Well, in the week that has gone by since my last post, there have been some interesting developments within the world of crypto, as well as a few new news stories and other developments to report on.
I drove down to San Antonio, Texas early last week to speak for the local chapter of the Mutual UFO Network (Mufon) about my various expeditions to Puerto Rico in search of the Chupacabras. I'm pleased to say that the group was very interested in the mystery, as well as in the witness testimony and theories for the existence of the beast I uncovered during my trips to the island.
While in San Antonio, I hung out with good friend and fellow creature-seeker (and author of the book Big Bird! Modern Sightings of Flying Monsters), Ken Gerhard, who discussed at the Mufon gig his research into the so-called Texas Chupacabras - a topic that generated a lot of interest among the Mufon members. And many thanks to Julie and all the staff for a fine Mexican dinner!
As I well know from firsthand experience, there is a lot of controversy surrounding some of the higher-strangeness cases attached to the Bigfoot mystery. Whereas most researcher prefer to see everything from a purely down-to-earth perspective, the sheer scale of weirdness that circulates around the world's most famous hairy man-beast leads me to believe that Bigfoot is anything but normal.
And on this matter, here's a new post over at Cryptomundo on Bigfoot and Invisibility that is bound to further raise the level of controversy. And there's another good post over at Cryptomundo on Bigfoot and cameras.
Moving to Scotland, the Loch Ness Monster is in the news again - albeit for reasons that are somewhat different to those that you might expect! And also coming from the British Isles is a new Big-Cat sighting. As well as a new photo too (courtesy of Big-Cat authority Mark Fraser and Paranormal Magazine).
And, finally: check out Regan Lee's Mothman Flutterings for all the latest on the Point Pleasant winged-whatsit.
An interesting week!
Welcome back, Nick!!!
I participated in that "camera" and "invisible" debate over at Cryptomundo. Even used your name as a reference in one of the posts. Good debate, but I DO think I went on a bit too much. I may also have muddled my message.
Both sides presented good points, but as always, the word "supernatural," and "paranormal," tends to get people's underwear up in a knot over at Loren's site. Personally, although I understand the rationale behind the empirical science/spirit split, I ultimately don't see what all the fuss is about. Like I posted on the threads, there is no such thing as "supernatural," only "natural laws that are not understood yet." Science and Religion/Spirit used to be the same---maybe it's time they got back together. 'Cause the current way of doing things ain't quite cutting it, mate. Anyway, hope San Antonio was great and I wish I had been there to hear the great Gerhard speak.
Many thanks for the comments. Yeah, Ken provided some cool info on the whole Texas Chupa controversy.
That's a very vaild point about the supernatural really only being laws that we can't yet define, and with which I totally agree.
What always interests and intrigues me about those who argue completely against the paranormal angle of Bigfoot, is the vehemence with which they sometimes disagree.
When it gets to that stage, to me it seems like they are reacting personally because the belief system they prefer is being attacked.
My own personal view is that there are many aspects of the Bigfoot puzzle that suggest living creatures.
But, paradoxically, there are certain aspects that are of classic high-strangeness and point in a more supernatural direction.
Perhaps, in ways we don't understand, both aspects are vaild.
But when I see people getting hostile to the paranormal theory, I see people who don't WANT it to be true.
That suggests bias. And when we're looking for something that is undefined, there should be no bias: just open minds.
Well said there, Nick.
Post a Comment