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?
Showing posts with label the trickster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the trickster. Show all posts
Monday, November 1, 2010
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Following Bigfoot Ballyhoo
Linda Newton Perry's Bigfoot Ballyhoo is a blog I've posted about here recently; I also had turned on the "follow" feature to her blog. I say "followed" because she's removed me from the follow option.
Newton-Perry is a Christian and has said her religious views don't allow her to condone the paranormal. Because I have a Bigfoot blog that focuses on the high strangeness aspects of Bigfoot research, linking to my blog or supporting it, even by mentioning it I guess, conflicts with her personal beliefs.
A few days ago, Newton-Perry responded to the e-mail I had sent her by reposting it her blog:
Seems she’s changed her mind about looking “forward” to “hearing more from” me.
This is a sensitive subject for researchers. If you put yourself out there as a researcher, you have an obligation to be honest to the data. As I asked in my previous post: if your religious views conflict with data, where does your responsibility end? If you reject, hide, or ignore data you don't like because it conflicts with your views, are you an honest researcher? I don't know, I'm asking. I asked that question in a spirit of discussion. I had asked in my previous post, what would Linda Newton-Perry do with, say, the recent BF report from the Oregon teacher who had a recent Bigfoot sighting on the Oregon coast if that teacher had included some weird detail like, BF dematerializing in front of her? Or a UFO appeared next to it? Or any other of the high strangeness things that have been reported by some Bigfoot witnesses?
Newton-Perry didn't answer, either directly to me, or on her blog. She preferred to ignore the question and remove me from the follow feature. Certainly her right to do so; but I wonder where that leaves the Bigfoot reports that are coming her way? What if, as I asked previously, one of those reports she’s posted on her blog contained "weird" data? Would Newton-Perry lie about it? Hide it? I think these are legitimate questions.
Since Newton-Perry writes for two newspapers about Bigfoot, has a Bigfoot blog, and has published books about Bigfoot, these questions are valid and assuming her participation in this discussion is sensible.
Newton-Perry said her beliefs don't allow for paranormal Bigfoot beliefs but as I pointed out, not all Christians share that opinion. For example Stan Johnson (deceased) was a Christian who had many so-called paranormal encounters with Bigfoot including telepathic communications and rides on space ships.
Like the UFO subject (sans Bigfoot) religious beliefs come into things, and there’s a variety of beliefs and opinions within any particular religion. I know Christians who believe UFOs and related entities are demonic, and don’t want to have anything to do with the topic. I also know Christians who don’t believe that at all. And everything in between.
On the one hand, if Newton-Perry believes, as she says, Bigfoot is strictly flesh and blood, and not paranormal, that’s fine. Many BF researchers, as we know, believe that, regardless of their religious beliefs. But again, the question is, what would a researcher do -- Christian or not -- with a ‘weird” BF report that came their way?
This post of mine isn't to pick a fight or become one of those self appointed gurus of UFO or Bigfoot research. Not me! This field, like the UFO field, has its share of the pompous, arrogant, and self-important. This field is also full of just plain mean people who have no problem openly insulting others. This isn’t about insulting anyone, making fun of anyone’s religion, or picking fights. It’s about sincerely asking questions concerning research. If you can’t participate in that then should your work be taken seriously?
To be fair, we all have our buffers and lines we won't cross. Concerning Bigfoot, I haven't found mine yet. (UFOs and related subjects, maybe, but that's another blog and another post entirely.)
I wish all researchers the best, except, those that promote a kill policy. I just can’t get past that, and well, that’s the way it is.
But as always, the question that’s been asked many times by many a Bigfoot researcher, what to do with those high strangeness reports? Not a new question, but one that won’t go away.
Newton-Perry is a Christian and has said her religious views don't allow her to condone the paranormal. Because I have a Bigfoot blog that focuses on the high strangeness aspects of Bigfoot research, linking to my blog or supporting it, even by mentioning it I guess, conflicts with her personal beliefs.
A few days ago, Newton-Perry responded to the e-mail I had sent her by reposting it her blog:
Thank you for the good words....Regan, I , however, can not list paranormal sites. My Christian beliefs prevent me from delving into that subject. I do not believe Bigfoot is in anyway paranormal. I believe he is flesh and blood and placed in the animal kingdom for a purpose. I respect your right to believe as you wish and I ask that you respect mine. Thank you for participating on this blog and I look forward to hearing more from you.
Seems she’s changed her mind about looking “forward” to “hearing more from” me.
This is a sensitive subject for researchers. If you put yourself out there as a researcher, you have an obligation to be honest to the data. As I asked in my previous post: if your religious views conflict with data, where does your responsibility end? If you reject, hide, or ignore data you don't like because it conflicts with your views, are you an honest researcher? I don't know, I'm asking. I asked that question in a spirit of discussion. I had asked in my previous post, what would Linda Newton-Perry do with, say, the recent BF report from the Oregon teacher who had a recent Bigfoot sighting on the Oregon coast if that teacher had included some weird detail like, BF dematerializing in front of her? Or a UFO appeared next to it? Or any other of the high strangeness things that have been reported by some Bigfoot witnesses?
Newton-Perry didn't answer, either directly to me, or on her blog. She preferred to ignore the question and remove me from the follow feature. Certainly her right to do so; but I wonder where that leaves the Bigfoot reports that are coming her way? What if, as I asked previously, one of those reports she’s posted on her blog contained "weird" data? Would Newton-Perry lie about it? Hide it? I think these are legitimate questions.
Since Newton-Perry writes for two newspapers about Bigfoot, has a Bigfoot blog, and has published books about Bigfoot, these questions are valid and assuming her participation in this discussion is sensible.
Newton-Perry said her beliefs don't allow for paranormal Bigfoot beliefs but as I pointed out, not all Christians share that opinion. For example Stan Johnson (deceased) was a Christian who had many so-called paranormal encounters with Bigfoot including telepathic communications and rides on space ships.
Like the UFO subject (sans Bigfoot) religious beliefs come into things, and there’s a variety of beliefs and opinions within any particular religion. I know Christians who believe UFOs and related entities are demonic, and don’t want to have anything to do with the topic. I also know Christians who don’t believe that at all. And everything in between.
On the one hand, if Newton-Perry believes, as she says, Bigfoot is strictly flesh and blood, and not paranormal, that’s fine. Many BF researchers, as we know, believe that, regardless of their religious beliefs. But again, the question is, what would a researcher do -- Christian or not -- with a ‘weird” BF report that came their way?
This post of mine isn't to pick a fight or become one of those self appointed gurus of UFO or Bigfoot research. Not me! This field, like the UFO field, has its share of the pompous, arrogant, and self-important. This field is also full of just plain mean people who have no problem openly insulting others. This isn’t about insulting anyone, making fun of anyone’s religion, or picking fights. It’s about sincerely asking questions concerning research. If you can’t participate in that then should your work be taken seriously?
To be fair, we all have our buffers and lines we won't cross. Concerning Bigfoot, I haven't found mine yet. (UFOs and related subjects, maybe, but that's another blog and another post entirely.)
I wish all researchers the best, except, those that promote a kill policy. I just can’t get past that, and well, that’s the way it is.
But as always, the question that’s been asked many times by many a Bigfoot researcher, what to do with those high strangeness reports? Not a new question, but one that won’t go away.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Navajo Skinwalkers and Legends
Nick Redfern comments on Navajo Skinwalkers and Legends about the high strangeness in the four corners area: Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. This sounds like a fascinating documentary and I can't wait to get my copy.
Another author that writes about one of the four corners is Chris O'Brien, who writes the "Mysterious Valley" series, about the UFO, high strangeness, cattle mutilations and other Fortean events in Colorado. And for something about Utah, there's Hunt for the Skinwalker, of course, but also The Utah UFO display: A biologist's report by Frank Salisbury.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
On Machine Elf: Trickster or Liar?
On Lesley's excellent blog Machine Elf, she asks, about the whole hoaxed Bigfoot mess: Trickster or Liar? I respond with a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)