J.C. Johnson January 26, 2014

[Christopher O'Brien]

...Trying to review a long one-sided work on the paranormal can take a lot of work. And it's not a topic that much interests me. Are you willing to answer questions by email on the work?...

Typical of you Lance. You assume that my book is nothing more than "a long one-sided work on the paranormal." Nothing could be further from the truth. Like others of your ilk, you automatically assume that anyone interested enough in this subject to write a book has already made their mind up and that the book will be nothing more than a one-sided argument to convince the reader of the their foregone conclusions of the high-strange appearance of the subject. You obviously don't know me, nor do you understand how I approach controversial subjects like the "mute mystery." Your assumption about my book, my approach and my thinking, is wrong, wrong, wrong! Stalking the Herd examines human's 20 to 30,000 year relationship w/ cattle. From the beginnings of domestication, through the various permutations and development of religious veneration and belief systems that developed around cattle, to the major health and environmental concerns cattle present the modern world. Perception of the so-called "cattle mutilation" part of this relationship may be emblematic of a modern misperception of hidden cultural aspects behind this ancient relationship. I approach this little-addressed subject objectively and fully cover all the cultural implications. But, this full-spectrum approach probably won't interest you because it would not give you the ammunition to further belittle me and denigrate my work. And yes, the book is already available as a .pdf. Printed copies will be available in a couple of weeks. And of course I'll be answering reader's questions—if at all possible...

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Fair enough...I've just read tons of believer books and am admittedly somewhat jaded. If yours is different then I will be the first to admit it.

That's good to know that you are still at least a partially open-minded and not completely pre-judgmental.

 

[Burnt State]

This has been said before elsewhere many times, but i think that judging Chris' personal perspectives based on the podcast he does for free would not be getting the full picture. This is entertainment, after all, looking for advertising support in fact. When guests on the show have relationships, be they personal or professional, with hosts i would think that being very critical of each and every claim is just not going to happen and a listener can recognize that. When J.C. Johnson's on, there is an entertainment flavour to it, and some listeners may even believe. That's personal called choice. There are fanatics at one end and critical thinkers at the other and all the rest of us inbetween. Let's not forget how one ingredient of BLT got really taken to task about with her subject Robbert van den Broeke! And what is most appreciated is the history of Ufology as presented over the years and how we've engaged Moseley to Vallee.

Lance, what i don't get about the Skeptical position is why the tone always has to come with name-calling instead of just letting the criticism stand for itself? After all, we're not talking about the end of the world here - it's paranormal activity and UFO's. There's no real money at stake, and everyone is really just scratching at eternal mysteries. So what exactly is the skeptical role - is it to be the police of thought? What is the fascination and all the emotion about?

I don't think it's fair to characterize Chris as believer if you've been listening carefully to the episodes. I think he's actually a lot more critical than you give him credit for. I also heard on another related podcast a discussion about your own personal concerns regarding the release of the Imbrogno info, for his own welfare, and that it was not in fact your initial inclination to do so? Is that true or were people telling tales out of school? As Nameless said elsewhere, you just can't believe everything you read on the internet. It's not real life what happens on the Paracast, and sometimes it is.

Real life has consequences and i would suspect that Chris' book, which sounds like it wants to be an encyclopaedia of cattle mutilation to date, is putting his reputation on the line there. i still think back fondly to the episode with Lance & Chris on The Paracast and how relatively civil you were with each other. It seems to me that there are many latitudes and many faces to the die.

The whole thing is like a dungeons and dragons game or something.

 

[Paleontologist]

As hard as I am on Chris for some of the things he says, I would never state that his book will be "a long one-sided work on the paranormal." That is unfair and very unlikely.

 

[BlackDogGrimm]

ive been watching the bigfoot files on channel 4 [2 episodes] purely because of this thread, its the people making the claims that are more interesting than the claims, anyway every sample analyzed from the states and russia have been anything other than primate or unknown, ALL identified as one animal or another, i thought it very funny when they are awarded the bigfootologist handle, i mean that is pretty funny.

Another money spinner, with bigfootologist's giving guided tours for the gullible etc, books column inches etc etc, i dont know how they keep a straight face when on camera, one fella describing how he shot and buried a baby one, yet his samples were from a known animal, i forget what animal, how he held it up as it was dying and it looked at him with pitiful human eyes etc etc, all with a straight face, about how guilty he felt about killing it, yada yada, their more fun than their claims.

I'm pretty sure I know the episode you're on about -- the guy was Justin Smeja. He's a pretty fascinating case. I also find the people involved as fascinating (sometimes more so) than the subject matter itself. I've followed his story from the first report of it. If you search his name on YouTube, somewhere in there is a recorded interview with him that's the first one. When he recounts the details, you can hear the total panic in his voice. I have a lot to say on that one, but suffice it to say, it's worth a few hours of geeking if you're interested in the actual people.

The DNA from the sample he submitted was from a bear, as I recall.

 

[Han]

I'm pretty sure I know the episode you're on about -- the guy was Justin Smeja. He's a pretty fascinating case. I also find the people involved as fascinating (sometimes more so) than the subject matter itself. I've followed his story from the first report of it. If you search his name on YouTube, somewhere in there is a recorded interview with him that's the first one. When he recounts the details, you can hear the total panic in his voice. I have a lot to say on that one, but suffice it to say, it's worth a few hours of geeking if you're interested in the actual people.

The DNA from the sample he submitted was from a bear, as I recall.

The only total panic I saw on MR Smeja's face was when he admitted it was all a HOAX at the end of the show (in the bar).

The Bigfoot Files was a Channel 4 (uk) show in three parts, I really wanted to post the videos here as I said before, but they seem to be blocked on youtube but maybe people will have better luck if the look themselves.

Episode one was called: Bigfoot Files Episode 1 (Yeti)
Episode two was called: Bigfoot Files Episode 2 (USA Sasquatch)
Episode three was called: Bigfoot Files Episode 3 (Almasty)


Overall I thought it was a well done investigation except for the fact they concentrated more on the people involved than Bigfeet, they also did not question the investigators enough in regard to what behaviour they had observed like what a Bigfoot eats for example, I think I said before that some of the investigators tied Apples to a tree to entice a Bigfoot to that location, if I was there I would have been asking what else do they like to eat?

It is frustrating that we can not all access the same Television show because it is talking about something that is happening in the USA.

I will try and find out if some one has uploaded it to youtube and post the links in the Paracast TV section but no promises.

 

[LennyfromMaine]

I think "Fun" is the key verb here. And hopefully no one took J.C. as anything more than what he is, a story teller. Granted, some of the stories were clearly far fetched. Ala Dinosaurs/T-rex running around. I personally felt Gene and Chris did a fine job making it clear that what was being said, was taken with a grain of salt. Do I believe much of (anything) of what J.C. said? No. Am I made about it? No. Take it for what it was...

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Harry - I have been watching the shows too and I was interested in the Zana results. It seemed at first bad news for those who believed she was a different hominid to ourselves but the results showed she was African, sub-saharan to be precise and the interesting thing surely is that they cannot tell when from. So unless I picked it up wrong, there was still a possibility that she was from an ancient sub-Saharan line, not a modern human one.

I found the show fascinating and one thing that I believe the show should be doing, is testing those samples from Dr Melba Ketchum that are supposedly showing as an as-yet unknown hominid. I believe Melba's lab was given over 100 samples. I know there has been a lot said against Dr Ketchum and her work but I don't know if any of it is the usual debunking kind of stuff. I am not claiming for a second that Ketchum's work is valid but I am also definitely not jumping on the 'anti' bandwagon. From interivews I've heard of Dr Ketchum, I find the attacks against her quite strange in that apparently she is very experienced in this type of work and is routinely called on for legal DNA analysis work.

Anyway, I'd love for the Oxford team from the Bigfoot Files show to analyse the samples that Dr Ketchum claims to be from an unknown hominid. But would they tell the truth, would there be a cover-up?

 

[Han]

I'd love for the Oxford team from the Bigfoot Files show to analyse the samples that Dr Ketchum claims to be from an unknown hominid. But would they tell the truth, would there be a cover-up?

I would also love to see the "Ketchum" samples analysed by DR Sykes and his team, but I don't think that there is any chance of this because I do not think she would supply them.
My understanding is that DR Ketchum is renowned for her "interpretations" (not in a good way) I remember reading that she used some "underhanded" techniques to get a paper about Bigfoot DNA published. I am sure that if asked nicely @lancemoody would not hesitate to fill us in (in layman's terms) why she is such a controversial figure.

My understanding is that DR Sykes is in a different league so to speak, in that he is the inventor of many of the techniques employed in cutting edge DNA testing, although I may have got the wrong end of the stick (would not be the first time!)

I have also had another look for a "youtube" version of the USA episode and it is not there as far as I can tell, which I find strange to say the least, I am afraid that I am putting this down to the fact that none of the samples analysed by the show were found to contain Bigfoot DNA, I suspect that if the show had been more "sensational" there would have been multiple uploads to youtube especially by now, given that most of the televisual dross produced either side of the "pond" is routinley exchanged via youtube.
Hopefully Nation geographiclol or the Shistory channel will buy the documentary from Icon films, edit in a new "narrator" and give it a suitably sensational and exiting title but even this is looking unlikely now.

Lastly I would like to say that I can see little to no motive for DR Sykes to conceal or conspire to hide information regarding Bigfoot, in fact I see it the other way: in that here is a man with world wide renown in his field, and although being the one to discover Bigfoot would potentially enhance his fame and bank balance, if he does not, he will still be famous and well respected. What I am trying to say is that his "reputation" does not depend on the results he does or does not find, I genuinely believe that you would have to go a long, long way to find some one able to be less impartial.

In a nutshell to my mind it would serve DR Sykes interests more to "play" up his results than "play" them down. Yet he has not done this to the best of my knowledge.


Finally the Zana case you mentioned was just horrible, brutal, tragic and upsetting, I think if I recall correctly they concluded that the most likely reason for her son "Kwit's"(spelling) bones and teeth containing Sub Saharan DNA was most likely due to his mother Zana, being a slave taken from Africa and sold on to an owner in "South Ossetia" (modern day Georgia formerly part of the USSR) either way she had a brutal and inhumane life.

 

[bobodean]

I have heard tales of hunters who have had one in their scopes but could not pull the trigger, as it felt too much like "murder" or that the creature had too many human features -each described a deep sense of "hunting man' vs "animal"

Ive heard those "tales" too...only on paranormal shows. I pretty much call BS on those stories. To set the scene...a hunter is in the woods, waiting(most of hunting is waiting), sees something but knows not to shoot at "something" and will only shoot at a target that is identified. He(or even She, as more and more women are taking to the woods) puts the scope on the something. Sees that its not a deer, turkey, feral hog, or even bear(whatever that hunter is hunting). This lucky hunter sees that this "something" is a BF.....and doesnt kill it?
I have a really hard time believing that.

 

[Han]

Ive heard those "tales" too...only on paranormal shows. I pretty much call BS on those stories. To set the scene...a hunter is in the woods, waiting(most of hunting is waiting), sees something but knows not to shoot at "something" and will only shoot at a target that is identified. He(or even She, as more and more women are taking to the woods) puts the scope on the something. Sees that its not a deer, turkey, feral hog, or even bear(whatever that hunter is hunting). This lucky hunter sees that this "something" is a BF.....and doesnt kill it?
I have a really hard time believing that.

I don't want to generalise too much, because just like any activity, there are many different types of people who participate in hunting, and many different weapons employed, however I too find it hard to believe that presented with what is probably the mother of all "trophies" (a Bigfoot) a lot of people would not shoot first and ask questions later, the fact that people report having a Bigfoot in their sights and not firing, added too all of the other strange events that surround an "encounter" not to mention the lack of any commonly accepted physical evidence is what makes me "back" the Bigfoot as a non-physical entity as opposed to a primate or similar "flesh and blood" creature.

I can see a counter argument in that "green" soldiers, and sometimes veterans too can when presented with a stressful scenario neglect or forget to carry out the most simple (in normal circumstances) procedures, for example disengaging the safety on their firearm.
I believe this is called "CSR" combat stress reaction, I have seen the same type of thing in sports persons. But even if this was true of every hunter that had a Bigfoot in their sights, I still can not comprehend how Bigfoot has evaded devices with no "emotions" like Trail cams etc.

 

[manxman]

i can tell you without any hesitation shooting anything for the first time that you are not accustomed to seeing is something you have second thoughts about, see a pheasant breaking cover and lifting away from 10 feet infront of you, gun up, follow thru, and then doubt, bird gets just out of range and you watch it fly off, after that you have a 'mental picture' of what it IS, and you dont doubt yourself as to what it is the next time, and its legal to shoot it, and not something that isnt like a partridge.

by the time someone out hunting bear, had gotten their heads around WHAT was in their sight's their head would be spinning, and the occassions for taking the shot at the perfect time can be fleeting, animals move about, you want to drop them, not wound them, hunting may appear cruel, but you wont find anyone more concerned about his enviroment, more than a hunter, he needs there to be healthy stocks of what he hunts, so he helps keep the enviroment as perfect for them as he can, and shoots the excess's that are there because of his efforts, he may even seed/supplement wild stocks, but it is not a slam dunk shooting something you dont KNOW, and even if you decide to, the chance has gone.

same thing happened when i raised my gun on the lead bird of a skeen of canada geese that flew over my head, i heard them, looked up, knew they were geese, brought the gun up, ran the bead thru to the point bird then hesitated, wasnt any bird i had seen for real before, and they were gone, out of range, they were legal to shoot, i just hesitated a second to long, they were huge, other people i knew had shot the odd one, but i had never seen a real one, and you dont want to be shooting somebodies ornamental geese, from their pond, wherever it maybe, i never got another chance at another again, that was the only time for canada.

 

[Han]

I think it is not stretching reality too far to say that: the mechanics of taking a good shot with a gun and taking a good photograph are comparable, yet the consequences are rather different, especially for the "target".
Whilst I do not want it to happen in reality, I would be interested to know, (theoretically speaking) how would you go about hunting a Bigfoot? N.B. because this is only theoretical I am interested in all possible techniques even those usually illegal.

so as not to go too far off topic I have made a new thread here:
How to catch a Bigfoot? (theoretically) | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Burnt State]

I think the only thing I can contribute to this is that if you marinate your Canada Goose breasts in orange juice over night, stuff them with coriander and garlic, and wrap it in bacon - it is delicious!

 

[manxman]

aye theres loads of them now, they spent 2 or 3 million making the old quarry pits into a proper bird sanctuary, opened about 5 years ago, theres loads of geese up there now, canada greylag brent, to name a few..

 

[Stagger Lee]

As far as I know, it's still not legal to kill Canadian Geese here in the US. But I've always thought they looked tasty, being a big fan of roast duck.
For many here, Canada's goose is considered a real problem. There are many comical ways to keep them from grazing on a property. Where my parents live, there is a rather large pond. A neighbor keeps two Swan as pets, who will not let Canadian Geese land near the pond. Other folks train their dogs to chase them out- I have also seen wooden cut outs of dogs, or dog decoys, set up.

 

[Han]

As far as I know, it's still not legal to kill Canadian Geese here in the US. But I've always thought they looked tasty, being a big fan of roast duck.
For many here, Canada's goose is considered a real problem. There are many comical ways to keep them from grazing on a property. Where my parents live, there is a rather large pond. A neighbor keeps two Swan as pets, who will not let Canadian Geese land near the pond. Other folks train their dogs to chase them out- I have also seen wooden cut outs of dogs, or dog decoys, set up.

I believe that in Great Britain Swans are the property of the Queen and eating one is a criminal act!

Barnacle Geese take their name from the fact that people used to believe that they grew from Barnacles!

I have heard of people being attacked by swans and getting a leg or arm broken! Although it is not funny that somebody was hurt, believe you me if I was in that situation I would not be the one who was injured, it would be a case of introducing MR Swan to MR Boot!
I have had swans "charge" me before when fishing and they always turn tail when I stretch my arms out to each side, my understanding is that the measure up their opponent based on "wingspan" and as mine is larger than the average swan I have never had one "attack" me.

 

[joeyk22]

As far as I know, it's still not legal to kill Canadian Geese here in the US. But I've always thought they looked tasty, being a big fan of roast duck.
For many here, Canada's goose is considered a real problem. There are many comical ways to keep them from grazing on a property. Where my parents live, there is a rather large pond. A neighbor keeps two Swan as pets, who will not let Canadian Geese land near the pond. Other folks train their dogs to chase them out- I have also seen wooden cut outs of dogs, or dog decoys, set up.

Hunting Canadian Geese is legal in certain states in the US. There is a daily limit.


Early Canada Goose Season (Regulations) | North Dakota Game and Fish

 

[manxman]

sheesh poor feckers fly this far and its open season.

Shooting wild geese
Information on this subject can be obtained from the Forestry, Amenity and Lands Division of DEFA, tel: +44 1624 685954. Details of protected birds can also be obtained - see link, right.

Under a licence issued under the Wildlife Act 1990, adult geese can be shot between 1 July and 31 March each year. Goslings can now be shot during nesting under the terms of the renewed general licence. The types of geese are limited to greylag geese (wild or feral) and Canada geese. They can be shot only with a 3in magnum shotgun cartridges containing minimum No.1 shot, or with a rifle. Permission is always required from the owner of the land when shooting or carrying any firearm and it is advised to have this in writing.

Isle of Man Government - Shooting laws

 

[zaphrella]

Late to the thread because I am listening my way from fairly current on back to older shows. This was a great show. Did I believe everything claimed? No. Did I learn about some things which might bear further investigation, watching or reading? Yes. Amidst the tall tales there was a real interesting bit about a (greedbased, limited self interest, abuse of power) casino desecrating a naturally beautiful sacred place, a natural treasure: a larger tribe on smaller tribe power play which I didn't hear about anywhere until I heard about it on this podcast. The national news media hasn't carried the story.

Thanks to this podcast I found another interesting UTube channel to watch, some news items to follow. I'm also leap frogging to past JC appearances on The Paracast and other podcasts. That's a lot of entertainment value.