have the time, and, some of the movies were so bad ... I mean, bad, not "so bad it's good" but just ...bad. Enough about that; visit Dave Coleman's site which gives us a ton of links to Bigfoot blogs and sites, and ordering information on the book. The Bigfoot Filmography

Saturday, January 28, 2012


Local (Willamette Valley) researcher Darin Richardson is offering a signed edition of his book on ebay:BIGFOOT BOOK BEING SOLD BY AUTHOR | eBay Take a look!

Monday, January 16, 2012


Free NO KILL/NO CAPTURE badge to use on your blogs and sites. I made it; you're free to change font style and colors. Show your support for the protection of Sasquatch.


Be sure to check the link list on the right to other Bigfoot blogs and sites. I just added Bizarre Bigfoot; list is updated often so have fun exploring new places to visit!

Sunday, January 15, 2012

NH court upholds Bigfoot’s free speech rights -

Court allows Jonathan Doyle to wear his "monkey costume" in the state park and interview people about Bigfoot. So how long will it be untile someone takes a shot at him?NH court upholds Bigfoot’s free speech rights -

Sad: "Sasquatch Must Die"

"Kwin the Eskimo" writes about why he (or she) thinks it's legitimate to kill a Sasquatch:Sasquatch Must Die.
The "non-kill crowd" uses many tactics to support their position. They like to claim that Sasquatch is "too close to humans" and killing one would be murder. This is nonsense. Sasquatch are not human. If they exist, they are animals. They should not be given the protection of a threatened murder charge. It is not in argument that Sasquatch should be a protected species after it is verified that they exist. Certainly this would make sense. However, threats of criminal charges and laws that preemptively protect Sasquatch are nonsensical tripe unless someone presents a body. While they are at it, why don't they outlaw killing unicorns.

I left a comment:
I disagree. I am militantly NO KILL/NO CAPTURE. You wrote: "It needs to be made clear that the "non-kill crowd" has an agenda." Yes, I have an agenda: it's a NO KILL agenda. You go on to say that we'd be "out of business" if a body is found. I'm not in any business, so that leaves me out of your theory. IF it were to be proved BF exists without bringing in a dead body,there would still be mysteries to explore. This field of strangeness: UFOs, Bigfoot, what have you, has always, and will always, have its share of exploiters. That aside, to put everyone who explores these mysteries as nothing more than gaudy carny types is inaccurate.

Your contention that Sasquatch are "not human" and just an animal, therefore it's okay to kill one, is also inaccurate. We don't know what Sasquatch is. Witnesses who have seen one are often profoundly moved by its human like appearance. So if it is closer to human that not,the reasons against killing it are obvious. But even if Sasquatch is "just an animal" that is still no reason to kill it. We don't have that right. (We are "just animals" as well.) Clearly Sasquatch is an intelligent creature, human like or not. However, killing it or not shouldn't be based on a perceived intelligence level -- the idea that we have the right to kill a creature simply because we want to, which is what it gets down to, is immoral.

You are also inaccurate, and in fact, disingenuous, in saying the following: "Those with the "no-kill" philosophy should be relegated to the "Sasquatch is a shape-shifter, trans-dimentional, UFO pilot" camp. Their position does nothing to further true research and legitimacy than the rest of the woo-woo crowd." Not all who support a NO KILL policy are, as you put it, "woo woo." (There's a lot more I'd like to say about all that and the role of research but that'd be veering off in another direction.)

I always wonder at the aggressive need of those like yourself who believe it's important to kill a being for no other reason than to satisfy personal ego. That is how I see it: prove to science it exists, really, why? What is your "agenda?"

Friday, January 13, 2012

Pools and Bigfoot

I had another Bigfoot dream this morning. I just realized that I've had several dreams about Bigfoot and water. (I searched for one "dream" I could have sworn I had posted here some time ago, but I can't find it. That dream involved an OOBE and an unexpected run in with a Sasquatch on the beach.) I also realized, after writing this, that once again, concrete is involved. What the symbolism means I have no idea yet.
I'm on the Oregon coast, I think we just moved there. My husband is with me. It's very  hot. There's only one public outdoor swimming pool in the whole area. It's huge, the size of four or five regular sized pools. So many people want to use the pool when it's hot that there's a lottery. Thousands of people are here, waiting to use the pool. The pool is outdoors, lots of concrete and in fact, the pool is surrounded by parking structures (not something you'd see on the Oregon coast) that are three, four stories high. I'm excited to hear I'm one of the winners. I have to quickly change into my bathing suit and jump in. But the bathrooms are a ways away and I don't want to waste all this precious time going all the way to the bathroom to change. But I can't change out in the open either. I notice a couple of people who are used to this duck under one of the parking structure pillars or posts to change. I call up to my husband, who's standing in one of the parking structure levels that surround the pool (lots of people hanging out on  the levels) to toss my suit down to me. He does, and I run into the parking structure closet to me, and change behind a pole. I'm a little nervous about this -- I certainly don't want to be seen! But it seems to be all right. I worry a little bit about my clothes but oh well. I jump in, oh, feels so good! 
We all have a good time. Later, it occurs to us and some friends, as we're talking about the day, the coast, the future of the area, etc. that what this town needs is an indoor, year round pool. Why hasn't anyone thought of this?! A few days later, my husband and I are walking around the town, and notice a huge sign that reads "Newport Pool" or something like that. We go inside, and find a man has just opened up the first indoor year round pool in the area. Fantastic! He's really done it right too: a small pool just for kids, a lap pool, an exercise pool, and three pools for recreational swims. I notice this man -- who seems to be in his sixties, gray haired, glasses, nice enough looking man and pleasant -- is wearing a black fleece vest with an emblem on it that has the initials of a Bigfoot research group -- an Oregon one, that investigates Sasquatch on the coast. I feel a thrill but don't say anything. The man says to us, sort of randomly, after explaining the pool hours and rules, "Bigfoot is around here, he's here in the woods." And I say "Oh, I know!" He says "My dog smells them all the time, and they know we know they're here." He asks us if we want to see his film of Bigfoot. Of course we do! We follow him upstairs to his room. It's very dim in there and he starts the camera rolling. An old camera with reels and film, and a screen he pulls down hanging on his wall. He tells us he hasn't seen Bigfoot but has "felt, heard, and smelled him," many times, and is sure he's caught fleeting images of movement on the film that can only be Bigfoot. He describes the chuffing kind of sound he's heard many times, so close, that can be no other kind of animal. Only Bigfoot. He's in telepathic communication with Sasquatch, this is clear and yet, he doesn't really come out and say this. We all know this but it's unsaid. It's too "crazy" to come out and say so, but it's understood.

We watch the film, it's in murky color but the images are clear, and sure enough, we see movement behind the trees. It can only be Bigfoot. Of that we're sure.
Then, damnit, the alarm went off!

Related posts:
Bigfoot Dream
Bigfoot in Australia -- Kind of
Weird Little Dream About Aliens and Bigfoot
Jovial Guy in a Bigfoot Suit

Thursday, January 12, 2012

The Search For Bigfoot: Kill v. No-Kill v. Habituation

Melisa Hovey at The Search for Bigfoot brings up good questions to ponder. She ends by asking us what we think -- I have to go now, off to the so called real world of work, but I'll be thinking of the issues Melisa has brought up. How can we protect a creature from harm if it, in the practical sense, doesn't exist? (By "practical" I mean, science/law/society as a whole has not confirmed its existence. Obviously the witnesses have!) If, as Melisa says, there are no laws on the books about killing a BF, or acknowledging its existence, how can Sasquatch be protected from being killed or harmed? I think one way is to advocate for laws to be passed, such as the one in Sakima, WA. Anyway, read her post here:The Search For Bigfoot: Kill v. No-Kill v. Habituation

Sunday, January 8, 2012

thomsquatch: The Coconut Telegraph

I was searching for anything that might come up on a local sighting from 2001, (didn't find anything ... yet...) when I found this post at Thom Powell's thomsquatch blog. It's from January of 2011. Are Sasquatch telepathic? Can we communicate with them via dreams, esp, and so on? Can the two worlds: scientific methods, sending out the "vibes" work together? Read it and find out. I enjoyed it, hope you do as well. thomsquatch: The Coconut Telegraph

Friday, January 6, 2012

Robert McLuhan on Anecdotal Evidence | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History

The very excellent Daily Grail brings us the following, by Alan Borky:Robert McLuhan on Anecdotal Evidence. Borky comments on his reading of McLuhan's article on anecdotal evidence:
In his piece McLuhan makes the observation "the skeptic’s most popular arguments is that anecdotal evidence can’t be relied on".

The problem with that particular skeptical position is it misses the point ALL EVIDENCE IS ANECDOTAL.
There is much more that is insightful and powerful. In this brief review Borky really gets it.

Bigfoot Hunting Preserve Site

Someone went to a lot of work to present a polished looking website all for a "joke": Bigfoot Hunting Preserve Home.

It goes too far. Call me humorless but it isn't funny or smart or witty. It's really pretty sick, in a psychotic way. Taking their cue from canned hunt sites -- which are sadly all too real and not at all a joke -- this site is set up the same way. Here's some of their verbiage from the Select the Hunt That's Right for You page:

*We deemed it necessary to use pointed, jacketed, high-velocity rounds for all our open-range Sasquatch hunts because soft expanding rounds were bouncing off their thick skulls. Soft rounds would only leave them wounded running through the woods holding their heads screaming in agony. It became inconvenient for our guests and guides to chase a wounded animal for hours in the thick brush just to put them out of their misery.
Nightime Hunts
You and your guide start after midnight where you test your tracking skills to locate and target a group of Sasqatches. With the help of night vision goggles you drive them for hours until they reach our prepared shooting zone. Your guide will teach you about wind-direction as it relates to sounds and smell. You will also learn wood-knocking, yells and rock throwing techniques to push the animals into the shooting zone.
They couldn't stop there and had to add an item about a Sasquatch Rodeo. There's more but I don't care.

The Infrastructure of Science

Well, yes, I did say "fuck science." In that context, I meant it.  (see post below.)

There are those that consider proof only that which will be acknowledged by science. There are others who think the proof Bigfoot, or UFOs, or ETs, or ghosts, etc. exist because they're experienced those things, so it seems silly to offer "proof." There was proof. Proof in the experience of the witness.

Then things get circular and silly. "I saw a Sasquatch!" (Sasquatch can be replaced with UFO, ghost, Nessie, Mothman, ...) "Yea? Prove it." "Er, I can't, but, well, I did." "Snort."

Even if the response is "Cool for you but who else will believe it without proof we're lost" that still speaks to the need for approval from science.

Most of us want to find out what Sasquatch is. Is Sasquatch an ape, a human, an ET, a fairy, an elemental, a species all unto itself, a bear, a ....? Science can help us find out.

But things get quickly confused. Some think any rejection of science is wrong. It's assumed that there's a war going on between "science" and everything else. Non-scientists but those leaning towards science as a tool and a guide often want to be taken seriously by science. So they reject the more Fortean, crazy accounts of Bigfoot encounters. The argument is: "We have a hard enough time being taken seriously; let's not throw in UFOs and telepathy and other nonsense." Understandable. But in my opinion, wrong.
You can't possibly get at the thing if you toss out some of the parts.

So here's where I get to the "fuck science" part. Said bluntly it's not mean tto be freakin' literal.  As the snarky hard core skeptic often likes to say "If you hate science so much you wouldn't be using the computer you're writing on science brought you that you know." Yes, I know. And thank you. I love my computer and other toys!

It's not a war, but it's assumed it is and everyone jumps on a side. You're either "for" or "against." Sort of how some view the government: the government works for us, we don't work for the government. They're accountable to us. Science, as an infrastructure, is the same. It works for us. We're in this together.

So, being cheeky sometimes and I may say "fuck science" let's settle down. Science is a path, a journey, a process, a philosophy, a tool. We need science and anyone who says differently is silly. We know that. We do.

Along with using science to help us as we journey through mysteries, are other tools as well. This doesn't mean we're rejecting anything. It means we're broadening our perspectives.

Insisting the only way to find Sasqauatch is through rigid methods set up by one narrow aspect of science is, I think, non-productive.  Even if that way brought us a body, we're still left with many unanswered questions, including those of more paranormal or esoteric nature. And we're also left with ethical questions concerning habitat, and laws, and our relationship with the environment. Not to mention more metaphysical questions about intelligence and life.

The thought occurred to me as I was leaving a comment on Melissa Hovey's blog that it'd be interesting to see Bigfoot teams include Forteans (for lack of a better term) in their search. Often times there are skeptics, why not that? I think we'd get to some interesting places if we did that.

From "Denying Science" to "Anomalist Historian."

Lesley at The Debris Field linked to, and commented on, Melisa Hovey's post about my post: The Search For Bigfoot: Denying the necessity of Science.....

Melisa wrote on her blog The Search For Bigfoot:

What do witnesses want?

I have to say, I disagree with Regan Lee. When witnesses contact a person they know is a “Bigfoot Researcher” they may believe with all their heart and soul they have seen a Bigfoot, but they, as much as any researcher, want proof.

Why do I think that?

Because witnesses contact people within the “Bigfoot Research Community.” They send emails to Bigfoot Organizations. They call the 1-800 numbers, asking us to come and take a look at their property, or an area where they had a sighting. They write in their emails, “I know I’m not crazy”. Witnesses think, if anyone can prove they seen a Bigfoot – it is someone within this community. Witnesses know we collect any possible evidence of what they are reporting. Witnesses allow us to stay on their properties and hold “night ops”. If they didn’t want proof as much as your average researcher, they wouldn’t contact us, or allow us on their property.
I actually agree with Melisa in many ways. Read her post for my comments.

I also commented at Lesley's blog. One thing I wrote at Lesley's blog that just came out and inspired me for more on this is what I said about the need for having a Fortean, or "anomalist junkie" etc. along on BF teams. That'll tick off some, I'm sure, but if we can have scientists, and nuts and bolts (to borrow a term from UFO research) kind of researchers, why not those kinds of investigators, researchers, and writers who come from a different perspective altogether? An "anomalist historian" along for the journey?

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Nick Redfern's "There's Something in the Woods...": The Coming of Bigfoot (Literally!)

Nick Redfern's "There's Something in the Woods...": The Coming of Bigfoot (Literally!)

As Nick comments:
There's a new series of fiction books available - penned by author Virginia Wade - that offer the Bigfoot student a wealth of fun and entertaining tales on Bigfoot and its monstrous Mojo.

The overall title of the series is (wait for it...) Cum for Bigfoot! Yes, really! Brilliant!

And, hot on the heels of the newly-published first volume, there's another one, ahem, coming soon!
More at Nick's There's Something in the Woods. Strong Sexual content and all that.

While this may seem distasteful for some,you can't deny sex in all its variety holds a large, um, position, in paranormal and Fortean realms. Sex with ghosts, with aliens, with non-human "animal like" creatures, incubus, and so on.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Bigfoot Evidence: What is the biggest controversy in Bigfoot research?

Lisa Shiel's latest book: Bigfoot Evidence: What is the biggest controversy in Bigfoot research? as reviewed on Bigfoot Evidence. Honored to have been mentioned!

Craig Woolheater, the TBRC, and Rationalization

Bigfoot Evidence: July 2011 Bigfoot shooting incident at Honobia, OK

"Voucher" specimen. A term used by biologists and other scientist to euphimistically disguise the act of intentionally killing an animal to satisfy the ego.

In this case, the term is used by Alton Higgens of the TBRC, along with the disingenuous statement: "It is not immoral, even if there are those who disagree for various emotional reasons."  Higgens cites the use of collecting "voucher" specimens -- in other words, killing creatures to drag back to the lab -- to justify a Sasquatch kill.Higgens wrote:

Speaking now outside of my Chairman role, as a field biologist I have always indicated that I supported collecting a specimen for documentation and study, although I have not personally pursued that objective. I don’t think sasquatches are people. Biologists are trained to think in terms of, and to care about, populations. Collection of a voucher specimen is a way of protecting the population, from my perspective. It is not immoral, even if there are those who disagree for various emotional reasons. Since this would be a new species to science, there is little question but that a specimen is justifiable. Here’s a link to guidelines and policies that have been worked out in the scientific community regarding the collection of voucher specimens. (Source.)
It is immoral.

The use of the word "emotional" is used to trivialize NO KILL supporters and activists and it's extremely condescending. Dismissing those who are avidly No Kill as mere "emotional" beings with no understanding of the clinical is dishonest, as is using euphemistic terms like "vouchers," citing scientific protocols to bolster justification, outline the TBRC policies on carrying guns, and being passive-aggressive about one's own part in killing, er, collecting, a Sasquatch, I mean voucher. (I also noticed the lower case use of "sasquatches" in the above quote, which is either a typo, or an intentional use to  further distance oneself from seeing Sasquatch as a living being and both marginalize and underscore the idea that Sasquatch aren't "people."

Craig Wooheater, a co-founder of TBRC doesn't agree with the Kill/Capture platform either. This is what Craig recently posted on his Facebook page; it's been re-posted many times since throughout the Internet. Craig gave me permission to post his statement:
As the co-founder, former board member, former director and chairman of the TBRC, I feel it necessary to state my opinion regarding the shooting incident involving the organization.

The organization was formed as a strictly no-kill organization.

Myself, former member Gino Napoli and Daryl Colyer participated in a pro-kill versus no-kill debate held at Chester Moore's Southern Crypto Conference in 2005. We represented the no-kill position, which was hugely unpopular with the vast majority of the attendees.

I stepped down from the organization in July of 2010 and was given the title of Chairman Emeritus and Co-Founder.

In December of 2010, I began hearing rumors that there was a philosophical change brewing in at least several current TBRC board members.

I communicated with Alton Higgins, current chairman, regarding the rumors and he stated the TBRC's position was neutrality regarding pro-kill versus no-kill.

I felt that was not the case and I relinquished the honorary titles and asked that my name be removed in all instances from the website.

This was not an easy decision to make, taking into account the 11 years of dedication I had given to the organization.

After word came out regarding the shooting incident, my suspicions were verified and I knew I had made the correct decision.

- Craig Woolheater
I cannot tell you how much I respect Craig for doing this.

This is an issue I feel so damn strongly about; it's not a mere disagreement on theory or speculations about what Sasquatch is, or isn't, or the "flesh and blood vs. paranormal" issue. (Although that does bring up interesting aspects that one should consider in all this.)

 Some of the comments on the sites where the above articles have been posted (a few which are "anonymous" yet feel compelled to share their opinions, including name calling, while hiding behind the ubiquitous no name name) say that Sasquatch "aren't people." Higgens certainly has said so. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. I have not been honored to see a Sasquatch so I don't know. For many who have, they say it is indeed closer to human than not. For myself, it doesn't matter (well, it does, but...) if it's "people" or closer to a worm. Its intelligence level is not the criteria for making the decision to go out and kill one. Or, capture one for that matter.

Naturally, if Sasaquatch is "closer to people" than not, then yes, it'd be horrific to kill one. But it's also pretty damn horrible to kill one just because you can. (Although, have you noticed, no one has, thankfully.)

It's a living being minding its own business and we do not have the right to intrude upon its habitat and attempt to kill or capture, simply to satisfy our egos. It gets to that, and only that. Fuck science. We don't need to prove a damn thing. Witnesses who've seen Sasquatch know. The rest of us who haven't, well, too bad for us. Maybe we'll be blessed as well some day.

Monday, January 2, 2012

Autumn Williams: Intellect vs. emotion - Oregon Bigfoot Blog

Autumn Williams has written another beautiful article on the Bigfoot witness/researcher relationship, and how too often the researcher disregards, and worse, the witness and their experience. And in all of this, is Sasquatch, of course.

Intellect vs. emotion - Oregon Bigfoot Blog | Oregon Bigfoot Blog

Bigfoot Evidence: Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy group has blood on their hands

Bigfoot Evidence: Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy group has blood on their hands

As others have commented, how can the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy group use the word "conservancy" --- semantics used to justify such sad behavior.