Wednesday, July 4, 2012

THE B. S. OF BIGFOOT ENCOUNTERS

BIGFOOT'S BLOG
Early July, 2012 Edition

EVIDENCE EXHIBIT ONE: The Original Article on Larry Lund,
from THE COLUMBIAN, October 26, 2005
CLICK TO ENLARGE AND READ
DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH:
Is BIGFOOT ENCOUNTERS a Reliable Source?


The old Bigfoot-related web site, Bigfoot Encounters has been for years a very useful and rather extensive resource of historical materials on the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon. It is run quite diligently by one whose initials are "B.S.", and purports to be some kind of ARCHIVE and annals of Bigfooting. It is indeed a rather vast collection of articles and information, much of it otherwise lost to time and age. Much of it, though, is copyrighted material, appropriated to the site and incorporated into pages bearing the BFE logo and style, which also will not allow copying and pasting for citation and quoting. "Fair Use" is claimed, but really does not apply to the full-scale appropriation of material owned by others. Occasional use as such is generally tolerated on the internet for historical purposes, but to found a whole web site on it is a rather blatant mis-use of the Fair Use doctrine. The only thing that really lets this slip by is that the site is non-commercial (this will change when the proprietor's book comes out, however, sometime this year, supposedly).

B.S., in the one common photo of
her available, as no one seems to
have saved the beach bunny one
she used to use on the old IVBC.
What the site DOES do, beyond mostly nobly preserving this useful information, is to FURTHER THE AGENDA of Ms. B.S. It generally does so subtly, but often glaringly, as in the case with her manipulation and alteration of an article about long-time Bigfoot researcher, Larry Lund. It actually adds DEFAMATORY statements INTO the transcribed article. This is not only a form of misinformation and distortion, it is (in my opinion, though I am no lawyer) a form of libel. Her web site, ostensibly some kind of "archive," is shot through with these kind of things, manipulations, alterations, additions, and mythifications along the lines of her own ideology and belief system. The question arises, How do we know what is real, and what has been manipulated. Is this a form of "hoaxing"? What is her agenda? Case in point, especially: The (Supposed) Bluff Creek Bigfoot Massacre. Primary ideology: Bigfoot is Human. They killed a family of them in Bluff Creek, and hence John Green and the others, in the eyes of BFE, are "murderers." I have caught outright fabrications inserted into her Bluff Creek timeline. A real shame, it is, that such a great collection of materials can be brought into question by such machinations. Here follow a few examples. Stick around for the rest of the Lund article issue, the original article of which may be found by clicking the image above.

For background, read this blog's MINI-INTERVIEW WITH LARRY LUND, from last year, for a taste of the kind of cool guy he is.

If you are already aware of these preceding issues, skip down to see the alterations that Bigfoot Encounters has made to a publicly published newspaper article, with the obvious sole intent to disparage and damage the reputation of a long-time fellow Bigfoot researcher.
If you know of any other instances of such memory-hole alterations of the facts on BFE, do let me know so they may be posted here.
*******
The image of Patterson with "Juvenile Tracks" that
B.S. claimed was taken around the time of the "Labor
Day Trip" to Bluff Creek, showing the tracks he
supposedly got at that time.

A listing in the California Sightings section used to mention Roger Patterson being in Bluff Creek over the Labor Day weekend, 1967, such trip never being substantiated with proof. I asked B.S. repeatedly to come forth with proof of this supposedly "historical" assertion, but she would not. It is normally understood that Patterson and Bob Gimlin were in the Mt. St. Helens area at that time searching for Sasquatch, not in California. Checking today I notice that the listing has now been changed to: "Summer, 1967 Roger Patterson poured a plaster of paris cast of a left and right 9" child's track and shows Al Hodgson the tracks while he was up there."There is really only one reason that someone who believes the Patterson-Gimlin Film is real would want to place Patterson there earlier than mid-late October of that year, and that is to support the MK Davis so-called "Massacre Theory." Ms. B.S. is an advocate of this theory.
HOW MANY OTHER "SUBTLE" CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE "HISTORICAL RECORD" FOUND ON BIGFOOT ENCOUNTERS?

********
Still, to this very day, despite all the refutation of the photos, the "Massacre," and of any visit by Bob Titmus to the PGF site until days AFTER the filming, the Bigfoot Encounters page manipulating John Green's Obituary for Bob Titmus still bears the MK Davis Massacre-related stills supposedly showing Titmus on the site at the time of filming, supposedly sometime in August or September, with the rifle in his hands and the tracking dog there. This is not only a dishonor to Titmus and Green, it is a blatant manipulation of the truth. Even in the search result summary, I'd assume from some kind of metatag or keyword in the page code, she drops this little bit of slurring insult: "Bob Titmus obituary, John Green exposed as a liar himself re: the Patterson film...". NICE.. and of course, the article does nothing to prove this accusatory hearsay. B.S. substantiates this by saying she has certain papers, that of course only SHE has; so, I guess, whenever B.S. wants to insult someone all she has to do is cite her SECRET personal collection. Or maybe she'll cite one of the false lies she's inserted into the "archives" on her web site?

Chiazzari and Green.
NOT TITMUS.
Go see: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/btitmus.htm

The REAL person who is shown in those photos is the pilot who flew Green, Moffit and Dahinden along with the dog down from Canada. This person has recently surfaced and emphatically declared that it was HE who is shown in those photos. His name? Keith Chiazzari. On January 17th of 2012 he posted this as a comment on this blog:
"I was the pilot of the Cessna 185 that flew John Green, Rene Dahinden and Dale Moffit to Bluff Creek on the 28th August 1967 returning to Chilliwack on the 31st and still have my pilot's logbook to prove it. The photo does not show Bob Titmus but me aged 24. I have posted some photos on other Bigfoot websites. The theory that a massacre took place is laughable!"

Chiazzari and Moffit.
NOT TITMUS
Read BILL MILLER'S refutation of the Titmus-at-the-Massacre Theory,
HERE, in two parts, PDF documents:

Read the CRYPTOMUNDO article on this, The Massacre Files: The Blue Creek Mountain Pilot
HERE: http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bluecreekmtn/

*******
In one article that has since been deleted after I published an expose on parts of it, B.S. mentioned "splicing" done to the PGF to hide a certain "something" at the start. It was a very lengthy article that never came out and said directly why the splicing was done, but by implication and innuendo it was made more than clear. It included this image, to which I've added some titles. It reveals just about ALL you need to know about the beliefs of B.S. about what happened that day in Bluff Creek when the film was shot. It also explains her vehement hatred of John Green, Bob Titmus, and anyone allied with them... she thinks they are murderers.

*******
Here is the Bigfoot Encounters LARRY LUND ARTICLE web page altered version, with defamatory commentary added in by B.S. as if these statements were part of the original article. The commentaries added to the article below are from Larry Lund himself. The parts I've bolded in red are the lines that B.S. added. In no way may the BF Encounters article be construed as satire or humor, as it is in no way indicated, and the article is presented in a wholly straightforward way, as if this were the way it was published.

What Happened to Sasquatch Man of Kings Pond Park? 

On a sunny afternoon in August, I was on my way to an appointment and chanced to coast up Northeast 54th Avenue.
My eye was drawn to the blue-and-white "Future Neighborhood Park" placard in a field. Then I noticed the towering apelike creature prowling across the veggie patch.
No mistake: It was Sasquatch.
Naturally, I parked and went over to say hi. Bigfoot didn't say much, though, because he was made of thick plywood. He towered over me but didn't make a threatening move. Stuck to his back was a weathered business card that said "Larry Lund, the Sasquatch Sleuth." The phone number wasn't legible.
There was nobody home at the house alongside the little empty garden. I snapped a couple of pictures and went on my way. It was your typical chance meeting between reporter and myth, and I frankly forgot all about it.
Until, that is, I started hearing that Sasquatch had prowled right off the landscape. Parks planner Stephen Duh said Sasquatch went away along with the renter who'd been there since long before Parks and Recreation bought the land.
Man and myth were evicted because Kings Pond Park is one of those lucky parcels that'll change from open field to neighborhood playground thanks to the metro parks ballot measure that passed this year. With construction set for for 2007 and planning soon to get under way, Duh said, the city wants the house gone. That'll probably happen this winter.
But here's where things started getting weird. I checked The Columbian's electronic archive for clues about a Sasquatch Sleuth named Larry Lund, and found more than I'd bargained for.

[Editorial comments in caps or italics, and the brief introduction below are added by Larry Lund. The BOLD parts are what B.S. added to the article.]

READ From this point on the actual Newspaper Article which I am sending also.
See how Ms. B.S Re-Wrote it to fit her evil agenda.

Then continue below…..

Lund had indeed appeared as a Bigfoot investigator on television and before many groups and conferences focused on the elusive creature. Even more surprising to me was that Lund had died in August 2000, at age 66.

Yet neighbors told me the fellow who'd vanished with his Sasquatch was definitely Larry Lund. Former next-door neighbor Jeanette Dunkin sang Lund's praises as the friendliest, nicest guy you'd ever want to meet NOW READ THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE AND THEN READ WHAT THE ARTICLE ACTUALLY SAID; but was not noted for truth-telling and added that he'd had a hard time finding a new place to take his humongous collection of Bigfoot materials and paraphernalia; some say a collection of junk and memories important only to him.
THIS WAS ADDED BY B.S. BEFORE PUTTING ON HER WEB SITE;

All while being dead? Impressive. And a little creepy. Mindful of the fact that Sasquatch is generally thought to have been debunked a few years back and that nary a Lund has been mentioned in our newspaper since I began to ponder this ghostly BS PUTS LUND FIGURE HERE BUT THE NEWSPAPER HAS BIGFOOT Lund figure following ghostly Bigfoot off into the ghostly afterworld.

Larry lives!

NO PHOTO OF JAY LENO AND I WAS IN THE REAL NEWSPAPER ARTICLE AS YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE; IT RAN A PHOTO OF ME AND THE BIGFOOT CUTOUT THAT ROB BUTTLER MADE FOR ME.
(Photo shows Lund on the left with Jay Leno on the "Tonight Show; his only real claim to fame.")
MY ONLY CLAIM TO FAME?.....I’VE DONE NOTHING ELSE IN 40 YEARS?....SHAME ON ME

Well, the answer is obvious enough: The gentleman who died in 2000 was a different Larry Lund. He was owner of the Igloo restaurant on East Evergreen Boulevard from 1991 until his death. He lived in Washougal.

Meanwhile, the Sasquatch Sleuth, alive and kicking at age 58, has moved to Stockford Village that's northwest Hazel Dell, you might say, tucked between Sacajawea Elementary School and Northeast 99th Street.

OK, maybe it's not that creepy a story. Just a simple misunderstanding. But since it's Halloween, I don't mind telling you I found the whole thing a tiny bit chilling. (Guess I must be starved for chills.)

This Larry Lund said he once was used to being mistaken for the other Larry Lund who was a good friend of his brother's although it hasn't happened in a while. He was able to brush up on reassuring people that he's still alive by reassuring me.

He said he hated to leave his green spread in East Minnehaha after 15 years, and that his plywood Sasquatch now lives in his new backyard alas, no longer on public view.

Most amazingly, Lund said he's still on the fence about the real Sasquatch. He's spent close to 40 years investigating claims and studying evidence, much of which doesn't impress him. THE NEWS PAPER ARTICLE ENDS IT”S SENTENCE HERE…..B.S. GOES ON TO SAY….. A friend of his, Rene Dahinden claims Lund never really studied anything and his investigations were not scientific. "Lund," said Dahinden, "was really a nice guy but not very bright."
IT’S B.S. THAT’S NOT VERY BRIGHT…EVERYONE KNOWS THE TRUTHS HERE

"We have Bigfoot sightings that go back as far as 1811," he said. "There are Indian legends and all kinds of sightings from before Ray Wallace's time."

So the mystery endures. For some, anyway. But for now let's file away the case of the Disappearing Sasquatch Man of Kings Pond Park. [END OF ARTICLE]

LARRY LUND Comments:
So….What Can You Believe of what you read in Ms. B.S’s Bigfoot Encounters? I would say not very much. When she likes you…you get nothing but praise. But if you don’t follow her guidelines and believe in the things she puts forward…such as the ridiculous “Bigfoot Massacre At Bluff Creek” …you are turned on in a heartbeat. The rest is all up to you.
Screen Capture of:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/larrylund.htm
Right Click to ENLARGE, then hit "control, +" a couple of times.
*******
Canadian Bigfoot/Sasquatch investigator, BILL MILLER, wrote the following letter to the journalist (Scott Hewitt) who wrote the original article. The journalist's response follows. This is published with Miller's permission.

Miller, as seen in the film, BIGFOOT'S REFLECTION
From: xxxxxxx@aol.comTo: scott hewitt@columbian.com
BCC: xxxxxxxxx
Sent: 26/06/2012 11:27:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time

Subj: The article about Larry Lund that you allegedly wrote

Mr. Hewitt,

I am a Sasquatch Researcher/Investigator who in the past has caught this site posting articles and papers from other writers whereas the article(s) have been altered from their original form without the reader or author being any the wiser. I believe that this may be the case with an article that you had written. I am embedding the article found on "Bigfoot Encounters" that seems to be your article, but with somewhat slanderous variations added to it that do not seem to appear in the newspaper article you wrote that I have also attached to this email.

Would you please be so kind as to look the Internet version found on Bigfoot Encounters and tell me whether you actually said the things shown below in red-lettering or has this presentation of your article been altered without your knowledge?

Sincerely,

Bill Miller
Bigfoot Field Research

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/larrylund.htm

****The writers reply to my inquiry.
--Bill****
Lund at Bigfoot Books, with
Nita and Rip Lyttle

From: Scott Hewitt@columbian.com
To: XXXXXX@aol.com
Sent: 27/06/2012 8:40:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: Re: The article about Larry Lund that you allegedly wrote

Hi,

You are right, those items in red were definitely not part of my reporting and writing. Weird.

Here is my exact original text, pulled from our archive.

[ED. NOTE, red highlights had to be removed for this blog. See Larry Lund's commentary above to view the BFE additions.]

Reporter's Notebook: What happened to Sasquatch Man of Kings Pond Park?
SCOTT HEWITT Columbian staff writer
Hewitt
Publication Date: October 26, 2005 Page: 3 Section: Neighbors

On a sunny afternoon in August, I was on my way to an appointment and chanced to coast up Northeast 54th Avenue.
My eye was drawn to the blue-and-white "Future Neighborhood Park" placard in a field. Then I noticed the towering apelike creature prowling across the veggie patch.
No mistake: It was Sasquatch.
Naturally, I parked and went over to say hi. Bigfoot didn't say much, though, because he was made of thick plywood. He towered over me but didn't make a threatening move. Stuck to his back was a weathered business card that said "Larry Lund, the Sasquatch Sleuth." The phone number wasn't legible.
There was nobody home at the house alongside the little empty garden. I snapped a couple of pictures and went on my way. It was your typical chance meeting between reporter and myth, and I frankly forgot all about it.
Until, that is, I started hearing that Sasquatch had prowled right off the landscape. Parks planner Stephen Duh said Sasquatch went away along with the renter who'd been there since long before Parks and Recreation bought the land.
Man and myth were evicted because Kings Pond Park is one of those lucky parcels that'll change from open field to neighborhood playground thanks to the metro parks ballot measure that passed this year. With construction set for for 2007 and planning soon to get under way, Duh said, the city wants the house gone. That'll probably happen this winter.
But here's where things started getting weird. I checked The Columbian's electronic archive for clues about a Sasquatch Sleuth named Larry Lund, and found more than I'd bargained for.
Lund was indeed famous as a Bigfoot investigator and expert who'd appeared on television and before many groups and conferences focused on the elusive creature.
Even more surprising to me was that Lund had died in August 2000, at age 66.
Yet neighbors told me the fellow who'd vanished with his Sasquatch was definitely Larry Lund. Former next-door neighbor Jeanette Dunkin sang Lund's praises as the friendliest, nicest guy you'd ever want to meet and added that he'd had a hard time finding a new place to take his humongous collection of Bigfoot materials and paraphernalia.
All while being dead? Impressive. And a little creepy. Mindful of the fact that Sasquatch is generally thought to have been debunked a few years back and that nary a Lund has been mentioned in our newspaper since I began to ponder this ghostly Lund figure following ghostly Bigfoot off into the ghostly afterworld.
Larry lives!
Well, the answer is obvious enough: The gentleman who died in 2000 was a different Larry Lund. He was owner of the Igloo restaurant on East Evergreen Boulevard from 1991 until his death. He lived in Washougal.
Meanwhile, the Sasquatch Sleuth, alive and kicking at age 58, has moved to Stockford Village that's northwest Hazel Dell, you might say, tucked between Sacajawea Elementary School and Northeast 99th Street.
OK, maybe it's not that creepy a story. Just a simple misunderstanding. But since it's Halloween, I don't mind telling you I found the whole thing a tiny bit chilling. (Guess I must be starved for chills.)
This Larry Lund said he once was used to being mistaken for the other Larry Lund who was a good friend of his brother's although it hasn't happened in a while. He was able to brush up on reassuring people that he's still alive by reassuring me.
He said he hated to leave his green spread in East Minnehaha after 15 years, and that his plywood Sasquatch now lives in his new backyard alas, no longer on public view.
Most amazingly, Lund said he's still on the fence about the real Sasquatch. He's spent close to 40 years investigating claims and studying evidence, much of which doesn't impress him.
But the fact that Ray Wallace of Seattle was called the fabricator of the whole thing after his 2002 death doesn't impress Lund either.
"We have Bigfoot sightings that go back as far as 1811," he said. "There are Indian legends and all kinds of sightings from before Ray Wallace's time."
So the mystery endures. For some, anyway. But for now let's file away the case of the Disappearing Sasquatch Man of Kings Pond Park.
Happy Halloween!
Lund photo of himself at Bigfoot Cavern, near
Cave Junction, OR

Scott Hewitt covers neighborhood news and issues. Contact him at 360-759-8017 or scott.hewitt@columbian.com.
If you go
What: The International Bigfoot Society.
When: 6 p.m. dinner and 7 p.m. meeting on the last Saturday of every month.
Where: Dad's Club, 8608 N. Lombard St., Portland.
Information: Visit www.international bigfootsociety.com.
Caption: Larry Lund stands near his 7-foot-3 Sasquatch cutout at his Hazel Dell home.
Photo Credit: TROY WAYRYNEN, The Columbian
Scott Hewitt, staff writer
360-735-4525
scott.hewitt@columbian.com
facebook.com/reporterhewitt
twitter.com/col_nonprofits

The Columbian
701 W. Eighth Street
P.O. Box 180
Vancouver WA 98666
*******
This photo of a 1947 Bigfoot track found near Eureka, CA is used here
under the FAIR USE DOCTRINE, for research and historical purposes only.
SOME WORDS ON FAIR USE AND COPYRIGHT...
I declare on this blog that my work is copyright. I have a right to do that, including my photos. I also declare that people may use them in reviews of my work and reports about my blogs, so long as they cite me as the source, and provide a courtesy link to the original blog post. This is only fair. Fair "use" and outright theft need to be distinguished. When a person publishes anything it is their own intellectual property. This is true of books and magazines and papers, as well as on blogs and web sites. It is not true of Facebook posts, so far as I can tell. Fair use for non-commercial purposes is generally tolerated, but it is a very gray legal area. I commercial use of someone else's property is against the law, and books have been brought out of circulation and destroyed for the use of photos and such; and also, it can be seen as a form of plagiarism without proper credit and citation. Use without citation is grounds for failure marks in academic papers, and is unethical in general. The whole idea, beyond mere matters of profit, is the ownership of one's work. In scholarly communities it is the credit, the notation of one's achievement, that is the most valuable asset a scholar can have. That being said, I don't think that what Bigfoot Evidence does, as an example, is a violation of copyright. They use excerpts now when there is a question, and to my observation always give credit and links back to originals. This is how it should be. In cases where the use is simply for "fun" and "personal use" there is usually no harm seen, as in a profile picture on Facebook.

Here is the copyright statement I post on every blog I write:
"This blog is copyright and all that jazz, save for occasional small elements borrowed for "research" and information or satirical purposes only, 2003-2012, Bigfoot Books and Steven Streufert. Borrowings for non-commercial purposes will be tolerated without the revenge of Angry Bigfoot, if notification, credit, citation and a kindly web-link are given, preferably after contacting us and saying, Hello, like a normal person would before taking a cup of salt. No serious rip-offs of our material for vulgar commercial gain will be tolerated without major BF stomping action coming down on you, hu-man."

That all being said, I do use photos under what I consider "Fair Use" myself. I do this when something is obviously under public domain or has important historical or research-related value. If someone wishes to claim ownership and exclude the use of their images I will always honor such requests and remove the item in question. This is done out of respect, not for fear of prosecution. When pushed, there is no real reason to sue a blogger. Most of them are not making money, and are only using materials as a form of hobbyist enthusiasm. Fair use should be encouraged when it is done in the name of spreading knowledge and scholarship, without blatant commercial exploitation. If money is being made, some consideration should be made to the work and rights of the originator. If this is not honored, then how will intellectuals and artists make a living? Consider that. If you built a stone wall for someone's garden you would want to be paid for it, right? Someone who spends their time writing should be compensated, too, if they want to be, and if their work has value.

Never forget: Cryptomundo was sued over the publication of the Kentucky "pancake" video, where there was a clear violation of someone's (Erickson) commercial interest in the "product." Some $20,000.00 was paid for that video, and the online publication of it would have seriously damaged that investment. In regard to the PGF, it is obvious that "Fair Use" of it is totally rampant, but access to full-quality versions of it is still restricted. That is, after all, Patricia Patterson's main source of a living now. Commercial users must pay $10,000.00 to use it.

Here, for an example, is an interesting connundrum. Bigfoot Encounters and its owner in her newsletter publish the following statement:

"PLEASE DO NOT POST OR FORWARD THIS NEWSLETTER.
© Bigfoot Encounters dot com, readers and contributors can reach me here… bxxxxsxxxx@xxxxxx.com
All Rights Reserved, Reprints are under the Fair Use Doctrine of International Copyright Law"

Now, how does it make sense to at once use others' work and declare "Fair Use Doctrine," but then to also state "All Rights Reserved" in regard to one's own production and works? This is a contradiction of extreme opacity.

(The above does not constitute legal advice, nor is the author a professional lawyer in any way, shape or form.)
*******
AND FINALLY...
Al Hogson with 1958 Track 2011, at Bigfoot Books
A Brief Excerpt from our Interview with AL HODGSON:

AL HODGSON: Yeaaahh. I don’t even mess with some of that. Bobbie Short, she got angry with me, and I said that’s enough, let’s forget it. I don’t even bother with that.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Bobbie Short seems to like you enough to quote you in her conspiracy theory stuff.

AL HODGSON: [Laughs out Loud] Ah. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Al Hodgson declared that Bob Titmus was there, no doubt about it!

AL HODGSON: I wished I hadn’t-a said that, but I was wrong!

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Did they kind of trick you? Like, they just showed you a picture and, "who does that look like?"
From the same trackway as Jerry Crew's cast. A first generation copy.
AL HODGSON: Oh yeah. And I thought…. They asked me who was in that print, and I said, well, it might be, I thought, it might be Titmus. Because I thought, John, maybe it was Titmus who came down with him. But it was not Titmus. It was Rene Dahinden who came down with him. But I was... I didn’t remember that.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: And from what you can remember, Rene Dahinden and Bob Titmus, they didn’t like each other that much?

AL HODGSON: No, no.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: They probably wouldn’t have wanted to travel down together…

AL HODGSON: And before it was over Rene and John weren’t getting along either. And what happened there?

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Towards the end more? Later on?

AL HODGSON: Yeah. But Rene, he, like I said, as far as I was concerned, he was flying about that high off of the ground [gestures up high] anyway. His favorite saying was that I remember was “People are seeing bloody holes in the ground!”

Al signed the cast, and one may see his note with details
as to its history. It was cast by Jess Paschall.
BIGFOOT BOOKS: You mean Rene Dahinden?

AL HODGSON: Yeah, everything was bloody to him. He was a Swiss. He was something else.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: He had that great thing he said, “People ask for physical evidence of Bigfoot. What if I take one of these plaster casts of the footprint tracks and hit you over the head with it. Would that be physical enough for you???”

AL HODGSON: [Laughs all around.] Oh yeah.

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/interview-with-al-hodgson-pillar-of.html

Thanks to Larry Lund, Bill Miller, and a couple of others I'll keep anonymous for help on backgrounding this article.

****************************************************

ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS!
Channeled by Denali

Me so angry today! This dumb-butt lizard go and think angry bigfoot tongue worm, then bite me tongue! Me scream, then lizard go fly-fly. When I try go sleepy again, lizard come back and crawl up angry bigfoot nose! me HATE him!!

****************************************************
This blog is copyright and all that jazz, save for occasional small elements borrowed for "research" and information or satirical purposes only, 2003-2012, Bigfoot Books and Steven Streufert. Borrowings for non-commercial purposes will be tolerated without the revenge of Angry Bigfoot, if notification, credit, citation and a kindly web-link are given, preferably after contacting us and saying, Hello, like a normal person would before taking a cup of salt. No serious rip-offs of our material for vulgar commercial gain will be tolerated without major BF stomping action coming down on you, hu-man. 

18 comments:

  1. Didn't finish it, lost me with your take on the law and opinion of what other sites do or don't do regarding "fair use".....lol
    As for Bobbie? When one has been around that long, true to their own views, they are bound to ignite conflicting ideas, but the addition of a book, at this time, surely will draw even more.
    Lund is not a witness, and still on the fence about the reality of Bigfoot? That speaks volumes IMO.
    Is this blog owner a witness? Or still on the fence about the reality of Bigfoot?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dude, whoever wrote this is just a jealous moron. this is the kind of smut id expect at bigfootevidence, but come on. Whoever wrote this just has sower grapes for one reason or the other, probably because they know someone or are someone who just doesnt like bigfoot encounters. Get over it and grow up. My god, your so desperate for something to attack that you try and make some bizarre case about some woman and what she looks like. Who gives a flying crap what this lady looks like or even if its a lady. Bottom line, that site stays out of the smut, the crap, and the name calling and word throwing. It has since its beginning. It may not have 24 7 updates, that are so desperate for material that they post humor stories, but what they do have as the most verified accounts out their that have stood the test of time. And they only report on the main topics, not side show crap you find at sights like this and bigfootevidence. Get over your bias. You dont like the site, fine, but you have no clue what you are speaking of about what they report on. You simply dont like the comments posted about certain individuals. Well too bad, you can blog about it all you want, but no one believes it or cares. That site has proved its worth over the yeras, yet this site is already on its way down the drain, reporting on smut instead of actual findings. Congrats, this is the new bigfootevidence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @AnonymousJuly 4, 2012 7:27 AM,

    Look, there IS no "fence" to sit upon; there is only reality which the mind may explore. There seems indeed to be something odd going on in the woods, much of it convincingly indicating a Bigfoot-type creature. There is also AMPLE evidence of human delusion and oddities of human perception. The important thing is knowing the difference, and ascertaining what is indeed real and actual. That is what I am into doing. Now, can one honestly say they are a witness, unless one has seen one so up close and personal that it cannot be doubted? Most reports I hear these days do not convince me, as they seem to be owls, bears, deer, acorns, pine cones, etc., and are turned into "Bigfoot" though wishful thinking and mis-perception, or pareidolia later in videos and images or sounds. Look, I've had many odd experiences in the woods. Some of them COULD have been Bigfoot. I've seen things that could have been a Bigfoot. I've had them in my yard, and those could have been a Bigfoot. But I really do not KNOW they were Bigfoot as I did not see them well enough to truly and honestly say. Others would say it was Bigfoot just to "earn" status in the world of Bigfooting, and to verify their own desired beliefs. I despise the idea of "belief." To me there is reality and there is non-reality, and I choose to pursue reality, whatever it is.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ AnonymousJuly 4, 2012 12:15 PM,

    DUDE, if you had actually READ my article you would see that it is not a hit piece about B. Short's appearance, whatever Loren wrote on Cryptomundo. Perhaps if you would actually LOOK you would see that the concern of the article I wrote is for the AUTHENTICITY of the information on BFE, for the preservation of a REAL historical record, not one TAINTED by the owner's complete prejudicial bias against people she hates. Now, HOW you get from it that it is *I* who needs to "get over it" is utterly beyond my comprehension (or, my article was apparently beyond your reading comprehension). Look, I am not out looking for someone or something to attack; I am COMMENTING on how this was done by Ms. Short on her page, totally distorting the ostensible historical record there. If you can't see that you are BLIND. MY BIAS? "SMUT"? The bias and smut are coming from BIGFOOT ENCOUNTERS. It is THERE that you can see the accusations of John Green, Bob Titmus and others of murder of Bigfoot. It is THERE that you see falsities about the PGF presented. It is THERE that this "smut" attack on Larry Lund appeared.

    LOOK, really. ALL I am doing is defending the truth.

    I have, by the way, no affiliation with Bigfoot Evidence, and this blog is NOT a 24-7 news aggregator striving for hits. This is simply the presentation of my thoughts and my attempts to correct idiotic misconceptions in the world of Bigfooting. YOU get over it. Really.

    AT LEAST... read before you speak, and think as you are reading. Anyone who puts LIES into the historical record should be corrected, wouldn't you agree???

    What Do I Have to be "Jealous" over? Jealous of Bigfoot Encounters? Why? I already said that I have enjoyed and used the site for years. I think it has good stuff on it. However, now it has proven itself to be an UNRELIABLE ARCHIVE. There is no telling how much manipulation of the stories and data on there has gone on, rendering the site useless in many regards as a source and reference. I have no reason to be "jealous" of Short, either, as she sits down there in San Diego. I live in Willow Creek, right near Bluff Creek, and I am surrounded by more Bigfoot in one day than she has known in a lifetime. Ah well. I guess I can always hope for better, brighter readers than you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous 2, your response is totally inaccurate, full of distortions and straw men, brimming with false characterizations of what I was written, and pathetically lacking in actual data about anything in particular. It only demonstrates your bias against ME (as if that were the point), and your clear cowardice in commenting anonymously. Look, it is PROVEN in my article that B. Short has created a fraud, a hoax, an anti-historical distortion. Not only is it Orwellian, it serves only HER, and it is libellous against a good man. You, in fact, do the very same thing she did. It is sad to read your sickly words. Truly, get a life, go learn logic, try to make sense and not simply blurt out your emotional reactions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good read. I don't even care if she posts entire articles of things that are out of print. Being able to preserve such things in an easy to reach manner I think is commendable and copyright be damned. If something is unavailable to 99.9% of the populace, what good does the copyright do anyone?

    But modifying those records to suit her own agenda is another story entirely. If hers is the only copy available and it gets read by enough people, it will become the only reality that matters. And that is despicable and should not be allowed to happen. Your speaking up about it and doing the legwork to prove her modified history wrong should be commended. Good job.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Look, it is PROVEN in my article that B. Short has created a fraud, a hoax, an anti-historical distortion."

    Stepping over the line IMO.
    Prosecuter, jury and judge.
    Thank God we have you for the undying and objective pursuit of the truth.
    Who is next?
    How about MM and all those news article, starting in 2000 by the Denver Post, that identify him as an attorney and which he posts in full on his website?
    Is the problem with the truth there the copyright "fair use" violation or the claim he is a lawyer?

    Anon #2 seems to have it right.
    Your opinion is repeated, and therefore clear, repeatedly. This is mine.

    I think this piece is just another opportunity for you to advance your pet beliefs (sorry, "research and truth") about the MK Davis work, and your certainty he is wrong and you are right.

    As for "anon as coward," you got that right, the last thing I want is to engage publically about BFootery with you, and yet to leave this kind of thinly veiled flame throwing unanswered is too hard.

    So, you offerred and got an Anon response.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous, above, look, for all I know you ARE B. Short. Or you are clearly one of her minions. Anyway, it is undeniable that IN THE CASE I RAISED in the above blog entry, false representation of the original article have been made, and defamatory statements about Larry Lund have been inserted. THIS IS HOAXING. It is a personal insult to an enemy of B. Short. It serves only B. Short to post this. It is CLEARLY SHOWN, above, without any doubt, and was confirmed by the original journalist and article displayed.

    The blog is not trying to disprove the "Massacre." It simply assumes, based upon all evidence, that it is FALSE. It endeavors to show (and succeeds) that Bigfoot Encounters and its founder are PRO-MASSACRE, and have inserted deceptive photos and statements into its archive to promote this view. This is also undeniable, in the Green Obituary for Titmus. It was clear in the "splicing" piece, now removed clearly due to authorial embarassment. (The splicing never happened, as Bill Munns has recently shown, with the finding of a full, intact original first generation copy of the camera original film roll). It is known, and has been declared by the man himself, that it was the PILOT there in the Dahinden and Green Blue Creek Mountain footage and stills, NOT TITMUS. This has also been confirmed by Al Hodgson, who was there helping them in Orleans.

    What more can I say? It is an irrelevancy and a straw man that you propose above, in regard to Matt Moneymaker. I've never heard him once say that he was a lawyer, and it could clearly be a mistake of those who wrote the articles. Anyway, I don't think that matters in the slightest to the case at hand.

    What I have shown above is NOT "my opinion." It IS the facts, undeniably shown. BIGFOOT ENCOUNTERS IS A SITE THAT HAS A CORRUPTED AND BIASED ARCHIVE, AND SO IS NO LONGER TO BE CONSIDERED RELIABLE.

    Beyond that, I do like the site, and have found it useful in the past on countless occasions. For this, the unbiased and uncorrupted work, B. Short deserves the gratitude of the Bigfooting Community.

    She should simply refrain from inserting unverified or false claims into the timelines and the historical record. If she wants to say that Patterson was in Bluff Creek on Labor Day, 1967, let her PROVE IT, or at least make it credible before she just posts it and then tries to spread it as a rumor, a rumor "confirmed" by her very own false insertions of data.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm sure Bigfoot Encounters started out with good intentions as a neutral database, but apparently Bobbie Short couldn't keep her opinions out of it. It's crazy enough for someone to actually believe the wacked out bigfoot massacre stuff, but to take it so seriously as to modify articles is going off the deep end. She might as well just take the site down- the original intention is lost and tainted.

    It's never been a mystery that the paranormal and unexplained fields tend to attract the nutcases, because it gives them a voice and all the attention they could ask for. The least people could do is call out and isolate these cases in order to try and maintain some level of sanity.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steven and Sasquatchery...

    I am currently working with Bobbie Short and MK Davis, on a number of projects. I have had multiple encounters and sightings, however I am not a researcher. I am a retired oil and gas producer with chronic health issues limiting my efforts to enabling, underwriting, and networking with folks involved in authentic habituation, and respectful scientific research.

    I have the highest regard for Bobbie Short, she has unselfishly published the most comprehensive archive of Sasquatch research material available. She published a monthly newsletter with a circulation in the thousands, for over a decade, free of cost to her subscribers. Bobbie Short, is a steadfast unequivocal advocate for the respectful observation, recognition and protection of the Sasquatch species, based upon her personal sightings and encyclopedic knowledge of these magnificent beings.

    I am honored to call Bobbie Short a trusted friend and colleague.

    I am currently working with MK Davis, documenting various habituation sites, the recent "Whitey" videos though poor resolution, demonstrate bio-mechanics beyond the range of human ability. We discussed those videos in great specificity on a recent BTR show with Alex Midnight Walker. Many of those videos are available on you tube.

    MK Davis has been a guest in my home. I have viewed a portion of his vast archive of submitted videos. His PG film video evidence when viewed in high definition, leads to the inescapable conclusion, the PG film subject is authentic, she was injured, and the film has been heavily edited.

    Regarding allegations of a "massacre", if it occurred it is an outrage, and underscores the need for eventual species recognition and legal protection. If there was no massacre, what is the explanation for the preponderance of evidence brought to light by MK Davis, Bobbie Short et al, to the contrary?

    If Dr. Melba Ketchum's DNA Study, shows Sasquatch to be of the genus Homo, those involved in the alleged PG incident may have serious legal issues. There is no statute of limitations on homicide. Interested parties should ask Hoopa tribal elders for their version of that tragic incident...enough said.

    Bobbie Short, and MK Davis have stood by their convictions, they have forgotten more about Sasquatch...than most folks will ever know.

    If Bobbie Short "editorialized" or embellished an article on the Bigfoot Encounters website she should remove any inaccuracies.

    People who have seen the video evidence of manipulation of the PG film, have made allegations of "massacre". MK Davis, analyses what the video shows...no more...no less. I am proud to call MK Davis, a trusted friend.

    live and let live...

    Steve Summar

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have never said that Bobbie and MK are not nice people, nor that they have not both done good work. You commit a logical fallacy of equating niceness with correctness, and of assuming that someone is always ethical because they have been ethical at certain times. In fact, despite the good things in MK's work, he is wrong about the "Massacre" theory. Flat. Out. Wrong. The fact remains, too, that what B.S. did is low and demeaning in regard to Larry Lund, and also calls into question the integrity of the entire BFE site as an archive. If she stoops to the level of manipulating history in the areas I have noted, WHERE ELSE has she done so? Most will not know.

      AGAIN, you have just joined in the insulting accusation of murder. NONE of this "evidence" presented by MK and BS about the "Massacre" is valid and credible. NONE. It all falls apart. And yet, here you are continuing to claim "MURDER," and to accuse the living (Gimlin and Green) and the dead (Patterson, Titmus, Dahinden) of being MURDERERS. That is not only a baseless and false accusation, it is also a base and vile one to make.

      Shame on you and all the advocates of this slanderous lunacy.

      Delete
    2. "live and let live..."

      and don't accuse innocent people of murder, Mr. Summar.

      How much more clear do I have to be?

      They have "stood by their convictions," but those convictions are lunatic, unfounded, imaginary CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

      It really is that simple, however nice and personable the proponents are, and despite the otherwise good works they have done in the past.

      Delete
  11. I am glad to see that someone like (Anonymous) who totally missed the issue of the wrongs of posting manipulated/altered articles so to mislead readers for one's own twisted agenda is the same person who spells 'sour' as 'sower' ... it certainly explains how one goes hand in hand with the other. How ironic that someone would accuse the creator of this blog and others for mentioning such wrong doings while not uttering a negative word about what was proven concerning Bobbie Short's behavior. And how does one know if the reports on Short's site have not also been altered for what ever reason which was the whole point of bringing Bobbie's reckless behavior to light in the first place?

    Anonymous could have helped Short more by not posting at all.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Summar's writes, "Regarding allegations of a "massacre", if it occurred it is an outrage, and underscores the need for eventual species recognition and legal protection. If there was no massacre, what is the explanation for the preponderance of evidence brought to light by MK Davis, Bobbie Short et al, to the contrary?"

    Preponderance of evidence??? Davis misrepresented the Dahinden film as being sequences of the P/G film - Davis mistakingly called the young 24 year old pilot (Keith C.) the aging 48 year old Bob Titmus - Davis manipulated the hands of Keith C. with a reddish hue while making the erroneous claim that they were bloody from the dog just attacking him - Davis used an over contrasted print that the green dyes had faded from it so to support the claim that the creek was red with blood, while claiming that the subject (Patty) was fleeing the scene - Davis failed to see that the Dahinden film was shot while the surrounding foliage was still green, unlike the P/G film that shows the foliage has taken on its fall colors - Davis failed to note that the combined edited Dahinden footage ... combined with the P/G footage exceeded the reel volume allowance that Patterson's camera could hold and the list went on and on. Preponderance of evidence my eye!!!

    When Davis was asked why he never bothered to go see the best first generatrion print or the Dahinden camera original which MK had previously said was a must to do because of the same reasons I just mentioned, Davis replied, "I was never asked to come and view them."

    So someone tell me how misrepresenting the provable facts concerning MK's errors is supposed to equate MK Davis presenting a preponderance of evidence to a massacre taking place. How absurd!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thomas SteenburgJuly 22, 2012 at 9:54 PM

    The Sasquatch research community has had in many ways benefited from technology. But the internet for all its benefits, has had a great draw back when it comes to this particular field of research. It has become a soap box for every, conman, hoaxer,publicity hound, and snake oil sales man out there. So much time has been wasted on crap like the massacre theory, that to the general public the whole Bigfoot field looks more like an asylum being taken over by the inmates, than a true mystery being investigated by dedicated researchers. My own personal motto since I stated has been 'Stick to the facts and never deviate from the facts'. If people would just apply this simple mind set to all investigations, rather than self deluding wishful thinking, then may be we could get somewhere. Ms. Short has erred by altering some articles which she has published on her web site with out the authors knowledge. She has taken a step in the right direction by removing these alterations or the article in its entirety. An apology or a statement of regret would go a long way in restoring confidence but that would be admitting you were wrong in the first place and I am of the opinion Ms Short really be leaves that her position is correct. If that is so than it must be pointed out that the facts of these matters dictate that she is wrong. Now many jump to her defense on these issues for many reasons. However what ever the reason it seems many would rather be taken by the hand and lead down the yellow brick road of self delusion, which for them is far more important then the facts.

    Thomas Steenburg

    ReplyDelete
  14. I tend to lean more to the side that believes that when Bobbie Short has concerns that some of her beliefs are being shaken with additional data and facts, that this then causes her to create falsehoods so to try and hold on to what supporters she may have had. Perhaps that they would, like Anonymous did, won't be able to see the forest for the trees, and Short's position appears to have been that unimformed support is better than no support at all!

    ReplyDelete
  15. This MK Davis 'massacre" stuff is a skit from Monthy Python... So silly and idiotic that is unworthy of any serious comment or thought. Larry Lund is a damn good guy and was one of Dahinden's closest pals. Bigfoot Encounters disgraced itself by inserting that bogus quote from Dahinden about Larry. I salute you for exposing this disgraceful and childish behavior! Obviously the wackos attacking you for this great job are disciples of BS.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I've been doing research for some time and have gone out in the field with John Freitas several times.

    I am amazed that anyone would listen to MK Davis' wild theories. The Patterson Film was a fortunate glimpse of a Bigfoot walking along briefly just like many eyewitness sightings. Bob Gimlin in recent years has been willing to speak publicly and has confirmed the content of the film and the circumstances.

    It's unfortunate that MK Davis recruited Ms. Short into his "cult" and compromised what had been an excellent website.

    It's additionally unfortunate that Ms. Short didn't realize her mistake before her sudden and unfortunate death this month.

    Bobbie Short was a good friend of mine for many years, and I was dismayed that she got caught up in that bizarre massacre conspiracy theory.

    ReplyDelete

Hello! Speak your mind. Let me know someone is actually reading all of this stuff! We moderate the comments here, but will let everything through that is not either blatant Spam or vile hate speech. Don't worry if your comment doesn't appear immediately--it is just under review. Thanks!