Bigfoot Lunch Club: Bigfoot sightings return to Eugene, California and alarm residents

Bigfoot has been seen in my (now) home town of Eugene in Oregon. Actually, Alpine, which is about 28 miles from here. I know Bigfoot has been seen in the area for years.


Bigfoot Lunch Club: Bigfoot sightings return to Eugene, California and alarm residents

Award

 Very nice, two of my blogs, Mothman Flutterings, and this one, Frame 352, was named in Forensic Science.net's  list of top 30 cryptozoology blogs. Thank you!

Forensic Science

Top Cryptozoology Blogs

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.

On UFOs, et al: Stan Johnson Encounters a Sasquatch

From the UFOs, et al blog: Stan Johnson Encounters A Sasquatch.

I've been following Stan's story for many years, --he is deceased, but his story lives on. Johnson was a Sutherlin, Oregon resident who many experiences with Sasquatch of the high strangeness kind.

I met Stan once at a UFO conference in Eugene. Very charismatic man. I also had my own odd moment of high strangeness involving Stan regarding Sasquatch which I've discussed on-line many times. You can hear my description of this here; where Mike Clelland at thehidden experienceblog, interviewed me for his podcast.

Also a bit of synchronicity; just last night I was working on my manuscript of a similar case in Oregon, frustrated, once again, that I can't seem to get it done. Then I realized: it's because I haven't committed to what I think about "paranormal Bigfoot," -- I haven't gotten off the fence, and just say it. So I did, in the introduction, which caused everything else to fall into place. My next project concerns Johnson, and here I wake up to find this item on Johnson on UFOs, et al blog. Small synchronicitous Sasquatch world!

Bigfoot Lunch Club: Silent Invasion: The Pennsylvania UFO-Bigfoot Casebook

Bigfoot Lunch Club: Silent Invasion: The Pennsylvania UFO-Bigfoot Casebook

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? 

The Search For Bigfoot: Trouble in Florida?

On Melissa Hovey's blog, "Mike" leaves a comment as well. This time, his comment is longer; he insists the book Enoch is "fiction."

The Search For Bigfoot: Trouble in Florida?

conversation with Regan Lee

Mike Clelland of hidden experience posted the audio interview from awhile back, thanks mike!  Edited to add: in that interview, I talk about a strange experience I had involving a cone of light while discussing Bigfoot and Stan Johnson. Johnson was a so-called "Bigfoot contactee" though I dislike that term, who lived in Sutherlin, Oregon. Johnson had many encounters with a Sasquatch family and UFOs.
conversation with Regan Lee

North American Bigfoot: Jane Goodall in the News

Sharing a nice item on Jane Goodall from North American Bigfoot blog:

North American Bigfoot: Jane Goodall in the News

Bigfoot Lunch Club: Thom Powell Week: To true believers, Bigfoot lives

Bigfoot Lunch Club comments on Thom Powell, and a local (Eugene, Oregon) article in the Register-Guard on Bigfoot, and an upcoming Bigfoot presentation at the University of Oregon Nov. 3rd. Read more on Steve's blog:

Bigfoot Lunch Club: Thom Powell Week: To true believers, Bigfoot lives

Bigfoot Sighting? Just a Case of Input/Output

I love to lurk on the JREF paranormal and general skepticism message board, particularly the Bigfoot threads. As I've mentioned before here and on my blog Snarly Skepticism and Unofficial JREF Watch, the last time I counted there were well over fifty seperate threads about Bigfoot. For something they don't believe exists, that's a lot of wasted time and effort!

The latest post that caught my attention for its surreal example of a pathological skeptic moment is this response to a poster named WGBH, who had, in the past, posted about his Bigfoot sighting. "Drewbot" comes along and wonders where WGBH is, WGBH responds that, since "Drewbot" doesn't believe WGBH saw a Bigfoot, what's the point of going on? To which "Drewbot" posts:

I believe you had a sighting, I just don't think you saw an actual Bigfoot.

Look at this formula:

INPUT STIMULI I₁, I₂, I₃, I₄... = OUTPUT X

OUTPUT X = SIGHTING
A sighting is an output function

INPUT (I_X) could be any number of inputs that lead you to believe you had a sighting.

I don't believe that the input stimulus was an actual bigfoot. However I do believe that you had an input that created an output of a sighting.

I love it.

Squatchland: Bigfoot Ballyhoo

Here's a post on Linda Newton-Perry's "Bigfoot Ballyhoo" latest, from Squatchland blog:

Squatchland: Bigfoot Ballyhoo

"Going to kill it in 3 mths"

My post about a No Kill position concerning Bigfoot inspired this troll, calling himself "Brian Thexton," to send me the following email, which I just discovered in my email box this evening:

cant type this call me @ 503 *** **** found a big foot bed MtHood 9/18/2010 can show you 44rd-2730rd-200rd(flag point lookout) call me asap "going to kill it in 3 mths "threw 8"rock @ me last nite i called it in with a cow call but it wasnt a elk

He left a phone number with an Oregon area code; I won't call it but I did various internet searches on it for fun: it's a cell, it's in Portland, that's about it and all I'm inclined to do.

"Going to kill it in 3 mths"  Why in 3 months? Wouldn't that be in late December/January, when the weather and conditions on Mt. Hood are, well, a bit on the dicey side? Why is "going to kill it in 3 months" and "threw 8" in quotes?

Did he think that I'd want to go out in the snow and watch him try to kill a Bigfoot? Note to future trolls: I hate the snow. The last thing I'm going to ever do is go out in the snow for what some call recreation?. . . that's a weird concept for me.

New Bigfoot Thread on JREF: "Mormon Bigfoot Genesis Theory"

The JREF (James Randi Educational Forum) has a new thread on Bigfoot; this one is titled "Mormon Bigfoot Genesis Theory." I stopped counting long ago how many Bigfoot threads there are on the JREF but at last estimation, it was around sixty. Sixty seperate threads on a "skeptic" site about a creature the majority of posters don't believe exists.

Interesting thread, on the Mormon folklore about Sasquatch. And, about UFOs. Not connected, according to the OP, and I'm not that familiar with Mormon doctrine. But it is an interesting juxtaposition.

Naturally, the skeptoids scoff at this; because it's Bigfoot, because it's religion. (The only valid point made by the OP is the potential racism inherent in this folklore -- kind of like David Icke's and other Illuminati loving theorists, who disguise their anti-Semitism with code phrases like reptilians, world bankers, etc.)

But in reading about Mormon founder Joseph Smith's experiences, it's clear he had contact with something that is very close to alien/UFO encounters. And in reading the book of Mormon, with different tribes stealing chests full of DNA, -- it reads like a sci fi novel. Parallels are clear, as Biblical/religious text UFO researchers know.

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.

Snarly Skepticism . . . (and Unofficial JREF Watch): The Search For Bigfoot: Kitakaze and his "Accusations"

I comment a bit at my blog Snarly Skepticism on Melissa Hovey's (The Search for Bigfoot) post on uber-skeptoid "Kitakaze" :

Snarly Skepticism . . . (and Unofficial JREF Watch): The Search For Bigfoot: Kitakaze and his "Accusations"

Yeti/Wild Thing Synchronicity

I had a very disturbing dream last night. I think it was because I was coming down with something and my body/subconscious was reacting to that, because after I was awake for about an hour, I suddenly felt clammy, chilled, sore throat -- fall crud. The dream sounds almost funny in some ways but it was very scary, just your basic all around nightmare. Something about the Yeti, with giant claws, ripping people apart. And smaller sized Yetis -- in the dream, they were called "Yet-its" -- who looked more like stuffed toys than real creatures. They were watching the big monster Yeti dismembering people, their bodies (or, pieces of their bodies) slowly slip down the outside of the glass on the windows of the second floor room where I was watching all this, and damn glad of course I wasn't one of the victims. Blood, guts, human body parts, all sliding down the glass. The "Yet -its" were shocked, and sad, at this, because the big monster Yeti wasn't supposed to be a murderous monster, but something went wrong.

I was telling someone at work about this dream and described the "Yet-its" as looking like the characters from Where the Wild Things Are. And a minute later, someone walks into the room with a T-shirt with a large monster character from the book, with the title, in large letters: Where the Wild Things Are.

So, owls and Yetis and Wild Things; a message, synchronicity? Maybe the "message" is simply the appearance of the synchronicities themselves, appearing in animal form, since that's where I like to be -- in the animal realm.

As to the nature of the yucky dream; had another violent dream the night before that, though not involving animals. Sadly, a person I know. Some personal issues in my life right now. Not surprising, given that and my run down state, that my dream mind conjures up attacking Yetis!

Lon Strickler on "The Bigfoot Paradox"

I'm a contributor to The C-Influence blog, along with Bruce Duensing, Lon Strickler of Phantoms and Monsters, Bruceleeeowe, Eric Ouellet, J.S. Flower,John Carlson, Lesley Gunter, and Rick Phillips. The idea of the blog is to have "seed posts," -- an article by a contributor --  about esoteric subjects that generates discussion and responses by other blog members. Pretty neat, and different, idea!

Currently, Lon has a great post about paranormal Bigfoot: Visit the blog, read Lon's excellent post, and the equally interesting responses by blog contributors, including me :)

Jovial Guy in Grey Bigfoot Suit

I've been keeping an animal journal, which I posted about on Women Of Esoterica. My intent was to write about animals, but I soon realized that "animal" means a lot of things other than the expected. Last night I was writing in my journal about cryptids, shape shifters, mixed energies, inter-dimensional beings...I'm pretty sure this will turn into something. I had the following dream after writing in my journal last night:

I go see about some land for sale here in Oregon. "39.4" acres for incredibly cheap. I go alone; arriving, there is a man who's clearly some kind of guard to this little town, which is very odd. He lets me by. He's not armed or even threatening, but it is ... odd. I continue on, meeting up with a pleasant man in his early forties, maybe. Friendly person, telling me all about the property. We're standing in the middle of a highway. No people around or cars, out in the country. What's extremely weird is that, as soon as I passed the "guard" earlier, the landscape changed radically. Suddenly, I am surrounded by high, sharp, jutting mountains covered in snow, it's cold, the water (ocean? lake?) on one side of the highway, surrounded by these very high and close mountains, is grey and choppy. I'm a little nervous, the water is almost up to the road. And on the other side of the highway, across from the water and mountains, the land just goes straight up, very steep. I'm told this is "Wyoming-Idaho" in Oregon. I say, in the dream, (a lucid moment?) that there's no such thing, and what is Wyoming doing in Oregon?! The man thinks that's funny.


He continues telling me bout the land, that's it's a great deal (it is), it's all just land, but one thing to be aware: there are poachers that "encroach on the edges," as he puts it. I'll have to deal with them as I see fit, he says.


As we're talking, suddenly a man in what is obviously a very bad, very cheap Bigfoot costume, (light grey in color) steps out onto the road. The man says, in a mock frightened tone, "Oh, look, look! It's Bigfoot! Bigfoot is here!" and they both crack up. The guy in the BF suit goofs around, stomping and clowning, and then takes off. 


All this time I am not amused, and am just looking at them. The man says to me,"You don't think that's funny?" and I'm thinking to myself, what a maroon, another joker, and a Bigfoot debunker. Great. But I'm not going to tell him about my opinions on Bigfoot, or anything else.


Then the man says to me, very seriously, "You know, around here, we all know Bigfoot exists. Anyone who's ever spent any time in the country around here knows damn well Bigfoot exists. You can't judge people on things like having fun."


Well okay then, I think. Interesting. So back to the land issue, but I tell him that I don't like the snow, or mountains, and I still don't like this idea of "Wyoming" being in Idaho-Oregon, and on the west coast to boot. It's all very suspicious. And why are all the townspeople, who I know are all around us, watching us, hidden? It's not that they're sinister or of ill intent but it is weird and I'm uncomfortable. 


The man says to me, "You didn't think the property was this place, did you? Oh no, it's not like this at all, it's back behind here," and he waves his hands around, indicating that the land is even further, and not snowy or mountainous.


I tell him I'll think about it, and tell him I have to leave. He stays there, I'm a little put out he's letting me go off on my own, after all, I don't know my way around. He stays put on the highway, as if he's under some type of interdiction to stay in that place. I find my way though and back to the guard, who also seems amused that I'm here. He doesn't help me with directions either, but I figure it out.

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.