Well, yes, I did say "fuck science." In that context, I meant it. (see post below.)
There are those that consider proof only that which will be acknowledged by science. There are others who think the proof Bigfoot, or UFOs, or ETs, or ghosts, etc. exist because they're experienced those things, so it seems silly to offer "proof." There was proof. Proof in the experience of the witness.
Then things get circular and silly. "I saw a Sasquatch!" (Sasquatch can be replaced with UFO, ghost, Nessie, Mothman, ...) "Yea? Prove it." "Er, I can't, but, well, I did." "Snort."
Even if the response is "Cool for you but who else will believe it without proof we're lost" that still speaks to the need for approval from science.
Most of us want to find out what Sasquatch is. Is Sasquatch an ape, a human, an ET, a fairy, an elemental, a species all unto itself, a bear, a ....? Science can help us find out.
But things get quickly confused. Some think any rejection of science is wrong. It's assumed that there's a war going on between "science" and everything else. Non-scientists but those leaning towards science as a tool and a guide often want to be taken seriously by science. So they reject the more Fortean, crazy accounts of Bigfoot encounters. The argument is: "We have a hard enough time being taken seriously; let's not throw in UFOs and telepathy and other nonsense." Understandable. But in my opinion, wrong.
You can't possibly get at the thing if you toss out some of the parts.
So here's where I get to the "fuck science" part. Said bluntly it's not mean tto be freakin' literal. As the snarky hard core skeptic often likes to say "If you hate science so much you wouldn't be using the computer you're writing on science brought you that you know." Yes, I know. And thank you. I love my computer and other toys!
It's not a war, but it's assumed it is and everyone jumps on a side. You're either "for" or "against." Sort of how some view the government: the government works for us, we don't work for the government. They're accountable to us. Science, as an infrastructure, is the same. It works for us. We're in this together.
So, being cheeky sometimes and I may say "fuck science" let's settle down. Science is a path, a journey, a process, a philosophy, a tool. We need science and anyone who says differently is silly. We know that. We do.
Along with using science to help us as we journey through mysteries, are other tools as well. This doesn't mean we're rejecting anything. It means we're broadening our perspectives.
Insisting the only way to find Sasqauatch is through rigid methods set up by one narrow aspect of science is, I think, non-productive. Even if that way brought us a body, we're still left with many unanswered questions, including those of more paranormal or esoteric nature. And we're also left with ethical questions concerning habitat, and laws, and our relationship with the environment. Not to mention more metaphysical questions about intelligence and life.
The thought occurred to me as I was leaving a comment on Melissa Hovey's blog that it'd be interesting to see Bigfoot teams include Forteans (for lack of a better term) in their search. Often times there are skeptics, why not that? I think we'd get to some interesting places if we did that.
Fortean, Synchromysticism, Cryptids, UFOs in the fringe, Mad Scientists, . . .
There is a Yeti in the back of everyone’s mind; only the blessed are not haunted by it. ~ old sherpa saying
Friday, January 6, 2012
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:
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?
Melisa wrote on her blog The Search For Bigfoot:
What do witnesses want?I actually agree with Melisa in many ways. Read her post for my comments.
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 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?
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Nick Redfern's "There's Something in the Woods...": The Coming of Bigfoot (Literally!)
Nick Redfern's "There's Something in the Woods...": The Coming of Bigfoot (Literally!)
As Nick comments:
While this may seem distasteful for some,you can't deny sex in all its variety holds a large, um, position, in paranormal and Fortean realms. Sex with ghosts, with aliens, with non-human "animal like" creatures, incubus, and so on.
As Nick comments:
There's a new series of fiction books available - penned by author Virginia Wade - that offer the Bigfoot student a wealth of fun and entertaining tales on Bigfoot and its monstrous Mojo.More at Nick's There's Something in the Woods. Strong Sexual content and all that.
The overall title of the series is (wait for it...) Cum for Bigfoot! Yes, really! Brilliant!
And, hot on the heels of the newly-published first volume, there's another one, ahem, coming soon!
While this may seem distasteful for some,you can't deny sex in all its variety holds a large, um, position, in paranormal and Fortean realms. Sex with ghosts, with aliens, with non-human "animal like" creatures, incubus, and so on.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Bigfoot Evidence: What is the biggest controversy in Bigfoot research?
Lisa Shiel's latest book: Bigfoot Evidence: What is the biggest controversy in Bigfoot research? as reviewed on Bigfoot Evidence. Honored to have been mentioned!
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:
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:
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.
"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.I cannot tell you how much I respect Craig for doing this.
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
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.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Bigfoot Evidence: Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy group has blood on their hands
Bigfoot Evidence: Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy group has blood on their hands
As others have commented, how can the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy group use the word "conservancy" --- semantics used to justify such sad behavior.
As others have commented, how can the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy group use the word "conservancy" --- semantics used to justify such sad behavior.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
thomsquatch: The Mysteries of the Paul Freeman Footage
thomsquatch: The Mysteries of the Paul Freeman Footage
Thom Powell discusses the 1984 Freeman footage, and doesn't apologize for saying there's something paranormal going on. . .
Thom Powell discusses the 1984 Freeman footage, and doesn't apologize for saying there's something paranormal going on. . .
The Search For Bigfoot: Sasquatch Field Evidence ~ On Blogtalk Radio
Melissa Hovey asks readers what they think of this interview on the stranger side of Sasquatch: The Search For Bigfoot: Sasquatch Field Evidence ~ On Blogtalk Radio
Melissa has a list of questions to get you started...
So, I'm off to listen now! I know it's going to be interesting, for many reasons!
I decided to set my "flesh and blood" bias aside, and listen to this blogtalk show by AlexMidnightWalker, Thom Cantrall and Arla.
Melissa has a list of questions to get you started...
So, I'm off to listen now! I know it's going to be interesting, for many reasons!
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
UFO Magazine - UFO Magazine Blog - Water Gods: UFOs, Bigfoot,�Fairies
UFO Magazine - UFO Magazine Blog - Water Gods: UFOs, Bigfoot, and Fairies
Lisa Shiel has an intriguing post on Bigfoot as paranormal creature, and a fairy at that. A theory I've also pondered at an article I wrote awhile back for Binnall of America: Fairies, Bigfoot, and Hauntings.
From Lisa's post at UFO Magazine:
UFO Magazine - UFO Magazine Blog - Water Gods: UFOs, Bigfoot, and Fairies:
Lisa Shiel has an intriguing post on Bigfoot as paranormal creature, and a fairy at that. A theory I've also pondered at an article I wrote awhile back for Binnall of America: Fairies, Bigfoot, and Hauntings.
From Lisa's post at UFO Magazine:
UFO Magazine - UFO Magazine Blog - Water Gods: UFOs, Bigfoot, and Fairies:
Bigfoot have exhibited some very un-apelike behavior, much of it concerning water. Apes don't swim. But Bigfoot have been seen swimming in lakes and rivers. They wade out into rivers to steal fishermen's nets full of fish. They like the water. UFOs have been seen going into or coming out of water. Some witnesses have watched UFOs suck the water out of lakes. They like the water too.
And what about fairies?
Sunday, November 27, 2011
On the Books: Laws Against Killing Sasquatch
A comment left by Terry the Censor on the previous post made me realize I'm not up on the latest regarding laws that prohibit the killing of a Sasquatch.
I knew there was such a law in Washington state; either the state or a county. One of the first links that popped up when I Googled this was the following post from 2009 on the Cryptomundo site. There is such a law in Skamania, WA -- an ordinance prohibiting the "...premeditated, wilful and wanton slaying ..." of a Sasquatch, which is a felony under that law.
Some comments left at that post contain further information about laws, endangered animals, the feds, other protected cryptids, etc.
I knew there was such a law in Washington state; either the state or a county. One of the first links that popped up when I Googled this was the following post from 2009 on the Cryptomundo site. There is such a law in Skamania, WA -- an ordinance prohibiting the "...premeditated, wilful and wanton slaying ..." of a Sasquatch, which is a felony under that law.
Skamania County Ordinance
Ordinance No. 69-01
Be it hereby ordained by the Board of County Commissioners of Skamania County:
Whereas, there is evidence to indicate the possible existence in Skamania County of a nocturnal primate mammal variously described as an ape-like creature or a sub-species of Homo Sapiens; and
Whereas, both legend and purported recent sightings and spoor support this possibility, and
Whereas, this creature is generally and commonly known as a “Sasquatch”, “Yeti”, “Bigfoot”, or “Giant Hairy ape”, and has resulted in an influx of scientific investigators as well as casual hunters, many armed with lethal weapons, and
Whereas, the absence of specific laws covering the taking of specimens encourages laxity in the use of firearms and other deadly devices and poses a clear and present threat to the safety and well-being of persons living or traveling within the boundaries of Skamania County as well as to the creatures themselves,
Therefore be it resolved that any premeditated, wilful and wanton slaying of such creature shall be deemed a felony punishable by a fine not to exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) and/or imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed Five (5) years.
Be it further resolved that the situation existing constitutes an emergency and as such this ordinance is effective immediately.
ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 1969.
The above ordinance was partially repealed and amended in 1984 by Ordinance 1984-2:
The ordinance was amended to make the crime a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in the county jail and/or a $1000 fine.
The new ordinance also created a million-acre refuge within the County.
Board of Commissioners of Skamania County
Some comments left at that post contain further information about laws, endangered animals, the feds, other protected cryptids, etc.
Animal Forteana: Phantoms and Monsters: Paranormal Phenomena, Bigfoot, Mothman, UFOs and Other Unexplained Anomalies
Chester Moore, supporter of killing Sasquatch, is tonight's guest on Lon Strickler's and Eric Altman's Beyond the Edge podcast. Animal Forteana: Phantoms and Monsters: Paranormal Phenomena, Bigfoot, Mothman, UFOs and Other Unexplained Anomalies I hope this view has changed but cynicism tells me probably not.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Ghost Hunting Theories: Letter From Bigfoot to Humans
Funny post, and contains good truths in there as well, over at one of my favorite blogs, Ghost Hunting Theories. Not about ghosts, but Bigfoot, this time: Ghost Hunting Theories: Letter From Bigfoot to Humans
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Monster Island News: Kate Bush Sings About The Yeti In Her New Single "Wild Man"
A favorite blog of mine, Monster Island News, shares a new song by the wonderful Kate Bush:Monster Island News: Kate Bush Sings About The Yeti In Her New Single "Wild Man" Very beautiful, very cool.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Please Stand For Sasquatch - Oregon Bigfoot Blog | Oregon Bigfoot Blog
Join Autumn and others. Stand for Sasquatch. I do, do you?
Please Stand For Sasquatch - Oregon Bigfoot Blog | Oregon Bigfoot Blog
Please Stand For Sasquatch - Oregon Bigfoot Blog | Oregon Bigfoot Blog
Friday, October 28, 2011
JREF Thread: "UFOs? Bigfoot? Is it 1975 in here?"
Did you know there was a "Woo-Infrastructure?" I know, either did I! But there is. And what's more, they/we think it's still 1975, because stories about Bigfoot and UFOs are still going strong. This is news that both "amazes and saddens"as the OP commented. Read the whole thread here: UFOs? Bigfoot? Is it 1975 in here? - JREF Forum Which by the way, makes about the 400th thread about Bigfoot over there. I lost count long ago, but as you'll see, skeptics can't stay away from Bigfoot!
Monday, October 17, 2011
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:The rest at Monster Tracker...
“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:
Monday, October 10, 2011
Bigfoot From Space: Oregon Encounters and High Strangeness
Not much there yet but links to a freebie:
Bigfoot From Space: Oregon Encounters and High Strangeness
Bigfoot From Space: Oregon Encounters and High Strangeness
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Saucers & Sasquatch Conference
A paranormal conference that is sure to be a good one! October 22-23 in Pittsburgh: Saucers and Sasquatch, which, oddly enough (to my mind anyway) is being sponsored by MUFON. Read more at UFO Mystic: UFOMystic � Saucers & Sasquatch
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
From North American Bigfoot: A Product for Women, not Sasquatches
This commercial clip posted on PNW Bigfoot researcher Cliff Barackman's blog is, well, disturbing and slighlty funny. I'll leave my whole sexual politics/women and standards of beauty rants aside and just point you to the link: North American Bigfoot: A Product for Women, not Sasquatches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)