Award-winning columnist compares Bigfoot to Easter Bunny
Editor’s Note: This is a post by Bigfoot Evidence contributor Vicki W.
Everyone look out. The big bad wolf is back, and as usual he's huffing and puffing, trying to blow Bigfoot's house down again. Well, more specifically, Idaho Museum of Natural History director Professor Herbert Maschners involvement in Bigfoot research. More than likely, he's just going to come away with sore cheeks. And I do mean the ones controlled by the mouth and jaw muscles, in case there's any confusion.
Apparently there's a tiff playing out in the Idaho State Journal between Maschner and journalist Martin Hackworth. It involves other issues such as 9/11 conspiracy theories, Cold Fusion, and Weather Wars, but let's just focus on the big guy here. Hackworth refutes the label "fringe science" when it comes to studying sasquatch, saying he finds the term 'pseudo-science' more fitting. Hackworth writes,
"I also stated rather plainly (no insinuation) that the scientific pursuit of Bigfoot, sans any compelling evidence, is foolish. Perhaps the insinuation, to which he refers, rests in the notion that if I think that the scientific aspirations of Bigfoot, et. al., are scientifically dubious, I also think that those who hold these notions, by extension, could be dubious as scientists. Let me save you some wear on those outsized mental gears — you’re right.
A central tenet of Professor Maschner’s critique is academic freedom and I find his views extremely interesting. Evidently academic freedom is pretty one-sided. By Maschner’s reasoning it’s OK, according to the precepts of academic freedom, to bestow an unearned patina of respectability on something as silly as Bigfoot — but it’s not OK to function as a critic and point out serious (and obvious) flaws in the same business. If other opinions expressed recently by Professor Maschner in the ISJ are accurate — and I assume they are, since he expressed them — academic freedom exists to protect weak, featherbrained and intellectually questionable academic endeavors like Bigfoot — things that deserve little serious consideration — but not to protect fundamentally important and critical academic endeavors like faculty self-governance, which do."
He continues with questions about where monies used to display the museum's exhibit of Bigfoot tracks were obtained. He then mockingly compares casting, studying, and displaying purported sasquatch tracks and considering them evidence to support further research to making the same effort in regards to the Easter Bunny.
"There are reports of similar tracks all over the world — far too many to attribute to any hoax. There are cards and T-shirts available at the grocery store and it’s all over television. All of this suggests that the Easter Bunny deserves serious consideration.
So I’m going to wait until all of the kids get done with the egg hunt and make casts of whatever giant bunny tracks are left. I assume that the Idaho Museum of Science will have no objection to using a system supported by the NSF to scan and display these tracks — since the evidence for the Easter Bunny (in my opinion) is at least as compelling as the very similar evidence for Bigfoot. We’d sure not want to deprive folklore specialists the ability to study the Easter myths, anyone in comparative literature the ability to deconstruct writings, sociologists the ability to confab, and scientists, writers, students, skeptics and politicians the ability to see exactly how similar I believe, when you line them up side by side, the scientific basis for Bigfoot and the Easter Bunny happen to be."
One thing is certain, the search for the existence of huge and hairy wildmen won't be squashed by entire packs of big bad wolves any time soon. Even if the evidence is considered as weak as straw or sticks, the legend stands cemented in stone, undaunted by scores of frustrated huffers and puffers for centuries. But perhaps there is some good advice for wolves here. Why waste your breath when you can just stick to chasing rabbits?
Read the full article at www.pocatelloshops.com
God...what a jerk. It's kind of funny when he tries to act like protections should be put in place to protect the mainstream academics who criticize alternative areas. That makes very little, if any, sense. Hello, asshat? Is anyone home? It is not the mainstream ideas that need protecting - it is the alternative ideas that need protecting.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you 100%! Just another small minded mental midgit not worth the effort. I'm all for honest skeptics and invite them everytime I get a chance. But some jerks aren't honest, they just bitch to bitch and will never admit truth even when it hits them in the face, I've seen it many times. These "fringe sciences" have good company such as Newton's law, planets orbiting the sun, Pasture, and I would guess the first people to use wheels, axles, and fire. The tip of the spear is ALWAYS "fringe". This a-hole won't even appologize for his short sightedness when this "fringe" theory becomes accepted fact. He isn't worth the effort.
DeleteYay, just another worthless closeminded jerk who likes the status quo too much. I can't wait for the inevitable scientific proof of this very real and elusive species, how sweet the revenge will be on all these know it all smartmouths.
DeleteI'm amused they even dare say those stupid things now given all the goings-on, they must feel so convinced but it's only making their coming drop down that much harder. Those of us with encounters already know how wrong they are and everybody else will know too.
Your conclusion is outstanding, Vicki! Thanks for another great article.
ReplyDeleteI like your writing style Vicki.
DeleteChuck
Thanks...very nice to hear.
DeleteIs it possible hackworth's conceit is actually sticky?
ReplyDeleteI feel like I need to shower.
http://www.texasbigfoot.com/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch footprints
ReplyDeleteEven if the sightings are some kind of mass delusion or mass hoaxing, even if Patterson and Gimlin had a state of the art suit, those things in themselves are interesting enough to be worthy of study, I would think.
ReplyDeleteI hope the twirp remembers to pick out the feathers from his meal of crow later this year. Then again fools like this usually don't let facts get in the way of a good mindless rant about things he just refuses to accept might be out there. His whole attack is the very antithesis of what science is all about. No wonder he fails to grasp the need to openmindedly investigate the unknown, which is the one trait that has delivered so much that we take for granted today. Here we have yet another example of a bear of very small brain and severely myopic vision.
ReplyDeleteI think it's funny how you jesus , i mean Bigfoot freaks get so angry when someone dares question yer little belief system. You have no evidence. NO EVIDENCE. Based on all available EVIDENCE, the Easter Bunny is just as likely as Bigfoot.
ReplyDeleteDon't like being criticized? Come up with some empirical evidence. problem solved. Making personal attacks on someone who dares question your religion is hardly an argument in your favor,
If there's no evidence for bigfoot Nick, why do you continue to visit this site day after day? If people want to believe in in bigfoot they can. If you don't that's fine, we don't mind. And we don't mind being criticized, we just dont like when pompous people call us idiots for what we believe in. Ive seen you call people some nasty things and when someone called you out on it you claimed you were just trying to look out for us so we don't get taken for a ride. Guess what Nick...You're free to go troll the Ufo sites because the "Bigfoot freaks" don't need you.
DeleteSaying "there is no evidence" ends your meager attempt to create an argument there. One of two things are easily pointed out through that comment: 1. You have never attempted to read any literature about the "evidence" or 2. You could care-less about the "evidence" and you will make uneducated rants.
DeleteIf you want to make uneducated rants, that is fine. Realize that is all you are doing though.
Oh but I love the idea of Bigfoot, have since I was a lad. I see your system of dealing with dissent is to try to make it go away. But i won't be going away. I will be right here , waiting (and actually hoping as I would love for Bigfoot to be proven real) for any sort of evidence.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you consider evidence? As a professional law enforcement officer who has testified in federal court countless times, the burder of proof for evidence has been met. Both physically and through eyewitness testimony.
DeleteYou may not realize this, but the federal court will allow an officer to arrest a suspect for illegal narcotics distribution w/o ever witnessing the suspect make a transaction, or even having physical evidence against them. (It is called a "historical" case.) A historical case is founded on reliable eyewitness testimony from "informants" who have proven to be credible in the past. I.E. you give me information that leads to a seizure of drugs from someone. You are now deemed a reliable informant/witness. If I can find several other people like you, I can develop a historical case on someone that will stand the scrutiny of Fed. court constraints.
If I had all of the evidence compiled by researchers on Sasquatch that has been deemed "valid" by independent experts, And I converted the evidence to lets say; an unsolved murder. It would be a slam-dunk conviction all day, every day.
That is the problem with things such as sasquatch, the burden of proof is unachievable to skeptics. The only proof that may cause a few of you to believe will be an actual living speciman that has been captured. I say living because skeptics will not accept a dead body with DNA results. People will say that the body was hoaxed and the DNA results were flawed, etc. etc. etc.
To compare the Sasquatch mystery to the Easter bunny is ridiculous. Anyone with common sense knows this.
I once had a professor in a Criminal Justice class state to his students that the only way a latent print lab could positively ID a print was if the entire print was obtained during the collection process. (I knew this was wrong but I did not correct him because he actually thought he was the final authority in matters of evidence) Needless to say, the entire class of young adults simply believed what they were told by him w/o doing any independent research of their own. This professor had never been out in the real world collecting evidence and testifying in court. He had gained his knowledge from reading books and listening to other professors give lectures. Problem is: most of the "experts" are desk jockeys who learn from other desk jockeys. They have no real understanding of how the "real world" is.
Most people who make rants about lack of sasquatch evidence do so through lack of independent research.
Archer1
Archer you are so full of crap I wonder why you dont burst.
DeleteYou say you were a nonbeliever until you had a sighting.
Well are'nt we all deserving of having it proved to us in such a way that we become belivers?
Why was it ok for you to doubt but we cannot?
Archer,
DeleteI do understand what you are trying to argue. But your argument doesn't hold water because.
If you had all this evidence like you say. It would be enough to convict.
However, first you would have to be able to prove (if a drug case), that the drugs existed. You can't convict a man of a drug crime involving a drug called tutti frutti. If you can't show that there has ever existed a drug identified as such.
If in a murder case. You can't convict a man of killing Joe Black. if you can't prove that Joe Black ever existed. No matter how many witnesses you have or how much footprint evidence you show. First it has to be established that there was a Joe Black.
I stated in my prior post that a body must be produced to satisfy a few of the skeptics. Most will never be convinced regardless of the evidence. (Even with the body.) Skeptics would shout, "Fake" or "hoax" better yet, they would attack the scientist willing to discuss the finding.
DeleteI used the drug case scenario to show how our society will put a man in jail without any tangible, physical evidence of drug distribution. A federal judge will hear a case on someone as long as the witnesses against them are considered credible, the officer is considered credible, and both parties have been proven truthful with info. in the past. In theory, a law enforcement officer could arrest and maybe even get a conviction on someone who is innocent as long as enough historical data is available to put drug "weight" on that person through eye-witness testimony.
Why can our criminal justice system look at eye witness testimony as evidence, yet you clearly stated in a prior post that there is no evidence for sasquatch. Further, how can anyone with a sane mind completely discount footprints with dermal ridging, flexation, etc. etc. audio, video, numerous hair samples from "unknown primate", historical accounts,so forth, so on, etc. Skeptics who would convict a man for drug distribution based on eyewitness testimony (without ever seeing the person sell the drug, no video, no physical evidence, nothing)will scream that much stronger evidence "don't count" when it comes to the subject of sasquatch. It is a double standard. Plain and simple. I'm not talking about tutti frutti, I am comparing apples to apples.
Further, I am not advocating that a Sasquatch is a decendent of Giganto., (maybe they are, maybe not) but there is a clear fossil record that shows an upright large (8-10ft tall) creature lived only recently according to fossil records. I just don't get the illogical reasoning behind the "there is no way that this creature exists or ever existed theory".
In my judgement, a logical person (regardless of their personal interests) would have to say, "possibly" even if they had no knowledge of the volumes of info. collected on these creatures once hearing about just a few pieces of evidence on file.
Archer1
Still you confess to not believing till you saw one with your own eyes, yet the rest of us are not allowed that luxury. WHY?
DeleteEye witness testimony is evidence but it is not enough to convict.
DeleteYou would need said drugs, stolen money or body to convict..at least.
There is no crime if you can't produce the results of the crime.
Dermal ridging is bunk, even Chilcott agrees he made a mistake. Notice how they never show the dermal ridge theory on tv anymore?
Meldrum has clearly stated that he has located dermal ridging on numerous tracks and casts. We use similar techniques when casting shoe or boot prints, tires etc. (the exact same pair of shoes purchased on the same day-size, color, etc. will wear differently and produce diff. tracks based on the persons weight, gate, prior injuries, etc.) Why is this technique universally accepted for everything else, yet when an expert claims this when examining an alleged sasquatch track, skeptics will then refute it and call it "bunk"? Are latent prints bunk? A dermal ridge is basically the same.
DeleteAs far as getting a conviction on someone w/o drugs, I did say "in theory" yet my point I was trying to get across is that the courts look at eyewitness testimony strongly enough to arrest and try someone (with the chance of taking away their freedom for the rest of their life)It is hard to EVER get a conviction in criminal court w/o drugs or atleast audio recording of a transaction. For some reason, audio recordings and eye-witness testimony isn't good enough for the skeptics within the sasquatch world to even consider the possibility.
Stating there is no crime if you cannot produce results of a crime is also inaccurate. EX: Harrassment, stalking, assault, etc. etc, etc. All of these crimes are based solely on eye-witness testimony. There is no physical evidence associated with words or attempted actions.
I would never say that I was a hard-core non-believer in sasquatch. Why I say this is because of my many years of hunting. I learned that large animals can so easily hide from the average person. A huge bear or deer might be literally living within a couple acres of your home yet you never see it. I have a large hunting lease (over 1000 acres) and I would find sign, food sources, etc. yet I rarely would see the animals. I hunted a large Pope and Young buck for several years and during this time I managed to get two pictures of this animal. He was living right behind my home on the land lease.
I realized then how easily it was for a large animal with the brain the size of an apple to evade me. I pursued this animal for several years. (See 2010 issue of West Virginia Game and Fish Magazine)
I base much of my opinion on the elusiveness of Sasquatch or whatever big game animal from personal experience. If this creature is as intelligent as many people theorize, it makes perfect sense to me why they are so hard to find.
How hard would it be for a man who is woods wise to hide from people? Not very. Expecially when the average person spends no time in the woods nor do they really care to.
You are not seeing the forest for the trees here. I agree with you that the idea of a large bipedal "monster" walking around in the woods is a hard pill to swallow, but to absolutely discount the possibility is a bit narrow minded by my standards.
Take sasquatch out of the equation and replace it with, I don't know, lets say animal "X" that has all of the historical, eyewitness and physical evidence collected on it along with a fossil record. Most of the public would say, "I believe this animal "X" must be out there because too many people have seen it and there is way to much evidence found already"
Archer1
Well,
DeleteRather than continue any arguable points. I will say that there are things I agree with you on. I say all of this with the caveat that I have spent much of my life in big woods and haven't seen anything I'd call evidence myself.
I agree with the idea of Sasquatch. I admit to being a little "Wistful", in that respect. I'd like to think there's something large and intelligent that we, (mankind) haven't completely screwed up yet.
I agree that everyone that reports seeing these guys, simply can't be mistaken or out in out Liars. There have to be honest clear headed people in all of the thousands involved.
I agree that it's more than possible for a really large and Intelligent creature to remain hidden in what I call "big woods". I not sure how many of the skeptics and naysayers have actual experience in woods like those of the Pacific northwest or upper peninsula or much of Canada and Alaska. I've got allot of experience in big woods and I know how BIG they really are.
I've been part of Matter of Fact discussions about possible Sasquatch during military training briefings, years ago. It wasn't dwelt upon but it was touched on as a possible occurrence. So I do know that at least someone at a higher level than me took the question seriously. In fact this is the main reason that I don't completely discount the notion. Because as I said, I've never seen anything myself.
I agree that I could hide in a relatively small wooded area (several square miles)for a long time and not be found. And I ain't no Sasquatch.
So In the interests of not prolonging a fight. We agree on much.
Dermal ridges are the result of surface tension, when a casting medium flows over the surface that is being cast. Look it up or try it yourself it's true.
DeleteI'm sorry I should have said "what looks like dermal ridges"
DeleteSuch people make me hate mainstream science.
ReplyDeleteOh but I love the idea of Bigfoot, have since I was a lad. I see your system of dealing with dissent is to try to make it go away. But i won't be going away. I will be right here , waiting (and actually hoping as I would love for Bigfoot to be proven real) for any sort of evidence.
ReplyDeleteYou want proof? Why don't you search on Native American oral traditions on Sasquatch? (for instance Mayak Datat) But no, you want to see some empirical evidence (a.k.a. bullshit), right?
Nick B., aka Jeff Sauber? Just wondering.
ReplyDeleteVery well could be the man from the band called ''Jeffster''lol.Bigdad.
DeleteThe Easter Bunny is taller ~ and more powerful ~ than Bigfoot.
ReplyDeleteOnly in the locked minds of mainstream science lost in the past, not in the real world.
Deleteamen to that.
DeleteI would personally like to see how he reacts to the news when the DNA evidence comes out. He will have allot of explaining to do that day.
ReplyDeleteChad W
Come to think of it. Here is a question. If the scientists with this skeptical view see BF and other similar research as "Fringe" science. How will they view other similar cryptos once the DNA evidence comes out? Will they still have the same pig headed stuborn views or will they then to open to other possibilities like this?
DeleteWhat does overone think of this idea?
Thanks Chad W
IF the DNA evidence comes out. I'm sure thats what you were trying to say.
DeleteCharles Manson may not be coming out but this will be, don't worry.
DeleteMy comment was not about whether or not it will come out but how will the skeptics react.
DeleteChad W
Depends on what kind of skeptic you are. Some will accept it and some will be the same old idiots they've always been unable to take in new information and changing their views, even when they know they've finally been beaten they will go on pretending none of it's real.
ReplyDeleteTo that kind of psychological defect skeptic any scientist confirming Sasquatch a real new species is a liar, but at least then we'll know we're dealing with a lunatic fringe treating their fanaticism much like religious extremists.
Hi there! This is my first visit to your blog!
ReplyDeleteWe are a group of volunteers and starting a new project in a community in
the same niche. Your blog provided us beneficial information
to work on. You have done a outstanding job!
Visit my page diets that work fast