A person making an extraordinary claim may feel very special. A couple that I met recently who do paranormal research described some acquaintances’ behavior during an investigation of a supposedly haunted place : a woman “swooned” as the spirit overcame her. It was all very dramatic, they said. I’ve seen similar when one ghost hunter of a group claims sighting of a full-body apparition. The rest of the group pays rapt attention to the experiencer, openly wishing they had the encounter as described.
I recently gave a talk at a local paranormal-themed event about science and the paranormal, part of which was a description of “supernatural creep”. This week, I was reminded how powerful the pull of the supernatural is to some and that they will slide towards ever more sensational and dramatic interpretations.
Pursuit of paranormal investigation can be a path to personal empowerment. It becomes serious leisure – part of the definition of self. Some curious people that I thought were grounded have left the ground, metaphorically speaking. Paranormal people I thought were worthy collaborators turned out to be jokers and self-promoters, first and foremost. They’ve either lost contact with reality via small steps, or they have deliberately pursued sensationalist fantasy for some reason or another. (I can’t really say why, don’t know.)
Supernatural creep happens when an investigator takes eyewitness stories at face value, including supernatural qualities of the encounter, and incorporates these features into the description of the phenomenon. Such features include invoking spirits, demons, angels, miracles, or physical implausibilities such as time- or inter-dimensional travel, psychic communication, or other behaviors that do not align with the laws of nature. Read More »
This is the third in a series of posts examining cryptids (“hidden” animals said to exist based on local testimony), namely lake monsters, in terms of the folklore, tradition, and native tales of these creatures.
What can we make of folklore tales that cryptozoologists use to support claims that an unknown animal has been historically reported and remains to be identified?
This chapter of LMT (Lake Monster Traditions by Meurger) begins with musings on the water-horse of European folklore. It’s complicated. I’m currently not able to keep track of the many and various forms of water horses mentioned which would require me to dig into the many references. Some are very horse-like, only revealed as insidious by the algae in their mane, a stereotypical sign of danger if you are quick enough to recognize it before they leap into the water. Others are described more like horse-fish or merbeings. Shapeshifters are impossible to describe. The body of tales of the water horse, even in a specific region, are not consistent. Therefore, they don’t approach the rank of testimony making them problematic to consider as a basis for real animals.
The notion of the water-horse spans the spectrum of today’s cryptozoology. The kelpie, for example, isn’t considered to be a “real” animal. But the cadborosaurus is. Both have the water-horse features. Incidentally, the lovely but creepy water-horse concept was cheapened by The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep(2007) that portrayed a childhood Loch Ness Monster tale.
It’s difficult to ignore the clearly fantastic element in these myths of lake creatures. They serve as watchers or omens. They demand a sacrifice, whether that means claiming the drowned, deliberately taking those that venture into the water, or coming out on land to grab a victim for themselves. This connects to another trope– the lake not giving up its dead. The myth also discourages divers from exploring the depths, lest they become the next sacrifice. And it discourages locals from attempting to retrieve the dead because they serve an ultimate purpose, to appease the monster. It’s considered taboo for the residents of some locations to even talk of the monster. As Meurger says, it is not that the locals he visited didn’t want to talk or didn’t know about the beast, they were AFRAID to talk about it. This is magical thinking which is not comparable to the ethno-known concept of modern cryptozoology.Read More »
What can we make of folklore tales that cryptozoologists use to support claims that an unknown animal has been historically reported and remains to be identified?
Cryptid researchers say that modern reports of Bigfoot-Sasquatch, lake monster, sea serpents, giant flying animals, and elusive land creatures are supported by the stories of native people, legends or myths and sagas. Are these stories evidence? Can we reach back in time to use old tales to reinforce and help explain modern sightings of cryptids?
I’m not well-versed in folkloric studies just with a few pop culture college electives to my credit and casual observation for many years. But I heard from respected others that a modern interpretation and application of ancient cultural tales to the cryptozoology field was problematic. I wondered exactly why. The frequently cited source for understanding this aspect of cryptozoology is Michel Meurger’s Lake Monster Traditions: A Cross Cultural Analysis which I obtained.
There is much to digest in this book, translated from French. I do note that the translation does make it difficult sometimes to decode the meaning but it’s not incomprehensible.
I intend to write a series of posts exploring the author’s treatment of this material and his recommendations of how we should consider it for cryptozoological research.
The preface and introduction alone gave a jolt to my thinking. A review of what it contained was perhaps worth sharing for those who have not been introduced to these ideas. It’s obvious that the work still applies to today’s modern TV and internet-based cryptozoologists.
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.
When critical thinkers approach the subject of Bigfoot (or cryptozoology in general) with a focus on the evidence, they are met with reproach. We are challenging much more than the claim; we challenge their belief. They will resort to what Biblical literalists will do to evolutionists – they demonize, call us names, misquote, pick at small mistakes, and take words and ideas out of context. They create an extreme position and shoot it down (called a “straw man” argument) because it’s a power play to make them feel superior. (Note that some aggressive “skeptics” will do that and it’s not fair play in that case either.) All the while, they skirt the MAJOR flaws in their own conclusions.
Bigfoot-themed and other cryptozoology blogs and forums are typically hostile to skeptics, even moderate ones like myself. They can’t understand why we even want to participate since we are going to “deny” everything. Gee, sorry for being interested in the topic and in getting a good answer for peoples’ experiences. Questioning is not denying, it’s thinking.
A while back I challenged cryptozoologists to read the book and make a fair assessment. Some seem to have read it. Three known men gave it ridiculous reviews. They only read the parts that interested them and presumed judgement on the whole book. That is intellectually dishonest and really shallow, not to mention extremely arrogant, behavior. This is why we can’t take self-proclaimed cryptozoological experts seriously. They treat their subject more like a religion, based on faith.
Last Dragon*Con, I went to a talk about movie monsters. It was a small group with three artists up front chatting about their favorite creature features. It was so much fun, all that trivia. There was one tidbit from that presentation that I found so adorable and interesting, I was amazed I never thought of it before. I had to write about it. Yes, it’s taken me a year to do it.
I don’t know how they got around to the topic but we were discussing the Count from Sesame Street. You may remember that he counts everything. Nifty, eh? What a great kids character – just a touch scary (like other Muppets) but not threatening.
When I was a kid, a bit after the Sesame Street days, I got into monster books and loved to learn “facts” about vampires. One way to stop or at least delay a vampire, I’d heard, was to throw a handful of rice or seeds behind you. He would (apparently) compulsively stop and have to count every grain before proceeding. Interesting…
Is that where the Count von Count got his counting habit from?
The person next to me in the monsters talk said “Yes”.
Since I got back from July jaunts, I’ve taken a little break. I’m not doing Virtual Skeptics for August. So, in my spare time I managed to learn some accounting software (ALWAYS TRY TO LEARN NEW THINGS!).
Speaking of learning new things, the main point of this post is a challenge for people who follow one of my favorite fields of research to try something new.
I’ve been gushing over this book, Abominable Science by Loxton and Prothero, since I got it.
It takes a lot for me to really love a book. I might not read a five-star worthy book in a whole year. But this one is very special. I’m glad to have played a small part in its content. That’s not the reason why I love it. I love it because it reflects some of my own serious thinking about the field and reveals some really important issues that desperately need to be considered. It illuminates a huge problem in cryptozoology – possible the main problem – BAD SCHOLARSHIP. Today’s cryptid researchers forego diligence in examining claims in exchange for bolstering a beloved belief. (For example, authors like Nick Redfern, books series like “Monsters of [U.S. state]”, websites like Bigfoot Evidence and radio shows like Coast to Coast AM). Those are more fiction than nonfiction, fun and not serious (though some people take them very seriously).
It’s assumed that the skeptical view is not desirable. Wrong. People who want answers should logically seek them, not ignore a worthwhile contribution to the discussion.
I am asking any self-styled cryptozoologists to examine this book and tell me what you think. A common trope is that skeptics are not open-minded. Well, practice what you preach. Take a look at this book, which is fully referenced so you can make your own call on the evidence if you are so inclined. I have suspected that it might be ignored by those who prefer to monger mysteries instead of digging into the truth behind them. That’s cowardly. Don’t be like that. Expand your thinking. Question your assumptions.
So that’s the challenge. Read it and let me know what you think. I will happily share your comments with the authors as well because they value critique and feedback, unlike many in the paranormal field who seem to just want praise and a spot on a TV show.
Also, in the interest of respect for your subject area, you also should listen to the podcast Monster Talk. They bring on actual experts to discuss the science behind monsters. Boring? Not in the least. It’s so witty and smart. Yes, it’s a big change from Bigfoot audiocasts that just wax speculatively about the latest rumors and online evidence. But, again, give it a try. Check out the skeptical scholarship. If you want to understand the topic, you must be open to all angles.