There is a Yeti in the back of everyone’s mind; only the blessed are not haunted by it. ~ old sherpa saying

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Animal Forteana: Gratuitous Gleeful Gross-outs: Live Eating

For reasons they only know and I can only make snarky guesses at having to do with testosterone excess and a Ted Nugent lovin' gene, Bigfoot Evidence saw fit to post links and editorial "you go kid!" support to a young man skinning a snake while still alive, as well as eating said snake while alive, as I posted on Animal Forteana: Gratuitous Gleeful Gross-outs: Live Eating

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

White Bigfoot Footage from 2010

 From 2010, white bigfoot footage. This is part of the blurb that appeared with the clip:
Man films White Bigfoot in Backyard Posted 2/3/10 by Anonymous poster Bobywade. We spent a great deal of time on this authentication. It shows a White Sasquatch twice, once for 1.4 seconds at maybe 50 feet and again at maybe 20 feet. The second clip is unobstructed by branch, so it is very clear. It appears that two people are walking toward it. One with a flashlight and one with a camera. The coned head, brow ridge, tree peeking, high shoulders, nose to nape, long upper lip, hooded nose confirm this very quick but very good video.


Saturday, August 18, 2012

Debunker Radford: Could Escaped Animals Account for Bigfoot Sightings? | LiveScience

Oh good freaking God no, but yes, he did!Could Escaped Animals Account for Bigfoot Sightings? | LiveScience

Had to laugh at Loren Coleman's post on this and pic (the latter stolen and posted here.)

Debunker-skeptoid Benjamin Radford, having solved the chupacabras mystery (er, not) has a new piece in which he explains Bigfoot. This time, the reason for BF is: escaped zoo or circus animals. Yes, I know! That old chestnut.

Of course animals do escape from zoos,circuses, etc. but well, do I really have to explain the rest? Of course I don't.

I like this comment though. Explaining that bears sometimes walk on their hind legs, which might account for what people think are Bigfoot, other animals fake us humans out by showing off their rear ends:
Other large animals such as moose or elk, when seen from behind and/or in near-darkness, can also appear to be standing on two legs and therefore Bigfoot-like.
You know, of all the times I've seen elk, deer and bear from the rear, I have never thought "Oh my god it's too fantastic I've finally seen a Bigfoot!" But that just might be me. Worse however is the long way around Radford takes to dismiss BF sightings in the following -- and insulting -- example:
Last year a 140-pound cougar was killed on a highway in Connecticut, far outside its natural habitat. As the New York Times noted,

So where had this cougar come from? Now we know the answer, and it couldn't be more astonishing. Wildlife officials, who at first assumed the cat was a captive animal that had escaped its owners, examined its DNA and concluded that it was a wild cougar from the Black Hills of South Dakota. It had wandered at least 1,500 miles before meeting its end at the front of an S.U.V. in Connecticut.

One wonders how many people saw the cougar during its journey halfway across the United States; did anyone see the elusive creature and think it might be an unknown creature or monster?

So there it is. Bigfoot is an escaped zoo or circus animal, seen from behind, walking on two legs. Or a bear. Or cougar. Well, that solves that!

Friday, June 8, 2012

Sharon Lee's Bigfoot Project

If you can, donate something to Sharon Lee's Bigfoot project on Kickstarter:

Sunday, May 20, 2012

The Bigfoot Question: To Kill or Not to Kill? | Lisa A. Shiel

I have a lot of respect for Lisa Shiel but, while I understand her points, I disagree with much of what she says: The Bigfoot Question: To Kill or Not to Kill? | Lisa A. Shiel.

However, I do agree with her that her following point does get down to the issue of Kill/No Kill (or No Kill/No Capture, ...):
However we feel about killing a Bigfoot, we must accept this indisputable fact. Crying and moaning, or yelling and swearing, about it won’t change the reality. The kill/no-kill debate centers around the wrong question. Rather than arguing, often with great rancor, about whether it’s acceptable to kill a Bigfoot, we ought to drill down to the core of the matter. The kill/no-kill debate obscures the real issue. I suggest a different tactic. Wipe away the mud slung by folks on both sides of the debate. Take a good, hard look at the core of the issue. Then ask yourself one question.
Do you want to prove Bigfoot is real?
On the other hand, her question seems obvious. Why else would someone consider killing (or capturing) a Sasquatch, unless it was to prove its existence to the world? 

I don't want to prove Bigfoot exists. Since I haven't seen one I can't say with certainty it does exist. If I were to see one, I don't have to prove that experience to anyone. Believe me or don't, I don't care. And I'm not willing to sacrifice its life to satisfy the curiosity of others.

Monday, May 7, 2012

"TRBC’s Rebuttal to “Would You Shoot Bigfoot?”"

Loren Coleman at Cryptomundo posts the rebuttal from Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy's Brian Brown on their policy concerning Bigfoot kills.Cryptomundo  TRBC’s Rebuttal to “Would You Shoot Bigfoot?” And their answer is: yes, they would. They don't quite come out and say that (which is coming right out and saying that) because they are not "romantic" nor "emotional." They're also not "pro kill" but "pro science." And since science allows for collection of "specimens" in order to, er, scientifically determine things -- like is there really such a thing as a Sasquatch --- "collecting" one is all right.

Second, the TBRC is not “pro-kill.” Our mission statement says our purpose, among other things, is to “facilitate scientific, official and governmental recognition, conservation, and protection of the species and its habitat.” Our goal is to protect the animal, not to make them into a game animal so we can mount them to a wall. It is true that many of our members advocate the collection of a type specimen. How do we reconcile that with our mission to protect the animal? ~ Brian Brown
Good to know they don't want Bigfoot on a wall. And yet, pro kill members are accepted. As I've said many times before, giving permission by allowing the pro kill mentality to participate in your organization is supporting pro kill --  which means you're pro kill.

Some insulting comments follow about those who are "unscientific" and see BF as human and "romantic" and "emotional" -- affirming BF intelligence but still, just an animal. All that misses the point: I don't know what BF is, human, human like, an ape, etc. It doesn't matter. As I've also written in the past, the level of intelligence, and the degree of relation to us, as humans, has nothing to do with the moral decision to kill or capture.

The TRBC's stance remains the same: presented in the guise of being scientific while also talking out of both sides of its collective mouth (members who do actively support a kill) they continue to support a KILL policy. Adding to the convoluted statement is their insistence they must do this in order to protect Sasquatch.

Good for Coleman and Craig Woolheater and others who have left the TRBC because of this policy.

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Blog Find: A Christian Perspective on Bigfoot

Here's a blog I just found out about, via Bobbie Short:A Christian Perspective on Bigfoot. That's the title of a project, and book, for Christians who've encountered Bigfoot:
For those of you that are not Christians or do not share our faith, please do not be offended. As Christians dealing with the Bigfoot phenomenon, we have some unique challenges to face. This project is an attempt to bring together a certain group of people and find some answers amongst ourselves.

Saturday, April 28, 2012

thomsquatch: The Out-Of-Town-ers

If you haven't seen this -- it's from February 2011 -- be sure you read it. thomsquatch: The Out-Of-Town-ers

Cryptomundo � Taking a Stand Against Killing Bigfoot

Better late than never. I've been speaking out on NO KILL/NO CAPTURE for some time. Cryptomundo � Taking a Stand Against Killing Bigfoot The comments are, as always, interesting. Some, disturbing. But good for Coleman for coming out on this.

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Sunday, April 8, 2012

From Bigfoot Evidence: Sasquatch Conversations

Bigfoot Evidence has a story about the stranger side of Sasquatch encounters; this one includes a white bigfoot and conversations with the being:Bigfoot Evidence: Woman's "Amityville Horror" Moment With a Bigfoot (Get's Out!):
In Arkansas, she claims that she and her sister saw a white figure dash behind something one day, but it was not very tall. According to the woman's sister, it was a baby bigfoot who also became a playmate for the sister's young son, who claimed that he held conversations with the young bigfoot.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

CRYPTOZOOLOGY ONLINE: Still on the Track: NEIL ARNOLD: The Satanic Ape

Excellently spooky account of a haunted place on Wallasea Island, Essex, from Cryptozooogy. This isn't Bigfoot related at all and I don't mean to suggest there is, but there is an interesting report of an ape like creature in this story that discusses zooform phenomena.
Still on the Track: NEIL ARNOLD: The Satanic Ape: n the case of some zooform phenomena, it seems that we are dealing with negative energy as a conjurer of monsters. For instance, the county of Essex has several cases of weird manifestations presenting themselves, but they are forms which clearly are not of some biological or zoological order. At Wallasea Island there was once a place called the Devil’s House which sat on the bleak marshlands flanking the River Crouch. The house, was more for a farm-like abode and took its sinister name from its owner, a chap named Daville, although author Eric Maple notes that’, according to the old records it was known as Demon’s Tenement as far back as the time of Charles II.’