Well duh, like I said: Dr. Meldrum on the FBI's Big Reveal

FBI released, billions of years later, its results of a sample sent to them by Bigfoot researcher Peter Byrne. Turns out it was deer hair, not Sasquatch. As I, and other Bigfoot people no doubt have been saying about this: this doesn't prove anything. And: why now, why is the FBI's public relations department eager to make this little splash?

Dr. Meldrum doesn't think much of this either:

“It’s a tempest in a teapot,” said Jeff Meldrum, an anatomy and anthropology professor at ISU. “Just from that poor quality black-and-white image, you can tell it’s not primate hair. I could have told you on the basis of that photo alone that it was almost certainly ungulate.”
News like this is a disservice to the bountiful evidence that does exist, Meldrum said. [source: Spokesman Review ]

We all know this, but the FBI accomplished what it meant to accomplish, and that is feed the dormant seed in the popular culture concerning Bigfoot's existence. Like other government entities concerning the reality of UFOs (and other things bumping in the night) that put out little items, it's all distraction.

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.

Old Debate, New Article: Kill Or No Kill

New article (To Kill or to Capture Bigfoot: The Great Cryptozoological Debate) on the old debate that rages on. Sad that it rages on, sad that some people think one has to kill themselves a Bigfoot just to prove to science it exists. Not enough for one's own experience to be the proof; Big Science has to know as well in order for those with the bloodlust to feel vindicated.

“You would need a heavy-duty rifle,” according Jim Lansdale, co-founder of the Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Organization (GCBRO). “I would suggest a 30-aught-six or better; .458 or something like that. Maybe a seven-mag’. But it’s all shot placement and you’d have to shoot him in the head. You can’t body-shoot him. They’re too big.” [Jim Lansdale; Gizmodo]

Disgusting Lansdale has spent a lot of brain energy figuring out just what weapon will do the job.

Skeptic and debunker Benjamin Radford gives his reason why those, like myself, are against killing a Sasquatch:

"To them it’s not just like killing an armadillo or an elk—it is a symbol of purity.” [Benjamin Radford; Gizmodo]

I'd like Mr. Radford to know that I wouldn't kill an armadillo (who does that?) or an elk. While some do -- hunters who kill elk in order to provide food for their family -- I choose not to do so. It's not because I believe Sasquatch is "pure", I have no idea. It simply is not right to do so. In this I am very adamant.

I have not seen a Sasquatch, though I have had a couple of odd experiences related to Sasquatch. I know a lot of individuals who have seen Bigfoot. I believe it exists. To me it doesn't matter if it's "pure" or almost human, or human like, or even human, or, 'simply' an animal. No reason to kill it. None.

None.
Nope.
Not one good reason.
At. All.

Having said that, I will make a qualifier here. While I doubt Bigfoot are psycho-beings killing humans willy-nilly, as Lansdale believes, (because, after all, those of us who are NO KILL are "bleeding hearts", which tells you a lot about Lansdale's mindset and political values) if an animal -- human or non -- is coming at me to eat me for lunch, then yes, I'd defend myself.

But I'm not going out to look for a being with the single minded purpose of killing one.

Recent 'Bigfoot Porn' and the Left

I know, Riggleman is on the right. So what do I mean by 'the left?'

'Bigfoot erotica' searches jump as House race gets weird, Pornhub says: The adult website Pornhub said Tuesday that searches for "Bigfoot" – as in the giant biped of North American lore – have shot up 8,000 percent since a Democratic candidate for U.S. House of Representatives said her Republican opponent was a "devotee of Bigfoot erotica." [USA Today]

Since Daniel Riggleman was outed as being into Bigfoot porn (I really dislike that term, as well as the genre), everyone has been having fun making fun.

Although Leslie Cockburn, Riggleman's opponent, calls Riggleman's interest not porn but "erotica." Which tells me Cockburn is straight-laced.  The two are not the same and somehow, Bigfoot erotica is even worse than Bigfoot porn.

Riggleman doesn't believe in Bigfoot -- it's all a joke to him.

I'm no supporter of the right, conservatives, or even moderate Democrats. I'm a liberal leftie and proud of it. But the one thing that the left often does -- far more than the right -- is mock anything to do with the Realm of the Weird. UFOs, Bigfoot, ghosts, you name it. It's all silly stupid stuff and so, even though I agree that:

A) The term Bigfoot Porn is . . . creepy, and Bigfoot Erotica is also creepy

B) I am no fan of the right. Or conservatives. At all.

C) Riggleman seems to be an ass, and an even bigger ass for his lame Bigfoot porn hobby.



His Democratic opponent, Leslie Cockburn, gladly has used the 'bigfoot porn' issue as a weapon to do away with Riggleman. Well, politics is like that, use what you can so you can win.



Here's one of my favorite liberal TV people, Stephen Colbert, host of Late Night on CBS. Colbert is terrific, silly and smart. I respect his being outspoken about his religion, even though I am not a Christian. But whenever the subject of the paranormal comes up, Colbert, like most all of his liberal cohorts, really go to town.



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0slhAtWGFRA" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>



I've been pondering the relationship between politics and interest in the paranormal, and why, it seems, the left mocks while those with conservative views  seems to make up the majority of researchers. This is just my observation. There's something to do this but I don't know what yet.