Bigfoot May Still Exist, Says Veteran Science Writer

Author, and relative of Bigfoot researcher Grover Krantz, believes we should keep an open mind about Bigfoot's existence. Her mission is to "encourage 

Bigfoot May Still Exist, Says Veteran Science Writer: Kranz discovered she is related to Grover Krantz, a professor of anthropology at Washington State University and one of the most famous Sasquatch researchers of the 20th century. Grover was convinced Sasquatch was real after discovering footprints he believed could only belong to the giant primate.

FBI and Bigfoot

Well, forty years later, FBI gets around to a Big Reveal about Bigfoot. Which is really a deer. All right, maybe not entirely fair, but the hair sample submitted by researcher Peter Byrne decades ago proved to be not of Sasquatch, but a deer.

I'd love to know what FBI files exist concerning Bigfoot -- I mean, really exist. Like UFOs and entities, we'll never know. Only what information is eeked out to the mainstream.

It's always interesting when little bits of weirdness make it to the morning paper.

(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.

Why is (almost) Everyone Giving Dr. Melba Ketchum a Hard Time?

Listened to some of last night's Coast to Coast with host George Knapp and guest Dr. Ketchum. And if what she says is true, as to her diligence with testing, then why is she getting so much flack from many in Bigfoot Land? Such flack from science, well, sadly that's no surprise. Sciences' blindness to the existence of Bigfoot and the data is horribly frustrating and a mystery but, to be expected.  Why, though, are some in the Bigfoot world attacking her? I think she's been coy in the past, a bit, but overall, look. She's trying to do something. She's sent samples out to several labs. She's looking at the DNA. She's used blind studies. She has a variety of samples, not just one strand of elk hair. All this costs money, a lot of money. Finding labs to do the work is a huge job. Scientists have turned her down once they get wind that her research is Bigfoot research. According to Ketchum, one scientist threatened to sue her and her team if they used his findings; that's how angry he was over the subject of her research -- and how afraid he remains of being associated in any way with Bigfoot research.


Knapp asked her about her insistence that those she's discussed her research with sign disclosure statements. (Knapp himself signed one.) Ketchum explained that it's important to keep the data as uncontaminated as possible.

Then there's the infamous "peer reviewed" journal citation that gives any researcher the cred they need to be accepted in mainstream science and academia. It's a crazy loop: you have to be accepted by the very types of individuals who think you're nuts to be doing this kind of research in the first place, so you're not going to be accepted. Not having been accepted, your research is nothing. If her research isn't accepted into an accepted scientific journal, she's out. So is the star of this thing: Bigfoot.

So, given all this, why is Dr. Melba Ketchum --despite her possible missteps involving communication or style -- being treated badly by some in cryptozoology?

One possible answer to that is the uneasiness among some researchers that Bigfoot might be human, or far more human like, than those researchers have presumed. Some Bigfoot researchers have no problem with promoting a kill -- "for science" they tell us -- or thinking of Bigfoot as a big ape. Or some kind of animal. (Forgetting that we, too are animals.) Bigfoot is intelligent, very cool, what a find! but in the end, "just" an animal.

Many witnesses who've encountered Bigfoot speak of the eerie human qualities of the "creature" and as we know, many have tales to tell of spiritual and paranormal events within those encounters. These aspects of Bigfoot encounters sometimes don't go over very well with the more pragmatic Bigfoot researcher. Are they afraid that somewhere along the line, Ketchum's research presents clues or evidence of "more" here?

Ketchum said in last night's interview that if she is rejected by peer reviewed journals she'll put it out to the public. That would be fantastic, but also a cruelly frustrating gift, since it will be ignored by science.

A Rant About a Rave

Finding Bigfoot. Didn't see it. Really have no right to judge if I haven't seen it. But, having seen several past episodes from both seasons,  I can make the safe assumption that holding a "rave" in the woods is very stupid in general, and even more stupid in particular, if one is hoping Bigfoot will stop by.

Forgetting Bigfoot for the moment, what about the other creatures of the woods? Do you think they want bozos raving in the middle of the night? Jesus flippin' Christ, show some respect!

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.

Bigfoot Evidence: What Happened to the Lake Worth Monster? The Summer of the Goat-Man

The 1969 Lake Worth Monster story has always fascinated me; a classic in the lore of BHM (big hairy monsters). Big Evidence has the following:Bigfoot Evidence: What Happened to the Lake Worth Monster? The Summer of the Goat-Man

Back in 1969, the residents of Ft. Worth, Texas experienced a wave of sightings of a 7 foot tall white Bigfoot type creature which came to be known as the 'Lake Worth Monster, aka the 'Goat-Man'. Described as tall, furry, and covered with scales, (yep, scales), the local newspaper headline read, "Fishy Man-Goat Terrifies Couples Parked at Lake Worth". Some witnesses said that it had the head and hooves of a goat, bringing to mind images of a satyr, a half-man half-goat from Greek mythology. They insisted it also had scales and was an excellent swimmer, often making its retreat by way of Lake Worth to Greer Island, where it was thought to live.

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?

On Monster Tracker: Demonizing Long Term Witnesses

I have a new article at Monster Tracker: Bigfoot Research: Demonizing Long Term Witnesses

At Cyrptomundo, Loren Coleman's bias towards UFOs, aliens, and the stranger side of Sasquatch -- which includes long term interactions with Bigoot, regardless of any other high strangeness events or not -- and witnesses reporting such is made clear:

“They really believe they are having these experiences,” Coleman said. “I don’t know if it’s hallucination or a psychological state.” ~ Coleman,Meldrum Question Contactee Claims.
Given that one quote, it seems that anyone who sees something strange in context of a Bigfoot sighting is, in Coleman's worldview, either hallucinating or suffering from some kind of mental illness.

The Cryptomundo article addresses skeptic Eric Niller's New Bigfoot Sightings: Proof Still Lacking, which quotes Coleman's research on "Bigfoot contactees." (I prefer, like Autumn Williams and others, to use the term "long term witness" or LTW.)

Niller's article looks at the story of LTW Robin Lynn Pfeifer of Michigan, who says she has an on-going relationship with several Bigfoot.

Dr. Jeff Meldrum has no patience with such stories either:

"There's no substance to any of her claims," said Meldrum, who is an expert in the evolution of early hominid gait. "If there were 10 to 12 around her home, she should be opening up a museum with all the artifacts."
Meldrum's thoughts are based on assumptions and ignore what the anecdotal evidence is telling us. According to Pfeifer, the Bigfoot are not open to being photographed:

The rest at Monster Tracker...

Free Short Story From Lisa Shiel: A Trace of Bigfoot | Lisa A. Shiel

A nice treat from author Lisa Shiel: Free Short Story: A Trace of Bigfoot | Lisa A. Shiel

“That’s where it started,” Johansson said. He waved an unsteady hand at the region where the shadows of the trees swallowed the road. “It was no bear or nothing like that. I couldn’t see it real clear but I’m sure. I think it was…”

Read the story to find out! (can you guess?)

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

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.

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? 

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.

Melisa Hovey Interviews Bobbie Short

A very interesting interview with Bobbie Short from Melisa Hovey’s Search for Bigfoot blog (I’m not sure how recent the interview is; didn’t find a date.) Bobbie Short is a well known researcher, and we’re fortunate she brings us the excellent Bigfoot Encounters site, as well as her newsletter. Lots of good advice from Short in this interview and really, I almost don’t disagree with anything she has to say about research -- Bigfoot not being a giant ape, for example -- but naturally, we go separate ways here:

The most rewarding change has been the move away from the "bizarre" and the exodus away from the UFO related ideas. It used to be in the old days, the only place to read about hirsute hominids was in a UFO or like magazine. That trend is dying a fast death and I'm glad to see it go.

Now if we can just move research away from cryptozoology and those damn mystery apes, chupacabras, the moth man and Spring-Hill Jack, I'll be a happy camper.

Like UFO research, within Bigfoot research, there are huge divergences in ideas about what UFOs/Bigfoot might be. But that aside, it’s a good interview!

On Blogsquatcher: "Recent Posts"

On the Blogsquatcher blog, a post about "recent posts" on other Bigfoot blogs, with kudos to researcher Autumn Wiiliams and Linda Martin. I very much like what Autumn has to say about Bigfoot research:

Those of you who know me well know that the only strong stance I take related to the nature of bigfoot is that I REFUSE to take a strong stance on WHAT bigfoot is or is not. I have some suspicions, but that’s all they are. Suspicions. Something akin to conclusions that have been tentatively reached in order to form hypotheses and direct my field research. If they don’t work, I immediately head back to the drawing board, rather than sticking to hypotheses that don’t serve me well.

I know Blogsquatcher quotes that as well, highlighting her comments, but it's so worthwhile, I had to repeat it here. I'd also paraphrase Autumn's sentiments here regarding BF research to say the same about the UFO phenomena, but that's another story! Unless of course, it's a Bigfoot-UFO encounter, then . . . :)

The "Eel Siren" of Maine

Fascinating entry on Bigfoot researcher Linda Martin's Bigfoot Sightings blog:
Maine: Report of a humanoid that may be reptilian. A woman that Linda has been in contact with shares her life long encounters with a reptilian she also refers to as an "eel siren." This isn't, as Linda comments, a Bigfoot report, but I agree with her response to this story: sometimes some stories are so intriguing that aren't Bigfoot reports you have to share.

As I commented at her blog, as weird as this story of the "eel siren" is, there are plenty of stories of encounters with reptilians. I know of a couple in Washington state who are obviously living in some kind of anomalous portal zone, where they have heavy UFO activity (and fighter jets following), along with both Bigfoot sightings and reptilian sightings. There's a lot more to that whole situation that I'll probably report on eventually.

Anyway, fascinating story, visit Linda's blog to read all about it.

Lesley on the Bigfoot Hoax

Lesley (Debris Field, Beyond the Dial, Machine Elf, Land of Enchantment, just to name a few of her many blogs -- oh, and contributor to Women Of Esoterica) has her say on the Georgia Bigfoot hoax in Biscardi Gate: Bigfoot in the Freezer Hoax. I like what she says here:

Unlike some I do not believe such hoaxes harm true Bigfoot research in anyway. Just as I don’t believe ufo hoaxes harm true ufology research. The media was looking for exactly what it got. They love crap like that. Had it been a real researcher with some real evidence of Bigfoot (short of an actual body) it is unlikely he or she would have got any attention at all. I think it is likely that the media knew just as much about Biscardi as I do (they have access to google too) and they knew exactly what to expect. They played along because it was something to attract more viewers or readers, no matter that it was a hoax.

Website: "Bigfoot, Oh Yes They Are Real"

Someone e-mailed today with this link to their site; "Bigfoot Oh Yes They Are Real." There are some interesting photos on the site. The site is of the paranormal Bigfoot variety; invisible Bigfoot and the like.

It's another moment of Fortean synchronicity; for some reason, the past two days, I've been thinking very strongly about dematerializing Bigfoot, and how I would go about putting together some kind of presentation on the topic. Then I find this e-mail.

http://hometown.aol.com/osareal/index.html

Hovey asks: "Is There a Bigfoot Mafia?"

Melissa Hovey has a funny, sad and interesting post at her blog Bigfoot Research. Funny, because some people are such obvious honking flapping clown shoes. Sad, because these same people don’t have a life and think they’re actually important -- yet don’t have the ethics to sign their own names. Interesting, because it’s all part of the phenomena -- the humans within the research are as intriguing as the thing being studies -- and for more on the stupidity that drags alongside Bigfoot, UFO, etc. research in genera.

(It’s also funny because Hovey has a good sense of humor and doesn’t take any crap!)