Alot of the time, i post photos on this site, without telling you what they are, and where they took place… i thought i’d better change this, and give a brief description of some of these photos (maybe continue at a later date with some of the others).
In my post “The Semantics of Sasquatch,” I expressed my irritation with Bigfoot researchers who misuse words. In that essay, I talked about the words primate and ape. Today, I’ll focus on a word that inspires more anger and resentment than any other six letters jammed together: belief.
Bigfooters don’t want to be called believers. They studiously avoid using the words belief or believe. What are they afraid of?
Belief can refer to an acceptance of the tenets endorsed by a group, such as a religious institution. But belief also means “a conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon esp. when based on examination of evidence.” Conviction quite literally means “the state of being convinced.”
Think about the definition I just quoted for the word belief—”a conviction…of the reality of some being or phenomenon.” What’s wrong with being convinced that a being or phenomenon is real? If you don’t think Bigfoot are real, then why exactly are you investigating the sightings?
The second part of the definition states “esp. when based on examination of evidence.” In essence, belief happens when you examine the evidence for a phenomenon and become convinced of the reality of that phenomenon. I see nothing silly or unscientific about belief. To believe simply means “to hold an opinion.” Without opinions, without belief, science would never advance. Truth begins as a question, followed up by the gathering and examination of evidence, and culminating in an informed opinion—i.e. a belief.
I believe in Bigfoot. And I’m not ashamed to say so.
Definitions taken from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition
Another new and amazing video from the history channel! - The U.S. Continues the cover up across the border into Mexico after a Disc lands there. Both U.S. And Mexico chase to recover disc. The Mexicans load the UFO up on a flat bed truck. Only to be killed. Then The Disc vanishes with the American soldiers. This incident has been called The Mexican Roswell
Part 1
2
3
4
These days, many people seem to have forgotten the true meanings of words and phrases. Nobody wants to open up a dictionary anymore, and so the meanings of words become hazy in our minds, vulnerable to misuse. Many Bigfoot researchers like to throw words around like heavy stones, in the hopes one will knock an opponent senseless. Yet their use of the words shows how little they truly understand the meanings of those words. In response to this growing and annoying trend, I’ll begin a series of posts dealing with the semantics of Sasquatch research.
Semantics refers to the study of meaning. Every word has at least one specific, historically documented meaning. Most have several. To start things off, let’s examine the word “primate.”
Many Bigfoot researchers use the words primate and ape interchangeably; however, the words are not synonyms. A primate is “any of an order (Primates) of mammals that are characterized esp. by advanced development of binocular vision, specialization of the appendages for grasping, and enlargement of the cerebral hemispheres and that include humans, apes, monkeys, and related forms (as lemurs and tarsiers).” An ape is “any of two families (Pongidae and Hylobatidae) of large tailless semierect primates (as the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon).”
Hmm…they don’t sound like synonyms to me. If you call Bigfoot primates, then I would agree with you. Humans are primates too. But if you call Bigfoot apes, I would disagree. First of all, Bigfoot are not semierect; they walk upright just like humans. Before you use a word like primate or any word as a weapon in your intellectual arsenal, make sure you understand its meaning.
Definitions taken from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition
Very interesting ufo documentary about a ufo over southern illinois - several police officers called in a report on it and one even snapped a photo!
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part5
Although Steven Greer is now considered more contraversial, his video below is interesting and talks about disinformation campaign to confuse the ufo subject
Part 2
Writer Ed Komarek, who is a researcher and journalist on UFOs, Extraterrestrials and Exopolitics issues, has recently released an superbly interesting account, Extraterrestrials on Ice. This is one of those great folklore stories that cannot be documented, but all the same, is riveting, and all of you should read it.
A good friend of Ed’s, Larry Requa, related the story to him and several family members. Larry’s experience occurred when he was a member of the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police). As a constable, he was assigned the task of trying to find a missing prospector. He was flown to a lake, dropped off, and began to follow the prospector’s tracks.
He was not able to locate the prospector, but did stumble upon a small cave: Its entry way was fortified by a pile of rocks. He made his way into the cave, shining his flashlight into its darkness. Upon entering, he was surprised to see that the inside had been cut away to fashion a 12 by 12 feet chamber. On the back wall, there had been a bench cut. On this bench, Larry saw something that literally took his breath away-five small mummified bodies fitted with metallic cloth. These beings were about 3 to 3 1/2 foot long.
Read the rest of the account, and give us your comments on this excellent story.
Source: Extraterrestrials on Ice
Pick up a book about Bigfoot and you’ll find lots of sightings, lots of photos of Bigfoot researchers, but very little of one ingredient: theories. An awful lot of Bigfoot researchers pride themselves on their lack of theorizing, on their dogmatic refusal to consider any theory about the nature of Bigfoot. “I don’t have a theory,” they might say, “I just investigate the sightings.” About 30 seconds ago, I named this attitude the No-Theories Theory. On the surface, the statement sounds reasonable, and even noble. You don’t formulate theories, you just gather sightings.
Why?
Why talk to witnesses if you have no interest in examining the data, forming hypotheses, and debating the merits of those hypotheses? Proponents of the No-Theories Theory collect sightings, toss them in a database, and forget about them. Maybe they run some software that spits out a few statistics about the average height or weight of Bigfoot. Maybe the statistics show Bigfoot mainly eat meat on Tuesdays.
As I discussed in my Semantics Series posts, Bigfooters don’t like to admit they believe in Bigfoot. If you can’t admit to believing these creatures exist, then it makes sense that you avoid developing ideas about what they are and how they fit into the grand scheme of life. If you subscribe to the No-Theories Theory, stop and ask yourself one question: What is the point of your research?
Triangular UFO seen over CRUZANDOSE (possibly in spain?) 17th November 2007