Why Do I Believe Bigfoot Exists if I've Never Seen One?

What's the Intrigue?

 It's interesting to think about the researcher who researches. What is their motivation? What makes a person intrigued by a topic like UFOs, or ghosts, or cryptids?

Sometimes it's because the researcher herself saw something. Something so unusual that she has to pursue it. Or the person has had a lifetime of odd experiences. (I fall into those categories concerning ghosts, UFOs, psychic experiences, but not Bigfoot. Well, even if with Bigfoot I did have one odd episode. More on that later.) And sometimes the person is a skeptic, a debunker even, who is out to disprove the existence of ghosts, Bigfoot, UFOs, aliens, etc.

So why do I, who has never seen a Bigfoot, believe that the being exists? I watch just about every Bigfoot show I can. I have dozens of books on my shelf about Bigfoot. I can't get enough. Why? Someone asked me that not long ago; why am I so intrigued? 

Part of it is the mystery. I love mysteries. Part of it is the fact I have personally met many people here in Oregon who have seen a Sasquatch. People of all ages, genders, occupations . . . including teachers, doctors and psychologists. I believe them. Why would they lie? And do I think they're stupid enough, or ignorant enough, about local wildlife that they  mistake an elk or bear for a Sasquatch? Of course not.

There's the added factor of paranormal type activity connected to many Bigfoot encounters. What is going on with that?! Orbs, strange lights, cloaking, "mind speak," or telepathic communications, UFOs, black helicopters, cover-ups. All seemingly part of Bigfoot's existence. Who can resist chasing after that mystery?

There's just enough evidence to strongly suggest -- very strongly suggest -- that Bigfoot exists. Footprint casts, heat images on camera, calls, tree knocks, rock throwing, structures, synchronicities, not to mention eye witness accounts. 

My Bigfoot Encounter: Sort Of

I've written before about my odd episode concerning Bigfoot. I was inside the local New Age bookstore in Eugene discussing with the owner Stan Johnson. Stan Johnson, (deceased) lived in Sutherlin, Oregon and self-published a couple of books on his interactions with a family of Sasquatch. (They did not like to called Bigfoot, they told him.) Johnson's experiences included many telepathic communications with several Sasquatch on his ranch, and journeys inside a spaceship. Johnson's experiences included UFOs, conversations with a family of Sasquatch, and a new age version of Christianity. (I met Johnson once; he was in his eighties, I believe, but extremely vivacious. Definitely had charisma. He shook my hand; he was so strong I thought he was going to break it.)

So, the bookstore owner and I were talking about Bigfoot and Stan Johnson, when suddenly, I saw/felt a cone of light come down through the ceiling and cover us. Things were a bit blurry through this cone of light, like looking through gauze. Sounds were muffled. Colored streaks of light. I'm standing there, thinking this is very very weird. When our conversation finished, the cone shot up through the ceiling, and everything returned to normal. I mentioned this to the owner of course, who simply smiled and said "That sort of thing happens all the time when we talk about Stan."

So there it is. 

Enough "there there" for me to continue my Bigfoot studies. It might seem odd to some that I hope that there will never be undeniable proof Sasquatch exists, i.e. a dead body. Or even a live one, as in captured. I doubt either will ever happen. I sure hope not. For those that have seen a Sasquatch, no proof is needed. That's enough for me.

So I'll enjoy the journey, the process itself. I hope I am fortunate enough to see a Bigfoot some day. Whether I do or not, I will continue to believe Bigfoot exists. 

Local Sasquatch Synchronicity: Answering My Call?

(Not a literal call; more on that good old metaphysical side of things)

More on the incredible Sasquatch-work-synchronicity. (see post below)

Met briefly with the person related to the co-worker who had a Bigfoot encounter in the Cottage Grove area. Which is a local hot bed of not only Sasquatch activity, but UFO and general all over weirdness vibes. Turns out the researcher he was with was Ron Morehead! He asked me if I knew Morehead; I said no, not personally, but I was familiar with Morehead. But at the time, I couldn't place the name of the researcher with the theory. When I got home I looked him up and of course! Moorhead was on Coast to Coast not long ago, and he discussed the more anomalous, paranormal aspects of Sasquatch.

While I go on about Sasquatch in my area (Oregon; Willamette Vally) as well as everywhere -- terrestrial and none terrestrial -- I miss the obvious. As in, a gathering of local researchers and interested parties in the Cottage Grove area. Which I will be sure to attend this month!!!!

What seems odd in the past two days is the location. There are several schools in our district... many elementary schools. (I am an EA in an elementary school.) What are the odds staff members -- not only close in terms of area of sightings such as the Cottage Grove area roughly 25 miles south of here) but friendship, as well as work location? Not only do I feel an affection for this co-worker (long before I knew of the Bigfoot connection) but our rooms are in the same wing, and only separated by one room.

It's logical to assume that these same people, or, myself, could be at another school in another part of town, and never know each other.

Adding to this Fortean type connection: just this week, I was putting out "the call" concerning Bigfoot.  Show me a connection, a message, something, a dream visit, I asked, and, a few days later, this.

(cross posted, with minor alterations at UFOMystic.)

After listening to another intriguing and spooky interview with David Paulides (Coast to Coast, George Knapp host) last night, I found myself rethinking not only Dr. Ketchum, but Bigfoot as well.

For awhile I was excited about what Dr. Melba Ketchum would find. So was last night's C2C host George Knapp, who interviewed Dr. Melba Ketchum some time ago. Lots of games, it seemed, lots of attacks, lots of the to be expected nonsense in the world of Bigfoot.  (UFO World doesn't fare any better in this context.) Then I was disappointed and jaded. Then I just didn't care. 

But if David Paulides's explanation on the entire Ketchum journey was accurate -- no journal would review her findings, etc. -- and if the evidence is truly what it says it is, then there's still hope. And bafflement, for it seems everyone just walked away from this. Of course, I haven't read the report, and Paulides pointed out that many who criticized Ketchum and the findings haven't actually read the thing. I can't comment much more than these idle musings of mine because I am not a scientist, and I haven't read the report; just the reports of reports. It is also too bad Ketchum seems to have behaved badly at times. Maybe this was due to simply being overwhelmed by her lone seeker status out there in Bigfoot Land. Lots of naivety, at best, and silly sloppy missteps seemed to have happened, adding to a carnival-like,  here we go again feeling in Bigfoot Land.  But all that can be ignored if the evidence is what it's supposed to be: Bigfoot is not a giant ape, but something completely different. That's huge of course and huger still: Bigfoot is both its own mysterious self, as well as part of us. Yet after a few people acknowledged this finding, people went missing. Some were offended, some laughed, but we haven't seen any paradigm shifting news stories break on CNN. 

Meanwhile, David Paulides continues his research into the strange stories of missing humans in parks and forests. Many of these missing are children. He alludes to the possibility;  Bigfoot, or a Bigfoot like creature, as being responsible for these disappearances. The few children who have been found alive after going missing for a few days have strange tales to tell of "ape men" and other high strangeness. In last night's interview on C2C, Paulides referred to Native Americans and their tales of Bigfoot -- as being human -- and their on-going relationships with this being. Yet, with some exceptions, most, including BF researchers, ignore this fact.

What's strange about the missing humans is that they disappear abruptly, often in daylight, often while in the near proximity of others. While logic says these missing people would be found downhill, or near water, they are often found (if found at all) quite a distance aways, and uphill, over extremely rough terrain difficult to cover. Very weird for adults, and much stranger still in the case of little children. Stories of "ape men," and other inexpiable events add to this mystery. Adding fuel to conspiratorial speculation (which doesn't mean it's invalid) is the presence of military in some of these cases, who act covertly and separate from parks authorities and local law enforcement agencies while ostensibly searching for the missing.

IF Bigfoot is responsible for these disappearances, that's cause for a shift in beliefs about we think Bigfoot is. Many of these stories contain really weird "high strangeness" elements that have always annoyed many a Bigfoot researcher. UFOs? Aliens? Underground beings -- reptilians? Of the latter, Paulides said he's received a few detailed emails about that subject, but he is unfamiliar with that realm and doesn't want to go there. He referenced John Mack and his work concerning abductions -- will we hear of a Bigfoot/UFO theory from Paulides in the future?

There's enough strangeness, and enough references to a Bigfoot creature, in Paulides missing persons work, to consider that Bigfoot is more than "just" a big ape, or strictly a flesh and blood creature. It's possible this BF being is a variation of Bigfoot, another type, related or something else altogether; something that looks like an "ape man" but clearly has abilities transcending ours at the moment.

The Bigfoot Question: To Kill or Not to Kill? | Lisa A. Shiel

I have a lot of respect for Lisa Shiel but, while I understand her points, I disagree with much of what she says: The Bigfoot Question: To Kill or Not to Kill? | Lisa A. Shiel.

However, I do agree with her that her following point does get down to the issue of Kill/No Kill (or No Kill/No Capture, ...):

However we feel about killing a Bigfoot, we must accept this indisputable fact. Crying and moaning, or yelling and swearing, about it won’t change the reality. The kill/no-kill debate centers around the wrong question. Rather than arguing, often with great rancor, about whether it’s acceptable to kill a Bigfoot, we ought to drill down to the core of the matter. The kill/no-kill debate obscures the real issue. I suggest a different tactic. Wipe away the mud slung by folks on both sides of the debate. Take a good, hard look at the core of the issue. Then ask yourself one question.

Do you want to prove Bigfoot is real?

On the other hand, her question seems obvious. Why else would someone consider killing (or capturing) a Sasquatch, unless it was to prove its existence to the world? 

I don't want to prove Bigfoot exists. Since I haven't seen one I can't say with certainty it does exist. If I were to see one, I don't have to prove that experience to anyone. Believe me or don't, I don't care. And I'm not willing to sacrifice its life to satisfy the curiosity of others.

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.

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?

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.

JREF Thread: "UFOs? Bigfoot? Is it 1975 in here?"

Did you know there was a "Woo-Infrastructure?" I know, either did I! But there is. And what's more, they/we think it's still 1975, because stories about Bigfoot and UFOs are still going strong. This is news that both "amazes and saddens"as the OP commented. Read the whole thread here: UFOs? Bigfoot? Is it 1975 in here? - JREF Forum Which by the way, makes about the 400th thread about Bigfoot over there. I lost count long ago, but as you'll see, skeptics can't stay away from Bigfoot!

Bigfoot: Valley of the Skookum, a Review by Ray Crowe 2011...

Ray Crowe reviews Sali Sheppard-Wolford's Bigfoot: Valley of the Skookum. Nice review!

Stan Gordon at McMinnville, Oregon UFO Fest

Just got back from the 12th annual UFO Fest in McMinnville. Stan Gordon was this morning's presenter. It was a fascinating presentation!

Gordon is a great speaker and his material was chock full of Fortean and UFO goodies. We were in for a treat, since Gordon really gave us two presentations in one. He began with the Kecksburg case, and even if you were familiar with this case and thought you knew a lot about it Gordon's information was refreshing. It's almost always nice to hear material presented in person, there were details I hadn't heard before, and overall, excellent presentation.

When Gordon was finished with Kecksburg, he moved on to Bigfoot-UFO high strangeness. Be still my beating heart! Truly fascinating stories of witness encounters with BHMs (Big Hairy Monsters) or Bigfoot. Aside from the Bigfoot sightings, UFO and other unexplained phenomena accompanied these Bigfoot events. While the height of these encounters occurred in 1973, they are still occurring.

I had the pleasure of meeting Stan and talking with him for a short bit; he was very nice and open.

I appreciated what he said about all of this: Kecksburg, UFOs, high strangeness Bigfoot, etc. and that is, he doesn't know what they are or where they came from. He just knows that "it" (UFOs, BF, etc.) are. Gordon doesn't have answers, and he doesn't pretend to have any. That might drive some people crazy, but I like that willingness to acknowledge bafflement in the midst of exploring and investigating the weird.

Sasquatch Classics: Jan Klements The Creature

This is a great find: Jan Klement's The Creature at Sasquatch Classics. Thanks to Steven Streufert at Bigfoot's Blog for link. Speaking of Streufert, he has a lot of very interesting items over there, including updates on Jim Dodge's Conversations with Bigfoot.

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.

dreams and phase transitions: The fall of the house of Blogsquatcher

Blogsquatcher is back, in a way. Not the blog, but the man behind Blogsquatcher, who managed one of the, if not the best, Bigfoot blogs, abruptly went off line some time ago, much to my dismay. (Also to my dismay, it seems I'm one of several who used his name alongside Blogsquatcher, which was something I wasn't supposed to do. I had NO idea that was the case! My big huge bad; I apologize:)

You'd be amazed how many times you can find "blogsquatcher" and "dbdonlon" right next to each other on certain websites..

When you click on the link that takes you to the Google search engine, there's Frame 352 in second place. Again, I am very sorry! I do my best to honor people's requests for confidentiality.

What is revealed in his post about Bigfoot is fascinating. Go here and read. It's amazing.

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...

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? 

Blue Dog Intensity

Maybe it was because of my cheeky beginning in my response to T.G. Powell's, of the CryptoFlorida blog, comment on my previous post about so-called blue dogs: "Stop Killing the Blue Dogs" -- the murder of quasi chupie. I did start off my response to his comment with:

My but aren't we testy today?

I continued, in reply to his comment below:

"These animals are NOT anything but disease ridden common animals."

And I agreed that they are not chupacabras:

As was my point, they are not chupacabras.

My other point: that some people insist on calling these poor creatures "chupacabras" and kill them, not for "humane reasons" as you say you do, but because of fear. They don't know what they are, and they kill them because of that fear. That is not a reason to kill.

It's sad all around, and one question that hasn't been addressed, as far as I can tell, is why are there so many of these creatures, in the UK and elsewhere -- if they are mange ridden animals, why so many? Is it an indicator, like so many other animal signals of late, that the planet is in crisis?

I think you've misunderstood motivations here as well as being defensive.

As I've posted many times about these animals, if they are victims of mange or some other disease, why now, why so many, and isn't their conspicuous appearance an indicator of something we should be paying attention to?


Maybe it's because CryptoFlorida continues to misunderstood my purpose in posting items concerning blue dogs/chupie news. Or maybe it's because some people are just that way; obnoxious in tone and intractable. Whatever, Powell has posted about my abilities as a  "mental midget" and my "moronic thinking" in his post More Blue Dog Stupidity.

My main intent in posting items about canine type creatures who appear to have mange or other diseases -- or, who may be another variety of animal altogether -- is to point out the meme that any hairless looking dog like animal is a chupacabra for many people, and of course, these canines are not.  That is my point. As I wrote in that post:

 I've written before, as have others, that these so-called "chupacabras" seen in the Southwest  are not the crypto-creature from Fortean or paranormal realms. These hairless 'blue dogs' are simply mundane animals. Either mange or some other disease, or, as Lon Strickland of Phantoms and Monsters writes:

a hybrid species of Mexican wolf and another canine species. Ken Gerhard and Jon Downes have done extensive study and have written about this cryptid canine. I just wish people would stop killing the 'blue dog' just because it's been given the 'chupacabras' moniker. Below are previous posts on this cryptid...Lon

The key point here, as I've made many times, as I made in the post that has Powell distressed over,  as Lon makes in the above quote, is the fear trigger response to something perceived as a chupacabras -- there fore a "monster." 

I don't pretend to be a field investigator of blue dogs, and I don't say I know anything about them other than what I've read on-line from a variety of   researchers. Those researchers offer interesting views and, as such, I pass them along. It's up to readers to make up their own minds. I find it all interesting.

My purpose in posting about these items is to share my fascination with the fact that the name "Chupacabras" has morphed from the label of a truly unknown, possibly paranormal creature, to labeling obviously mundane creatures such as "blue dogs"  as Chupacabras. That's it. That's all. I quoted Jon Downes in that post:

It is a very weird and very interesting member of the dog family; it has nothing to do with this weird folklore," said Jonathan Downes, a former zoological journalist and self-taught amateur "cryptozoologist" from West Devon, England.

I'm not the expert, so can't speak to the reality of Downes statement, again, interesting and others will decide for themselves. Either way, what Downes says about this dog like creature not being Chupacabras holds.


However, within that context, I have said that it is sad people are running around shooting anything that moves just because they can. Fears based on some vague "chupacabras" creature and an unknown (those who aren't familiar with mange ridden canines, or are afraid of a new animal, if it's a new animal) kill what they don't understand. The way of humanity for eons.

In my previous post, Powell says he kills them to put them out of their misery; as well as to protect livestock and children, and he says the same thing again his current post. That hasn't ended things for CryptoFlorida however. A recent post on his blog reveals his thoughts concerning Frame 352:

It would seem as though there are those out there that refuse to give in to proof, DNA testing, and first hand experience. Frame352 is the latest in this line of moronic thinking. Basing theory on what those with arm chair experience and NOT looking at the over all picture. It would seem that letting these animals suffer by freezing to death in the frigid winters, or letting them raid chicken farms which the humans depend on for food, or maybe letting one that has gone hungry for a period of time, attack and maybe even kill someones small child while he or she is playing in the yard is OK with these mental midgets.

You can visit Frame352 to get the low down, if you really care too.

Well, if these "blue dogs" are a threat, and if they are also in misery, I don't know what to say, since I am not there, and have not seen or lived in that situation. Again, my points are this:

• The chupacabras label has moved from paranormal/unknown/cryptid creature to mundane, possibly new species of mundane, animal
• Too many trigger happy people in some cases reacting to what they don't know or fear by killing.

Sharon Lee: "the Ghost of Bigfoot and Mr. Mike"

Sharon Lee, from Bigfoot Field Reporter, brings us a thoughtful and odd item: The Ghost and Mr. Mike. This story isn't over yet.  Mr. Mike (not to be confused with the "Mike" in Autumn Wililams book Enoch) seems sane, rational. As some of us have commented earlier, if he is senile, or has dementia, how is it he's taking care of an invalid ninety year old sibling? Yes, it's very odd several Bigfoot would be hanging around someone's backyard, near a freeway, and yet, as Sharon writes:

A couple of weeks ago, a story was reported that a man was seeing bigfoots in his back yard.  Next to the freeway.  In the middle of town.  Well, it wouldn't be the first story about a bigfoot in someone's backyard.  Or by the freeway.  Or running through town.   

In some ways, Mr. Mike's story reminds me a little of Stan Johnson's (who is deceased) experiences. Stan lived near I-5 in Sutherlin, Oregon, and he met a family of Bigfoot on his property. Johnson wrote about his experiences with this family of Sasquatch in a couple of self-published books.

Mr. Mike's story does seem very strange, and yet, Sharon reports:

The History channel film crew has been on location for a little over 2 weeks now, and they are baffled as to what is occurring. The evidence they are capturing is extraordinarily mind blowing and unexplainable.  They are having spikes of activity on their FLIR thermal imagers.  They see nothing with their naked eye.  But at the same time the heat images appear on the FLIR, Mr. Mike sees them. 

Not the first time high strangeness experiences with Sasquatch have been reported. The afore mentioned Stan Johnson, for example, not only met a group of Sasquatch on his property, but had many interactions with them, including telepathic communications, verbal communications, and being taken aboard a UFO.

JREF Bigfoot Thread Watch

This topic almost deserves a blog of its own.

Anyway, in the "What was that again, cognitive dissonance, irony calling" statement of the day, comes this comment from a BF thread over there titled 'Calling All Skeptics! Help Kitakaze End PGF Controversy - Pitch to Discovery Channel' certainly a long winded title. Thread starts off with the somberly serious self-congratulatory and yet endearingly naive plan to make a BF documentary that will forever silence BF believers and gratify skeptics. Then the thread devolves into fights amongst the debunkers themselves, namely William Parcher. But anyway, on the issue of why so many damn BF threads about something that doesn't exist by people who don't think it exists, this statement by "Blackdog":

I think people are wasting their time in the woods chasing BF but I don't think it's a waste of time to discuss it.

I love it. Just a delicious example of debunkers and their evil ways of moving goal posts, contradicting themselves, general dishonesty, and utterly oblivious to their own surreal exhibitions of humor.

So; going out and actually doing physical research and investigation in hopes of finding physical evidence, proof even, hopefully vs. staying at home and typing on your computer endless non-productive arguments about how something you don't believe exists, doesn't' t exist.

Sounds rational to me!