Except: the evidence I read seems refreshingly free of stuff like this. Where’s the huge volume of consistent reports? I’m guessing, not chronicled here.

markLouis: there is a very simple, rational explanation for the report you cite. The animal was stationary in the middle of the field, right? They said the tree looked odd, right? I’ve seen many an animal that “morphed” into a tree or stump or log or rock upon further examination – and a few “features” that moved, and “became” animals. This was the latter…and their take on it a very subjective evaluation that fed stuff they already were thinking about this.

When you give yourself a funny Indian-esque first name and wear a ponytail at his age (or what his age looks like from that drawing)…well, I’ll take you seriously. If you give me something serious, that is.

That “message to humanity” was crystal clear. It was delivered, to us, by us. In, um, 1970. We didn’t listen, then as now, because, well, we don’t like listening to bad news. Nothing more complex than that.

Many years ago somewhere I read a strange bigfoot report. As I remember it, it was a man and woman walking along the edge of a big field. They both noticed a single small tree all by itself right in the middle of the field. To them the tree seemed out of place, seemed odd, and they both stared at it. As they stared, the tree—somehow—“morphed” in their vision and changed into a bigfoot. The bigfoot, then, turned and walked away across the field and disappeared into the trees on the other side of the field. The account in the original telling had the ring of truth to me and I accepted it and I still do. And it has completely changed my thinking about bigfoot. I have no idea what bigfoot is, but ever since reading this account I’ve been unable to think of bigfoot as a strictly zoology issue.