Another Idiot Shooting Things

Can't find the words, except for one: "idiot!"

Mysterious Encounters with Bigfoot at Military Bases | Mysterious Universe

Stories of Sasquatch on military exist, and have existed for some time. An aspect of Sasquatch encounters I'm intrigued by. Here's one story from the late 1970s as reported by Brent Swancer at Mysterious Universe. The witness, Edwin Goday, saw a Sasquatch type creature. Goday shot at the creature, which ran off. After reporting the sighting, Godoy was told to keep quiet, and personnel came out:

[Mysterious Encounters with Bigfoot at Military Bases | Mysterious Universe:] According to Godoy, the mechanics made a secretive radio call and not long after a group of men in what appeared to be lab coats and thick rubber gloves descended upon the area taking samples of the blood and making casts of the footprints. The whole time Godoy claims that he was not allowed to speak to anyone at all, and that he was kept to the side away from what was going on. The perplexed Godoy was then whisked away to the base hospital, but rather than be looked at by the usual medical staff he was examined by a doctor who was from the Air Force, which was odd considering it was an Army installation.

More at the site.



What to think of these stories? I have no idea. True, a cover for something else, what? One possibility is the government's awareness of many things of a paranormal/UFO/cryptid nature, used for their own agendas. The question then is, why? That's when the conspiratorial mind starts its journey down the rabbit hole.

NO KILL

LGF Pages:Texas DNA specialist writes that Sasquatch is a modern human being.

LGF Pages - Texas DNA specialist writes that Sasquatch is a modern human being.

According to a copyright application, rural Texas veterinarian/DNA lab owner, Melba Ketchum, DVM, is coming out with the news that the folklore beast called Sasquatch or Bigfoot is real!!

"Beast?" Sigh. Worse, weirder and more bizarrely, Dr. Ketchum is applying for a patent. Surreal to consider that, if Sasquatch is more human than not, or, even human indeed in some way, that this being can be "patented." Then what? That is a huge question. All this time I thought the NO KILL/NO CAPTURE issue was the only one to be concerned about.

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.

From Oregon Bigfoot.com Blog:More clarification on the Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA Study | Oregon Bigfoot Blog

Bigfoot author and researcher Autumn Williams has a post at her site on the "Ketchum DNA" -- what is, and what is not, happening, and, why. Specifically how the scientific peer review process works. More clarification on the Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA Study | Oregon Bigfoot Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Cryptomundo: Bigfoot to kill or not?

Once again the "kill or no kill" question concerning Bigfoot has been raised, this time on Cryptomundo. Lots of interesting comments. I feel very strongly about this, and so of course, had to comment myself.

I don't quite believe those who say they are operating under altruistic motives in maintaining their position of "we have to kill a BF in order to protect it." That sounds very presumptuous on my part, but I think it's a highly disingenuous thing to say. And for those that really do believe they believe that, I beg them to reconsider.

If protection isn't the reason, and killing a BF is simply the goal to prove it to science, well, no debate. I'm judgemental, adamant and stubborn on this -- no reason justifies killing (or capturing) a Sasquatch.

Cryptomundo's Top Ten Worst Bigfoot Stories of 2009

Loren Coleman at Cryptomundo brings us Top Ten Worst Bigfoot Stories of 2009

What's my favorite worst story? Not sure I have one, they all make me sad; but then again, as I always rant about the UFO arena, Trickster games are to be expected, and that's true for crypto world as it is for any other estoeric/paranormal/Fortean realm.

I suppose my favorite worst is number 7 on the list:  "Teen Created Nutmeg State’s Bigfoot Hoax" about what police found after investigating a woman's report to police she had seen a Bigfoot:

Police threw out a dragnet, and said they searched and found a 16-year-old male subject dressed in a gorilla-like costume. The teenager told officers he was standing at the intersection of Unquowa and Sturges roads, waving at passing cars while friends watched.

I'm always amazed at people who think it's funny to put on a Bigfoot type costume and run around highways and the woods...there are so many trigger happy people out there who shoot at anything that moves that has fur. And if they think it's a Bigfoot, many people wouldn't hesitate to kill themselves one. 

As Coleman himself says in the post, "Thank goodness we get to start all over again in 2010."  

The Trickster, The Killing Field and Bigfootology

Bigfootology: The Dark Side and the “Killing Field”

There’s the strange side of Bigfoot; as this blog is called: Frame 352: The Stranger Side of Sasquatch. Strange doesn’t mean bad. Just, strange.

Then there’s the bad side, the dark side, of Bigfoot. Or maybe “Bigfootology” to distinguish it from Bigfoot itself. I’m pretty much joking here. But like those who distinguish UFOs from UFOlogy (the thing/phenomena itself, and the people involved in the thing/phenomena itself) we have the Bigfoot itself, and those that study Bigfoot. It’s not Bigfoot fault (or the UFOs in the case of UFOlogy) that there are humans with grudges, who attack each other, who are out for money above all else, who see nothing immoral or unethical in using the phenomenon for their own greedy agendas, who lie and hoax, who get embroiled in weird, nasty and sometimes very dark things surrounding Bigfoot.

Bigfootology: The Dark Side. Welcome.

Cryptomundo has an item up on the latest darkness. Lots of other Bigfoot blogs and paranormal, Fortean news feeds have all kinds of material related to the following story of M.K. Davis, the “killing field,” supposed murders, censorship, fights, letters to state authorities, and more. It’s like some weird crypto Victorian novel.

M.K. Davis has been running around with the “killing field theory” -- that Bigfoot was killed at Red Bluff all those years ago. WTF?! Not the most professional reaction, but I am aghast at the whole thing, and that’s why I haven’t bothered to comment on this earlier. Some things are too weird -- too ugly -- to bother with. Davis has been “uninvited” to speak at an August Bigfoot conference. Lines have been drawn. People are disgusted. Etc.

(Davis has already been in hot water for being racist, according to some. The man is certainly controversial.)

Bigfootology -- why do some people go so far out there? While many BF researchers are busy arguing with each other over the validity of data that involves orb wielding, psychic Sasquatch emerging from UFOs, crap like this gets its fifteen minutes of fame. Fortunately, not many seem to take the “killing field theory” seriously. But my question is, why would someone -- in this case Davis-- even go there in the first place? That’s as much a mystery as Bigfoot itself. I suppose it’s just human nature. No matter what the field: academia, medicine, politics, science, or the trucking industry, you have drama. Often it’s High Drama bordering on theatrics. When it comes to world of Forteana, it’s all too often theatrical. As many have said, downright circus like. (Actually, I think of the circus as gaudy, sure, but not seedy, as in a carnival way. The carnival is the dark side of the circus world. That's just me and I'm digressing. . .)

It’s helpful to keep in mind that, as disgusting as all this is, it is to be expected. If you believe, as I do, that this kind of stuff is as much a part of the paranormal world as the paranormal world itself (and yes, I’m throwing Bigfoot in there with the paranormal world) it softens things a little. Trickster is alive and doing its thing; nothing can change that.

And while that’s all true; that doesn't’ make it right, or mean things like this should be tolerated. You have to call people on their stuff sometimes and stand up for your own ethics and beliefs, in whatever way is true for you.

I think some of this may have to do with a very misguided sense of wanting to protect Bigfoot. Another part of all this madness is that Trickster force again; playing with people’s minds. Get too close, too obsessed, too distracted, and before you know it, you’re being played. In turn, you start to play others, whether you know it or not.

P-G "Patty" Shot?

That's one story that's attached itself to the Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot film and has been around for awhile. Read more on Cryptomundo.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bf-incident/