Category Archives: Cryptozoology
I read every tweet and email and take them into consideration, answer or discard as necessary. I got a tweet yesterday that prompted me to write this post first thing when I woke up this AM. Here is is:
[W]hat fringe subject do you think is worth serious investigation? Obviously, it isn’t Bigfoot.
It’s a good question to answer considering that this person sees me as a “skeptic” (in the way they perceive “skeptic”) and apparently sees me as at least a bit dismissive of Bigfoot research. Perhaps this person only sees my opinion in dribs and drabs across the internet and has picked up that I don’t particularly like the field of Bigfootery these days. I’m not sure who could – it’s full of unprofessional, money-grabbing, sham research. Hoaxing is rampant and the “evidence” presented daily on certain websites is worthless.
Yes, I’m negative on Bigfoot research. No doubt. But there are two items that need to be clarified. Since Twitter is a poor media for such discussion and I could not point to something I’d written already or an interview I did that wasn’t really long and too much to hand out and say “read this”, I’m writing it here.
First thing: All fringe subjects are worth of investigation. Observations deserve explanation. Read the rest of this entry
Some of you may know I now blog for Huffington Post as well as the usual outlets. Some of you have been kind enough to read and retweet. I appreciate that. My latest piece is out.
I’ve been circulating in the Skeptisphere for a good long while. But I have not forgotten the value of being challenged and seeing alternative views. This draws me to paranormal conferences and events. I go there to be immersed in highly unskeptical ideas. It is immediately clear, to me at least, that I am out of my comfort zone at these events. I do not feel free to talk to anyone lest they determine I am not of their “ilk” and decide I should be shunned. But I am curious, and no one berates me for wanting to listen and observe. What is it about the paranormal culture that draws people here? Why is this population of people happy to spend a weekend engaged in these particularly paranormal activities, listening to speakers and making new friends?
This is a piece I wrote after I returned from a paranormal conference. I would strongly suggest all capital-S skeptics read it and would love to know what you think. I find myself cringing when I hear people (e.g. “skeptics”) laugh at paranormal believers (not beliefs but BELIEVERS) and soundly state “Bigfoot is a myth. Grow up!” How narrowly you see people. Skeptics lack empathy in many cases. You may decry me for giving paranormalists the time of day but I think they have something to say about being human. I’ve not been treated kindly by some in the skeptic-athesist community and I’ve been stabbed in the back and teased by some of the “skeptical believers” (I don’t accept their soft definition of “skeptic”) and of course you’re doomed if you are the Skeptic on a pro-paranormal forum. But, honestly, I’m so used to that. I write policy for a living. If I make everyone happy or NO one happy, I’m doing something right. It’s when I am only liked by one camp that I know I have a serious bias problem.
On the flip side, a new Sounds Sciencey was published this week as well. Read the rest of this entry
Bigfoot/Sasquatch enthusiasts MUST listen to the latest episode of the Tetrapod Zoology (Tet Zoo) podcast. Episode 3 is the Bigfoot special. This podcast is by Dr. Darren Naish, PhD who writes the blog Tetrapod Zoology on the Scientific American network, and science artist John Conway.
This is a one and a half hour discussion about the best evidence known for the Bigfoot phenomenon. The three “best” pieces prior to this year are the dermal ridges confirmed by print expert Jimmy Chilcutt [Check out this interview on Monster Talk], the Skookum cast from Washington, and the Patterson Gimlin footage. Conway and Naish discuss the pros and cons of each one. The point of the discussion is that these three pieces, compelling when they appeared, have since fallen apart. The Chilcutt dermal ridges can be duplicated unintentionally through artifacts from the plaster casting process. Credit is given to the work of Matt Crowley. The Skookum cast that was interpreted by primate experts to possibly be consistent with a reclining primate, showing body and heel impressions in mud, has a far more mundane explanation as resulting from a native elk (wapiti) wallowing in the mud. Credit is given to the Chris Murphy book Meet the Sasquatch (which I have thanks to the aforementioned Matt Crowley). And finally, the Patterson Gimlin film, while certainly impressive on the surface and has not been completely debunked to my satisfaction, does suffer from some serious problems surroundings it’s documentation and history. Noted contributors for this information are Dan Loxton (of Skeptic magazine) and Dr. Don Prothero, who have a new book on cryptozoology coming out that I CAN NOT WAIT to get. Hope to see it this spring.
All the evidence, if solid, should have held up and led to ADDITIONAL finds to strengthen the case for Sasquatch, but that is not what happened.
I’m confused and frightened by how bad I want these. Not that I would wear them, but because they are art and an engineering wonder. Also, I could find an interesting use for them.
Hairless carcasses attract morbid attention. Is it a mutant? A monster? Well, it’s most likely an unfortunate local animal who fortunately left remains for us to photograph, gawk over, get grossed out about, and share around the world on social media.
We are coming up on the spring/summer season and we already have our first mystery beast of the year which washed up on the U.K. shore: The Tenby Mystery Carcass. The best guess for this is likely a badger, judging from the size, head, teeth and claws. It may look large and horse-like but note the footprints, it’s not large. It’s about medium-dog sized.
Even though they are strange and disgusting, I’m intrigued by these critters and can’t pass up a chance to post their pictures and speculate (with comparative evidence) about what it is.
Carcasses on the beach are unpleasant. They are smelly, bloated and missing important parts. There may be trauma to the body. Decomposition will make the creature look nasty and also makes it difficult to comprehend what they looked like alive, possibly so much so that we can’t relate them to a known animal. Often, as part of the decomposition in water, the hair falls out with just a little bit remaining as clues to what it looked like alive.
My Bigfoot pieces on Doubtful News have been getting some attention. That makes me think that a (balanced) skeptical view is welcome on this topic. For one, it just SCREAMS “skepticism needed,” with even the Bigfoot researchers disgusted at the quality of Bigfoot evidence coming out and the seemingly daily parade of hoaxes.
The up to date news is that the Melba Ketchum study is looking worse every day. The promised high-definition video from the associated Erickson project has yet to appear except for the short clip of what looks like (just saying) a carpet breathing a bit TOO deliberately. And perhaps the face looks a little too like Chewbacca? Hmm.
One of my essential reading blogs, Respectful Insolence, has resurrected an older post on The Galileo Gambit. It was timely. It was in reference mainly to the day to day parade of quackery that passes by in the media. Orac coined the term “Galileo gambit” to describe a very common ploy used by quacks – they compare their persecution and non-acceptance to that of Galileo.
At least, I think I was the first to coin this term. I haven’t been able to find a reference to the “Galileo Gambit” dating before I wrote the original version of this post way back in 2005.”
Immediately, I thought of Dr. Melba Ketchum who recently pulled the Galileo Gambit when she announced the publication of her Sasquatch DNA paper.
We encountered the worst scientific bias in the peer review process in recent history. I am calling it the “Galileo Effect”. Several journals wouldn’t even read our manuscript when we sent them a pre-submission inquiry. Another one leaked our peer reviews. We were even mocked by one reviewer in his peer review.
Sorry, a lame excuse. It’s special pleading for why she had such trouble with her paper.
I’m proud (certainly not quite the right word) to call Tim Holmes a friend (and sometimes admirer). He’s a nice guy with an unconventional outlook on the world. In HIS world, Bigfoot is out there and UFOs visit regularly.
I wrote about Tim and the Who Forted gang after I attended the premier of the film The Bigfoot Hunter: Still Searching. (Tim IS the Bigfoot Hunter)
Tim was recruited to try out for Spike TVs new Bigfoot hunter show. I talk about the news of this show, offering a $10 million dollar prize here: Finding Bigfoot just got REALLY serious! (UPDATED: Prize money) | Doubtful News.
Been a weird week. I don’t know how I feel about having my own category on a contentious blog. But, you have to sometimes say things that other people might find… inflammatory.
Take for example my guest post yesterday on Bigfoot Lunch Club. I have eschewed most Bigfoot blogs because they are fed via unsubstantiated rumors, lame videos and pictures and ridiculous tales. But BFLC doesn’t do that so I give Guy my support. It’s important that skeptics with an alternate view to the paranormal or similar topic go out to these communities and see what they are talking about. You can learn a lot. Here is a link to the post, take a look at what I said, determine for yourself if I did it the right way or not, and look at the responses.
This entry is about tone <GROAN!>, big claims and trash talking. From Bigfoot to trolls.
Wait, don’t tune out, I have some interesting examples. Let’s talk about Bigfoot DNA a little bit. I know, that sounds weird.
Yesterday, some scientists also took note of the news and found the story… interesting.
In many circles, it was considered a joke. In almost all cases it was framed at least a bit critically. That’s OK. There are many important questions unanswered.
One major complaint on the study is that there is now a HUGE claim out there in the public eye and NO data to back it up (until the sooper secrit paper is published). You just don’t do science by press release. Not only is it unprofessionally bad form, it often turns out to be a bust. Typically, it seems to happen because the news is SO spectacular and exciting that the researcher are afraid of being scooped or they just can’t wait for the slow churn of peer reviewed publication. But since the claim IS so spectacular odds are good that it is mistaken. (Thus, we had the debacle of cold fusion, a fake bird fossil and the exaggerations about arsenic-based life.) Researchers really believed they had something incredible to share. I’m sure Dr. Ketchum is the same. There’s no need to be snarky.