James

best regards,
James Heflin

He’s right. I misread what he wrote, and thus I have revised my blog posting above to reflect a more grounded reading of his observations.

It’s no excuse, but I actually have experienced mood modifications (grumpiness) with the equation of *pain* (due to my broken foot) + *Advil* (I don’t take anything heavier, unless in a hospital), unfortunately.

In this case, straight out, I’m incorrect, and I extend a big “sorry” to Mr. Heflin, whom I was happy to hear from for the first time ever in email form, not as Seamus.

I was quite shocked to return from vacation and find this. You have wrongly crucified me. The truth is that I have been an avid reader of your site (I visit nearly daily, and comment from time to time as Seamus) for a good while, and have an earnest interest in real cryptozoology, not the kind that blobsquatchers pursue.

My knock on those who draw extreme conclusions from pareidolia is in no way reflective of my views of you, this site, or cryptozoology in general. You have misread me. I said “Bigfoot seekers with shaky video cameras”–please notice the qualifying phrase, which clearly counts you out. I consider you a pursuer of a more empirical brand of research. Pareidolia is the enemy of real cryptozoology, though a feature of the landscape which cannot be avoided, and I think it causes much of the bad publicity the subject receives.

Rather in the vein of pareidolia itself, what you have seen in my words is far different from what I actually believe. If you visit my blog at the Valley Advocate, you will see that I treat cryptozoology as an interesting subject on an ongoing basis. Yes, I am a skeptic—but cryptozoology is a science in search of extraordinary claims, and therefore demands extraordinary evidence. And yes, I am an arts critic, and am prepared to field comments like the above knock on my profession in the comments, misguided and absurd though they can also be.

I am sorry that you have found my words offensive. They were not in any way meant to be so where you are concerned. If they offend some of the many creators of ridiculous fake videos, on the other hand, I am prepared to live with that—that was my intent.

It is not particularly enjoyable to be pilloried for views I do not hold. I wrote an article about abstract art versus representational art, and happened to mention blobsquatches. For that, I am thrown under the bus by people I have considered fellow open-eyed travellers among the strange and inexplicable.

I am not at all certain what to make of your misguided attack on me. I wish you, however, all the best as you pursue your research.

Best regards,
James Heflin

But, yeah… stories like this should be rent to pieces, because it’s a stump and a blobbearsquirrelsquatch.

Anyway great to see you ripping stories like this to peices. As a skeptic %99 of articles get this response from me, so seeing you tackle it as hardened and disheartened skeptic is wonderful.

KUTGW!

[open-minded skeptic credentials established]

Can I have my drink now?

As for the stump-I mean, the photo… Yeah, do I even need to say it? There’s nothing about that one to make it look like a Sasquatch, plenty to make it look like a stump.