Don will have a very interesting show, discussing research dos and don'ts and also technology and how it is used in Sasquatch research, including the use of digital recorders and infrared cameras. It begins at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central at The Sasquatch Triangle, Now On NowLive.com
And as always, we encourage you to please tune in and support great research.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Review: Monsterquest 5-28-08
This was a rather interesting episode, featuring a look at large hogs across the US, more especially in Georgia and Texas. A couple of Texas hog hunters, Tim Hicks and Kevin Ryer, band together with two from the Pacific Northwest, Mark Peterson and a gentleman with the last name of Ramber or something similar. They set traps in the Texas wastelands attempting to first of all capture a Trojan hog to attach a camera to in order to film an actual giant hog. They did accomplish that first goal, but not the second. An ecologist named Jack Mayer is also interviewed and is given a skull of a large hog killed in West Texas in 2002 which was estimated to weigh upwards of 700 pounds or more. He does determine that the skull is of a wild animal, but also surmises that most large hogs are most likely escapees from farm pens, farm-fed and they somehow escape into the wild. A couple of individuals describe attacks they suffered from large hogs which did injure them, but they survived, fortunately. No large hog is filmed during the course of production, but there is interesting data for future possible expeditions. Next week, the hit series on History examines the Vampire Beast (most likely Chupacabras) beginning at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central on History. Check local listings for time and channel.
Confession...
I have gotten some criticism on a certain forum on my most recent HBM's Crypto-Corner, and last night I read it and thought these people were just being arrogant and negative. Well, having gone back and listened to the most recent show, it seemed like it did break down and degenerate into an argument between myself and an individual in that chat that day, and I lost focus on the show and it got completely out of control. So, my last show was not really as good as I would've liked, and I am admittedly disappointed in it. I hope the next show, on June 15th, will be much better. I am going to have a pretty stellar lineup for that show, in the form of Janice Carter, Tom Shirley, Steve Summar, Darin Richardson, Thomas Hughes and Becky Sawyer. It will be a lively roundtable show, and we hope you will tune in and support great research.
Post from BFF by Matt Knapp
To M.K. Davis, finding the truth is more important than anything else. He has been studying the film indepthly for over 10 years. The only thing he is guilty of is coming up with theories and explanations for the observations and perceptions of the things he has seen on the film. He has formed opinions and reached personal conclusions on certain aspects of the film throughout his work. He has willingly shared those things with the public time and time again, knowing that so far it has done nothing but harm his own standings in this community. He is not crazy. He is an intelligent person who does in fact have quite about of knowledge about the particular type of work he is doing on the film. I also believe a lot of the things he says get lost in translation. I've talked to him numerous times over the telephone, and discussed at great length some of his theories he has come up with in regards to the observations he has made. I've listened to his explanations, and while I honestly don't agree with a lot of them, I do understand why he has reached some of those conclusions. At no time while speaking with M.K. have I thought to myself "This guy is a raving lunatic!"
At the heart of the matter you have this; the P/G film is a Rubik's Cube with all the colored stickers removed. M.K. has made observations of the film, and has formed opinions and theories to explain those observations. It's all a matter of perception of what the individual sees on the film. It's no different than some people seeing a man in a costume, some seeing a large ape, some seeing a "forest person," or someone even more famous, and well respected in this community than M.K. claiming to see several of these creatures in the film. Whether I agree with any of them or not, people are entitled to their opinions, and are free to interpret what they personally see on the film any way they would like. Why crucify M.K. for it specifically, when it's something that has been going on since the film was first released? I for one wasn't at the conference. I don't really know what M.K. said exactly, and I have yet to see anyone provide a transcript of his exact words. Nor have I spoken with him directly about this latest theory, and heard his explanation of how he reached the conclusions that he has. Furthermore by saying all of this, that doesn't mean I would necessarily agree with his conclusions, nor does it mean I'm trying to defend the man. I'm just trying to defend the rights of individuals in this community to be able to speak freely about their own theories and findings, and at least shown a moderate amount of respect from their peers when doing so.
We all for the most part agree that when someone makes a certain claim as factual, we have the right to challenge that claim or ask for some evidence to support what they are claiming. I think that should be the focus at this time. I think we should urge M.K. or provide him with a "forum" where he can address these issues. It's difficult to persuade an individual to do that when they are being met with ridicule and name calling out the gate. Not to mention the last time he agreed to do this he was threatened with a lawsuit.
The final aspect I'd like to address is this. If you are basing your opinions of M.K.'s work on evidence he has personally shown you, explanations he has given you as to how he has reached the theories he has, then that's fine. However, a lot of people are basing it off what they have been reading on the internet. The "ground breaking exclusive" information being provided on a certain website via a certain author we all know. This individual got their "big exclusive" from another individual who is an independent film maker. A film maker that was at one time colleagues with M.K. A film maker that was at one time a member of a group that M.K. belongs to. A film maker who publicly defended an individual from Missouri numerous times who claimed Bigfoot were actually a type of people, and that she could telepathically communicate with them. This film maker also publicly defended M.K. on his findings that Patty is a type of human, claiming that they had in fact seen the evidence that M.K. had provided, and that it would "change the history of the world." This film maker also publicly lied stating that they shared exclusive legal rights, and were appointed to speak on M.K.'s behalf. The same film maker also released certain information based on their previous claim, with no permission to do so. This coupled with several other wrong doings as perceived by the group they belonged to and by M.K. himself, led to not only the film maker being removed from the group, but had ties cut with M.K. as well. The motivation of this film maker had seemed to be monetary, and it wasn't until they were cut out of the possible monetary gain of this endeavor that they all of sudden "flipped sides." Did the film maker ever point out that he had always supported and agreed with M.K.'s theories previously to releasing this "exclusive" information? It wasn't until the film maker was cut out of the loop that they decided that they needed to release all of this "exclusive" information. And where did they choose to release this information? On a certain author's website of course. Nevermind the fact that the certain author holds animosity towards M.K. from previous events. Thus making his opinion of M.K.'s work completely and negatively partial. He is not a journalist. His website is not a news website. It is an opinionated blog site. Regardless of how it's presented, that's all it is. Do you think it's coincidence that ALL of the quotes used on the website about M.K.'s theories happen to be negative ones? What about a couple of particular quotes from certain Russian hominologists who "heard about the theory from people in Ohio" not M.K. himself? Did the article mention that they have worked with M.K. in the past and supported a lot of his findings? Did it mention these same Russians are the ones who support the supposed happenings of a certain farm in Tennessee, and believe Bigfoot to be a race of people who have the capability of speaking various languages depending on their geographic location? Of course not. But their brief quotes speaking negatively of this "massacre" theory were certainly used. Theories they heard about second hand, which were more than likely coming from a person who already held a negative opinion about the matters. Imagine that, a writer who doesn't like M.K. and refuses to allow M.K. posting privileges to defend himself, uses words and quotes to lead the reading audience a certain way. Gee, I wonder why this film maker who is surely just looking out for the best interests of the Bigfoot community, happen to choose that particular author and website to bring us this "exclusive" news? Especially since he had gone head to head with the author previously defending these very same theories, and even went as far as to threaten legal action against him.
I would hardly consider any of that honest and true journalism.
At the heart of the matter you have this; the P/G film is a Rubik's Cube with all the colored stickers removed. M.K. has made observations of the film, and has formed opinions and theories to explain those observations. It's all a matter of perception of what the individual sees on the film. It's no different than some people seeing a man in a costume, some seeing a large ape, some seeing a "forest person," or someone even more famous, and well respected in this community than M.K. claiming to see several of these creatures in the film. Whether I agree with any of them or not, people are entitled to their opinions, and are free to interpret what they personally see on the film any way they would like. Why crucify M.K. for it specifically, when it's something that has been going on since the film was first released? I for one wasn't at the conference. I don't really know what M.K. said exactly, and I have yet to see anyone provide a transcript of his exact words. Nor have I spoken with him directly about this latest theory, and heard his explanation of how he reached the conclusions that he has. Furthermore by saying all of this, that doesn't mean I would necessarily agree with his conclusions, nor does it mean I'm trying to defend the man. I'm just trying to defend the rights of individuals in this community to be able to speak freely about their own theories and findings, and at least shown a moderate amount of respect from their peers when doing so.
We all for the most part agree that when someone makes a certain claim as factual, we have the right to challenge that claim or ask for some evidence to support what they are claiming. I think that should be the focus at this time. I think we should urge M.K. or provide him with a "forum" where he can address these issues. It's difficult to persuade an individual to do that when they are being met with ridicule and name calling out the gate. Not to mention the last time he agreed to do this he was threatened with a lawsuit.
The final aspect I'd like to address is this. If you are basing your opinions of M.K.'s work on evidence he has personally shown you, explanations he has given you as to how he has reached the theories he has, then that's fine. However, a lot of people are basing it off what they have been reading on the internet. The "ground breaking exclusive" information being provided on a certain website via a certain author we all know. This individual got their "big exclusive" from another individual who is an independent film maker. A film maker that was at one time colleagues with M.K. A film maker that was at one time a member of a group that M.K. belongs to. A film maker who publicly defended an individual from Missouri numerous times who claimed Bigfoot were actually a type of people, and that she could telepathically communicate with them. This film maker also publicly defended M.K. on his findings that Patty is a type of human, claiming that they had in fact seen the evidence that M.K. had provided, and that it would "change the history of the world." This film maker also publicly lied stating that they shared exclusive legal rights, and were appointed to speak on M.K.'s behalf. The same film maker also released certain information based on their previous claim, with no permission to do so. This coupled with several other wrong doings as perceived by the group they belonged to and by M.K. himself, led to not only the film maker being removed from the group, but had ties cut with M.K. as well. The motivation of this film maker had seemed to be monetary, and it wasn't until they were cut out of the possible monetary gain of this endeavor that they all of sudden "flipped sides." Did the film maker ever point out that he had always supported and agreed with M.K.'s theories previously to releasing this "exclusive" information? It wasn't until the film maker was cut out of the loop that they decided that they needed to release all of this "exclusive" information. And where did they choose to release this information? On a certain author's website of course. Nevermind the fact that the certain author holds animosity towards M.K. from previous events. Thus making his opinion of M.K.'s work completely and negatively partial. He is not a journalist. His website is not a news website. It is an opinionated blog site. Regardless of how it's presented, that's all it is. Do you think it's coincidence that ALL of the quotes used on the website about M.K.'s theories happen to be negative ones? What about a couple of particular quotes from certain Russian hominologists who "heard about the theory from people in Ohio" not M.K. himself? Did the article mention that they have worked with M.K. in the past and supported a lot of his findings? Did it mention these same Russians are the ones who support the supposed happenings of a certain farm in Tennessee, and believe Bigfoot to be a race of people who have the capability of speaking various languages depending on their geographic location? Of course not. But their brief quotes speaking negatively of this "massacre" theory were certainly used. Theories they heard about second hand, which were more than likely coming from a person who already held a negative opinion about the matters. Imagine that, a writer who doesn't like M.K. and refuses to allow M.K. posting privileges to defend himself, uses words and quotes to lead the reading audience a certain way. Gee, I wonder why this film maker who is surely just looking out for the best interests of the Bigfoot community, happen to choose that particular author and website to bring us this "exclusive" news? Especially since he had gone head to head with the author previously defending these very same theories, and even went as far as to threaten legal action against him.
I would hardly consider any of that honest and true journalism.
Seven Mysterious Creatures of Japan Pink Tentacle
Japan, like most countries of the world, has a rich history of mysterious creatures, part fable and part fact. Here are seven such creatures with images, including some photos. Elsewhere in today's cryptid corner, Mystery Big Cat Spotted in Wolds! continues the saga of large felines roaming the UK, More on MonsterQuest and Yeren offers details about the new season and the background on who served as the China contact for the recent Yeren expedition of Jeff Meldrum and Adam Davies and we join Nick Redfern to offer Congrats to Linda Godfrey!. Meanwhile, you would be advised to never let yourself be kicked by an African frog, because Some African Frogs Carry Concealed Weapons. There's more about this anatomical frog-oddity in Bizarre Frog Can Break Its Own Bones to Produce Cat-like Extendable Claws.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Monsterquest Season 2 Premieres Tomorrow on History!!!!!!
MonsterQuest : Mega Hog Airs on Wednesday May 28 09:00 PM EST/8:00 Central
Do wild hogs in the United States grow to monstrous sizes? Many think so. In Georgia an 1100 pound hog was shot and killed, and in Texas beasts almost as large have been reported. But are these creatures raised and fattened up in a pen, or are they wild hogs, naturally more aggressive, that have somehow reached gigantic proportions? A MonsterQuest examination meets victims of vicious wild boar attacks, looks at the existing evidence and teams up with hog hunters, researchers and trackers to find a giant.
Check local listings for time and channel.
Review: Bigfoot Central/Bigfoot Quest 5-27-08
Bigfoot Central was good and interesting, with M.K. and Don discussing the recent findings on the Patterson/Gimlin Movie which may indicate that certain frames have been doctored, such as on the hernia spot/possible gunshot wound, the teeth and open mouth (which seems to have been doctored and changed) and some other frames. M.K. and Don also had John Johnsen on in the second half to address some things such as copyright infringement and other interesting aspects of the filming and his work on the DVD project with M.K. I also asked Johnsen about the recent posting he made on Cryptomundo about M.K.'s possible implication that Gimlin shot Patty. Dunno what is in store for next week, probably more on the film, but it begins at 8:00 EST/7:00 Central at Bigfoot Central Archives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bigfoot Quest was interesting, if a bit disturbing, with guest John Phillips, who told a rather disturbing story of participating with the GCBRO in a hunt in 2003 at Monster Central in Louisiana which resulted in tricking a group of Sasquatch creatures by feeding them and then shooting them, especially gut-shooting one individual whose blood was collected and allegedly tampered with to fit the GCBRO's belief that we are dealing with an ape. Several folks called in, including Thomas (smiter), myself and Bill Green, and we asked various questions. Dunno what Bob and Mike have in store for next week, but it should prove to be interesting, beginning at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central at Bigfoot Quest
You can also download past shows there as well as subscribe via iTunes. And as always, we encourage you to please tune in and support great research.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bigfoot Quest was interesting, if a bit disturbing, with guest John Phillips, who told a rather disturbing story of participating with the GCBRO in a hunt in 2003 at Monster Central in Louisiana which resulted in tricking a group of Sasquatch creatures by feeding them and then shooting them, especially gut-shooting one individual whose blood was collected and allegedly tampered with to fit the GCBRO's belief that we are dealing with an ape. Several folks called in, including Thomas (smiter), myself and Bill Green, and we asked various questions. Dunno what Bob and Mike have in store for next week, but it should prove to be interesting, beginning at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central at Bigfoot Quest
You can also download past shows there as well as subscribe via iTunes. And as always, we encourage you to please tune in and support great research.
Now I can finally say, I have been to the top of the Mountain!!!
Steve A., Tom, Janice, Holly and I went to the top of a mountain in Cumberland County today, and it was an absolutely beautiful view. Words cannot describe how gorgeous it was. View the images for yourself to see my trip for today. We also had some interesting views of rock formations and sticks stuck in trees, but nothing definitive. We also ran across a small brown snake which was poisonous according to the shape of its head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)