On April 13, 2013, I will be giving a talk looking at past and recent Sasquatch/Eastern Bigfoot/Windigo developments, which may surprise Bigfoot observers. A few commentators seem to be reading me as “anti-this-or-that,” or “pro-such-and-such.” But most of the time, I am merely an observer and chronicler, trying to share insights along this journey.
Even 1970s’ paperbacks explored the topic of Sasquatch interbreeding with humans.
I have been in the cryptozoology field for 53 years, as of 2013. That gives me some historical insights that may or may not be valid, but I have them anyway. I’ve decided to change my talk from one exclusively about the various ins and outs of the DNA affairs, for my position of “no data, no discovery” hasn’t changed that much. Besides, this seems to be a situation where various individuals are delighting in all the attention, for now book and film plans seem in the works for some of the principals.
Nanos gigantum humeris insidentes: Like dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants.
In the past, courtesy and respect for those who came before us, our mentors, was the watchword of the day. Today – perhaps due to the Internet, Twitter, Facebook, emails, and online blogs/comments/forums – too often we heard about people trying to knock each other down. Is there a way to reverse this trend? What lessons can we use to point us in the right direction?
Drawing by Rick Spears/Darby Creek Publishing from Tales of the Cryptids by Kelly Milner Halls
I will have more to say about the history and the future of the Bigfoot in this talk. About how the approach and avoidance of sexual topics figure into this. And yet deliver a science-oriented, PG talk for all ages. Was there a horizon event at 13,000 years? Or is there a regional divide in how the subject of interbreeding between humans and unknown hairy hominoids is handled?
In my upcoming talk for the Ohio Bigfoot Conference, at the Salt Fork Conference Center near Cambridge, Ohio, I hope to review past missteps in Sasquatch studies, the role of sex at Bigfoot conferences, and look to a clearer future in hominology.
Art: R. Crumb.
I have changed the title of my talk to “Sex, Sasquatch, and Ohio: A Colleague Calls for Civility and Courtesy,” celebrating my return to the Ohio forum by discussing past events and the present situation in which we find ourselves.
Interesting that the term civility was brought up as that is a huge, contentious point across a decent section of the internet atm. I have no doubt that a group of researchers, such as yourselves, will have no problem treating each other with respect and dignity while keeping the discussion solely to the evidence and methods used to obtain said evidence.
Regarding the comment that people ‘read’ you not taking up the banner for Ketchum’s paper as being a personal slight against her as a person. I hope they understand that you can disagree vehemently or even be non-interested in someone’s research/evidence/project while feeling no animosity towards the person themselves. It’s like having different tastes in music, not liking their polka-punk mash up, or the detailed blog post regarding the wonders of Mozart meets Jolly Joe, doesn’t mean you don’t like them as person or that you lose any respect for them and their other talents.
Tria, I agree entirely. I, too, have not ‘taken up the banner’ for Dr Ketchum’s paper. However, I hope that I have always been polite and respectful to her as a person. When any discussion forum loses the ability to be polite to each other it soon denigrates into a mishmash of name calling and insults, and – in my humble opinion – it is soon after that that the decent people (researchers and non researchers) leave and all you are left with is another internet bear pit. So Tria, and indeed Loren, Bravo!
Loren, I think some of the perceived disdain may have arisen from the provenance of the sample Dr. Ketchum used. If I recall, it is a disturbing story from, let us say, a questionable individual.
Personally, i have been astounded at the sheer volume of venom being directed at Dr Ketchum and her study… on both sides. I’m glad for Dr Ketchum’s sake that folk like Loren are prepared to stand up.
Personally I think a good discussion is one where people disagree and argue points ONLY if honesty to the subject matter is maintained. If someone disagrees with your view, you look at the criticism honestly, decide if it has merit then alter your view accordingly. To believe your view is the absolute truth is ignorant at best and arrogant at worst.
That honesty to the subject matter is paramount to a healthy understanding of it. It’s important to have critical thinking skills.
Personal attacks are just wasteful and lead to devolution of the discussion. It’s not being honest to the subject. It’s letting ego and politics take over.
Being polite for the sake of being polite is political and egotistical. It’s a way of manipulating people to like you and ergo your viewpoint. Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying to be a jerkface or argumentative for its own sake. I’m just saying to concentrate all criticisms on the subject matter for the furthering of its understanding.
When it comes to cryptozoology, I’m afraid I have to admit that my specialty isn’t Bigfoot or hominology. However, I do know a few things or two about the topic, so I’ll just give my 2 cents here.
I have to say, I am more than a bit skeptical about some of Dr. Ketchum’s claims, especially the ones about them interbreeding with humans thousands of years ago. However, that is no excuse to insult and ridicule her, or start some kind of smear campaign against her.
So even though I disagree with some of Ketchum’s ideas and theories, we definitely should still treat her with as much respect and civility as possible.
When you must resort to name-calling it means you’ve lost the argument.