I hate to have to say it, but I've made the personal decision to boycott the SASQUATCH SUMMIT this weekend. Why? Because it is enabling and promoting HOAXING and DELUSIONAL THINKING. Though there are indeed some good speakers on the roster, Bart Cutino cancelled when he heard Matthew Johnson was added as a speaker, Derek Randles is no longer appearing on the pop-up images of those presenting on the main web page for the event (though he does appear on the schedule and speakers list, his presence seems to have been demoted). With TODD STANDING and some real Woo-sters speaking, I can't see this turning out well at all. Even Jeff Meldrum is likely to get swept up in the complications of his association with Standing. This whole event will likely be nothing but a big argument about the "Sylvanic" garbage, and will vault the hoaxing Todd into the USA media, which is exactly what he wants. I cannot support or condone such a confused event. I had planned upon going, but no more.
Here is how the roster of speakers weigh in for the event...
 |
| Five MEGA-WOO characters. One complete HOAXER. Three rationalists. Two guys I don't know of at all. One cool country singer. One Gimlin, who defies category. |
Note in the following two poster versions how the speakers have changed. I don't see another current one, but Todd Standing has been moved into the prime-time Saturday HEADLINER spot where it is said "he releases all." Matthew Johnson's addition was not noted on a poster, but he stirred up so much controversy that he removed himself and declared that he would put on his own conference next year.
With the Woo-Woos defeating the rationalists in numbers already, who wins? Whose conference is this, anyway? Well, here is what I say...
 |
| TODD WINS! |
*
COMMENTS FROM THE COALITION...
Bigfoot Evidence blog has already spun this stuff from Facebook into a "news" story, distorting it completely.
*
Here is that silly post on BIGFOOT EVIDENCE...
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2014/11/people-people-dont-be-alarmed-todd.html
Here's a funny one from the Reverend Jeffrey Kelley showing the truth of the Sylvanic situation...
*
.
Try Audible and Get Two Free AudiobooksHere is that silly post on BIGFOOT EVIDENCE...
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2014/11/people-people-dont-be-alarmed-todd.html
Here's a funny one from the Reverend Jeffrey Kelley showing the truth of the Sylvanic situation...
*
4 comments:
I respect much of what you do, but a one-word label is always going to be incomplete. There is so much more to all of us, even those that appear to be delusional.
Hoaxing is bad, yes, and those who do it hurt all legitimate researchers. Creating a culture of close-mindedness and attacking others we disagree with is also detrimental to our culture. This spans far beyond Sasquatch and says more about sociology or psychology. We are all a fringe sub-culture of humans who are open to the idea of researching or discussing Sasquatch as a possibility.
Without hard proof, we face an uphill battle with Western science. It's a monumental climb. We are all in it together. Can we build a better culture together?
What I would ask is that we recognize how our own words and deeds contribute to that culture. Hoaxing clearly hurts us all and should be driven out. We want eyewitnesses to report ALL that they have observed.
We can disagree with individual conclusions drawn from that body of evidence. My guess is that the individuals labeled as Woo have drawn conclusions which do not match your own personal experience and you are seeking to protect your own credibility or that of the field at large.
I might suggest we call out our specific objections instead of boycotting individuals'attendance at events simply because we disagree with the viewpoints of one or more in attendance. To do so risks losing valuable contributions not only from the people labeled as Woo but from anyone else who experiences something unexplainable.
Attacking one another because we disagree with a viewpoint may not have the same adverse impact on the field as hoaxing, but it is something that has and will continue to drive good people away. It also drives good evidence into the shadows.
I would argue that we can place value on science AND explore alternative viewpoints. We can and really should try to include all credible people working to contribute to the cause. If we disagree with an approach or conclusion, let's keep the focus there. We should be able to talk about our opinions and walk away learning more about one another. We may still disagree over one or more viewpoints, but we can make our culture stronger by accepting the unknown. We can all benefit by practicing how we deal with the unknown.
The history of science is always extending its frontiers or reviewing what was thought true based on new information. Some observations are difficult to verify. Let's welcome those trying to expand that frontier.
We should strive to make a difference. Not just in how we study the Sasquatch, but in how we treat one another. We face a big mystery. We need all the help we can get. Let's do a better job of hearing everyone and seeing what value they do have to add to the subject rather than attacking them. When Sasquatch are accepted by legitimate science, we will need everyone to work together if we're going to do better "managing" them than we have other animals (or people, if that's your thing).
I believe we should respect everyone who share an interest in the subject and dedicate hours & money to Sasquatch research. Some have gone to their grave without an answer. It's a long journey. Along the way, for better or worse, the journey changes us. I don't look at that as an opportunity to judge how someone changes or what they think, because I haven't walked in their shoes. I do ask that we point out our objections.
While I may disagree with specific tenets of folks labeled as Woo, I disagree more with the use of a simplistic label. Let's act like adults and try to treat one another as professionals. Let's recognize that everyone has something valuable to add to the mix, even if we are all amateurs.
Let's build bridges, keep open, record the evidence, move on. Oh, and I wish I was at the Sasquatch Summit. There's going to be some very good knowledge coming from it. Perhaps some very good debate as well. We should celebrate that.
I respect much of what you do, but a one-word label is always going to be incomplete. There is so much more to all of us, even those that appear to be delusional.
Hoaxing is bad, yes, and those who do it hurt all legitimate researchers. Creating a culture of close-mindedness and attacking others we disagree with is also detrimental to our culture. This spans far beyond Sasquatch and says more about sociology or psychology. We are all a fringe sub-culture of humans who are open to the idea of researching or discussing Sasquatch as a possibility.
Without hard proof, we face an uphill battle with Western science. It's a monumental climb. We are all in it together. Can we build a better culture together?
What I would ask is that we recognize how our own words and deeds contribute to that culture. Hoaxing clearly hurts us all and should be driven out. We want eyewitnesses to report ALL that they have observed.
We can disagree with individual conclusions drawn from that body of evidence. My guess is that the individuals labeled as Woo have drawn conclusions which do not match your own personal experience and you are seeking to protect your own credibility or that of the field at large.
I might suggest we call out our specific objections instead of boycotting individuals'attendance at events simply because we disagree with the viewpoints of one or more in attendance. To do so risks losing valuable contributions not only from the people labeled as Woo but from anyone else who experiences something unexplainable.
Attacking one another because we disagree with a viewpoint may not have the same adverse impact on the field as hoaxing, but it is something that has and will continue to drive good people away. It also drives good evidence into the shadows.
I would argue that we can place value on science AND explore alternative viewpoints. We can and really should try to include all credible people working to contribute to the cause. If we disagree with an approach or conclusion, let's keep the focus there. We should be able to talk about our opinions and walk away learning more about one another. We may still disagree over one or more viewpoints, but we can make our culture stronger by accepting the unknown. We can all benefit by practicing how we deal with the unknown.
The history of science is always extending its frontiers or reviewing what was thought true based on new information. Some observations are difficult to verify. Let's welcome those trying to expand that frontier.
We should strive to make a difference. Not just in how we study the Sasquatch, but in how we treat one another. We face a big mystery. We need all the help we can get. Let's do a better job of hearing everyone and seeing what value they do have to add to the subject rather than attacking them. When Sasquatch are accepted by legitimate science, we will need everyone to work together if we're going to do better "managing" them than we have other animals (or people, if that's your thing).
I believe we should respect everyone who share an interest in the subject and dedicate hours & money to Sasquatch research. Some have gone to their grave without an answer. It's a long journey. Along the way, for better or worse, the journey changes us. I don't look at that as an opportunity to judge how someone changes or what they think, because I haven't walked in their shoes. I do ask that we point out our objections.
While I may disagree with specific tenets of folks labeled as Woo, I disagree more with the use of a simplistic label. Let's act like adults and try to treat one another as professionals. Let's recognize that everyone has something valuable to add to the mix, even if we are all amateurs.
Let's build bridges, keep open, record the evidence, move on. Oh, and I wish I was at the Sasquatch Summit. There's going to be some very good knowledge coming from it. Perhaps some very good debate as well. We should celebrate that.
Sorry. I will never accept bullshit, hoaxing, delusional and foolish concepts, or poor logic. There needs to be a certain intolerance of BS, if one gives a damn about the truth and discovering reality.
For instance, Thom Cantrall thinks he has all the answers, and he smugly claims to be the "Chosen One" to speak for Sasquatch. WHY would I want to cooperate with or tolerate that kind of rubbish, where some guy hears voices in his head and deigns to play holy man of the forest? To me that is crap, and it has to be flushed away.
Post a Comment