What does this have to do with Bigfoot?

It's been a while since my last blog. My life has been very busy over the last year. Last October, I was married to Wayne Larsen - and as of a couple weeks ago we bought a house. So you can probably imagine how I may have neglected this blog. 

But, I'm back, with the caveat, I may disappear again for a few short weeks. We move into our new home in Sept. Packing must happen - as much as I hate it!! I would rather be talking to you all. But, be it for better or worse, I'm back.

I have to start out this blog with a question.

What happened?

I slipped away for a few months - and it appears the, "paranormal Bigfoot," issue has become all the rage. Kinda like when Uggs hit the market for the first time.

Seriously - what happened? People I never thought would buy into this are suddenly taken over by their (note I said "their") new reality of inter-dimensional Bigfoot, portals and invisible Bigfoot.... What's going on?

I spend much more time writing on my Facebook page, just because it's easier and faster, but I decided to bring this issue to my blog. Lord knows, I've written many articles on this topic, but here it is again.

What does this have to do with Bigfoot?

I just finished watching a very, "interesting" video (we will just leave it at that). The topic of the video was, "inter-dimensional Bigfoot". I'm not angry and I'm not picking on anyone. But, what I come away with is this:

1. Who in this community has the educational background or experience to refute or validate the stories being told? I can think of no one. We are talking a very specific scientific discipline very few people have the ability (or even the patience) to understand. Having a PHD in psychiatry does not make you an expert in Physics.

2. How do you validate or refute these claims of, "inter-dimensional Bigfoot," or, "portals," when those making the claims refuse to discuss the details surrounding their situations? Especially when, those who speak about it the most, refuse to answer the most basic questions. Instead of rational answers to good questions, those asking the questions are met with hostility and anger. That's not a real good way of getting people on your side. Saying, "because I said so," also doesn't work for those of us who simply don't understand.

Don't be angry with those of us who don't understand. Be angry with yourself - you're not explaining something right if this is so simple and easy to understand. Apparently you're not getting your point across in a way that will sway the masses all at once. 

3. I wanted to stay away from this issue - more than life itself - BUT here we go. The "little demons". Why is this related to the topic of Bigfoot? The only part of the description that matches is the hair. Right out of the gate the two who witnessed this say the size of the creature in question was small so already the most noted part of the description is off.

I agree - every witness should be listened to and information should be gathered. But, the basic question remains. What does this have to do with Bigfoot? Is it possible that alternate realities exist? Could there be multi-dimensions? I suppose anything is possible - but what does that have to do with Bigfoot? No one needs a PHD to know the question, "what does this have to do with Bigfoot?" is a pretty darn good question.

This is the one question none of these people want to answer - or even try. This is not a rude or insulting question - it's a question we should all be asking. Especially when these claims only really gained a strong footing since Eric Beckjord. If a Bigfoot is, in fact, popping in from a different dimension how are there thousands of reports, going back hundreds of years, with no portals being discussed and no disappearing Bigfoot? Even if you remove Native American stories - you still have thousands of reports nationwide with no disappearing Bigfoot or portals being discussed. If Bigfoot has the ability to jump into a portal and be gone - or jump in and out of dimensions - how are there any sightings at all? Don't tell me they are all accidental sightings when there are reports of Bigfoot walking into camps and peeking in windows or approaching children. These same people talk about Bigfoot and Telepathy - why didn't the Bigfoot know humans were coming and they needed to go invisible?

I have heard, "you haven't had a sighting because your a non-believer." by these people. Well - there are reports all the time of Bigfoot by people who do not report portals or the animal disappearing - who say in their reports, "this animal isn't supposed to exist." So non-believers see Bigfoot.

On one hand we're being told Bigfoot has all these abilities - yet lacks the ability to keep itself hidden? If something has become so evolved to master time and space wouldn't it stand to reason it would have also mastered the art of self preservation? I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to surmise.

Which leads me back to my original question -- what does this have to do with Bigfoot? Could these be two separate phenomenon?

Sure. Absolutely- if we agree anything is possible. In fact I would argue that they should be investigated separately until it is understood whether there is a connection between the two. If we are going to discuss this, "scientifically," that is the way it should be handled.

Just my two cents - take it for what it's worth. smile emoticon Have a great day everyone !!!

Something to think about today.

As many of you know, I like to take pieces from my own life and experience and use them as examples. I am not the moral majority on every situation out there - but sometimes when you listen to someone else's experience and how they deal with things it gives you something to measure your own situation by.

Some years ago, I worked for a Public Defenders office as an Intern Investigator. I was in my last 2 years of college and wondered which side of the legal world I really wanted to be on and I also needed an internship for College Credit. Every day I reported to the office and was given a list of inmates arrested overnight - and I would promptly gather my things and head to the county jail (sometimes even state facilities. Hey just cause they're found guilty doesn't mean the defense always ends) to meet with the, "client," get his/her story - and fill out his/her paperwork to determine eligibility for a public defender attorney.

Sounds like loads of fun doesn't it? It was. I loved that job.

Best part of the job. Checking out the stories. You know - the alibi. I would sit in a little room made of big concrete blocks, a metal table, a thick metal door - and listen to a person tell a story that sometimes, I know, my eyes rolled, as the level of incredibility rose to greater heights. But as an investigator, listening to these stories and checking them out, was the job. It wasn't something I could just ignore. When I say, "checking out the alibi," I mean exactly that. I would go into some of the worst parts of a city (day or night) to meet with witnesses and talk to or look into whatever the client had told me. Heck yeah, there were times when I was scared out of my melon, but I had to push all that aside to do the job I was being asked to do. This person sitting in jail couldn't do this for him/herself.

The real kick in the pants is when you have no doubt in your mind the person is lying through their teeth - then you check out the story - and find out their not. Yeah, that's an awesome feeling. I mean that truly sarcastically. Personally, It did not make me feel good knowing, I had allowed my initial preconceived ideas to come into the defense of a person who it turned out, was telling the truth. I had to work really hard to change that about myself.

That wasn't the fault of the person sitting in jail - that was on me. Something I had to change. I had to learn how to listen and go where the information took me. Period.

It's not easy.

There are a lot of "titles," in the field of Bigfoot Research/Investigation - or whatever you want to call it. I take the title Investigator seriously. I'm sure you can figure out why.

Recently, I read as a fellow Bigfoot Researcher/Investigator, was pummeled by a fellow enthusiast for even the consideration of going to a site and investigating a footprint found on a property - after a sighting. A picture was sent by the witness, of the alleged footprint, and the request for help was made.

Granted, the photo (any photo) is less than ideal. So, is that where we stop? Picture is poor quality and may be a hoax? Well if that is the criteria then we should stop investigating everything - or stop calling ourselves "investigators." You don't even have to try hard to call every report or photo a hoax - so you can stay in the comfort of your home and call yourself a Bigfoot Researcher/Investigator.

No, I'm serious. If you want the cool title - then get your butt out there and do the job. Or don't ask for witnesses to bring their stories to you. It's that simple. Refer the witness to someone who is willing to do the leg work. Most of us put ourselves out there, looking for witnesses, to help us find proof of this animal. It's up to us to figure out the truth from the stories.

There has been this big push in the last few years to treat witnesses poorly. I don't understand it. Why would we want to insult the people coming to us - before we have any proof - they are not being completely honest? You can't tell and don't know if they are telling the truth, or not, until you are on the property and doing the actual physical work. I don't care what anyone else says - investigation requires actual on the scene work. Period.

Yep, you're right. You could be wasting gas and time. But, you asked for witnesses to come to you. You took the report. You agreed to listen and try to help this person. The expense is something we all deal with.

Sure their is a certain amount of, "gut instinct." But, that should be tempered against the information you are being given. Never forget - this is someone else's story not yours. The stories will almost always take a turn you will see coming, but sometimes not. Then what? What if you have already let your awesome, "gut instinct," take over? Yep - you will probably take your head out of the game and miss something important.

Sometimes the devil is in the smallest detail. The smallest detail is sometimes what we are looking for - whether we realize it or not.

Personally, I don't care how great the photo is or is not. I don't care how great the story is. I treat every witness the same and I investigate their story and, "evidence," the same. I don't go into a witness interview with a preconceived idea or notion. I don't assume out of the gate they are lying to me. I treat them with respect and do the job they have come to me to do. If that makes me a bad person - you know I won't be losing sleep over that.

If I walk into a witness interview and the person starts telling me things I just can't buy into - I still take all the information and then I find a researcher who can look into this kind of report. I am not rude or obnoxious. I simply do my job.

Fellow researchers/investigators - be good to each other. What we do is tough enough. It's stressful and all of us have been let down at one time or another. There isn't much that's sexy about being in the woods, for days at a time, with no shower. More than one private property investigation has left me covered in mud. We are always going to have the, "internet professionals," telling us how we should do things, how we did it wrong, and most importantly how right they were to begin with.

Just remember one thing - at the end of the day it's on you. It's your witness - it's your investigation to take as far as you want. What? Do you think the, "internet professionals," won't say something if you didn't take the investigation as far as they would have? Don't fool yourself. They will be more than happy to tell you that too.

It is possible to encourage other researchers/investigators - and yet politely disagree with their findings? I do it all the time. The photo in question here (footprint) is not the best, "evidence," I've ever seen - but would I blow off the witness and assume they are lying? Heck no. Would I berate the investigator involved and tell them they are stupid for even going to the site? Heck no. That's not even advice - that's being a jerk who thinks they have all the answers.

I would go to the property and do a full investigation. There is more information to be gained - whether it's a property with potential, or the ending of a possible hoax, before it even gets off the ground.

We are the first line of defense against the next great hoax. Whether we think so or not. We can sit behind a keyboard, very easily, and call everything a hoax - but it doesn't make it true. The facts are in the field and with your witness.

Pay attention. Listen and get your boots on the ground.

Finally - be good to each other. Encourage other researchers. Don't always look for the negative. Be CONSTRUCTIVE with your criticism - but acknowledge the hard work that went into what you have the chance to read about. Put yourself in the shoes of the person who just took time from their lives (and gas tank) to help someone else. Recognize we don't have all the answers and be the person you would want to talk to should you need help or advice.

In the end - know regardless of what you find, or don't, you can hold your head high and know you at least did what you could. That's all anyone can really ask.

The Sierra Shooting.....

Justin Smeja

Here is a blast from the past. I wrote this article back on Jan 3, 2012. This was my first article on Justin and his story and I believe the last.






Other than adding Justin's name as a caption this is unchanged.

Enjoy !!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Was a Bigfoot shot and killed in the Sierra Mountains of California?

A gentleman by the name of, Justin Smeja, says “Yes,” and he is the man who did it.

Now, before I start this story let me say this. I have stayed away from the telling of this. Why? I wasn’t there and I haven’t spoken with Mr. Smeja.

Is this story true? Well, I am going to spread the story some more.

Justin Smeja says on October 8th of 2010 he was out bear and deer hunting with a friend. When they rounded a corner in a truck and seen what, Justin describes as a “monster”.

Okay, everyone stop. Take a deep breath.

Let’s be honest, most people would think the very same thing if confronted with an animal that is not supposed to exist. Bigfoot is the stuff of nightmares for most.

Why? Because unlike Bigfoot researchers, the general population thinks “it’s a good story, but really, it can’t really be out there.” Sure they watch the T.V. shows and then take the Yahoo polls, but when new reports come in, the witnesses are still just as freaked out as ever.

Thinking something could be out there, is far different, than seeing it and knowing it’s out there.

So, Justin, and his friend (who is unnamed) round this corner in the truck and spot this Bigfoot. Justin states he grabbed his rifle (I am assuming he exited the vehicle) and put the Bigfoot in his scope. 

At the same time his friend is looking at the Bigfoot through his binoculars, yelling at Justin, “It’s a person in a suit, don’t shoot!” 

While (according to Justin) the alleged Bigfoot has its arms in the air in a manner which suggests the animal is trying to say “don’t shoot!” Justin does anyway, and says he hit the animal in the lung.

First issue, If you don’t know with absolute certainty what you are about to shoot is not an animal, but could be a person in a suit (say for example for a production company or just some idiot who thinks it’s funny) you probably shouldn’t be pulling the trigger.

So Justin pulls the trigger and hits this animal in the lung. Assuming of course it’s a Bigfoot, and not some poor schmuck in a costume with a bad sense of humor.

Justin then reports two juveniles are seen, as both Jason and his friend look for what they now think is a female Bigfoot.

In the interest of time let’s just cut to the chase, because in his own telling of the situation on Abe’s show, things were a bit confusing at this point.

Understandably there was much rushing through his head and both of these men had to be scared out of their shorts if they really thought they either killed a human in a suit or lung shot an animal. Either one of the options can carry some serious life changing issues. One might also, reasonably assume, if the animal didn’t drop where it stood, it may come back looking for you. I might think that.

Justin then reports he shot one of the juveniles. Apparently Justin was being approached by one of the juveniles, and against the advice of his friend, Justin, neck shot the juvenile.

What happened after this point is of no real consequence. If you believe the story told by, Justin, it is game over.

As I sit here and listen to the story I can’t deny he sounds like a man who has great remorse for whatever he may have done, OR, he is a great storyteller. As he discusses his friend, holding the dead juvenile in his arms and saying, “what did you do?” It’s almost painful to listen to.

Whether you believe, Justin, or not – this is one powerful story. Way better than anything told by Biscardi or the Georgia Boys.

I have the feeling that one day this story will rank right up there with “Ape Canyon.” It will be told for years to come.

But, Justin Smeja has unknowingly re-kindled a fight that has been going on within this field of research for a very long time; the Kill vs. No-Kill debate.

First of all, let’s be very clear on one point. Justin was not a Bigfoot researcher at the time of this shooting. Our own Kill vs. No-Kill label doesn’t apply. By his own admission, he was simply out in the wilderness hunting for known animals when this happened, if his story is to be believed.

The one part of the story I have the most problem with is when Justin states they left the juvenile in the bushes to come back for it later. Why? Well, it wouldn’t have taken any time to put that dead body, of the juvenile that they had, into the bed of the truck. Instead, Justin states, they simply left it in the elements and thinking they would come back for it. Justin talks about fear of someone hearing the shots. Why would he have been worried about that if they were still within the legal hunting hours?

That part of the story, for me, is very confusing.

If this story is true, those that are upset should ask themselves one question. Is getting upset with this man going to turn back the hands of time and magically restore life to one or both of these animals?

No, we can get as mad as we want, but the animals in question will not magically regain life.

Justin did, however, take this horrible situation and make the best of it he could. While, he could not find either of the bodies, he did recover samples, which he states were turned over for DNA analysis. Justin could have just said, “Forget it, I don’t care!” And not even went back to look for either body. But, he did (or so he states). He could have walked away from this whole thing. If, he had done that, that would have been a real loss and an absolute crying shame especially if his story is true.

Look folks, I am a realist. I do not think science will ever take us seriously until we have something in the way of DNA that proves this animal exists. We can fight each other all we want on this Kill v. No-Kill issue, but at the end of the day science makes the rules for the proof of existence.

Whether we, like it or not or even if we agree with it, our “feelings” do not matter to the world of science who is asking for solid proof. Those are the rules in which we must play this game if we want this animal recognized and protected.

What I find ironic is this. Everyone; Kill and No-Kill, are anxiously awaiting the results of Dr. Ketchums results.

Some of which come from samples recovered from this, “Sierra shooting incident”. If you are angry with, Justin, over this shooting, isn’t it a bit hypocritical to say you are anxiously awaiting the results of Dr. Ketchums work? How do you think Dr. Ketchum came across the necessary samples to do DNA analysis? All of her work can’t rely on hair samples. She must have blood or tissue samples of some kind, I would think.

Anytime you take away someone’s right to do something, you open the door to having that same right taken away from you.

While today you may not see a reason for why you might want to shoot or kill this animal, there may come a day when you are forced into making that decision. Do you want that decision to have already been made? Life is full of choices, sometimes, they are unforeseeable. Don’t fool yourself.

I have said a thousand times (probably more);

I am No-Kill, but I would not take away someone else’s right to do what they think is right. The decision to be Pro-Kill or No-Kill is a personal decision each one of us must make, on our own. I was not with Justin on that faithful day. I do not know if his story is true. But, my aunt (whom I love very much) has always told me:

“Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes.” I think that is really good advice, so long as you don't also have to remove your brain.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter !!

https://www.facebook.com/melissa.hovey

https://twitter.com/MelissaHovey29

You bad bigfooters!!

Cryptozoology Gets Respect While Bigfooters Behave Badly

(Sharon Hill)

As much as I hate to admit it, Ms. Hill is right, on this point.

"Bigfooters" do behave badly.

But when was the last time a "Bigfooter" received constructive criticism that amounted to something? It's a two way street.

Ms. Hill is also ignoring the fact that skeptical researchers like me are bashed heavily by the skeptics she calls "scientific". Where is the science in saying that because I look for this animal then that makes me a "believer?" That's the comment all of us have seen on skeptical websites like the JREF. I am not a "believer" I investigate stories told to me by others. I would say roughly 95% of what I investigate; I can make the determination that the witness had a mis-identification. I am honest about that along with many, many other "Bigfoot Researchers" I know.

Do the skeptical Bigfooters get any credit for being skeptical?

Who decides what is "skeptical enough?" Is there a board somewhere we "skeptical bigfooters" should apply? The lines for "Skeptical" are very blurred. Near as I can tell on the JREF - call a "bigfooter" a few filthy names, accuse them of hoaxing and then never admit you go into the field looking - and you're just fine. But, the second you admit you went out into the woods - your skeptical card gets revoked.

How did I do?

Ms. Hill (in her article) discusses the "Paranormal Bigfooters" more than anyone. Yet, she did not make that distinction. There are different "factions" within this community, and I find it unfortunate she didn't point this out considering she claims so much knowledge of the community. She should know.

I do not do field work with any of the people who hold these attitudes or beliefs she discussed. Yet we are all lumped into the same category. That's about as fair as the nastiness she is complaining about toward the authors of this new book out now. But, her comments about the sexism - yeah spot on. But, women within this community have been talking about this for a long time.

Welcome to the party.

You say scoftic, I say, Bigfooter,

Let's quickly discuss the term she used, "Bigfooters". This word was first used a few years back by the JREF skeptical fans, as an insult, to anyone who gets involved in the Bigfoot research or community. So let’s just be honest about this. If it was not meant as an insult on her part then I stand corrected. But, one must ask, why did she even use it? Ms. Hill has been a part of the JREF community for a long time. I use the word, "Bigfooters." But not because I am trying to show disrespect to my fellow researchers, but by using the word, the sting of it, isn't as nasty.

She discusses Bigfoot Blogs. Then the one she points out is ran by someone who doesn't even do field work. Never fact checks anything, and the worst of the comments on this blog are from people connected to the blog itself or in the die-hard skeptical community. I wish she had made note of that. Maybe she doesn't know? Who knows, but, I give her points for having the guts to call them out.

It sure won't make you popular.

Ms. Hill - it's not about the truth - it's about hits...... You have a blog. You should know that. Sensational sells. That's why that blog, no one goes to for any real information, gets the kind of attention it gets.

Albeit negative.

The owner simply does not care.

I have no real big problems over all with what she has to say but the problems being discussed in this article are on both sides. Skeptics are just as filthy and insulting, in their comments, as bigfooters can be. So, let's be careful throwing stones, the window you hit, could be your own.

There is very little constructive criticism coming from the skeptical community. Sorry but, "your stupid," or "you're a Bigfooter so your opinion doesn't count," doesn't cut it, as scientific evaluation and criticism.

When it comes to women the gloves come off and anything is fair game. But that's in both the Skeptical Community and the Bigfoot Community. What's even worse is women back these men or they say these things themselves. I guess they don't realize that one day those same insults will come back at them?

So, there is equal opportunity, in that for both communities at least. If you can't find it - it's even okay to make it up. But, Ms. Hill is guilty of this herself. I have seen comments she has made about me - yet she has never even spoken to me or contacted me for any information. So exactly what information has she used to come to her conclusions about me? It sure wasn't both sides.

I have never been shy.

She brings up a book - co-authored by Michael Shermer.. Yeah, pretty sure I know what he has to say. But, just as "Bigfooters" have the right to handle their research however they want (there are no rules) then I guess so does Mr. Shermer.

It's just one more opinion.

It is not my intention to pick on Ms. Hill. Like I said, I have few problems with what she posted. But, let's be honest here.

The skeptical community is not full of saints and neither is the Bigfoot community. Either we all learn how to talk to each other, or maybe, we should just stay away from each other. There is little productive conversation coming from either side and a whole lotta finger pointing with neither side having all the answers.

Sorry, but not even the skeptics are perfect. I have seen some pretty lame arguments on the JREF too coming from skeptics who say one thing in the open, and private message me, something completely different.