Since my last book review, I’ve downed a couple more. I can’t manage to review everything but here is a rundown:
Ghosts, E. Russell (1970)
This book was recommended to me by a long-time ghost researcher. I enjoyed it, mostly. It was confusing in parts, uneven. But some excellent points. Harder to get but worth it to have if you are serious about paranormal history.
The Castle of Otranto, H. Walpole (1764)
The first “Gothic” novel. Available outside copyright for free. Strange. Very strange.
Raising the Devil, B. Ellis (2000)
A very worthwhile reference. Learned a lot from this one. You may be able to get it through your local university library. A folklore perspective worth exploring.
Vampira: Dark Goddess of Horror, S. Poole (2014)
Vampira is entrancing. She was way before her time. This could have been cut down a bit but I enjoyed it all anyway. Now I’m a lifelong fan of Vampira.
The Haunting of Borley Rectory, Dingwall, Goldney & Hall (1956)
After I finished this book I realized I’d already read it 9 years ago. That explains why it didn’t seem impressively shocking. If you have read Price’s Most Haunted House in England, you MUST read this. Can be found in large university libraries.
Unnatural Creatures, N. Gaiman
Could not finish. I just don’t like short stories. Not bad, just not my thing.
Medusa’s Gaze and Vampire’s Bite: The Science of Monsters – M. Kaplan
Could not finish after first two chapters. Felt “off” as if Kaplan does not know what he is talking about. Focused on mythical monsters and uses guessing and speculation. Missed the mark entirely for me.
Hoaxes, Myths and Manias: Why We need Critical Thinking, R. Bartholomew & B. Radford (2003)
Very good reference. Readable and noteworthy (I marked lots of passages for reference). A must for your skeptical library.
I come across some interested bits and pieces in my daily travels. I figured I’d start sharing them. You know, learn something new everyday…
In Fortean Times 319: November 2014, Jan Bondeson describes how historic murder houses (in Victorian London) were often left without tenants as they developed a reputation for being haunted. No one would live there. A murder house may go through three phases: notoriety, rehabilitation and oblivion. All valuable houses reach the rehab stage and are reintegrated into the neighborhood while others are forgotten and just demolished. In contrast, notorious houses today may be desirable and fetch good prices. He opines why that might be: less local knowledge of the events especially to real estate purchasers from out-of-town, decline in religious or superstitious sentiment, and one thing he didn’t mention, the rise in paranormal or macabre interest and tourism that may actually prompt people to buy certain stigmatized properties.
America’s Most Haunted: The Secrets of Famous Paranormal Places
By Theresa Argie and Eric Olsen (2014)
There are books that people will love that others will hate for entirely distinct reasons. This is one of those books.
I categorize America’s Most Haunted as a paranormal true believer’s travel guide to “must see” places that are totally overhyped and banking on any paranormal popularity they can get. The authors count down ten locations that they have researched. There is no introduction to the book so it is not clear how or why they picked these ten, but according to their accounts and those of several contributors familiar with the sites, these are “tried and true” places for paranormal activity.
The book also has no table of contents, index OR references. No references means I can not care less about the stories inside – they are worthless as nonfiction, OK as entertainment. In that respect, the stories succeed because they are entertaining but they are often absurd in what we are asked to accept as true. The book is far more well-written than typical local ghost story collections. However, being well crafted does not make the stories any more reliable.
I have a fundamental problem with “stories”. As a collection of anecdotes, the reader has no way to assess if they are verifiable or accurate to any degree. Yet, people make serious assumptions from stories. No doubt many readers will swallow these outrageous stories of “it happened to me” without a critical thought. Continue reading America’s most hyped haunts – Book Review
Recently posted are two videos from The Amazing Meeting 2013 (yes, 2013 but better late then never).
The first is me talking about the Doubtful News website and what it means to be an “honest broker”, a concept we can all utilize to present information.
The second is a presentation by Don Prothero then a panel discussion with Don, me, Daniel Loxton and Blake Smith. It’s about cryptozoology and their typical “abominable” standards for science and scholarship.
June and July were all about getting ready for and attending The Amazing Meeting (TAM) in Las Vegas. I stayed a few extra days to explore some interesting places around Nevada. While there I had some very interesting interactions and discussions I would never have even imagined years before. Never let anyone tell you that hard work and dedication don’t pay off.
I’m happy to be an official part of the JREF now, working as their Creative Consultant and eventually as the Content Editor for the web site. I’m very excited about the new challenges for those who advocate for evidence-based skepticism and critical thinking about extraordinary claims. There is always something old returning, packaged in fresh wrapping and always new woo around the corner. This is my passion. The future of skeptical advocacy organizations means a lot to me. So, color me happy to be involved and willing to accept a challenging new project. Or two…
Not only did I start a new Facebook group to discuss weird stuff, called the Group of Fort (after Fortean topics). But I also started a new research society with Ken Biddle.
First, the Group of Fort. Come on over to talk about the paranormal, monsters and anomalous phenomena of all kinds.
Kenny and I decided that a casual investigation group, Anomalies Research Society, to look into local claims would be a good idea. If people don’t call us for the their second opinion about a haunting, maybe we could call them and offer to take a look. The aim is to be an ethical, evidence-based group of diverse experience and to respond to the nonsense propagated by the scientifical groups – the ones that play pretend science with their gadgets and blinky things. We’re after answers, not to bolster a belief system.
Meanwhile, due to my activities, there has been a slacking off at Doubtful News. DN content will eventually head to the JREF website when it is relaunched in a new format. While we continue to get excellent traffic, especially via search engines, on the site, I’ve become far more selective about stories I feature. It is discouraging to post the same nonsense stuff everyday like Bigfoot non-news and “Paranormal group finds haunting evidence”. It’s all the same garbage. I’ve started to look for the gems, stories that illustrate an important aspect of our culture or understanding. I also will accept guest posts on appropriate stories from regular readers.
It’s a case of picking battles, too. Every once in a while I’ll call out paranormal BS in public just to show that not everyone is so gullible and YOU shouldn’t be either. But my audience is the public, not other paranormal researchers or those who will believe no matter what the evidence suggests.
Because of the slowdown on DN, I’ve stopped donations to the site. I’ll still keep the server up. Some people generously agreed to continue to donate to those costs. That is really important because of the links and search results that still bring people in to read about topics that are back in the news. You still can contribute via the email@example.com PayPal account or through Patreon.
Finally, I’ve had a bit of a change in feeling about social media. I’m not about getting 5000 friends on Facebook or about promoting atheism or freedom from religion. Not interesting to me. I’m engaging in less discussion online. I value my personal space so I’ve been cutting back some FB friends. It’s nothing personal, it’s just that I don’t know a lot of you or why you asked to friend me in the first place. Well, I guess that is personal. But it’s not a reflection of you being a bad person, it’s more of me wanted to shore up my privacy and make sure I see things that I need to see, not outrage or drama. If you feel unfriended in error, send me a message. You still can find my public page here.
The highly anticipated paper from B. Skyes regarding DNA testing of anomalous primates has been published and is, thankfully, freely accessible.
In 2012, the team from University of Oxford and the Museum of Zoology, Lausanne, put out a call for samples of suspected anomalous primates – Yeti, Bigfoot/Sasquatch, Almasty, orang pendek. The samples, if accepted, would be genetically tested using a cleaning method previously vetted in the Journal of Forensic Science that removes all traces of surface contaminants (most likely human) to get to the original DNA sequence. A specific portion of the DNA was used – the ribosomal mitochondrial DNA 12S fragment – for comparison to sequences in the worldwide genetic database GenBank.
A total of 57 samples were received. Two samples were actually not animal hair: one was plant material, the other was glass fiber. Those not trained in biology/zoology cannot always tell the difference between organic and inorganic matter or plant vs animal fibers, as we’d also seen from hunters collecting samples on the Spike TV show Million Dollar Bigfoot Bounty.
37 of the sample were selected for genetic analysis. 18 were from 8 U.S. states, including pairs from AZ, CA, MN, OR, TX. The rest were from WA, what is believed to be the prime habitat of Bigfoot/Sasquatch. 8 samples were anticipated to be the almasty from Russia. Three samples were collected in the Himalayan region of Asia and one came from Sumatra supposedly representing the orang pendek.
Let’s see what the results were.
Unfortunately, there were no anomalous primates in the lot. The sequences all matched 100%, there were no “unknowns”.
One was found to be human – from Texas. That only one matched with humans is a testament to the rigorous cleaning method that removed contamination. Sykes revealed his thinking about Melba Ketchum’s paper by noting that human contamination often “confounds the analysis of old material and may lead to misinterpretation of a sample as human or even as an unlikely and unknown human x mammalian hybrid” (Ketchum, et al.). Therefore, her claim of rigorous forensic procedures is shot down, again. Incidentally, Sykes et al. does not consider Ketchum’s paper as a “scientific publication” likely because it was self-published. The Sykes et al. study is regarded as the FIRST serious study regarding anomalous primate DNA – he cites two others that were joke papers. Recall that Ketchum cited these in her paper as genuine, revealing her professional ineptness. While the Sykes, et al. paper lists Ketchum as a reference, it is only to cite it as a poor study, not within the valid body of scientific literature, with misinterpreted results. [Burn.] The quality difference between the two papers is remarkable. The Sykes paper is readable and understandable with minimal jargon and a clear presentation of the data and conclusions. Ketchum’s paper was gobbledygook and, with this new commentary on it, albeit subtle, is another death-blow to any further serious scientific consideration.
All the U.S. samples turned out to be extant (already existing in that area) animals such as cow, horse, black bear, dog/wolf, sheep, raccoon, porcupine, or deer. There very clearly was nothing anomalous at all.
All the Russian samples, at least some of which were collected by Ketchum associate Igor Burtsev, also were disappointing. There were two anomalies, however. Samples of raccoon and American black bear were among the Russian samples indicating either a mistake in the location of the samples or individuals of these animals were imported to Russia at some point and their samples left behind.
The main thrust of this paper hits the gut of cryptozoology. As it is practiced today by amateur Bigfoot hunters and monster trackers, it is not science. This paper represents science. It’s a high bar. I’ve said as much before. To do science requires very specific training. One result of the Ketchum fiasco and the Sykes “success” has been to educate cryptid hunters about genetics and reliable tests that can give them the results they desire. This project was an excellent example of amateurs working with professionals – exactly what needs to be done to make real discoveries and come up with better answers than “It’s a squatch”.
I’ve always disputed the claim from paranormal researchers (including cryptozoology enthusiasts) that science ignores their work. Scientists had previously been involved in the founding of the field of cryptozoology but also studies in the psychical research and UFOs. They looked, there was nothing there and they moved on. (See my thesis on amateur research and investigation groups, ARIGs)
Now, the modern field of cryptozoology has been put on notice. You need to raise the standards; you need to stop wasting effort. Blurry pictures or another FLIR recording of a warm blob is not going to constitute worthwhile evidence. We best learn about nature through a scientific process. That means amateurs must work WITH the experts, not rail against them.
I was very pleased with the results of the Sykes, et al. study. I look forward to his book release on this topic as well.