Do Right Wingers Hate Bigfoot?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 7th, 2008

last supper

Let’s try to follow the logic on this one. If you happen to produce a documentary about Jesus Christ that holds a thesis that right wingers don’t like, you can be almost labeled a near-nutcase because you have also produced the documentary “Bigfootville,” according to two conservative bloggers.

Your ability to be a critical thinker is called into question if you produce documentaries on Bigfoot and Roswell, but if you raise questions about the story of Jesus Christ (demonstrating your critical thinking?) you are merely called “bogus” because of faults in your “background”?


I am not here to defend or even promote Bloodlines, Bruce Burgess’s new documentary. Burgess (on the left, above) can defend himself. What I am challenging is how Burgess’s entire list of past documentaries are being trotted forth to show his “bizarre interests.” First, there is the implied criticism and ridicule against those topics. Then because he has made “those” kind of documentaries, supposedly the thinking goes, his ability to make good documentaries is somehow undermined.


Scott Whitlock (above) in bold font shouts out: “He’s directed and written documentaries on Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, Area 51 and a secretive look at a U.S. government’s supposed cover-up of the alien landings at Roswell.”

Whitlock’s headline captures his complaint in a nutshell: “ABC Ignores Bigfoot, UFO Films of Jesus-Debunking Documentarian.”

Whitlcock asks: “Wouldn’t it be relevant to know that Burgess seems to be fascinated with every weird conspiracy imaginable?…How serious is Bigfoot and the the [sic] subject of the Bermuda Triangle?”

Whitlock’s blog appears on NewsBusters, which is a right wing blog. Its tagline reads: “Exposing and Combatting Liberal Bias.” Does this mean that right wingers hate Bigfoot?

His bio says that Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center, and has been featured in the “Inside Politics” section of the Washington Times, D.C.’s conservative newspaper.

According to Wikipedia, the Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative media criticism organization based in Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1987 by L. Brent Bozell III. The MRC has received financial support from several foundations, including the Bradley, Scaife, Olin, Castle Rock, Carthage and JM foundations.

In the summer of 2005, Media Research Center launched NewsBusters in cooperation with Matthew Sheffield, a conservative blogger involved in the CBS Killian documents story. (MRC has accused Wikipedia of a liberal bias, arguing it “habitually delivers unflattering content about conservative media figures while giving liberals a much lighter treatment,” so you should take that in consideration when reading my definition of MRC that I took from Wikipedia.)


NewsBusters’ Mark Finkelstein (above, at right, on his “rightAngle” show) also has blogged negatively about Bloodlines and the interviews Burgess has been receiving at the hands of the “liberal media.” In the NewsBusters’ blog entitled, “ABC Gives Airtime to Documentary-Maker With Dubious Rep Suggesting Resurrection a ‘Trick’,” Finkelstein takes on Bigfoot indirectly.

Finkelstein mentions the ABC interviewer addressed his concerns with Burgess in this fashion: “I do have to point out the fact that some of your other documentary work includes the Bermuda Triangle, Area 51, looking for Big Foot in Oklahoma. Why should we believe you of all people when it comes to something this huge?”

But this wasn’t enough for Finkelstein, who wrote that ABC’s “apologetic challenge fell well short of informing viewers just how bogus Burgess is. After all, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with documentaries about such subjects, so long as they take a hard, critical look at the claims.”

Okay, let me understand this. There is a new documentary, which has been made that takes a “hard, critical look at the claims” for the story of Jesus’s Resurrection. But something is wrong with it because the filmmaker’s newest production seems to not entirely believe the story of Jesus and has to be bogus because the filmmaker has made documentaries on topics like whether or not Bigfoot exists in Oklahoma, right?

Finkelstein, besides writing for NewsBusters, is also the host of “rightANGLE” (yes, it’s spelled that way), which is a weekly public-access Ithaca, New York, conservative television talk show. It was created by a group of local Republicans as “a counterweight to the liberal culture and media.” (Viewership numbers are not mentioned in Finkelstein’s overview.)

Do Whitlock and Finkelstein even know how to analyze and talk about documentary films without showing their own biases so overtly?

I taught a course on documentary film for thirteen years at a university in New England. I can tell you that Finkelstein and Whitlock don’t have a clue when discussing this subject. Every documentary film produced has a bias, a statement, and/or a comment to make about the point of view of the filmmaker.

Believe it or not, a “hard, critical look” at the subject matter being discussed within a documentary is not part of the definition of what makes a film a documentary. This has been true for a long time, and is in evidence from Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph Of The Will (1935) to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (2006).

As I noted to my students in my course, when discussing the example of Nanook of the North (1922), historically noted as the “first documentary,” even that film is full of bias.

Nanook of the North was heavily biased to show the “normal AngloSaxon” family that Robert J. Flaherty wanted to re-create in the film. It was biased in its film set-ups by having the Inuits, for instance, move towards the already-placed camera.

Flaherty did things like filming inside half a super-igloo that he had the Inuit build so he would have enough light inside it. The reality is that igloos are smaller, darker, and definitely not as you see them in Nanook of the North.

Few knew at the time that Flaherty had a wife back home and two or more Inuit “wives” with him while he was filmmaking. Lost in some documentary courses is the fact that Robert Flaherty left with his film, made big bucks with Nanook of the North, and yet two years later the “star” of the film (Allakariallak, who played “Nanook”) died of starvation while living out the lifestyle that he actually lived in north-central Canada (not the one Flaherty “created” in his documentary).

A documentary film is a nonfiction motion picture produced from the point-of-view of the filmmaker, with his or her capturing of reality based on the filmmaker’s sense of what that reality is.

Bruce Burgess’s filmmaking career shows he likes anomalist films, such as documentaries on Bigfoot. I don’t know if Burgess is merely trying to make a living, in the wake of the financial success of The Da Vinci Code, when he made Bloodlines, or if he really “believes” what he filmed. I actually doubt fully the latter.

Every nonfiction film, every documentary, and actually, every blog should be viewed with a critical eye, “seen” and “read” thusly.

Whitlock’s and Finkelstein’s criticisms of Burgess are illogical, unconnected to any critical look at the material in his documentary, dismissive of Bigfoot without even looking at that evidence separately, and are ad hominem. I would have expected more from a couple guys trying to root out bias in the media.

BTW, I no more think that all “right wingers hate Bigfoot” than I consider that Burgess’s Bigfoot TV documentary, “Bigfootville,” is the final word in hominology.

If you don’t approach all documentaries and blogs with some kind of critical thinking, you’re in big trouble.

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

74 Responses to “Do Right Wingers Hate Bigfoot?”

  1. NightFlight responds:

    I believe Whitlock and Finklestein have an agenda just as others who berate the authors and producers of controversial subjects even before those have been publicly exhibited have. This is how they CONTROL people. By getting one person to not view or read or hear something and to echo that assumption to others, they are now in control. They all seem to have different agendas either political or religious or both. It’s just control, and some people are masters at it. If it weren’t for religion and the IRS, this country would be a whole lot better.

    Remember always: Ol’ Squatch ain’t never killed nobody. Relgion has caused the death of billions…

  2. Amdusias responds:

    NightFlight Responds:
    *”Remember always: Ol’ Squatch ain’t never killed nobody. Relgion has caused the death of billions…”

    Not true. Wars are fought over resources alone. Gold, oil, food, water, land, and slaves.

    Religion is often the scapegoat, but never the actual cause. Even the crusades were about providing baronies to the decendents of an over-abundance of European nobles. Land.

  3. Digger44 responds:

    To be as fair as what is posted, I must ask the question, “Why are all Bigfoot hunters, including Loren, just as foul and untruthful as Tom Biscardi?”

    Seriously. All this article does is create a stereotype and then create a false premise based on an extreme. Loren, according to your own tactics, your word is just as deceptive and unscientific as Tom’s. Why is it that just because one “crypto-zoologist” is foul, then they all must be foul. Wait! Isn’t this unfair? How can I compare Loren to Tom? Why not, Loren just compared me, as a right winger, to someone who can’t think critically.

    This is a sad day in the life of this blog. I do not believe a word that I just wrote to be true, but that is exactly what this post suggests using the logic written above.

    I suggest we start another entry entitled, “Are all crypto-zoologist liars?” an then cite two crypto-zoologist that utterly show that all must be liars.

  4. HOOSIERHUNTER responds:

    Just re-read Lorens’s column which I didn’t have time to do more than peruse at lunch. As a Christian I don’t see any bias from Loren in it. In fact I see an attack on a film maker who struck a nerve in some right-wing religionists. Now I am a hardcore believer in Jesus mind you, and I take the Bible literally after studying the CONTEXT of the scriptures. Any one can take something out of context and make it say whatever suits them, agreed? This is where we get into silly arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or we ascribe to God our own human frailities (the whole “God is dead” thing, for example), or whether a non-believer has the right to make a film about Jesus. It’s not critical thinking, or a meeting of the minds, it’s silly “is, is not” arguing and it’s childish.

    I am confident and comfortable in my personal beliefs and I should be able to withstand scrutiny from those who don’t believe as I do without blowing a gasket about it. Frankly, if someone’s that touchy about it then they need to examine themselves a little further–they apparently are insecure in their faith. Ultimately, I believe God is big enough to stand up for himself without my, or anyone else’s, help.

  5. NightFlight responds:

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I stand by my beliefs. The not so Civil War is the only war that springs to mind that probably wasn’t religiously oriented. Most of the other wars that the US has fought have been religious in the beginning i.e. our christianity is better than the church of England, twice, better than native American beliefs, better than Spanish catholicism, twice, better than German (Austrian) dogma and then fascism, better than communism cold and hot, and now hopefully its better than islam. (infidels have their heads chopped off and anyone that isn’t islamic is an infidel). As far as resources go, I know of no victors that have increased their vaults of gold, tanks of oil, food, etc. by winning a war. I truly believe that there are no winners in a war. It may be true that the bankers and military industrialists on both sides and outside orchestrate behind the scenes to foment war to increase their coffers. I have seen war first hand and its not pretty. Religion is used to lift up the troops’ spirits and give them a reason to continue fighting. I personaly find fault with that, especially in a constitutionaly undeclared war. Christianity teaches to turn the other cheek, etc. Another thing I disgree with is having this forum go from the obvious manipulation of media types to a contrast of religions. Where are you ‘Squatch?

  6. windigo responds:

    I am a Christian conservative, and an ardent believer and researcher of Sasquatch. With that said, I have no problem raising questions about the life of Jesus. The doubters have been doing so from the time of his death, and will continue to until the time of his return. In the midst of the time between, the factual account of his life as portrayed in the Bible has stood the test of time because it is both accurate and literal in it’s context. Individuals who have faith in Jesus Christ and those who subscribe in the existence of Sasquatch have long had to endure the wrath of the unbelievers. If anything, this should bind both communities and display this common ground in the subjects. One day Jesus will return, and one day Sasquatch will be scientifically become more than a legend. Until then, I’ll pray daily and use my weekends to search the woods.

  7. CryptoHaus_Press responds:

    wow, i used to live in California, was even there during the riots of the 90s, and this is starting to feel eerily reminiscent to that time in terms of acrimony.

    i keep hearing Rodney King’s plea: “Can’t we just all get along?” 😉

    but seriously: can’t we?

    i mean, you say tomato, i say Catholico, but let’s NOT call the whole thing off!

    a final thought (at least for now!) for me is: i’ve often noted the ‘bigfoot believers’ camp tend to be much more conservative in orientation than liberal by nature.

    i think this is because many more conservatives are from rural to semi-rural areas whereas liberals tend to be more concentrated in bigger cities. not only, so no stereotyping, but just an observation of SOME of the ‘real life’ semi-pro cryptos i’ve personally met and known over the years.

    i’d guess (and that’s all it would be) that most are Christian conservatives at that. i think the issue many have with evolution is antithetical to their belief in Sasquatch, but they rightly point out (from their pov) that one does not preclude the other.

    still, i find most liberal ‘squatch afficiandos are more skeptical, while the conservative religious ones seem to be more believers. i think that having assauged their doubts (mostly, we’re all human, after all, not God!) they are more accepting of a possibility of Bigfoot without evidence, as they accept God without the evidence many skeptical liberals would desire.

    that’s not to say liberals can’t and don’t believe in God. they obviously do.
    but it is to point out that if you can easily toss aside Evolution for Creation as a valid theory substitute with no scientific evidence to support Creation — and please, don’t try to convince me otherwise, as i have expressed my ‘bias’ (i’d call it reasoned opinion) in this regard — you probably don’t need cryptozoological evidence to believe in cryptids.

    some of you will (based on the out of proportion response so far) perceive this as another “attack” on your faith. others will say, “Oh yeah, so we Christian conservatives are gullible, is that it?”

    well, no! but if you see a conflict between science and God, then why should need scientific proof for Bigfoot’s existence? that’s all i’m saying.

    lastly, i think Loren’s posting shows that the same folks who would tell you Neanderthals co-existed side-by-side with dinosaurs AND Adam and Eve in that first 7 day week of man’s existence only, what, a few thousand years ago (according to some Christian belief systems) are attacking someone who questions the reality of Jesus as a historical personage versus religious figure/leader/spiritual essence by saying, in effect, how accurate can such a person be if they believe in Bigfoot?

    think that through.

    their point as Loren posits: we believe absolutely the literal Bible, unquestioningly and without your ability to question it, but: we can prove you are a quack because you believe in Bigfoot.

    i mean, that’s absurd! that’s ALL Loren was saying, folks!

    you can’t call those of us who don’t believe in YOUR version of God atheists and whatnot, toss aside what a majority of the world believes re: scientific evolution over creationist doctrine, and THEN support the same folks who are critical of the filmmaker by agreeing he’s ‘suspect’ because he believes in Bigfoot.

    that’s just illogical.

    ‘he who is without sin, cast the first stone.’ 😉

  8. Amdusias responds:


    Let me get this straight. It is your position, that when the white-people came to the Americas and killed all the red-people, it was because they refused to worship one of the brown-people….and not about… know….the LAND?!

    I just want to be clear on this. That is fantastic, in the true sense of the word.

    I think this thread was a great tool for all of us to reflect on what a critical thinker is, and the vast range of counter-evidentiary dogma to which people will cling.

    Loren has truely performed exorcisms here, held up a two-way cultural mirror, in which we not only see ourselves as a group clearer, but through which we have been better able to see each other, individually. Thank you.

  9. PLMerite responds:

    I’m coming a little late to this party, but I’m a Conservative (and yes, “right winger” is a pejorative most of the time I see it used) and I have a very open mind regarding things Fortean. Something is either factual or it isn’t. Politics should not enter into it. And that’s as much as I’ll say.

  10. sasquatch responds:

    One of the interesting things I’ve always thought about when studying bigfoot (and other cryptids) accounts and then comparing them to the Biblical accounts of the eyewitness testimonies to the resurection of Messiah, is that people do risk scrutiny when making bold claims like ; “Jesus lives” or “I saw bigfoot”. Now of course Christians were put to death for not denouncing their claim; thus giving it credibilty to the enth degree (no one likely dies for something they know is a lie) . Bigfoot witnesses risk societal rejection only, but the eyewitness testimony that is used in court rooms to lock folks up and sometimes put to death needs to be given more respect.

  11. hudgeliberal responds:

    I am very liberal and damn proud. I am also atheist. However, I would die supporting YOUR right to worship and believe as you choose, though I dont feel that most conservatives would do the same. I think this is simply yet another hypocritical, judgemental right wing hate monger that is a spawn of FOX news (unfair and unbalanced) Rush Slimeball, Bill O’Reilly and others who constantly attack with lies, misinformation and just overall BS.

    Christians refuse to accept facts because the facts pretty much dispute most of what they believe to be true. Religion is used much like Bush is currently using fear to control the masses so that they willingly surrender their rights eventually leading to tyranny which is exactly where we are headed. Funny to hear right wingers talk of “liberal media” what a joke.

    Everywhere I turn there is some egghead like O’Reilly, Hannity or any of the other right wing talking heads spouting lies and garbage. The right wing has taken two issues..abortion and gay rights and proceeded to fool the working class and poor into voting for them and that is a vote for the rich and AGAINST the working class and the poor. Just a shame.

    You are a kook if you believe in Bigfoot or life in the universe but it is OK to believe that a guy with horns and pitchfork is waiting for all of us “bad liberals” below ground in a lake of fire, yet the good conservatives will go be with an invisible man in the sky who knows all,sees all and created EVERYTHING..LOL. WTF???

    Talk about a double edged sword! If you want to keep watching millions die in the mid-east,pay outrageous gas and food prices,destroying the environment and raping the constitution and taking ALL of our freedoms..then just keep on voting GOP.

    Wake up SHEEPLE!

  12. Loren Coleman responds:

    Despite severe flaming alerts going off, I continue to approve, for your reading, all comments coming from the many sides of this discussion.

    Just a clarification, if you swear or use any form of profanity, the software or editorial filters (which are robotic) will screen out your comments. If you have not posted here before or place links in your posting, your comment might sit in the back room for awhile, waiting for a human editor to click approval of your comment.

    If you try to post about not seeing your comment, or other administrative, off-topic subjects, those comments are not approved or may be deleted from here. Don’t waste your time. Instead direct them to

    Despite the flames being sent my way, inappropriately I feel, of course, I will let people’s words speak for themselves. No censorship on this one, folks.

    However, it might be going a bit over the top to compare me to Biscardi and say I am a bigot. LOL. The evidence for such claims seems lacking for those that closely read this and my other blogs.

    Onward with the comments…60 and counting.

  13. Firefly responds:

    I’m a Right-Wing Christian who believes in Bigfoot, and I never cease to be amazed at the length a Left-Wingers will go to push their agenda of erasing all concept of morality and make morality illegal in the United States.

  14. Digger44 responds:

    Thank you for placing my post back.

    I totally agree that it is absolutely over the top to compare you to Biscardi. I did it to prove that there is no comparison between you two. Just because a few people of one particular group are unethical, close minded, foolish, or fraudulent does NOT mean that the rest of the group is that way as well.

    Just like it is over the top to compare you to Biscardi, it is over the top to suggest that “right wingers” hate Bigfoot. Just because a few people take a particular position, that never means the group as a whole takes that position. To suggest that they do is insulting and over the top.

    FWIW, even though I am a dreaded and horrible right winger, if I ever get the chance to collect evidence of Bigfoot you are the first person who I will contact because of your reputation and commitment to the work. It has nothing to do with your political affiliation or religious beliefs.

  15. HOOSIERHUNTER responds:

    Hudgeliberal–Yes I would defend your right to express your views. And many Christians and conservatives (no, they need not be mutually inclusive terms) in uniform have laid down their lives for you too. Thank you for the respect you show by saying you would die for our right to worship–you’re in good comapny with a lot of brave soldiers.

  16. Loren Coleman responds:

    Digger44, please note, your comment was not “removed” to be placed “back,” but was merely never placed online by the robotic software that places some comments aside for human approval due to certain key words, as I have mentioned before. I have tried to explain all this before, and here I am doing it again, for those that seem to not have read this before.

    I ask questions in some blog headlines, not because they express any thoughts I hold as near or dear to my heart, but because they create thoughts, reactions, and hopefully discussions.

    I think this blog is a success for those very reasons.

    And, please note, at the end of the blog, I said clearly: “I no more think that all ‘right wingers hate Bigfoot’ than I consider that Burgess’s Bigfoot TV documentary, ‘Bigfootville,’ is the final word in hominology.”

    Some people wish to ignore that part of this blog.

  17. Justncredible responds:

    Jefferson was NOT a libertarian, and libertarians are nothing like a liberal. A libertarian has faith and belives in people, a liberal thinks the government should control all aspects of ones life. Obama, would raise taxes, which the corps will without doubt pass on to the end users, in his sick idea of redistributing wealth. Has no one read and understood the story of Robin Hood? Read the comments that james harrington said about this when he wrote his version of utopia, called oceania. It is the basis of this very country, you haus have no idea of history or politics.

    As for mankind, we are not branches of the nathanderals, we have nothing in the fossil record that is close to us, and within the last 2 weeks the study of genes has proven about 70,000 years ago there was less than 2,000 humans like us.

    As for spelling, my god, what is wrong with you pointing out my spelling errors?? Do you think that is normal? I think the issue is about peoples thoughts on a subject not symantics.

    I work, so I will not expand upon my beliefs, as for me acting as if I know you ,,, I do, I have seen your type sipping a latte thinking you have some intellect. Then you race to vote for a fool that promises to raise taxes and remove free choices.

  18. Lyndon responds:

    Anybody ever read the extreme right wing website freerepublic? There was a bigfoot thread there not so long ago. To a man the subject was laughed at and mocked. Yet these same people have no trouble accepting that Moses parted the Red Sea. Bizarre bunch of folks those extreme right wingers.

  19. CryptoHaus_Press responds:

    A libertarian has faith and belives in people, a liberal thinks the government should control all aspects of ones life.

    that’s a classic right winger’s definition, spewed forth with reactionary zeal only Karl Marx could emulate!

    straight from Faux News and Rush’s web site! LOL! 😉

    now, at the risk of further incurring your wrath? it’s not “ones (sic) life” but “one’s life” in this case.

    one might think one would be better served to know the difference if one is concerned with “ones” (sic) rights to distinguish possessive vs. plural forms! 😉

    don’t lose your sense of humor. okay, Justn? you’ll find when you’re ridiculing other people but live in a glass home? it helps to expect a few broken panes/pains in your own life structures!

    don’t forget: jodi miller is funny, after all. a little laughter goes a long way. 😉

    It is the basis of this very country, you haus have no idea of history or politics.

    if your stated versions of history and politics are to be ASSumed to be correct?

    you are absolutely right (wing) about that statement!

    but… i notice you “learned” a little something from my diatribe against your constant misspelling of my name. you actually bothered to cut n’ paste it correctly!
    this shows that — despite your hard language and evident anger on display — you do have the ability to learn and grow.

    that’s a good thing, Justn. it shows an open mind. keep it up and i thank you for responding to my novel-length reply to your earlier missive. i also thank you for not slandering my family.

    I think the issue is about peoples thoughts on a subject not symantics.

    fyi, and don’t get angry, that’s not “symantics” (sic) but “semantics.” and “peoples” (sic) would be “people’s.” don’t they have a spellcheck on the Liberatarian web site, or what? 😉

    I work, so I will not expand upon my beliefs

    it’s nice to know that you consider whatever your unstated work is that you consider it (by implication) “real work” and the rest of us “types” as “latte” sippers.

    fyi, i work three jobs, sir. and i have plenty of time to still critically engage my fellow Americans, not Libertarians! 😉

    as for lattes? that’s a liberal drink! i told you: i am an American, sir. free from your political machinations. i don’t vote party, i am independent, sir. i vote of my own free will, after careful consideration, not because some Uber Party tells me how to vote and for whom to vote.

    think about it. you vote for a party member who cannot win; i choose from the best of what i am offered by the Machine.

    neither of us is ‘winning’ anything, sir. we’re both being marginalized by the corporate state. i just choose not to align myself with one party over another because to do so makes no sense, especially if the party is self-defeating like the Libertarian one is!

    give me hot black coffee or give me Death! 😉

    the Starbucks are coming, the Starbucks are coming! 😉

    as Paul Harvey said, “Good Day!” 😉

  20. Justncredible responds:

    Which canidate is better hoss? Oh boy my bad monkey brain has problems with tha spelling.

    Samuel Beer, to make a nation, isbn: 0-674-89317-4
    page 100,

    James Harrignton
    “Against the charge that “the lower sort of people” would follow a “king piper” who proposed to rob the rich for the benefit of the poor, Harrington countered that even the footman or peasant would understand that making war on the rich would “obstruct thier own livelihood””

    Ah, but you as a free thinker, who also goes to schools and forces a restrained group of children to listen to dribble about atheisum and marxism under the thin veil of sceince, you sir, dear sir, are lower than the sort of common footman discussed 250 years ago by the wisest of men.

  21. CryptoHaus_Press responds:

    James Harrignton

    that would actually be not Harrignton (sic) but Harrington.

    Which canidate is better hoss?

    that would be not canidate (sic) but candidate.

    and on and on.

    listen, i would like to allow you to have the last word after this posting, as this long since degenerated into name calling and bickering.

    you WIN. i am a Godless commie liberal pinko who is a latte-sipping elitist Marxist socialist (fill in the blank here).

    there, you, you are right (wing) and i, i am not. 😉

    gosh, it sure feels good to be able to admit i’m actually plotting the downfall of Western civilization and smart, critical thinkers (not to mention good spellers!) like yourself are our salvation.

    no wonder we’re the “envy” of the world!

    back when those horrid intellectuals actually had a say, we landed a man on the moon.

    now we just have the man in the moon in the white house! our thanks as a nation to you, sir.

    anyway, post as you will, i respect this forum enough to say: i can’t argue with you about the imaginary person you imagine me to be in your postings.

    you clearly have this image of this phantom diety (pun intended) that i am part of… the vast ‘left wing’ conspiracy, as it were… and no matter what i say, you only take sanity as provocation.

    so, mea culpa, sorry i engaged you, you are obviously a superior intellect, more righteous in the Lord, and in every way, shape and forum (pun intended) my better.

    humbly in beaten retreat,


  22. Justncredible responds:

    Strange how a libertarian is grouped with right wing when we are not right or left, but more akin to a tangent.

    Now am I hostile, you bet, in the other thread where you popped up like a zit on prom nite, it was clear the intent is not to sway adults but ignorant children in the schools. That is what I find offensive, if we as a people abide by the belief that religion is to be kept out of schools then why are they allowing atheist to come in and preach? One side does not play fair. It can not play fair, if it did it would be forgotten in a month. Same with marx, they knew they could never get people to follow such insanity so they preached it was science and survival of the fittest, so it was okay to kill the unfit. Darwin siad so!

    Oh and you have not refuted or debated in any of your dribble, you have tried to attack me on a personal level, and not on the issue, but on spelling. Well you did try to toss in the non-sense about jefferson. I know the attempt by the hippies to try and claim the libertarian party, they have failed, thank God.

    As for the moon statement, JFK was horrid and if you bother to see what he did you would agree, he compitulated to russia in the cubain crisis, we lost, JFK lost. Also look into his great social programs, pure disaster, we now have a defunct nasa thanks to him, we entered the veitnam war thanks to JFK, yes I do agree he was horrid, and as those that lived thru his term die off his history will be what people judge him by. The same will be done in 50 years for Bush, and even now we see clinton will never be considered a viable president since they lame ducked him in the first 2 years of office. Same will happen to obama, who might not make a full term due to the resco thing and the IL curuption that is about to really hit the fan. But look on the bright side we came from monkeys, we have no higher power than government.

  23. DavidFredSneakers responds:

    Definetly touched a nerve that I’ve been curious about for awhile.
    From my experience, Bart is absolutely right. The majority of those interested in bigfoot do seem to be more on the right-wing, and as a leftist I often feel awkward in political conversation.

    I doubt there is is a causal relationship though. Rural, economically marginalized people in the U.S. seem to take on a more right wing/libertarian outlook on the percieved threat of the federal government on their traditional lifestyle. This is particularly true in the South, MW, and PNW.

    Perhaps those living in small rural towns in say Northern California are more likely, geographically, to hear of and perhaps even see “sasquatch,” and due to the economic stress of deindustrialization and corporatization are also more likely to generate an extreme religious and far-right subculture?

    Probably not relevent to the original post, which was well written I think, despite a provacative title.

  24. Loren Coleman responds:

    For more on a “topic” stimulated by a comment that appeared here, please click on this link.


Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.