Do Right Wingers Hate Bigfoot?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 7th, 2008
Let’s try to follow the logic on this one. If you happen to produce a documentary about Jesus Christ that holds a thesis that right wingers don’t like, you can be almost labeled a near-nutcase because you have also produced the documentary “Bigfootville,” according to two conservative bloggers.
Your ability to be a critical thinker is called into question if you produce documentaries on Bigfoot and Roswell, but if you raise questions about the story of Jesus Christ (demonstrating your critical thinking?) you are merely called “bogus” because of faults in your “background”?
I am not here to defend or even promote Bloodlines, Bruce Burgess’s new documentary. Burgess (on the left, above) can defend himself. What I am challenging is how Burgess’s entire list of past documentaries are being trotted forth to show his “bizarre interests.” First, there is the implied criticism and ridicule against those topics. Then because he has made “those” kind of documentaries, supposedly the thinking goes, his ability to make good documentaries is somehow undermined.
Scott Whitlock (above) in bold font shouts out: “He’s directed and written documentaries on Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, Area 51 and a secretive look at a U.S. government’s supposed cover-up of the alien landings at Roswell.”
Whitlock’s headline captures his complaint in a nutshell: “ABC Ignores Bigfoot, UFO Films of Jesus-Debunking Documentarian.”
Whitlcock asks: “Wouldn’t it be relevant to know that Burgess seems to be fascinated with every weird conspiracy imaginable?…How serious is Bigfoot and the the [sic] subject of the Bermuda Triangle?”
Whitlock’s blog appears on NewsBusters, which is a right wing blog. Its tagline reads: “Exposing and Combatting Liberal Bias.” Does this mean that right wingers hate Bigfoot?
His bio says that Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center, and has been featured in the “Inside Politics” section of the Washington Times, D.C.’s conservative newspaper.
According to Wikipedia, the Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative media criticism organization based in Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1987 by L. Brent Bozell III. The MRC has received financial support from several foundations, including the Bradley, Scaife, Olin, Castle Rock, Carthage and JM foundations.
In the summer of 2005, Media Research Center launched NewsBusters in cooperation with Matthew Sheffield, a conservative blogger involved in the CBS Killian documents story. (MRC has accused Wikipedia of a liberal bias, arguing it “habitually delivers unflattering content about conservative media figures while giving liberals a much lighter treatment,” so you should take that in consideration when reading my definition of MRC that I took from Wikipedia.)
NewsBusters’ Mark Finkelstein (above, at right, on his “rightAngle” show) also has blogged negatively about Bloodlines and the interviews Burgess has been receiving at the hands of the “liberal media.” In the NewsBusters’ blog entitled, “ABC Gives Airtime to Documentary-Maker With Dubious Rep Suggesting Resurrection a ‘Trick’,” Finkelstein takes on Bigfoot indirectly.
Finkelstein mentions the ABC interviewer addressed his concerns with Burgess in this fashion: “I do have to point out the fact that some of your other documentary work includes the Bermuda Triangle, Area 51, looking for Big Foot in Oklahoma. Why should we believe you of all people when it comes to something this huge?”
But this wasn’t enough for Finkelstein, who wrote that ABC’s “apologetic challenge fell well short of informing viewers just how bogus Burgess is. After all, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with documentaries about such subjects, so long as they take a hard, critical look at the claims.”
Okay, let me understand this. There is a new documentary, which has been made that takes a “hard, critical look at the claims” for the story of Jesus’s Resurrection. But something is wrong with it because the filmmaker’s newest production seems to not entirely believe the story of Jesus and has to be bogus because the filmmaker has made documentaries on topics like whether or not Bigfoot exists in Oklahoma, right?
Finkelstein, besides writing for NewsBusters, is also the host of “rightANGLE” (yes, it’s spelled that way), which is a weekly public-access Ithaca, New York, conservative television talk show. It was created by a group of local Republicans as “a counterweight to the liberal culture and media.” (Viewership numbers are not mentioned in Finkelstein’s overview.)
Do Whitlock and Finkelstein even know how to analyze and talk about documentary films without showing their own biases so overtly?
I taught a course on documentary film for thirteen years at a university in New England. I can tell you that Finkelstein and Whitlock don’t have a clue when discussing this subject. Every documentary film produced has a bias, a statement, and/or a comment to make about the point of view of the filmmaker.
Believe it or not, a “hard, critical look” at the subject matter being discussed within a documentary is not part of the definition of what makes a film a documentary. This has been true for a long time, and is in evidence from Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph Of The Will (1935) to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (2006).
As I noted to my students in my course, when discussing the example of Nanook of the North (1922), historically noted as the “first documentary,” even that film is full of bias.
Nanook of the North was heavily biased to show the “normal AngloSaxon” family that Robert J. Flaherty wanted to re-create in the film. It was biased in its film set-ups by having the Inuits, for instance, move towards the already-placed camera.
Flaherty did things like filming inside half a super-igloo that he had the Inuit build so he would have enough light inside it. The reality is that igloos are smaller, darker, and definitely not as you see them in Nanook of the North.
Few knew at the time that Flaherty had a wife back home and two or more Inuit “wives” with him while he was filmmaking. Lost in some documentary courses is the fact that Robert Flaherty left with his film, made big bucks with Nanook of the North, and yet two years later the “star” of the film (Allakariallak, who played “Nanook”) died of starvation while living out the lifestyle that he actually lived in north-central Canada (not the one Flaherty “created” in his documentary).
A documentary film is a nonfiction motion picture produced from the point-of-view of the filmmaker, with his or her capturing of reality based on the filmmaker’s sense of what that reality is.
Bruce Burgess’s filmmaking career shows he likes anomalist films, such as documentaries on Bigfoot. I don’t know if Burgess is merely trying to make a living, in the wake of the financial success of The Da Vinci Code, when he made Bloodlines, or if he really “believes” what he filmed. I actually doubt fully the latter.
Every nonfiction film, every documentary, and actually, every blog should be viewed with a critical eye, “seen” and “read” thusly.
Whitlock’s and Finkelstein’s criticisms of Burgess are illogical, unconnected to any critical look at the material in his documentary, dismissive of Bigfoot without even looking at that evidence separately, and are ad hominem. I would have expected more from a couple guys trying to root out bias in the media.
BTW, I no more think that all “right wingers hate Bigfoot” than I consider that Burgess’s Bigfoot TV documentary, “Bigfootville,” is the final word in hominology.
If you don’t approach all documentaries and blogs with some kind of critical thinking, you’re in big trouble.
- Similar Phenomena:
- Jesus and Bigfoot »
- Are Cell Phones Wiping Out Bees? »
I have heard about ancient and official documents from the Roman Empire (pre-catholic) concerning the person we call Jesus Christ (which is the greek/latin translation of his real name Yeshua Ben-Joseph or Yeshua Hamashiak [I believe the spelling of that last word is right]). Always remember that the books of the Bible most accurate about the life of Jesus are Matthew and John. Both were 2 of His disciples. Matthew was a tax collector, which also makes him a historian and a fact monger. John was Jesus’ best friend within the group. I have also heard there are documents about His death and resurrection. Let’s also not forget that officially the tomb for Jesus has not been found. Mohammad’s has been found. They think they found one tomb that would fit the story, especially concerning how the head and feet of the tomb have been chip away to make more room (Jesus was suppose to be a head taller). This would also follow the stories that Joseph of Aramathia (the owner of the tomb) went to the British isles and was never buried in his tomb. Oh, I almost forgot to say that our society needs to restart its thinking. I’m tired of hearing, “I like so-n-so, but he’s on the other political group, so I guess I will vote for…” People need to remember that no matter what political party they vote, they are voting in people, apt to make mistakes and be greedy and stupid. No one person is going to fix 20 or more bad years of politics.
I always find it interesting that extremely right wing conservatives frequently accuse everyone else of having an agenda. It would seem that by ridiculing the film maker’s work, they are wishing to suppress his point of view. That seems like a big agenda to me. To pick at his past works in an attempt to bash his most recent seems like the desperate efforts of those who are having a hard time coming up with a critical analysis of the documentary. It’s like a logical debate being reduced to “Yeah? Well… you’re… UGLY!” Nah!
I’m no liberal or right wing bias machine. That being said I don’t even think these guys have seen the movie.
Hello All,
I have not posted here ever but always read Cryptomundo everyday and really enjoy it. This post has motivated me to finally comment here.
Personally, I am a Christian Conservative and my wife and I attend a local Catholic Church every Sunday and enjoy it very much. I wouldn’t say that I am completely devout but I do believe in God and Jesus Christ and lean to the right in quite a few areas but I also believe it’s very possible that Bigfoot exists also, is that strange for someone to hear, that a practicing Christian would believe that? I don’t know why. I do not have any problems with Mr. Burgess’s making of a documentary on Jesus Christ. I have not seen it so it’s impossible for me to comment on it specifically but I have seen Bigfootville and enjoyed it very much. I think (IMO) that just because he has made other documentaries on “Crypto” subjects I would not think that it disqualifies him from making any documentary on any subject. If he is in fact attacking Chritians then it wouldn’t be the first time a filmaker has done so, nor will it be the last and I would have a problem if there is clear bias.
I do believe, however, that there is no denying that Christianity as a whole is viciously attacked every single day. If you need evidence of this and believe this is not true then you are either not watching what goes on in the world or are one who supports the attacks on Christianity or possibly you are an sub-moronic idiot who can’t add two and two, combinations work also in that regard.
Religious Freedom is one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights and I don’t have a problem with anyone who chooses to practice any religion. George Carlin may be an atheist or as he describes himself as an “Frisbeetarianism” and of course being a Catholic Christian I disagree with him, but I agree with him about one thing “keep thy religion to thyself”, I do, but on the other hand, everyone else should leave us Christians alone please. Were sick of it. Religion has nothing to do with a persons morals and character, as many bad things that have been done throughout history by Christians but there are as many bad things that have been done by other people of other religions and non-relogious people. It just proves one thing, there are good and bad people out in the world, there have always been, there always will be. Religion has little to do with it. People have done bad things in the name of Religion (Spanish Inqusitions) but also to a Religion (Holocaust). Nuff Said.
Organized Religion. The great mind-poisoner.
this is one of the best posts you’ve made in months imho, Loren.
it captures the extreme mania in the political culture which has become the ‘norm’ of our society, and shows how the polarization has threatened the very schism that once healthily existed between rational thought and religious tolerance.
it’s important to remember that our Founding Fathers did not create American democracy as a right-wing nor left-wing theocracy. rather, it was designed to be free from religious intolerance.
remember the poor Pilgrims, as we were all taught by rote memory in grade school? how they escaped from religious persecution and intolerance in order to worship ‘as they pleased’?
how sadly those same Pilgrims would look at the country we’ve created today, i suspect.
it’s disheartening how this once ’sacred’ myth has been redefined in the last decades via the neo-con agenda. now, anyone who questions The Right, questions no less than God Himself.
what was once free-thinking is now ‘liberal bias.’ what was once critical analysis and open debate are now Faux News and personal attacks. what was once religious tolerance is now the 100 Year Crusade in the Middle East.
we are in the first great stages of a rebirth/reaction against such dogma, i believe. it is long overdue, but good things DO come to those who wait, apparently. as the right wing’s salient icon (no, not Reagan, but Lincoln!) said: ‘not all the people all the time.’
whether that’s ‘liberal bias’ or simply (as you state) healthy critical thought and open-minded acceptance of others who may differ not as ‘The Enemy’ but as ‘my fellow American,’ i care less. i merely but gratefully welcome the fresh air of inclusivity rather than excommunication, myself. one ‘miracle’ at a time, after all.
if anyone herein does not believe we have damaged ourselves with rank divisionism and squabbling over the equivalent of how many angels dance on the heads of a pin, understand there truly IS at least one existent ‘liberal bias,’ to wit: hearing out your fellow citizen’s position, however different, rather than crucifying those who differ in the name of your god or anyone else’s.
for those who feel i have offended their religious beliefs, you have my apology in advance. but we must all remember that when you wed faith with politics and add the media, you have violated so many fundamental truths of our Constitution and Bill of Rights that one can truly argue the wrong folks have been apologizing for far too long.
“Does Loren Hate Christians?”
What is the purpose of this screed, Loren?
It isn’t as if “Bigfootville” was the focus against the producer of the a-historical hate propaganda. It isn’t as if “Bigfootville” gave the most flattering portrayal of cryptozoology.
You say ‘right-wingers’, that is, those opposed to tyranny, but it is a painting of the Last Supper that you lead with. It is Christians whom you attack.
So why the attack on Christians, Loren?
Extremely right-wing or not, we all have agendas. Let’s just admit that up front and move on with the other points of this article.
I have to say that a bigfoot investigator, or a cryptozoologist builds their credibility by sticking with their chosen domain of study. This is also true of UFOlogists, and even Egyptologists. If a Biblical scholar came out with these “revalations” it would be one thing, but yeah, a guy who jumps from UFO’s, to bigfoot, THEN to Jesus, has demonstrated a pattern of refutarianism, which cannot be painted as “critical thought” by any streatch of the imagination. The same was true of the two chemists who “discovered” room-temperature fusion. Nobody took them seriously because they wrote a paper outside of the footprint of their respective field. Am I to believe this guy is a comperable scholar in the Devil’s Triangle, Bigfoot, Greys, Government papertrails, AND Jesus? If that presumption doesn’t stretch credibility for you, then let me just say I have a map to the Ark of the Covenant that is for sale.
after attending several pa bigfoot conferences i would have to say that most bigfooters in that organization are about as right wing and totally red necked as you can get. right wingers ADORE bigfoot, because he’s hairy, dirty, primeval, aggressive, anti-woman and a survivalist’s icon.
Right-wingers cling to “god and government”. They don’t like to have either of their objects of irrational worship challenged.
Just goes to show you how far one can go with BS in attempt to hide ones ignorance. There is no reasoning with people that do not have the ability to reason. People who BS their way through life loose all touch with reality because they tend to truly believe the BS they are spreading. Thus the BS becomes reality for them. I agree with Classicrocker30, I don’t think those guys took the time to watch the movie either. Instead they were given a subject and instead of researching that subject (work) they opt to throw a bunch of made up BS out there in an attempt to make them look as if they know what they are talking about “an authority on the subject”. The sad part about it is a lot of us buy this BS and then we think the BS is reality which intern makes us more ignorant as well.
Break the BS cycle and research the truth. The truth is the only reality like it or not.
Hi Loren and all Crypto-readers,
Your article was well researched and well done.
I have to say, that I too doubt you’ll find any strong corrollation (spelling?) between broad political views and cryptozoological interest and acceptance.
I’m sure you’ll find as many skeptics and debunkers among the “far left,” with strong rationalistic, atheistic and “hard science” outlooks. I doubt that many readers of The Skeptical Enquirer, etc., are strong social conservatives.
Also, on the “far right,” are plenty of folks that are intrigued by all this “fringe” stuff. Most people I’ve met with strong UFO and/or conspiracy theory interest have tended also to be on the “grumpy libertarian” corner of the political map.
I could go on, but I agree with Loren that interest in the possibility of a species out there with the unfortunate nickname of Bigfoot, is a prime target for ad hominem attacks.
By the way, if the filmmaker in question had made a controversial documentary about Barack Obama, Bill or Hillary Clinton, or a cherished belief of the “far left,” I think it’s quite safe to assume that his previous Bermuda Triangle and Bigfoot documentaries would show up prominently in liberal/progressive reviews, articles and blogs denouncing such a film.
On a completely different note, I do find almost all of the material in the Da Vinci Code/Holy Blood, Holy Grail genre to be mainly written for the buck, and to cause a self-promoting stir… Find some murky folkloric “clues” and tie them in a bow sure to upset people with traditional beliefs and package it for an audience longing to thumb their noses at the old order. Voila!!
Thanks for a thought provoking entry!
Eric
P.S. - Loren, in the sixth paragraph of the article there is a typo: Mr Whitlock’s name is misspelled.
I am not sure if asking someone about previous works is considered bias.
Let’s look at our court system in the United States. Attorneys are allowed to ask witnesses questions about their past. They can do this if it pertains to the court case or they can proceed with that line of questioning if it can call into question the character of the person. Most of us probably think that are judicial system is fair or at least strives for objectivity and fairness. So it is fair game for attorneys to ask witnesses these types of questions about their past. So why would it be off the wall or showing bias if the reporters infer or even ask Mr. Burgess directly, about his past movies? That is not having a slant. It is almost exactly the same as the attorney asking a witness a question in court to establish the character of the witness. That is fair and balanced. All judges would allow it. So why is it not fair and balanced when the reporters ask questions pertaining to Mr. Burgess’ recent works? Isn’t it a movie that the reporters are asking him about? Is it so far fetched to bring into question past movies that he made? I see a very strong similarity to the reporters asking Mr. Burgess a question to establish character and slant just as an attorney would ask a witness a question to establish character or prejudice.
Seriously, I see no problem or bias or slant there that is blatant. In fact, I feel it is fair and objective to ask the questions or make reference to his past works. When it is done in court, it is certainly deemed permissable by the judge and considered objective and fair. So why not in an interview about a movie to a movie maker? And certainly, just as the lawyer would argue, asking a movie maker about a movie or past movies, certainly pertains to that line of questioning. By saying that the reporters must be biased because they brought up past movies is certainly fair game in my opinion. To imply that it is unfair or shows bias is bias itself when those questions are certainly acceptable in an interview and in a court of law.
I think I see the point you are trying to make with your post, but I do see some slant or bias on your part, in making your point. I’m not sure but maybe that was the point of your post. The same finger you are pointing at the reporters may have to point back at yourself, as I see nothing wrong or unethical in asking a movie maker, questions about previous movies to establish character or bias on the part of the movie maker. That’s fair game in my opinion. And our judicial system considers that line of questioning fair as well.
Anyway, thanks for making us all think a little harder today and dig a little deeper into our minds. That is always a good thing. Striving for objectivity and fairness and balance is not always easy. And your post was a good excercize for that. Thank you for the excercize today Loren!
Hello Loren,
Let’s be careful with labels. “Right winger” is so boiled-down as to communicate almost nothing (except an implicit insult to people who are conservative in one way or another).
Most importantly, “religious” does not equal “right winger,” whatever that is. I’ll use myself as an example: I am not a religious person by anyone’s definition, but I am conservative in many of my public policy choices. By contrast, lots of people take faith-based approaches to “liberal” (whatever that is) causes such as disarmament, war protesting, income redistribution and so forth.
And as you know from years of previous correspondence, I take Bigfoot entirely seriously.
Perhaps a more apt headline, and focus for your posting, would have been “Are people with a faith-based disposition to discredit Bruce Burgess being unfair when they drag Bigfoot into the discussion?”
How many times have you spent 30 or 60 minutes illuminating someone on the evidence for Napes and Bigfoot only to overhear your listner tell someone, “Oh, that’s Coleman, one of those Bigfoot nuts”? Ticked you off, right? But you’ve just visited exactly that kind of oversimplification on conservatives.
Why attack the Christians? Because, just like many other organized groups of people (i.e. the KKK), they sometimes need attacking. “Attack”, btw, is quite the strong word for what Loren has written…not entirely appropriate for this case, I think.
Someday, we’ll have a live sasquatch in captivity, proof to the world that our passions are legitimate. Does that mean that Jesus had heirs? No. So I don’t see how the reverse is any more relevant.
I am the vast right wing conspiracy sometimes referred to by Mrs. Clinton. Yes it’s true and overdue for the world to know.In the same vein of revelations many conservatives accept the reality of Bigfoot and indeed there were reports Janet Reno was a Sasquatch.Perhaps a documentary to find out?
I am also Christian and accept bigfoot as fact. Don’t understand why anyone would find this even mildy surprising. There are lots of us. We meet once a year in Stockholm and share homemade jellies and jams. you are all invited but store bought confections are strictly forbidden.
I do not accept evolutionary theory as fact.There are limits on what can be accepted by faith.
Two bloggers obviously do not speak for anyone other than themselves. Same as everyone else.
Bloggers frequently make no attempt to hide their bias for what they think. It is worn as a badge of honor and displayed for all to see. The problem would be for a biased blogger to hide their bias while blogging to discredit what they are opposed to. Honesty in bias is the ticket laddie! (partial quote borrowed from Scotty of Star Trek)
“gridbug responds:
May 7th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Organized Religion. The great mind-poisoner”
I disagree with your statement and find it needlessly inflamatory. I do appreciate your honest blatant bias though.
Best regards from the vast right wing conspiracy,Christain, bigfoot accepting,evolution theory disbeliever, jelly swappin’ Star Trek quotin’,Okie.
Doug Haijcek is my favorite director. He’s the guy you should talk about Bigfoot and other cryptozoology documentaries.
camperguy posts:
and then, in the next paragraph, adds:
camperguy, i’m not ‘attacking’ you or labeling you anything, but: how can you reconcile these two statements?
because if you don’t believe in evolution, does this mean you posit God created the world in 7 days?
and, if that is your reasoning, does that mean he created Bigfoot but keeps him hidden from man?
how does that jive with Adam and his naming of all of God’s creatures in the Garden of Eden? and what about the Ark and Noah? i mean, was Bigfoot an extremely good swimmer, or does Noah keep Sasquatch below deck, or..?
again, i’m not attacking you, but seriously curious how you ‘rationalize’ these discrepancies.
allow me to continue, again with no personal animosity, as i truly hope you’ll reply herein and not with a simple, ‘hey, that’s just the way God wills it,’ but with something akin to your true belief, stated as in-depth as you care to state it. or of course not; it IS a free country.
God, as i understand Him, doesn’t wall off faith with limits. didn’t Jesus Christ say, paraphrased, that the faith of a mustard seed would move mountains? oh yea of little faith and all?
so why wall off reason? Jesus also said, paraphrased, “God gave you a brain. Use it.” again, my paraphrase, but how do you interpret this command? to put on blinders when it doesn’t fit your local congregation, or to reason and wonder?
i see no conflict between faith and science. i have posted on this debate herein repeatedly, and as a believer in both, see nothing but a false conflict being continued on, ad infinitum.
why cannot you believe the sun rises and the sun also sets? there is no command, no scripture, that says it doesn’t.
again, the idea that Bigfoot exists, as you state, “as a fact” is unproven. many herein have posted — despite their bias towards a hopeful reality being proven — that such blind faith is unreasonable, in that it is a priori, like your faith, and relies not on skepticism + evidence, but opinion + dogma.
or: “i believe, therefore Bigfoot exists.”
again, not to knock your personal beliefs, but: how is that any different than believing in Jesus Christ simply because you do?
we’re not debating Jesus Christ and his profound impact on hundreds of millions of souls. or at least, we need not herein, as this is not a religious forum, but one devoted (pardon the pun!) to cryptozoology.
you know, the SCIENCE of discovering unknown species, not the FAITH they exist, pre-ordained. else, what is the point of cryptozoology? to post psalms to Bigfoot’s existence, or evidence that cannot be easily disputed?
i am not saying you shouldn’t post herein; just the opposite. but if you post that evolutionary theory is at odds with reality because “God said so” you are basically drawing the discussion into religious, not scientific, grounds. and closing it off to serious thought, as well as helping stereotype the science of cryptozoology as nothing more than faith adherents rather than serious scientists.
perhaps a religious belief in Bigfoot is understandable, especially as the cryptid elicits a sense of wonder in all of us who visit Cryptomundo. but i wonder: does it advance the SCIENCE of cryptozoology to make such blanket statements?
they may be your belief, but science and religion do not cancel one another out. they co-exist and fruitfully so for those willing and able to see no walls between facts vs. faith. i believe both; i do not see any conflict, and indeed, neither did Albert Einstein and many, many others who have made significant advances in our species without having to make a false choice.
for those of you who feel offended, remember: faith is the expression of belief without the necessity of facts, evidence, or theory. that is great, that is wonderful. it is also dogmatic, unable to be debated or disbelieved without charges of heresy, etc.
whereas, science offers us ALL a chance to debate the facts, theories, and weigh in without charges of being ‘against God’ and ‘the natural order of things’ — Bigfoot, electricity, space exploration, whatever.
like all seeming opposites, science and religion do not collide in a matter vs. anti-matter implosion. rather, they mutually co-exist, in natural harmony, without any conflict whatsoever.
as long as you believe…
CamperGuy! I agree wholeheartedly, and what a tremendous rebuttal!
Very good.
Interesting article.
Although I don’t consider myself a far right-winger, I’m definitely a staunch republican and it’s been my experience that roughly 2/3rd’s of my fellow researchers in this field (I know and interact with a lot of them around NA) are moderate to right wing conservative or even Libertarian. With 1/3rd definitely being left and or green.
A matter of fact, I was just joking with someone the other day that “why is it most of us in this field seem to be republicans because you’d almost expect it to be the other way around.”
i hope you’ll read my previous posting above re: this misunderstanding of what Loren was doing with his post.
you see, this is the nature of debate that is problematic when you bring your religious faith to the forefront of all else: you leave no room for any interpretation for anyone who disagrees without labeling such a person an ‘attacker,’ an ‘anti-christian,’ etc.
if you feel that Loren is attacking you but are posting within a site devoted to the science — not religion — of cryptozoology?
then why don’t you agree that his point is well-taken? that there are some Christians who are adherents to “my way or no way.” that these folks are as narrow-minded as any atheists and others who are unwilling to suspend their faith-based belief in order to enter into a discussion that requires no such statement of bias.
it’s not unlike Muslims who prohibit the depiction of Mohammed at the risk of death for those who would do so, as this would defile their religion. that’s fine if you’re an adherent, but: does this mean that the world should ignore the non-religious aspects? that we have no right as non-believers to critique and evaluate?
if not, then Jesus was really blonde-haired, blue-eyed, and a gentile Caucasian despite the fact that — in all probability — he was dark-haired, darker complexioned, and Jewish.
again, this is so off topic, i wish everyone herein would at least agree that no matter how much you may agree or disagree with Loren’s posting, it is significant that so-called “Right Wing” (i prefer fundamentalists, for that is closer imho to their religious status and bias) individuals do conduct campaigns to discredit science.
not left wingers. not right wingers. not apoliticals. not young. not old.
science itself.
to wit: there is no global warming, just a book written by Albert Gore to make money (when, in fact, the SCIENCE, not politics, is in overwhelming accord, even if there is skeptical and reasonable debate as to cause and effect); there is no evolution from a ‘monkey’ (in and of itself a grotesque mischaracterization of Darwin’s theory, as the Scopes Trial a century earlier addressed!), just 7 days and that’s that (despite radioactive carbon dating, fossils, geological sub-strata, mitochondrial DNA, etc.); and on and on.
the systematic campaign by such zealots — for that is what they are — is the point Mr. Coleman was making, not “attacking Christians.” he states as much in his posting, but many — far too many — faith believers simply refuse to see and concede that, in reality, there is no conflict between science and faith save the ones they themselves falsely create.
‘do not bear false witness against thy neighbor.’ it’s pretty clear, even if a politically-backed, religiously-funded agenda denies it. Loren displayed courage and logic, not animosity and dogma, in his posting.
i invite all of you who feel offended to re-read it with a new perspective: not through your faith, but with your mind. Jesus warned not to throw away the precious mental gifts God gave us all; who are we to do so without paying the price He warned us against if we do?
Cryptohaus, though I disagree with you on some of the tidbits, I think you make a good point: I myself had to walk away, digest it, and come back and read it again. I suggest others do the same. Read it once, twice, think it out, digest it, then make an opinion and or come to a conclusion.
Great posts from all sides.
I’m at work now, but find myself drawn back to this post all day…
There is just as much evidence for either belief (Jesus/Bigfoot), however, I suppose I will have offended some people out there for saying so.
I believe in both…
Hmmmm. It seems to me that Whitlock and Finklestein are identifying themselves as “Right” (politically conservative) leaning folks, so I don’t understand why “Right wingers” is construed by some commenting here as a denigrating term. Also, nothing in this Cryptomundo article, as far as I can see, is in any way, shape, or form an attack on Christianity, nor does it even address the value nor veracity of religion in any way. I don’t really understand why people seem so quick these days to consider themselves or their ideas to be under attack on such flimsy grounds as this. Truly, I don’t see it here. Wasn’t the main point of this article that Whitlock and Finkelstein dismissed Burgess’s documentary for reasons that don’t stand up under scrutiny? And, did so for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with its content, I might add. Or did I miss something?
I am a Jesus-follower, former Okie, conservative Republican (however, I think the party has left me), pro life-gun-feed the children-elderly & homeless, JC Watts/Condelisa supporter, who does not buy evolution, global warming or Chinese (except when on sale at Old Navy, Kohls or Target). I do defer to 1st century documents on questions Christ’s death, buriel and resurrection - although I am not a good speller. And my question for all of you bloggers is simply;
What would Bigfoot do?
Friends really, why can’t we live so harmoniously together as our hairy, bipedal friends? Do you hear of such squabbles arising from baquas and sasquatches? Do Woolyboogers and Foukes wage wars among each other. Or have we all become isolationist yowies in our attempts to corner the market on “right”?
Friends, one day we may all have to stand before Bigfoot. When he asks “why should I let you take the DNA evidence to prove my existence?” what will you say?
Wake up! In Bigfoot there is no kill or no-kill, BFRO and Mary Greene, Biscardi and Meldrum (again spelling could be an issue)Left wing and right wing. There’s just us. Crazy white guys with too much time on our hands - wanting like mad to catch a glimpse at this beautiful creature.
Seriously, I’ve been working on my message for tonight and I had to chime in . Whether you believe or not - may the love of Christ fill you with amazing joy!
Blessings and Peace.
Some thoughts…
It might have some relevance, the fact that the filmmaker is interested in and making films on pop-culture, anomalous topics. Yet, to try to discredit his current work by referring to past topics is, to my mind, a form of ad hominem, a logical fallacy.
I don’t know about right wingers in general, but I have read some creationist comments which were critical of Bigfoot. I think this is the case because the common perception of Bigfoot is of a “manlike ape”, and this sounds too much like evidence of evolution. (On the other hand, creationists apparently like the Loch Ness Monster, seeing it as confirmation of their belief in the co-existence of man and dinosaur.)
Our kind host’s observations about the maker bias inherent in documentaries is on the mark. We should always look at such films and programming with a discerning, critical eye.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I have long ago grown tired of the incessant bleatings of right-wingers, always crying wolf and liberal media bias. The ones crying the most, you can find huddled around the radio listening to Rush Limbaugh. No bias there, I don’t imagine.
“There is just as much evidence for either belief (Jesus/Bigfoot)”
I suspect there’s more evidence for Bigfoot than Jesus…
“(On the other hand, creationists apparently like the Loch Ness Monster, seeing it as confirmation of their belief in the co-existence of man and dinosaur.)”
It’s the same with any “living dinosaur*”-type cryptid, creationists want them as some sort of “magic bullet” against evolutionary theory…
*including pterosaurs and marine reptiles, neither of which are actually dinosaurs
Interesting commentary from all sides.
I tend to agree with Loren.
My beef with the Da Vinci Code and similar works can be best summed up by J. Douglas Kenyon, who in the book “Forbidden Science” stated that what Brown and others do is literalize a symbolic experience—i.e., making the Grail into something physical, like Mary Magdalene (possible spoiler alert?) instead of seeing it as a mystical, religious experience where the person that undergoes it is granted “enlightenment “and “self-actualization.”
That is “my” opinion, of course.
Just thrrowing that out there—interesting discussion.
—–Danger Will Robinson! Religous topics below!——
———Turn back now or be doomed!—————
——–For Crypto_Haus eys only
!—————–
Crypto_Haus………………..
I am also Christian and accept bigfoot as fact.”
The statement stands alone pointing out I as an individual accept bigfoot exists. I do not state bigfoot is a proven fact to anyone else, as an example I see something and you do not. It is a fact to me but not to you.
—————————————————–
I do not accept evolutionary theory as fact.There are limits on what can be accepted by faith.
Partly my humor, in pointing out the irony supporters of evolution sometimes exhibit. Debunk faith and yet must have considerable “faith” to support evolutionary theory.
Variety of life was rather limited and there was a considerable time period for for all kinds of evolution to takle place. Why didn’t it?
Evolution should be constant in the aspect that life will continue to change and adapt or mutate……So why was this not evident before the first mass extinction? Why wasn’t there a Trilobyte T-Rex?
Where is the scientific proof of single celled microscopic organisms developing into macroscopic multicelled organisms? If this is the pattern then why did it stop? Where is the never ending streams of new forms of life?
Statisically the Earth has not been in existence long enough for evolution to create humans through chance.
In my opinion it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation.
—————————————————–
camperguy, i’m not ‘attacking’ you or labeling you…”
Don’t sweat it. I’m not offended. Hope I’m not offensive. We can disagree on everything. The key is HOW we disagree.
In my opinion people are being instructed to use what God gave them and look around at the wonder of life that surrounds them as a testimony of creation and affirmation that there is a God in Heaven.
—————————————————–
Creation of world in seven days…….Could write a book on this topic and not cover it all. Short version since I believe the world was spoken into existence I have no problem accepting it was done in seven days. Something overlooked that may reconcile the age of the planet and the seven days is scripture that states there are times forgotten.
I don’t understand the seven days in relation to creating bigfoot and keeping bigfoot hidden….I do believe Bigfoot was created but no I don’t think there is divine intervention to keep Bigfoot hidden.
—————————————————–
the paraphrased stuff
—————————————————–
Jesus walked on the water yet his apostle was afraid of drowning because he had doubts. This was a man who knew Jesus and was seeing him stand on the water and still did not have enough faith because he had doubts. He “knew” it was impossible for him to walk on water.
Faith of the mustard seed……..Short version, faith in God makes impossible things possible.
—————————————————–
Why is Adam naming bigfoot a problem?
—————————————————–
Noah and the Bigfoot….I personally think the flood was regionalized and the term world should be considered to be known world. I sometimes think this would have been a good time to get rid of snakes.
—————————————————–
I think I answered and clarified. might have missed some stuff.Got lost going back and forth.
One more thing….the picture of Scott Whitlock…..
he looks like the kid “Alex” on the sci-fi tv series “Roswell”
I find it pretty pathetic to observe faith-based (I don’t necessarily mean Christian or religious) people trying to counter objectivity by trying to appear objective. Right-wing pundits make a living off the employ of a rhetoric of logical fallacy, which is effective to a great extent due to a large faith-based listening market.
That’s basically what I see happening invariably with every right-wing entity railing against a perceived liberal/left media bias. NPR, for example, is so objective it’s utterly boring by contemp. standards, yet it’s considered a bastion of liberalism. Something like Air America is blatantly left/liberal, but by comparison, not mainstream media.
The problem for right-wingers is, objectivity is not kind to their ideology, and of course, they don’t like it.
And I am a Christian btw. But the New Testament and much of the Old is very seriously at odds with a lot of what mainstream Christianity advocates these days in the U.S.
Some people steadfastly cling to both “big delusions”: God and government.
I don’t think your political affiliation really matters when it comes to believing in Bigfoot or any type of creature that is undiscovered. I am one of those right-wingers you talk about in your post (I believe in a free market environment not socialism) and I have been interested in Bigfoot since I was a child. I have also talked to many left-wingers (it goes both ways with the winger thing) that have no belief in any type of large ape/human creature. So as I said the political affiliation when it comes to believing in Bigfoot just doesn’t relate.
wow I really just came here from newsbusters, I check newsbusters about 4 times a week for the updates by jodi miller,, she is so hot and funny. I am a libertarian, so I hate leftist and feel sorry for the dupes that still are right wingers. Huas is a leftist, he holds dear the belief we evolved with no proof, he also like karl marx runs around yelling at people about how science has proven without a doubt or discussion we are all from monkeys. Kinda (exactly) the way al gore has ran around trying in vain to shut up anyone that says his billion dollar global warming is a hoax. This time we know the sky is not falling, and we know BS so called science has not proven it, just as we now can say darwin was wrong and karl marx and the leftist lead to the deaths of over 100 million people.
Huas needs to be kept away from the kids with his insane retoric.
I don’t think anyone is trying to bash
anybody. People have strong feelings
about religion.
I have studied many of them - myself;
an agnostic.
That just means that it’s too big of an
issue to find an answer for.
I have respect for religion though.
The Washington Times was started by the controversial Reverend Moon. It’s basically a right wing think take(oxymoron) which became mainstream media thanks to Fox News after 9/11. Hmmm..The late William Buckley spoke out against spin machines like the Wash Times, Amer. Ent. Institute, Brookings, Heritage, and all the other fascist organizations that have sprung up. Unfortunately he was only heard on PBS. Most if not all are neo-conservative groups who are supposedly faith based, but most of all pro-big oil, big corporation, pro-Israel, etc….They are in cahoots and all part of the Rove-Cheney machine. Sickening to say the least. The Wash Times, who seems to have a countless number of writers on Fox News has a subscription of just over 10,000. What? Look it up.
Does anybody find it strange that they would even comment on the subject of someone else’s belief or questioning of Bigfoot and contrast it to their belief in Jesus? If you firmly denounce the existance of a creature and firmly believe and preach the existance of another why would feel the need to scrutinize some other’s opinions on the subjects. He who knows he knows, knows nothing. He who knows he knows nothing, really knows. That’s an ancient chinese proverb.
hoo boy… this is gonna be a LONNNNNNNG one, folks!
please excuse and skip over if you’re not the intended recipient, and my sincere apologies for going so far off the subject, but…
Justncredible writes of me:
i want you to realize that, while i will refuse to descend to your level of character assassination and untoward personal attacks (as unlike yourself i don’t feign to know you; your belief you somehow know me is self-delusional and speaks for itself), i do feel several of your comments are so spurious and negative/inflammatory they warrant my response.
first, that wouldn’t be ‘retoric’ (sic) but ‘rhetoric.’ and not ‘Huas’ (sic) but ‘Haus.’
if you can bother to pry yourself away from newsbusters (which has nothing to do with cryptozoology as far as i know, nor does your erroneous posting as to the frequency with which you visit it; kindly correct me if i am wrong) and merely bother to scroll upwards, you’ll even find a convenient ‘cheat hint’ of the proper spelling of my name!
note that as a ‘common courtesy’ (a term you may need to Google for further elucidation) i have spelled your name as you write it. again, this is not a requirement herein, we all make typos and mistakes — or are you the exception? you certainly imply you are; we’ll address that momentarily.
but, you know, we ‘Marxists’ as you incorrectly label me are notorious for wanting such extreme ideals as correct spelling, proper grammar and even (perish forbid!) a debate about ideas rather than character-based attacks on folks.
quaint like that we are, alas. sigh… were that we could all be as enlightened as jodi miller (she’s ‘hot’ as you so eloquently state, and ‘funny’ too!).
btw, this isn’t a jodi miller forum either, sir; you may wish to note that as well when you next visit this site (not that, you know, it seems to make much difference to you where you post nor what about).
now, to the particulars, as again, i don’t wish to cast aspersions against you as a person; i think you do that well enough without my assistance.
you hate? that’s a very interesting admission. i think quite accurate and revealing as to your true nature, but that’s my opinion, not even a theory nor a fact.
i suggest you study, however, your semantic usage herein — it would be ‘leftists’ or ‘lefties’ if you’re feeling casual, not ‘leftist’ (sic) as you write. again, we Leninists can be sticklers for arcane ideas like correct plural use, i thoroughly admit!
now, do you know that Thomas Jefferson was a libertarian? and that libertarianism as a modern philosophy stems from (uh oh) ‘leftist’ origins?
here’s the Wikipedia entry (though granted, you’ll probably find fault with open source knowledge databases as well!) on your stated political affiliation:
so, which is it that you are, sir? a ‘classic conservative’ or an ‘enlightenment liberal’? either way, your ‘hate’ for both ‘leftist’ (sic) and ‘dupes’ who self-profess as right wingers leaves you as adrift as the Libertarian Party is ineffective itself!
my own definition of Libertarian members equals: “those who withdraw in disgust from making a difference but feel free to utilize their apathy — for no one in the party advocates anything save inaction by default — to deride others who take political stands and the responsibility and consequences of their positions, as a result.”
it’s easy to be self-marginalizing, as your statements about me prove your positions to be by nature. you simply laugh at others, attempt to humiliate them (herein one can suggest you failed), and therefore absolve yourself (or so you believe) from the responsibility both of action and civic honor.
you merely take the easy way out: you criticize me as an individual while holding yourself above all such criticism. you state you ‘feel sorry’ for one group and ‘hate’ (your word choice) another, feeling smugly superior to all herein who took the chance to debate rather than espouse.
if that’s a ‘new way’ or your idea of being a Superior Moral Being?
brother, i AM a commie pinko liberal as you erroneously mischaracterize my political beliefs! yes, a horrid liberal of the type Thomas Jefferson was, sir, and most decidedly not the type who believes one can merely state an opinion as fact and mischaracterize others’ points of view to no gain save debased self-amusement.
jodi miller is ‘funny,’ as you state. i suggest your opinions are not. perhaps if the curve is too steep for you newsbusters is a better place to ‘let it all hang out’? to be ‘hot’ and ‘funny’?
evolved with no proof? holds dear? excuse me, i think you left jodi miller on too loudly in the background! that or — more likely — you didn’t read the civil nature of the postings between, say, myself and camperguy who disagreed on certain statements but felt no need to vilify one another in the process.
it’s called ‘civility.’ again, you MAY need to spend less time on newsbusters (how quaint that name!) and more at, say, Wikipedia or whatnot in order to comprehend the meaning of that term. the information is there, however; but you will need to type (or cut n’ paste) it into the browser window, okay?
i do apologize, however. we can’t all be above the fray like you, sir. the rest of us simply must ‘run around screaming’ (which is funny given this is a virtual forum; not to bust your bubble, but, uh, this isn’t reality!).
now, about Mr. Marx. i am not a Marxist. i’m not even a leftist. i’m an American. you have to ascertain what that means politically for yourself, sir. it MAY tax you, but therein lies the beauty of our freedom of speech. you give, you take, you learn (or, as in jodi miller’s case, not).
but, if you bother, you’ll find that Mr. Marx was not a ‘run around’ kind of guy, nor was he a ’screamer.’ nor was he, i grant you, ‘funny’ nor ‘hot.’
he was, in fact, rather quiet and shy, a writer in the classic sense. he wrote words, not invective. you may or may not agree with his critiques — i have problems with everything he espoused, personally — but that does not make him a ’screamer.’
as for ‘running around’? well, he appears rather portly in the pictures i have seen of him, a common affliction of writers who sit behind desks, i know from fact (not theory). but hey, i plead ‘nolo contendre’ on this account; perhaps you have personal knowledge on the subject of his exercise regime i lack. score one (and only one) for you, IF so.
nor, at any point, do i post herein that we evolved ‘without proof’ (as you state) from ‘monkeys.’ that’s not even Darwin’s theory! in fact, i state quite the opposite to your stated opinion. i state repeatedly that these issues are not facts, they’re theories. i state that theories can be debated, whereas religion is de facto dogmatic.
evidently, religion as i define it thusly is equivalent to YOUR version of libertarian ideals? you know, only a few are worthy, and thankfully, as you would perhaps state, ‘i am one of the Chosen Few’?
as for Mr. Gore? you ascribe the typical right winger mentality Loren’s post initially described in regards to his theory, devoid of your proclamations of being a right wing ‘dupe’ you feel ’sorry’ for to the contrary, sir.
there’s not much doubt in terms of scientific consensus versus opinionated statements (such as yours which offer no proof merely personal attacks) there is a global climate issue. and not merely for Mr. Gore’s personal enrichment, either.
or do you seriously suggest that the majority of the world’s scientists who are in large THEORETICAL agreement that the crisis is real are, what, in conspiracy together for Mr. Gore’s personal gains? now THAT’s a debate i welcome and challenge you to have, IF you can maintain a civil tone. why do i have my doubts you could keep it so, however?
of course, none of the above means science is ‘right’ and you’re ‘wrong.’ that’s the problem inherent in your philosophy as presented, sir. it seeks to quash all things into two-dimensions, while the rest of us live in and cohabitate a 4-D (at the least!) universe.
or do you not concede the flat earth argument yet either?
if not? i have some SHOCKING NEWS for you. those ‘wacky scientists’ are ‘at it again’ and theorize the world is round. the good news? another theory called ‘gravity’ suggests you can release your armchair you’re gripping as you read this and not worry about ‘falling off the planet.’
just theories of course. no ‘proof’ they exist. but give those eggheads some ill-gotten goverment grants and no telling… they might (gasp!) prove it or something. those scientists… they’re ‘hot,’ y’know?
WE can now say?
for a libertarian, that sounds DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to group thinkspeak! i thought, i mean… isn’t the whole point of your philosophy as a self-proclaimed libertarian that you represent not others but yourself? that you speak for you and you alone, not the rest of us?
let’s grant you the argument, as i’m feeling generous. do you equally grant our own form of democracy has contributed to tens of millions of deaths as well?
or are you AGAIN exempt from any responsibility in human history because your convenient philosophy so excuses you?
man, no WONDER you like being a libby! were that i could believe so easily in self-deception, i too would ‘join up’ with your motley cast of self-willed minority outsiders.
but i critically reason. i reject the labels such as you and others easily cast onto people and philosophies. it may make me a pinko commie (your belief, not mine), but it also frees me from having to feel superior to everyone herein.
me? i like the folks herein. i value their contributions. i don’t find myself better nor worse than them; i find them my equals. well, most of ‘em. don’t read too much between the lines, sir, you may get your feelings hurt and we wouldn’t want that now, would we?
given the poverty of language you espouse versus the wealth of sharing ideas and reasoned debate with others herein i experience?
i wouldn’t trade your ideals for the world. i like being challenged, having to think. it makes the world (or at least my world) a better, richer, saner place. which, as you state i’m insane, you can probably understand is a valuable achievement for me.
and finally:
sigh * okay, that would be ‘Haus’ not ‘Huas’ (sic). again, it’s not such a stretch to simply scroll up and cut n’ paste, y’know? especially when you’re going to make attempts at hurling invective and risk looking foolish if you don’t bother to at least spell the name of your ‘victim’ properly!
and what my family has to do with anything i have stated herein and/or my parental rights is truly deplorable and beneath EVEN YOU, sir. i mean, your statements warrant little respect as presented; i have endeavored in the spirit of freedom of speech and critical reasoning (not ‘hot’ but healthy in a democracy) to show you how baseless your mean-spirited comments are upon further clarification and rebuttal.
but my kids? shame on you. you really lack dignity, sir; i ask you refrain from mentioning my family again. it demonstrates a lack of character. but lacking it, you may feel it necessary to equally slander my pets, my neighbors, and everyone else within this forum with whom you don’t agree, as well.
as Mark Twain said so much better than i have and in so far fewer words in regards to your illogical positions as stated by yourself for all to read and critique, and i paraphrase (that means, you know, i am not claiming this is quoted accurately, okay?):
“tis better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
to which i will further paraphrase: “tis better to be thought a libertarian than type in an open forum and remove all decency.”
i wish you well, sir, truly. you’ll find that by reducing your snide remarks and staying focused on the debates, you’ll do far better than ’swift boating’ we ‘godless commies,’ which i am NOT and which i will never allow to be written of me without rebuttal.
as Paul Harvey always said, “Good Day!”
You can say it all you want, even though you’re completely wrong…
Blue Mako, so well said, and so few words.
sigh… if only i could be so pithy AND so right.
“He who knows he knows, knows nothing. He who knows he knows nothing, really knows”
Amdusias is spot on (See earlier post)
A person cannot be an expert in every field, unless you’re Leonardo Da Vinci. If a person does not have good knowledge in a particular field, it is easy to approach the subject with wrong suppositions and assumptions. If Mr Burgess has not studied Christian theology and Ancient Near Eastern history, then he should be relying on experts in their field. And as far as the often rolled out theory that Jesus left bloodline heirs(Dan Brown etc), there is not one serious top notch academic who works in this field who would support it.
With regard to Bigfoot however, the evidence is substantial, and a growing number of serious scientists are shwoing an interest, let alone experienced scientists i the field such as Dr Jeff Meldrum.
On the subject of Jesus and Bigfoot, I have marveled for some time at how much the image on the Shroud of Turin resembles the portrayal of Bigfoot from the Six Million Dollar Man TV series. There must be a connection between that show and DiVinci’s Priory.
[For more on this “topic,” see here.]
*gridbug responds:
“Organized Religion. The great mind-poisoner. ”
*kentmcmanigal responds:
“Right-wingers cling to “god and government”. They don’t like to have either of their objects of irrational worship challenged.”
*TaishaMcGee responds:
“Why attack the Christians? Because, just like many other organized groups of people (i.e. the KKK), they sometimes need attacking. ”
Wow. As Democrats are we really supposed to knee-jerk to stereotyping and hate-speech so quickly? Really guys, nobody likes a bigot. I may have to rethink my political affiliations….clearly I have been voting under a missaprehension of my party’s base. I thought we were a big tent. **blink**
*In response to the statment that Darwin has been proven wrong:
“You can say it all you want, even though you’re completely wrong…”
Actually modern scientists are quick to refute most of what Charles Darwin had to say. Natural Selection is the sub-set of Darwin’s paper that is generally accepted. Sexual Selection is the next most accepted, but very controversial theory in the stack, and it goes down hill from there. For example in the second addition of “Origen of Species” Darwin himself added a small phrase…”by the Creator”. So an athiest would not be able to also believe Darwin was infallably correct. (Not trying to attack your Darwinian religion, just bringing demonstrable facts to the table.)
Again, why all the anti-Christian hate? What has that to do with cryptozoology? Loren recently gave kudos in an obit to a Christian and creationist cryptozoologist who recently passed away.
What shall Cryptomundo be about: Cryptozoology, or Christian-bashing?
I haven’t seen the movie that brought this about. I don’t know what position he takes. I haven’t commented on that apart from what it -appeared- to be for, and on that I might be wrong. But I am a low-grade expert in that field, and the whole ‘bloodlines/Dan Brown/gnostic gospels-that-Mohammad-followed’ thing is utter, arrant nonsense. And the overwhelming majority of the -unbelieving- portion scholarly community says that, too. I erred in speaking ill of a film I haven’t seen, based on what it -seemed- to be about, based upon Loren’s using it as an opportunity to spread hate against Christians. That isn’t usually what Loren does, and it puzzles me.
I could answer every statement that has been made here, with facts, insofar as the attacks on Christ and Christianity are concerned. However, is this really the forum for that? Isn’t this supposed to be about uncatalogued but ethnoknown animals?
What will it be? Cryptozoology or Christian-bashing?
Please choose.
Loren got what he wanted. A big reaction. The title of his blog was meant to provoke a reaction. That’s like starting a discussion about Aids by saying “Do all Homosexuals have Aids?” and then saying let’s have a good, fair & unbiased discussion about Aids. He proved what a bigot he and many of his readers are. There were a few well reasoned and fair posts here but I’m shocked to find this degree of narrow mindedness in a group that should revolve around open mindedness. And “Bigfootville”, Does anybody here think that was really any kind of valid investigative documentary? Really! You learned what about the subject from this shamumentary? I’ve seen the other “shows” mentioned & they’re no better. This junk is what counts as a scholarly investigation? It was uninformative, staged & predictable. And the producer’s credentials are what exactly & his bias is what exactly? This guys motives can’t be questioned by somebody on the Right? Only those on the Left can question these things. These aren’t serious or valid documentaries or investigations. It’s shameless exploitation. You know it and I know it. My investigation into what kind of cereal I’m going to buy for breakfast was more exhaustive than that bit of clap trap. It seems to be the left leaning academics that are hammering the cryptozoologists loudly and regularly, not the person in a church pew on Sunday mornings. I think I’ll get my news of the unexplained elsewhere, without the bias. It’s sort of funny that if proof of sasquatch is ever found there’s a fair chance it’ll be one of those right wing, gun totting hunters, that some of you so despise, that finds it. Whether it be via a trail cam or by actually finding conclusive physical evidence. Not somebody setting in their living room trying to prove to the world their vast knowlege via an internet blog or somebody at some university preaching that they’re more open minded than anybody else, when just the opposite is true. Yeah, my leanings are to the right and I’m also very open minded. I’m open to new input on ANY subject. I’m just tired of the self proclaimed open minded yelling down and belittling anybody that has a remotely conservative view. It’s a shame that politial persuasion was brought into this in the first place. That that need was there says much. That somebody who believes in Jesus and doesn’t believe bigfoot is labeled narrow minded says even more. If you discount Jesus and believe in bigfoot I guess that makes you an open minded intellectual and qualified to be the arbiter of truth. Goodbye from a very disappointed reader.
Could sschaper and others, perhaps, need a lesson in critical reading as well as critical thinking? The above comment by ss is so ridiculous I did not delete it, even though it is so personal and incorrect as to be distasteful.
This blog may feel anti-Christian to some, but I have a sense that has more to do with certain people’s sensitivities than it being tied to my actual stance.
Please try to re-read the blog to discover what it is really about, which is some commentary on bias, on Fortean films being misunderstood, and about a Bigfoot documentary filmmaker’s history being used to dismiss his current work (which you may recall I am not promoting and now must add for those that don’t get it, endorsing either).
Yes, I got a big reaction because I used a headline on purpose to get one. People ignore that these kinds of blogs are saying negative things about Bigfoot documentaries and your areas of interest all the time. I wanted to bring it to a level of open-discussion, realizing, of course, that the danger was the killing of the messenger too.
Thanks Loren–well stated. We do get lost in the details and miss the big picture when something hits our personal belief system. But on the other hand, its always good for each of to examine what we believe and why. That keeps us from falling into complacency in our thinking.
There will always be a “nay-sayer” for every Amen out there. It can’t be helped and I’m not entirely sure we would want it any different. We need to look in ourselves to see what we really believe.
Incendently, We Christians who are critical thinkers might reach different conclusions than others who are also critical thinkers, but that doesn’t mean we’re wrong because we disagree with the majority. It is right for us, so we ask that those beliefs be respected.
also, one reason that Christians don’t generally buy into Evolution theory is that God said, as He created everything, that it was good. Later He says that death came to the world through the turning away from God which is called sin. Consequently, it is difficult to imagine God creating creatures that visciously killed each other and died and then calling it “good”. It doesn’t fit. Evolution is a commonly held belief but it has yet to be conclusively proven–which makes it a matter of faith every bit as much as religious faith which also hasn’t been proven. And faith is subjective, based on personal observation and and acceptance of certain dogma as fact.
So let’s just live in our personal beliefs, respect each other, and get on with finding Bigfoot. I am becoming more convinced that Bigfoot will not turn out to be anything like the mythic creature we have made him out to be.
The REAL problem with the right wing and the left wing, as far as I’m concerned, is that if hey don’t flap in synchronicity, the poor bird plummets to the ground!
The 2 cents from a mexican cryptomundian
Good lord Loren, look at what you created, a comments monster
.
Ease up folks. Labels for people don’t work. One can be a devout Christian but not fit the mold of any label. This goes for liberals, right wings and so on, so forth and ext. All groups however do have many folks that are quite misguided. There in lies the problem.
I believe Whitlock and Finklestein have an agenda just as others who berate the authors and producers of controversial subjects even before those have been publicly exhibited have. This is how they CONTROL people. By getting one person to not view or read or hear something and to echo that assumption to others, they are now in control. They all seem to have different agendas either political or religious or both. It’s just control, and some people are masters at it. If it weren’t for religion and the IRS, this country would be a whole lot better.
Remember always: Ol’ Squatch ain’t never killed nobody. Relgion has caused the death of billions…
NightFlight Responds:
*”Remember always: Ol’ Squatch ain’t never killed nobody. Relgion has caused the death of billions…”
Not true. Wars are fought over resources alone. Gold, oil, food, water, land, and slaves.
Religion is often the scapegoat, but never the actual cause. Even the crusades were about providing baronies to the decendents of an over-abundance of European nobles. Land.
To be as fair as what is posted, I must ask the question, “Why are all Bigfoot hunters, including Loren, just as foul and untruthful as Tom Biscardi?”
Seriously. All this article does is create a stereotype and then create a false premise based on an extreme. Loren, according to your own tactics, your word is just as deceptive and unscientific as Tom’s. Why is it that just because one “crypto-zoologist” is foul, then they all must be foul. Wait! Isn’t this unfair? How can I compare Loren to Tom? Why not, Loren just compared me, as a right winger, to someone who can’t think critically.
This is a sad day in the life of this blog. I do not believe a word that I just wrote to be true, but that is exactly what this post suggests using the logic written above.
I suggest we start another entry entitled, “Are all crypto-zoologist liars?” an then cite two crypto-zoologist that utterly show that all must be liars.
Just re-read Lorens’s column which I didn’t have time to do more than peruse at lunch. As a Christian I don’t see any bias from Loren in it. In fact I see an attack on a film maker who struck a nerve in some right-wing religionists. Now I am a hardcore believer in Jesus mind you, and I take the Bible literally after studying the CONTEXT of the scriptures. Any one can take something out of context and make it say whatever suits them, agreed? This is where we get into silly arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or we ascribe to God our own human frailities (the whole “God is dead” thing, for example), or whether a non-believer has the right to make a film about Jesus. It’s not critical thinking, or a meeting of the minds, it’s silly “is, is not” arguing and it’s childish.
I am confident and comfortable in my personal beliefs and I should be able to withstand scrutiny from those who don’t believe as I do without blowing a gasket about it. Frankly, if someone’s that touchy about it then they need to examine themselves a little further–they apparently are insecure in their faith. Ultimately, I believe God is big enough to stand up for himself without my, or anyone else’s, help.
Amdusias,
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I stand by my beliefs. The not so Civil War is the only war that springs to mind that probably wasn’t religiously oriented. Most of the other wars that the US has fought have been religious in the beginning i.e. our christianity is better than the church of England, twice, better than native American beliefs, better than Spanish catholicism, twice, better than German (Austrian) dogma and then fascism, better than communism cold and hot, and now hopefully its better than islam. (infidels have their heads chopped off and anyone that isn’t islamic is an infidel). As far as resources go, I know of no victors that have increased their vaults of gold, tanks of oil, food, etc. by winning a war. I truly believe that there are no winners in a war. It may be true that the bankers and military industrialists on both sides and outside orchestrate behind the scenes to foment war to increase their coffers. I have seen war first hand and its not pretty. Religion is used to lift up the troops’ spirits and give them a reason to continue fighting. I personaly find fault with that, especially in a constitutionaly undeclared war. Christianity teaches to turn the other cheek, etc. Another thing I disgree with is having this forum go from the obvious manipulation of media types to a contrast of religions. Where are you ‘Squatch?
I am a Christian conservative, and an ardent believer and researcher of Sasquatch. With that said, I have no problem raising questions about the life of Jesus. The doubters have been doing so from the time of his death, and will continue to until the time of his return. In the midst of the time between, the factual account of his life as portrayed in the Bible has stood the test of time because it is both accurate and literal in it’s context. Individuals who have faith in Jesus Christ and those who subscribe in the existence of Sasquatch have long had to endure the wrath of the unbelievers. If anything, this should bind both communities and display this common ground in the subjects. One day Jesus will return, and one day Sasquatch will be scientifically become more than a legend. Until then, I’ll pray daily and use my weekends to search the woods.
wow, i used to live in California, was even there during the riots of the 90s, and this is starting to feel eerily reminiscent to that time in terms of acrimony.
i keep hearing Rodney King’s plea: “Can’t we just all get along?”
but seriously: can’t we?
i mean, you say tomato, i say Catholico, but let’s NOT call the whole thing off!
a final thought (at least for now!) for me is: i’ve often noted the ‘bigfoot believers’ camp tend to be much more conservative in orientation than liberal by nature.
i think this is because many more conservatives are from rural to semi-rural areas whereas liberals tend to be more concentrated in bigger cities. not only, so no stereotyping, but just an observation of SOME of the ‘real life’ semi-pro cryptos i’ve personally met and known over the years.
i’d guess (and that’s all it would be) that most are Christian conservatives at that. i think the issue many have with evolution is antithetical to their belief in Sasquatch, but they rightly point out (from their pov) that one does not preclude the other.
still, i find most liberal ’squatch afficiandos are more skeptical, while the conservative religious ones seem to be more believers. i think that having assauged their doubts (mostly, we’re all human, after all, not God!) they are more accepting of a possibility of Bigfoot without evidence, as they accept God without the evidence many skeptical liberals would desire.
that’s not to say liberals can’t and don’t believe in God. they obviously do.
but it is to point out that if you can easily toss aside Evolution for Creation as a valid theory substitute with no scientific evidence to support Creation — and please, don’t try to convince me otherwise, as i have expressed my ‘bias’ (i’d call it reasoned opinion) in this regard — you probably don’t need cryptozoological evidence to believe in cryptids.
some of you will (based on the out of proportion response so far) perceive this as another “attack” on your faith. others will say, “Oh yeah, so we Christian conservatives are gullible, is that it?”
well, no! but if you see a conflict between science and God, then why should need scientific proof for Bigfoot’s existence? that’s all i’m saying.
lastly, i think Loren’s posting shows that the same folks who would tell you Neanderthals co-existed side-by-side with dinosaurs AND Adam and Eve in that first 7 day week of man’s existence only, what, a few thousand years ago (according to some Christian belief systems) are attacking someone who questions the reality of Jesus as a historical personage versus religious figure/leader/spiritual essence by saying, in effect, how accurate can such a person be if they believe in Bigfoot?
think that through.
their point as Loren posits: we believe absolutely the literal Bible, unquestioningly and without your ability to question it, but: we can prove you are a quack because you believe in Bigfoot.
i mean, that’s absurd! that’s ALL Loren was saying, folks!
you can’t call those of us who don’t believe in YOUR version of God atheists and whatnot, toss aside what a majority of the world believes re: scientific evolution over creationist doctrine, and THEN support the same folks who are critical of the filmmaker by agreeing he’s ’suspect’ because he believes in Bigfoot.
that’s just illogical.
‘he who is without sin, cast the first stone.’
Nightflight,
Let me get this straight. It is your position, that when the white-people came to the Americas and killed all the red-people, it was because they refused to worship one of the brown-people….and not about…..you know….the LAND?!
I just want to be clear on this. That is fantastic, in the true sense of the word.
I think this thread was a great tool for all of us to reflect on what a critical thinker is, and the vast range of counter-evidentiary dogma to which people will cling.
Loren has truely performed exorcisms here, held up a two-way cultural mirror, in which we not only see ourselves as a group clearer, but through which we have been better able to see each other, individually. Thank you.
I’m coming a little late to this party, but I’m a Conservative (and yes, “right winger” is a pejorative most of the time I see it used) and I have a very open mind regarding things Fortean. Something is either factual or it isn’t. Politics should not enter into it. And that’s as much as I’ll say.
One of the interesting things I’ve always thought about when studying bigfoot (and other cryptids) accounts and then comparing them to the Biblical accounts of the eyewitness testimonies to the resurection of Messiah, is that people do risk scrutiny when making bold claims like ; “Jesus lives” or “I saw bigfoot”. Now of course Christians were put to death for not denouncing their claim; thus giving it credibilty to the enth degree (no one likely dies for something they know is a lie) . Bigfoot witnesses risk societal rejection only, but the eyewitness testimony that is used in court rooms to lock folks up and sometimes put to death needs to be given more respect.
I am very liberal and damn proud. I am also atheist. However, I would die supporting YOUR right to worship and believe as you choose, though I dont feel that most conservatives would do the same. I think this is simply yet another hypocritical, judgemental right wing hate monger that is a spawn of FOX news (unfair and unbalanced) Rush Slimeball, Bill O’Reilly and others who constantly attack with lies, misinformation and just overall BS.
Christians refuse to accept facts because the facts pretty much dispute most of what they believe to be true. Religion is used much like Bush is currently using terrorism..as fear to control the masses so that they willingly surrender their rights eventually leading to tyranny which is exactly where we are headed. Funny to hear right wingers talk of “liberal media” what a joke.
Everywhere I turn there is some egghead like O’Reilly, Hannity or any of the other right wing talking heads spouting lies and garbage. The right wing has taken two issues..abortion and gay rights and proceeded to fool the working class and poor into voting for them and that is a vote for the rich and AGAINST the working class and the poor. Just a shame.
You are a kook if you believe in Bigfoot or life in the universe but it is OK to believe that a guy with horns and pitchfork is waiting for all of us “bad liberals” below ground in a lake of fire, yet the g