Powered by RedCircle

Join the discussion 4 Comments

  • WisGuy says:

    Shannon, tssssk, tssskk – you broke your New Year’s vow to keep the language on the show at a PG level. My pre-teen daughter’s very first school report was on bigfoot, she at times has shown an interest in Fortean phenomena, but it has varied as her tastes and interests seem to change by the season, as is often the case with kids. Right now, she is in a very cynical phase and makes fun of me, my podcasts, and my open mind about the existence of sasquatch (I’m not a definite believer, but let’s face it, there is one heck of a lot more credible evidence that a tall, hairy hominid roams the woods of North America than there is recent proof of the existence of any deity). Out of the half dozen or more similarly-themed podcasts I have heard and somewhat regularly listen to, ITF is by far my favorite, and I’m sure that my daughter would find some of the episodes interesting for long car rides, but I hesitate to expose her to F-bombs and significant profanity.

    If you told guests upfront/in advance you’ve got a New Year’s resolution to keep the language at the PG level (damn, hell, etc… are ok, worse is frowned upon) so that people can have their kids listen too, and confess it’s not always easy for you to remember, either, I’m sure everyone would understand and no one would be inhibited, either guests in telling their accounts and stories, or ITF regulars in continuing to listen.

    Thanks.

  • WisGuy says:

    Wow, just finished the whole episode and that was interesting, for sure.

    Quite frankly, I was starting to think that what Jon-Paul was describing, both from his personal experiences and from that of others, was, shall we say, perhaps better explained by altered mental states and memories of individuals suffering from mental health issues, neurological disorders, or the effects or aftereffects of hallucinogenic substances and/or long-term substance abuse.

    However, JP regained some credibility with me by stating that first of all, he finds a significant portion of the alleged dogman eyewitnesses on Vic Cundiff’s Dogman Encounters Radio show to be non-believable. I have previously stated in a comment to the Dogman ITF episode that I give Cundiff little credence because of his claim he has conclusive video/photographic proof of the dogman but won’t release it.

    He also gained further credibility when he dismissively discussed the bigfoot habituators (rural individuals who claim to have gradually gained the trust and often “friendship” of their neighborhood sasquatches). I personally agree wholeheartedly with Jon-Paul that the majority of this group of cryptid enthusiasts can best be considered as crackpots, running the whole spectrum of crackpottery between sadly delusional types out-of-touch with reality to hoaxers and attention-seekers. I too think that the claims of these people about sasquatch braiding the manes of their horses, about telecommunicating with their local bigfoot buddies, bigfoot leaving bird feathers as “presents,” etc… are no more grounded in reality than tales of cavorting with the Great Pumpkin. Their excuses for why they claim they regularly see their hairy neighbors but won’t produce any sort of video or photographic proof of their existence are nonsensical – “It would violate their trust!” or “They’re too smart to be caught on film or video!” [but why then are they not smart enough to avoid being caught in headlights crossing a roadway?] If the habituators genuinely cared about their “friends,” they’d want to prove they exist and thus protect them with endangered species (or something more akin to human) status, yet many dismiss this seeming inconsistency by claiming “They’re smart and wary enough that they don’t need our protection!.” If bigfoot is real, eventually we’ll have another Justin Smeja who will actually produce the body instead of just a far-fetched story, so it makes no sense to claim bigfoot is invincible. Certainly the half-dozen or so accounts from the 18th and 19th centuries of hunters shooting a “wild man” or “monster” in the wilderness would suggest that bigfoot is both mortal and as susceptible to succumbing to high-velocity lead projectiles as any other large mammal.

    I initially thought that Jon-Paul was potentially jeopardizing his career in academics by both his claims that demons are real and his first-hand account of seeing a demon in his parents’ bedroom when he was a child. Most of us are aware of the sort of scorn that genuine scientists like cryptozoologists/bigfoot experts Grover Krantz, John Bindernagel, and Jeff Meldrum have been subjected to for decades by the bulk of their colleagues in academia, and I would imagine there might be some inclination to do the same to someone like Professor Capece who studies demonology. However, doing so would necessarily have to call into question all of the members of the theology departments and ask them which portions of the Bible they consider to be fanciful (part of the realms of crackpots) and which they consider to be real (i.e. suitable subjects for study by legitimate academics). Is a race of malevolent beings who can change from shadows to corporeal forms and even possess the mind and body of an innocent human really any harder to believe than a talking shrub that spontaneously hosts fire without combusting all while presenting a genocidal old man with a list of binding life rules, or an invisible friend who lives in the sky and is both good and all-powerful but cares so little for those he claims to love as to allow tragedy to befall millions of innocent children and adults and is too lazy to proclaim his existence in a conclusive manner (say, make an appearance at the opening ceremony of the Olympics with billions of people watching and then perform some genuine miracles that could not just be illusions or CGI) for several thousands of years? Sure modern day clergy and theologians sometimes explain that portions of the Bible are meant to be allegorical, rather than interpreted as literal accounts. I think, though, that if one does accept the Christian concept of Satan and hell, one probably does need to accept that the Big Evil Guy Down Under (no, I’m not talking about Greg Norman), has non-human minions to help carry out his devious agenda, i.e. demon underlings. So probably fear of being labeled a hypocrite will deter any of Professor Capece’s more skeptical colleagues from scoffing at him, at least publically.

    Finally, if Jon-Paul happens to view these comments, I have a suggestion: listen to at least half an hour of the podcast and you should be able to identify a particular habit or two you have that could be easily eliminated to improve your oral communications. You know what I’m saying?

  • JPCapece says:

    It was my first time on the radio, I was pretty excited; I’ll try not to have too much fun next time. I’m aware of the mistakes I made but thanks for the constructive (trolling) criticism.

  • WisGuy says:

    Last time I checked, trolls don’t:

    a) Give good, helpful advice and constructive commentary;
    b) Discuss not just the negatives but the positives, too; or
    c) Prove points with references to facts, logic, reason and use examples, rather than engage in name-calling, make personal attacks, or use expletives.

    If my Greg Norman joke offended you, provide me with the name of another Australian who is at least as famous and semi-unsympathetic, and I will gladly substitute his or her name in my original post. Tennis player Nick Kyrgios might fit the bill as far as unsympathetic Aussies go, but I doubt many people who aren’t tennis fans have heard of him.

Leave a Reply