I really like this. Music and video by Inter-Dimensional Vortex League, with Mothman Photographer's author and researcher Andy Colvin.
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
Monday, February 20, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
From Kithra's Krystal Kave: Global Bigfoot Names
Kithra has put together a very nice article with bits of history and little boxes of global names for Bigfoot. A useful thing -- thanks kithra! globalbigfootnames
Saturday, February 4, 2012
OCCULT VIEW: Bigfoot Sightings Explained
From OCCULT VIEW, these ponderings on what Bigfoot is. Or, isn't. Sasquatch is probably a "standing bear:"
(Bigfoot Sightings Explained)
The elusive wolverine is cited as further evidence Bigfoot isn't Bigfoot:
It's true that the data bank of Sasquatch images is full of blobsquatches, but what of the Patterson film? If that is footage of a real Bigfoot, so much for "blurry." "Patty" certainly looks flesh and blood, but as some of the Fortean type BF researchers think, (including myself) Bigfoot could be both. Appearing solid at times, manifesting in ethereal ways other times.
Note: also see my article at Binnall of America: Fairies, Bigfoot and Hauntings.
(Bigfoot Sightings Explained)
Ever see videos of a bear standing up? It looks like Bigfoot, especially if seen in the dark. A bear may walk on two legs if it is curious and wants to get a good look at something.I've never seen a Bigfoot so couldn't say. I have seen standing bears and I don't think I'd confuse the two, if I should be fortunate enough to see a Sasquatch. Witness narratives about their Bigfoot sightings, well, it seems obvious that they weren't mistaking a standing-walking-on-two-legs bear. The given that some cases are indeed ones of bears going through campground sites in search of food, etc. aside, suggesting that all BF sightings are bears is pretty ridiculous.
The elusive wolverine is cited as further evidence Bigfoot isn't Bigfoot:
Doesn't trying to find a wolverine resemble trying to find a Bigfoot? The difference is researchers have found their wolverines. You’d imagine in the process they’d come across a Bigfoot too, if only by accident. Instead Bigfoot appears to hang around campgrounds so it can be videotaped.Not if Bigfoot is the intelligent, possibly supernatural (for lack of a better term) being that it appears to be. However, an interesting possibility is offered for Bigfoot:
There may be an outside chance Bigfoot is actually an esoteric entity. History is full of legends and folklore of the Wild Man, of giants and trolls and ogres. These are not physical beings, but creatures of the imagination and hard to see or define: Blurry Beings. Trying to snap the picture of a troll would probably get results similar to our current assembly of Bigfoot photos…fuzzy and indistinct. Are Bigfoot sightings actually troll sightings?Intriguing, and the idea that Sasquatch is a fairy or elemental has been suggested in the past by others. (see Lisa Shiel: Water Gods: UFOs, Bigfoot, Fairies.) However, trolls and ogres are usually malevolent creatures; this doesn't seem to accurately describe Sasquatch behavior. I'm not sure what the writer means by "...creatures of the imagination." Does he mean the imagination of the witness, or something outside of us, the human witness?
It's true that the data bank of Sasquatch images is full of blobsquatches, but what of the Patterson film? If that is footage of a real Bigfoot, so much for "blurry." "Patty" certainly looks flesh and blood, but as some of the Fortean type BF researchers think, (including myself) Bigfoot could be both. Appearing solid at times, manifesting in ethereal ways other times.
Note: also see my article at Binnall of America: Fairies, Bigfoot and Hauntings.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
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.
LGF Pages:Texas DNA specialist writes that Sasquatch is a modern human being.
LGF Pages - Texas DNA specialist writes that Sasquatch is a modern human being.
"Beast?" Sigh. Worse, weirder and more bizarrely, Dr. Ketchum is applying for a patent. Surreal to consider that, if Sasquatch is more human than not, or, even human indeed in some way, that this being can be "patented." Then what? That is a huge question. All this time I thought the NO KILL/NO CAPTURE issue was the only one to be concerned about.
According to a copyright application, rural Texas veterinarian/DNA lab owner, Melba Ketchum, DVM, is coming out with the news that the folklore beast called Sasquatch or Bigfoot is real!!
"Beast?" Sigh. Worse, weirder and more bizarrely, Dr. Ketchum is applying for a patent. Surreal to consider that, if Sasquatch is more human than not, or, even human indeed in some way, that this being can be "patented." Then what? That is a huge question. All this time I thought the NO KILL/NO CAPTURE issue was the only one to be concerned about.
Monday, January 30, 2012
The Bigfoot Filmography
Very cool; something I thought of doing a few years back. I'm sure many of us have! I even started collecting DVDs of BF films -- the good, the bad, the ridiculous. But quickly realized I just didn't have the time, and, some of the movies were so bad ... I mean, bad, not "so bad it's good" but just ...bad. Enough about that; visit Dave Coleman's site which gives us a ton of links to Bigfoot blogs and sites, and ordering information on the book. The Bigfoot Filmography
Saturday, January 28, 2012
BIGFOOT BOOK BEING SOLD BY AUTHOR | eBay
Local (Willamette Valley) researcher Darin Richardson is offering a signed edition of his book on ebay:BIGFOOT BOOK BEING SOLD BY AUTHOR | eBay Take a look!
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Free NO KILL/NO CAPTURE Badge
Free NO KILL/NO CAPTURE badge to use on your blogs and sites. I made it; you're free to change font style and colors. Show your support for the protection of Sasquatch.
Links
Be sure to check the link list on the right to other Bigfoot blogs and sites. I just added Bizarre Bigfoot; list is updated often so have fun exploring new places to visit!
Sunday, January 15, 2012
NH court upholds Bigfoot’s free speech rights - Boston.com
Court allows Jonathan Doyle to wear his "monkey costume" in the state park and interview people about Bigfoot. So how long will it be untile someone takes a shot at him?NH court upholds Bigfoot’s free speech rights - Boston.com
Sad: "Sasquatch Must Die"
"Kwin the Eskimo" writes about why he (or she) thinks it's legitimate to kill a Sasquatch:Sasquatch Must Die.
I left a comment:
The "non-kill crowd" uses many tactics to support their position. They like to claim that Sasquatch is "too close to humans" and killing one would be murder. This is nonsense. Sasquatch are not human. If they exist, they are animals. They should not be given the protection of a threatened murder charge. It is not in argument that Sasquatch should be a protected species after it is verified that they exist. Certainly this would make sense. However, threats of criminal charges and laws that preemptively protect Sasquatch are nonsensical tripe unless someone presents a body. While they are at it, why don't they outlaw killing unicorns.
I left a comment:
I disagree. I am militantly NO KILL/NO CAPTURE. You wrote: "It needs to be made clear that the "non-kill crowd" has an agenda." Yes, I have an agenda: it's a NO KILL agenda. You go on to say that we'd be "out of business" if a body is found. I'm not in any business, so that leaves me out of your theory. IF it were to be proved BF exists without bringing in a dead body,there would still be mysteries to explore. This field of strangeness: UFOs, Bigfoot, what have you, has always, and will always, have its share of exploiters. That aside, to put everyone who explores these mysteries as nothing more than gaudy carny types is inaccurate.
Your contention that Sasquatch are "not human" and just an animal, therefore it's okay to kill one, is also inaccurate. We don't know what Sasquatch is. Witnesses who have seen one are often profoundly moved by its human like appearance. So if it is closer to human that not,the reasons against killing it are obvious. But even if Sasquatch is "just an animal" that is still no reason to kill it. We don't have that right. (We are "just animals" as well.) Clearly Sasquatch is an intelligent creature, human like or not. However, killing it or not shouldn't be based on a perceived intelligence level -- the idea that we have the right to kill a creature simply because we want to, which is what it gets down to, is immoral.
You are also inaccurate, and in fact, disingenuous, in saying the following: "Those with the "no-kill" philosophy should be relegated to the "Sasquatch is a shape-shifter, trans-dimentional, UFO pilot" camp. Their position does nothing to further true research and legitimacy than the rest of the woo-woo crowd." Not all who support a NO KILL policy are, as you put it, "woo woo." (There's a lot more I'd like to say about all that and the role of research but that'd be veering off in another direction.)
I always wonder at the aggressive need of those like yourself who believe it's important to kill a being for no other reason than to satisfy personal ego. That is how I see it: prove to science it exists, really, why? What is your "agenda?"
Friday, January 13, 2012
Pools and Bigfoot
I had another Bigfoot dream this morning. I just realized that I've had several dreams about Bigfoot and water. (I searched for one "dream" I could have sworn I had posted here some time ago, but I can't find it. That dream involved an OOBE and an unexpected run in with a Sasquatch on the beach.) I also realized, after writing this, that once again, concrete is involved. What the symbolism means I have no idea yet.
Related posts:
Bigfoot Dream
Bigfoot in Australia -- Kind of
Weird Little Dream About Aliens and Bigfoot
Jovial Guy in a Bigfoot Suit
I'm on the Oregon coast, I think we just moved there. My husband is with me. It's very hot. There's only one public outdoor swimming pool in the whole area. It's huge, the size of four or five regular sized pools. So many people want to use the pool when it's hot that there's a lottery. Thousands of people are here, waiting to use the pool. The pool is outdoors, lots of concrete and in fact, the pool is surrounded by parking structures (not something you'd see on the Oregon coast) that are three, four stories high. I'm excited to hear I'm one of the winners. I have to quickly change into my bathing suit and jump in. But the bathrooms are a ways away and I don't want to waste all this precious time going all the way to the bathroom to change. But I can't change out in the open either. I notice a couple of people who are used to this duck under one of the parking structure pillars or posts to change. I call up to my husband, who's standing in one of the parking structure levels that surround the pool (lots of people hanging out on the levels) to toss my suit down to me. He does, and I run into the parking structure closet to me, and change behind a pole. I'm a little nervous about this -- I certainly don't want to be seen! But it seems to be all right. I worry a little bit about my clothes but oh well. I jump in, oh, feels so good!Then, damnit, the alarm went off!
We all have a good time. Later, it occurs to us and some friends, as we're talking about the day, the coast, the future of the area, etc. that what this town needs is an indoor, year round pool. Why hasn't anyone thought of this?! A few days later, my husband and I are walking around the town, and notice a huge sign that reads "Newport Pool" or something like that. We go inside, and find a man has just opened up the first indoor year round pool in the area. Fantastic! He's really done it right too: a small pool just for kids, a lap pool, an exercise pool, and three pools for recreational swims. I notice this man -- who seems to be in his sixties, gray haired, glasses, nice enough looking man and pleasant -- is wearing a black fleece vest with an emblem on it that has the initials of a Bigfoot research group -- an Oregon one, that investigates Sasquatch on the coast. I feel a thrill but don't say anything. The man says to us, sort of randomly, after explaining the pool hours and rules, "Bigfoot is around here, he's here in the woods." And I say "Oh, I know!" He says "My dog smells them all the time, and they know we know they're here." He asks us if we want to see his film of Bigfoot. Of course we do! We follow him upstairs to his room. It's very dim in there and he starts the camera rolling. An old camera with reels and film, and a screen he pulls down hanging on his wall. He tells us he hasn't seen Bigfoot but has "felt, heard, and smelled him," many times, and is sure he's caught fleeting images of movement on the film that can only be Bigfoot. He describes the chuffing kind of sound he's heard many times, so close, that can be no other kind of animal. Only Bigfoot. He's in telepathic communication with Sasquatch, this is clear and yet, he doesn't really come out and say this. We all know this but it's unsaid. It's too "crazy" to come out and say so, but it's understood.
We watch the film, it's in murky color but the images are clear, and sure enough, we see movement behind the trees. It can only be Bigfoot. Of that we're sure.
Related posts:
Bigfoot Dream
Bigfoot in Australia -- Kind of
Weird Little Dream About Aliens and Bigfoot
Jovial Guy in a Bigfoot Suit
Thursday, January 12, 2012
The Search For Bigfoot: Kill v. No-Kill v. Habituation
Melisa Hovey at The Search for Bigfoot brings up good questions to ponder. She ends by asking us what we think -- I have to go now, off to the so called real world of work, but I'll be thinking of the issues Melisa has brought up. How can we protect a creature from harm if it, in the practical sense, doesn't exist? (By "practical" I mean, science/law/society as a whole has not confirmed its existence. Obviously the witnesses have!) If, as Melisa says, there are no laws on the books about killing a BF, or acknowledging its existence, how can Sasquatch be protected from being killed or harmed? I think one way is to advocate for laws to be passed, such as the one in Sakima, WA. Anyway, read her post here:The Search For Bigfoot: Kill v. No-Kill v. Habituation
Sunday, January 8, 2012
thomsquatch: The Coconut Telegraph
I was searching for anything that might come up on a local sighting from 2001, (didn't find anything ... yet...) when I found this post at Thom Powell's thomsquatch blog. It's from January of 2011. Are Sasquatch telepathic? Can we communicate with them via dreams, esp, and so on? Can the two worlds: scientific methods, sending out the "vibes" work together? Read it and find out. I enjoyed it, hope you do as well. thomsquatch: The Coconut Telegraph
Friday, January 6, 2012
Robert McLuhan on Anecdotal Evidence | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History
The very excellent Daily Grail brings us the following, by Alan Borky:Robert McLuhan on Anecdotal Evidence. Borky comments on his reading of McLuhan's article on anecdotal evidence:
In his piece McLuhan makes the observation "the skeptic’s most popular arguments is that anecdotal evidence can’t be relied on".There is much more that is insightful and powerful. In this brief review Borky really gets it.
The problem with that particular skeptical position is it misses the point ALL EVIDENCE IS ANECDOTAL.
Bigfoot Hunting Preserve Site
Someone went to a lot of work to present a polished looking website all for a "joke": Bigfoot Hunting Preserve Home.
It goes too far. Call me humorless but it isn't funny or smart or witty. It's really pretty sick, in a psychotic way. Taking their cue from canned hunt sites -- which are sadly all too real and not at all a joke -- this site is set up the same way. Here's some of their verbiage from the Select the Hunt That's Right for You page:
It goes too far. Call me humorless but it isn't funny or smart or witty. It's really pretty sick, in a psychotic way. Taking their cue from canned hunt sites -- which are sadly all too real and not at all a joke -- this site is set up the same way. Here's some of their verbiage from the Select the Hunt That's Right for You page:
*We deemed it necessary to use pointed, jacketed, high-velocity rounds for all our open-range Sasquatch hunts because soft expanding rounds were bouncing off their thick skulls. Soft rounds would only leave them wounded running through the woods holding their heads screaming in agony. It became inconvenient for our guests and guides to chase a wounded animal for hours in the thick brush just to put them out of their misery.They couldn't stop there and had to add an item about a Sasquatch Rodeo. There's more but I don't care.
Nightime Hunts
You and your guide start after midnight where you test your tracking skills to locate and target a group of Sasqatches. With the help of night vision goggles you drive them for hours until they reach our prepared shooting zone. Your guide will teach you about wind-direction as it relates to sounds and smell. You will also learn wood-knocking, yells and rock throwing techniques to push the animals into the shooting zone.
The Infrastructure of Science
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.
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)