Bozos: Bigfoot Hunters

Image source: Pixabay

And I mean that literally. Not as in searching for sightings of the elusive being, but the armed with intent to kill. Murder. Ammo, guns, high tech gadgets.  Goal: kill a Sasquatch. I am so sick of these buffoons and the promoters behind these hunts. The latest is the winner of Spike TVs "10 Million Dollar Big Foot Bounty" David Lauer.

David Lauer is a Florida hunter on a mission. After winning a $100,000 research grant on Spike TV's reality competition "10 Million Dollar Big Foot Bounty," Lauer has a strengthened resolve to find Bigfoot.The Mandarin outdoorsman says that after he and his hunting partner, Stacy Brown, won the prize money, he invested it into high-tech hunting gear, including game cameras, night vision recorders, heat seeking telescopes, DNA testing kits and a dart gun and plaster. He hopes these tools will help him track down the mysterious creature. 

Don't forget about the bozos with guns Bigfoot "research" group Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Organization (GCBRO) who are also on the hunt to kill Bigfoot.

GCBRO's justification is that a dead body will force the government to admit the creature exists. Or, killing a Bigfoot will "protect the public." That loathsome program -- Killing Bigfoot --  airs on Destination America, a station expert at regurgitationing paranormal, supernatural and cryptid content.

Sasquatch presented as a carny freak, and the hunters out to capture not just the creature alive but dead, to be displayed, dissected, and, as one yahoo from the GCBRO said "put it on a slab." That'll prove ya!

Oh of course I know all the arguments supporting a kill. Of course I do. (So save both of us some time and don't bother commenting with all the points within such arguments.)  I don't care. They're not enough. They're justifications and excuses but legitimate reasons, no.

I suppose if a Sasquatch were coming at me with intent to rip me asunder thane yes, I'd defend myself. That should be a given in any context -- if attacked, fight back. I mean really, do we even need to qualify the argument?

Updated: Phantoms and Monsters: Paranormal, UFOs, Cryptids and Unexplained Phenomena

I've updated this: below is what I posted yesterday, just throwing up a link, and not commenting, mainly because I was tired and also, I am fed up with the anti-Autumn Williams cabal:

Updates on rants against Autumn William's book Enoch on the BFRO:

Phantoms and Monsters: Paranormal, UFOs, Cryptids and Unexplained Phenomena

Update:
Here's the link to what Autumn has to say, along with several comments left by others at her blog Oregon Bigfoot.com: Apology to all the Mikes.
 
Why is this pack at the BFRO going at it once more at this time, almost a year after Autumn's book Enoch was published? I wonder if some of this doesn't have to do with the 2nd OSS (Oregon Sasquatch Symposium) coming up in June -- are they fanning embers?

Autumn can take care of herself, and she does so in her post. Still, this latest round from those at the BFRO is another example of the ugly nonsense that goes on in Bigfoot research. (The parallels to UFO research and other esoteric and Fortean realms applies.)

Someone calling him/her self "navigator" -- and the fact this person uses a screen name and not their real name is noted --  posted on the BFRO:

The fellow who told Autumn Williams (by phone) the stories that she eventually published in a book titled “Enoch,” is actually a yarn-spinning homeless person in central Florida who our investigators had encountered in 2006 in Polk County, FL.

2006. Autumn's book came out in 2010. And, as Williams points out, it's probably a correct assumption to say there is more than one person named Mike in Florida. And where is "navigator's"  documentation on his allegations?

Another poster: "JRawk12" comments on both Autumn's book and her mother's -- Sali Sheppard Wolford -- book Valley of the Skookum, which came out in 2006:

Is this really a big surprise in the first place? Usually the math doesn't add up for a reason...Good story, but it was painfully obvious that it was a fictional story from jump street. Same thing with her moms book. They're both good storytellers though! (Weird how defensive everyone was when people called B.S on her story back when it came out)

Personal opinion is personal opinion; we're all entitled and you think what you think. It's opinion Valley of the Skookum is "fictional," not fact. (Yes, the same can be said of my opinion . . .)

What irks me however is that, instead of looking at Valley of the Skookum, as well as Autumn's book, from a Fortean, open minded perspective, there seems to be a deliberate campaign against Williams (and Woolford) as well as debunking a particular aspect of Bigfoot research. That is, anything that presents itself outside of the flesh and blood box is considered suspect.

The former is ugly pettiness, sad but typical in Bigfoot, UFO, etc. circles. The latter is harmful for what it says about Bigfoot research. As with UFO research, the number of narratives in Bigfoot encounters that include high strangeness elements is huge. Yet many researchers continue to ignore these events and dismiss them with a virulence that is pathological at times.

What is ignored are the common threads of experience in high strangeness Bigfoot encounters. Whatever the causes for the similarities, they are... what about them? How to explain them? A glib response that witnesses are "whacked," or "lairs" simply isn't honest research.

I'm not suggesting Enoch and Valley of the Skookum are along the same lines -- they're not. Enoch is not "high strangess," (although, not doubt there are some out there who might say the relationship Mike describes is just that) and Williams writes about the roles of witness and researcher; an extremely important point that is too often missed by some.

For more, see my post for Oregon L.O.W.F.I.: Thoughts on Autumn Williams' Enoch.

Miami UFO Center: What Is The Chupacabras? - Ten Year Study Results

What Is The Chupacabras? - Ten Year Study Results


An overview of a  ten year study of the Chupacabras by Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo, of the Miami UFO Center has just come out. Notice in this article there is no mention of dog like creatures with mange. (See my previous post: A Contrast in Chupies)

The distinctive puncture wounds are mentioned:

These attacks have left a toll of thousands of dead domestic animals such as chickens, ducks, doves, dogs, cats, goats pigs, and even cows were attacked by the Chupacabras, living them all without blood...all removed through a small puncture, usually around the neck of its victims.

It's hard to imagine foxes, raccoons, or coyotes with mange doing the above.
The report is not afraid to aknowledge the high strangeness aura surrouding much of chupacabras activity:

Moreover, we received UFO sightings reports before, during and after the attacks. Also, we registered paranormal phenomena in most of the attack area.

The "second wave" of what's being called Chupacabras (hairless dog type creatures, particularly in the United States) don't include reports of UFOs or other oddness; not to my knowledge.

The study sent a tooth for analysis; inconclusive. While that's frusrating, it's typical of cryptid findings; not human, not any known creature, but as to what it is. . . no answers:

As a result of a DNA process,  it was determined that the tooth does not belong to any human being, making it compatible with an animal that could not be genetically defined.  

The Chupacabras is an "unknown animal" -- what it isn't, is a dog, coyote, raccoon, fox, etc.

Hopefully studies like this will bring the chupacabras mystery back around to its original Fortean/esosteric nature, and away from the mange afflicted, known (mundane) animals currenlty being referred to as chupacabras.






Regan Lee Oregon

A Constrast in Chupies

(Such a weird bit of synchronicity -- I had just finished this piece, checked out the Anomalist, found the following link to Micah A. Hanks Gralien Report to his excellent chupie article: Blood-Sucking Chupacabra to Blame for Farm Deaths? !!!!)

Over ten years ago, when I first heard about the chupacabras, images of the creature weren't easy to find. There were no actual photos or video of the creature, though some supposed real ones, like this one:

The story that I recall accompanying the above image was that a custodian in the Los Angeles area (I think) had found it.

There were also the "alien" chupacabra renderings:

Along with the stories. Red glowing eyes, spines on the back, jumping extremely high or "flying," found on rooftops, trees, going over fences. Claw like hands, bipedal. And the dead animals found in the creature's wake: chickens, rabbits, etc. were found to have been desanguiated (completely drained of blood) with only two deep puncture wounds in their necks.

The stories of the chupacabras, originating from Puerto Rico, soon "jumped" and stories of the creature started to come out of Florida and Mexico. And I remember short news item from Coast to Coast, via Art Bell, that there were reports of chupacabras in Oregon!

(Stories of the chupacabras, while new to some of us in the United States, were not new to others. Puerto Rico has a history of blood sucking creature lore, for example, as Micah Hanks discusses in his recent article on chupie.)

The above stories of the chupacabras involved: bipedal, spiny backed, high jumping, red eyed, blood sucking creatures. Often an alien from space component accompanied these stories; speculations that "chupie" was an alien, or alien "pet." Other speculations: that the creature was a government experiment gone horribly awry. More prosaic explanations offered: an undiscovered bat, or animal of some type unknown to science.

But in none of the above accounts the chupacabras was said to look like a hairless dog or raccoon.

For whatever reasons, the evolution of the chupacabras story has morphed from the glowing red eye spine backed bipedal creature to a mangy dog like creature, at least here in the states. Monster Quest has gone with this idea:



There isn't any comparison between the two creatures and yet it seems to have taken off; that this hairless, canine type animal is a chupacabras. One question is, why have the chupie stories morphed?

Something that is as important as the chupacabras mystery is the fact that there are hairless beasties found in the southwest. These are real creatures (and I'm not implying the earlier chupacabras are not) and, whatever they are, they are. Something is causing animals to loose all their fur; what? Why are there seemingly a large number of animals with this condition? Something's causing them to loose all their fur. And if these animals are hard to identify: fox, dog, coyote, raccoon, etc. what are the implications of that? Does this mean it's simply a matter of difficulty in identifying completely hairless creatures? Or is there some type of mutation going on? Are parasites, pollution, diet,  or some other cause responsible for these cases of mange, or whatever it is?

These animals currently being called chupacabras are not chupacabras, except in local lore parlance. What is causing a large population of animals to lose their fur? It's a symptom of something, a signal that we seem to be ignoring.

Related posts:
Two Chupacabras


Visit my blog Regan Lee Oregon

Beware the Squirrel!

Squirrels of Doom

Who knew. Squirrels, like mating hedgehogs and owls, are up to no good.

We all know mating hedgehogs are responsible for crop circles.

And that owls are behind the Mothman sightings, the Flatwoods Monster encounter, and the Kelly Hopkinsville entities. (It’s true, and we know it’s true, because pathological skeptic Joe Nickell has told us so.)

Turns out squirrels are behind Bigfoot sightings; at least the ones in Florida. Big squirrel, not Big Foot, in north Florida

This isn’t at all comforting you know. Do you realize how many squirrels there are just in my backyard?!