| The truth can be philosophized and defined in countless ways to comfortably agree with what we have learned or conveniently accommodate our personal beliefs. For the sake of this section of the site, truth will simply be a general acceptance of what is, what was, and what will be: The Earth is a planet; the thylacine was commonly seen in Australia; the stars will appear in the night sky. Having established that, let me now say that creatures, things, and events either exist in one form or another, or they do not exist at all. The question is, do we want to know the truth, or would we rather wrap ourselves protectively in our beliefs or disbeliefs so that the truth cannot penetrate and reach us? Sadly, many people do just that, even when the truth might somehow actually agree with what they believe or disbelieve. This section of the site will not necessarily offer the truth, but instead it will attempt to offer guides toward the truth. It is my hope that the articles in this section will encourage people to approach what they hear, learn and know about their beliefs or disbeliefs with skepticism; questioning everything thoroughly and finding as many answers as possible until they are satisfied, or at least mostly satisfied that they have found the truth. |
Anyone who visits cryptozoology and Bigfoot forums has most likely read hundreds of differing opinions about Bigfoot (perhaps even offering a few of their own) accompanied by a fair amount of speculation; what it is, what it does, how smart it is, etc. I am, of course, referring to opinions that support the existence of Bigfoot. A good number of those opinions can be what I’ll call, (contrary to the usual claims), “unscientific”, or to be more frank; pure nonsense. Now, just to be clear, I’m not implying that all supportive opinion about Bigfoot is nonsense. To the contrary, there is a great deal of sensible opinion that supports the existence of Bigfoot; nevertheless, though certain opinion sensibly supports the existence of Bigfoot, there is not a single shred of irrefutable evidence that, in turn, sensibly supports the opinion. Still, nearly everyone who offers sensible opinion acknowledges that it is simply that; opinion. On the other hand, almost all of those that push nonsense opinion to support, or command a belief in, Bigfoot’s existence insist that it is not opinion at all, but claim instead that it is obvious fact. Yet we—the skeptics, doubters, and fence sitters—know it is not even remotely close to obvious fact … obviously. In this article, I would like to highlight some of the nonsense opinions, speculation, and claims about Bigfoot, if for no other reason than to simply show how entertaining it can all be. Because this is a work in progress with a very basic outline, I cannot presently say which opinions I shall touch on or exactly how I shall approach them. However, my intention is to meet whichever opinion about Bigfoot with my own opinion, speculation, and a little research, as well as have a wee bit of fun with parody, satire, exaggeration, and photoshopping. The article will be presented in sections, each of which might take a while to write and post, so I must beg the reader’s patience. But hopefully, I will have made each wait worthwhile.  Bigfoot with its myriad amazing abilities has mystified and baffled the believers for many years. According to numerous [completely unverifiable] claims, vast amounts of [eccentric] speculation, and the testimony of hundreds of [questionable] eye witnesses, Bigfoot is the most physically, mentally, and psychically amazing creature on the face of this planet. This includes those that are said to live beneath the surface of the planet, as well as those that—according to a handful of folks—live in the center of what they are quite sure is a hollow Earth. With its exhaustive arsenal of paranormal abilities which it employs with unparalleled strength (which is pretty easy to do considering that no one can prove that they themselves have paranormal abilities of any kind), it is no wonder that such a creature is beyond belief.
Bigfoot can run like a horse (or faster according to some claims), leap like a grasshopper, scream like a banshee, walk without making a sound (despite weighing up to half a ton), blend like a chameleon, snap trees and thick branches like twigs, effortlessly throw large stones and small boulders, see distances more clearly than a man with powerful binoculars, sense human presence miles away, foretell the future, communicate telepathically, hobnob with extraterrestrials, vanish without a trace, and even travel into other dimensions at will. Those are just some of Bigfoot’s many astounding abilities. Let us look more closely (or laugh more hardily) at this many faceted phenomenon that blazes with so much incredible speculation. Read on and see if you don’t agree that no other earthly creature could ever be more masterful … or more amusing.  Let us begin with Bigfoot the wizard; a creature that can inexplicably instill fear into dogs so that they are unwilling to catch it and humans so that they are reluctant and unable to pursue it. Many will say that it is not inexplicable at all, but that it is most likely, (though some will say “obviously”) super powerful pheromones that create a scent of fear that effects all other living creatures.
Not so, Joe. All research done on pheromones thus far shows that evolution has created a system to give “alarm”, but nothing that directly instills “fear”. Even then, the pheromones only work with conspecifics; which is to say, within the same species. The “alert” or “warning” pheromones don’t always send creatures scurrying for safety; sometimes they cause the creatures to become aggressive. Though there is no evidence that humans react to a hypothetical “scent of fear”, they nevertheless “sense” fear in certain situations, and like many creatures in nature, will also become aggressive (especially if carrying a firearm); which means that instead of running from Bigfoot (as so many claim is inevitable), they would more likely face it and fire away. A sense of survival is proven to be much stronger than the reluctance to kill something that bears such a strong resemblance to human form, if one feels threatened by fear. There was some testing done at the Ludwig-Boltzmann-Institute for Urban Ethology at the Institute of Anthropology/University of Vienna on human females who, while viewing “terrifying” films showed an increase in cortisol levels, but the resulting scent indicated a presence of fear; it did not instill fear. Nor were the test subjects able to discern between the fear and non fear scents; they were only able to barely determine that the scents were different. Unless Bigfoot is a biological exception to the rule (and I’m sure that some people will insist that it is) it does not and cannot exude “fear” pheromones. Even if it did, science shows that it would not be effective on heterospecifics (species differing from its own). People who testify of overwhelming fear when they believe Bigfoot is close by or watching them are likely afraid of nothing more than their own imaginations. The Bigfoot pheromone theory is scientifically incorrect and not possible, but if we apply the more popular “make it up as you go along” method, Bigfoot the wizard can exude an aura of fear that science is unable to explain; a paranormal ability to emanate “fear vibes” toward a possible threat. Or perhaps it employs mind control over all other creatures, making them only think they’re afraid so that they turn and flee. It might even use that mind control to have a little fun: “Clem, let’s get out of here, I’m awful scared, and my whole body’s a-shakin’, and no matter how hard I try, I just can’t stop it.” “Alright Jeb, we best skedaddle. But first I have this strange and uncontrollable urge to give you a cow-bellerin’ wedgie that’ll make you walk funny for a week.” Along with its paranormal ability to instill fear, Bigfoot the wizard can foretell certain futures by communicating with the Earth so that it may avoid Nature’s fury; which is why we have never been able to find bodies after volcanic eruptions, devastating floods, ravaging storms, etc. While this is admittedly not without possibility, considering the undeniable nervousness of many animals preceding a natural disaster, it is nonetheless an unlikely possibility for a creature purported to be so much more like a man than an ape. It is also unlikely that it would escape the area of potential disaster undetected. Humans can also predict natural disasters with the assistance of science. Scientists knew Mount St. Helens was going to erupt for a good long while before it occurred. The entire area was under constant surveillance for weeks, so a big hairy hominid moving away from the volcano unseen would have been nearly impossible. Ah, but I’m forgetting Bigfoot the wizard’s ability to become invisible at will. That would, of course, easily explain how it can move about and escape disasters completely unseen. I mean, duh! And I would be amiss if I failed to mention that Bigfoot the wizard can also shape change into other animals, even those that fly (yes, a few people actually believe this), so that they do not have to be concerned about avoiding detection. There are other magical attributes that can be credited to Bigfoot the wizard (according to nonsense opinions, speculation, and claims), but they can also be applied to other strange facets of the creature, and I would like to bring them up in later sections so that I do not belabor this section with too many of them. Suffice it to say, Bigfoot the wizard is an incredible creature of great magic that is highly capable of avoiding human contact if it so wishes. The next time you see a couple of people in the woods, and one of them is walking funny after receiving a crippling wedgie, you’ll know that Bigfoot the wizard was there.  While reading what many people had to say about Bigfoot the extraterrestrial, it quickly became obvious that there are almost as many types of extraterrestrial hairy hominids as there are people who believe they exist. Generally though, they fall into two main categories: Bigfoot is an extraterrestrial visitor with technology far advanced over our own, or they are creatures brought here by extraterrestrial visitors that possess a far advanced technology.
A handful of people who claim that Bigfoot is an intelligence from a planet far more advanced than our own also claim that they know this because they communicate with the big hairy alien telepathically. While most of my information about Bigfoot the extraterrestrial comes from internet forums, I had the (what I’ll call) opportunity to encounter a woman in Los Angeles that strongly insisted that she was an emissary for the otherworldly creatures. She was basically “announcing” herself at Alondra Park, which is located next to El Camino College. It was in January of ’83. I was staying with a friend in Gardena who had business at the college. I decided to stroll through the park, while he took care of his business, and heard a woman speaking to a small crowd near the duck pond. She was an overweight, well-dressed, unattractive woman who looked to be middle-aged. As I joined the crowd, she was claiming that she was the only emissary on Earth and that anyone else who also claimed to be one was crazy or a liar or both. It was later in her rant that I learned she was claiming to be a representative of Bigfoot the extraterrestrial. The incident occurred so long ago, that I don’t remember much of what the woman said. I was more amused than interested and therefore anticipated entertainment, not enlightenment; so I didn’t take mental notes. She gave the extraterrestrial Bigfoot and their planet a name, and stated their reasons for being here; none of which come back to me, save that they were going to make the world a better place. Mostly I remember her repeatedly telling everyone who stopped to listen, that she was chosen because she was “above” everyone else, and that we should all follow and obey her before it was too late. What I remember most of all was her suddenly swooning and cooing like a little girl who thinks she’s in love and stating that the extraterrestrial Bigfoot leader contacted her telepathically to let her know that she would be his queen to rule over all mankind. She also preached a bit about the horrors of the world, and how it would all change. More than twenty years have passed since she gave her warning in the park, and she’s still not the queen of the world, so I’m assuming the courtship is a fairly lengthy one. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the woman in Alondra Park is typical of everyone who claims to communicate telepathically with Bigfoot the extraterrestrial (or any other kind of Bigfoot, for that matter), but, after reading a good many forum entries by similar individuals, I believe I can safely state—metaphorically speaking—that they all basically live on the same block; or at least in the same neighborhood. There are a good many believers that don’t claim to communicate telepathically (or otherwise) with Bigfoot, but apparently don’t believe communication is necessary to see that Bigfoot’s extraterrestrial origins are obvious. Despite their lack of communication, they are nonetheless inexplicably able to offer a variety of reasons for its presence here on Earth:
 Let us move on to Bigfoot the cyborg; a cybernetic Sasquatch which I will hereafter refer to as cysquatch, simply because I think it sounds kind of cool. I have only heard this idea proposed by one person, who presented it as absolute fact. Cysquatch is my term, he used “bionic robot” to describe the “actual” Bigfoot. He posted his cysquatch claim in an obscure little forum at one of those do-it-yourself sites that I found near the end of a Google list when I was searching for “weird Bigfoot”; he admitted that his story would sound weird. As far as I know, he only posted once, but I was so amused by his claim, that I just had to include it in this article.
It has been a few years since I read about the cysquatch idea, and I attempted to relocate the forum for this article, but (not remembering its name—if it’s still around) I was unsuccessful, so I’m sure I won’t be able to relate the gentleman’s claim with complete accuracy. Though I cannot remember the forum’s name or all the details, I recall the poster calling himself ‘Bionic Brain’. BB (as I’ll call him) claimed that a far advanced ancient race of people on Earth created cysquatch, and then mysteriously vanished, leaving behind only the slightest traces of their existence. BB stated that only those who are truly looking for signs of their history (and know what they’re looking for) will ever find them. BB also said that the cysqautch did not vanish with the advanced race of beings, but remained ingeniously hidden—though he didn’t say how—and dormant for thousands of years. Without revealing how or why (which BB was quite good at, as you may have noticed), he then claimed that between 500 to a 1,000 years ago, the cysquatch became “active”. They remained hidden while evaluating and assessing everything around them, reprogramming themselves as they did so, until they were able to reach an objective. Their objective is to continue to remain hidden, using forest, jungle and mountain areas, where they capture unwary people, and—get this—assimilate them. So … am I the only one who thinks that sounds familiar? “Resistance is futile”. BB elaborated a bit on all this, but I won’t bore you with details I’m unable to recall accurately. BB finished his claim, which he insisted was absolutely true (though he, of course, did not say how we could know it was true), by pointing out the recent frequency of people disappearing without a trace and Bigfoot being spotted more and more often; which, he also pointed out, is because so many people have been assimilated that they are finding it difficult to avoid detection. My favorite part was where BB revealed that he alone was able to escape while being “assimilated”. He escaped just before they took over his mind, so he continues to be able to think for himself, but still has enough components attached to him so that he can detect the cysquatch even when they are ingeniously hidden, with the added ability to discern between the original creations and the “assimilated”. BB wrote that along with being able to detect the cysquatch, the partial assimilation he received greatly enhanced all his senses, and gave him enormous strength. BB went on to tell us that we could rest assured that he would use his unique abilities to track down all the “assimilated” and restore them to their original selves and lives, and in the process, destroy the original creations until they exist no more. He was quite sure we will never be aware of his crusade though, because he claimed to be in contact with a top secret branch of the government who told him they intend to keep it all thoroughly hush, hush. And yet he posted it all on the internet. Go figure. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m sure I’ll sleep more soundly knowing that such a capable and valiant man (who most likely abuses his meds) is out there saving the world from an otherwise terrifying and inevitable assimilation. I’m just sorry I failed to ask him what channel it would be running on.  Ever hear or read about all the women who want to marry Bigfoot? Me either. That is, not outside of the more ridiculous tabloids, a few really bad movie plots, and the ever notoriously unreliable, “I heard it from someone who heard it from someone…” Nope, I honestly can’t say I have ever encountered a woman, on or off the internet, who claimed she wanted to, or was going to, marry Bigfoot.
You’re probably wondering how I can make such a statement when I just mentioned seeing a woman who claimed she would be Bigfoot’s queen. In all fairness, despite stating that she was going to be his queen, which, of course, strongly implies marriage, (which, I must admit—from all her cooing—is how I interpreted it), I don’t recall her using the word ‘marriage’ or ‘wedding’ in any form, at any time. Unlikely as it is, she may have been speaking of a purely platonic relationship engendered by diplomatic necessity. Besides, I’m referring more to women who don’t necessarily wish to be queens so much as simple wives (or mates, if you prefer) and the mothers of Bigfoot’s children. Now I obviously haven’t heard or read everything everyone has ever said or written about Bigfoot on or off the internet, so it’s quite possible that one or more women have indeed seriously stated their desire to marry or have some sort of relationship with Bigfoot. Frankly, I wouldn’t doubt it for a moment. So what the heck is all this seemingly pointless silliness leading up to? Simply this: I have noticed in all my reading that there is a subtle difference between the adult genders when it comes to believing in Bigfoot, with the women appearing much more “romantically inclined” in their belief. Men generally show an academic interest (whether it be scientific, or otherwise) that mostly stems from curiosity, though “infatuation” can play a very strong part as well. And men, much more so than women, favor killing at least one of the man/ape-like creatures for study as well as producing a body to make all the skeptics eat their words … yeah, right. Still, there’s nothing wrong with wishful thinking. Women who believe Bigfoot exists, on the other hand, have more of a personal interest. Like Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey, they see themselves intermingling, communing, and connecting; perhaps envisioning themselves as heroines in the field of “sasquatchology”. Some may even see it as some sort of dream fulfillment of being whisked away from the dull or disappointing normality of life and enveloped in a kind of fantasy world surrounded by new and exciting horizons. Some women reading this might correct me and say it’s not the “dull or disappointing normality of life”, but the “dull and disappointing regularity of men” that gives them such dreams; which may very well be true, but hey, that applies to all the other guys, not me, ahem … anyway …. I have also observed that the vast majority of women vehemently oppose killing Bigfoot for any reason whatsoever. It is not uncommon for them to spit threats of one kind or another at anyone who even suggests taking the life of Bigfoot. For most men, Bigfoot is a zoological anomaly. For many women, Bigfoot appears to be a knight in shining armor that will come and save them from … whatever they want to be saved from. Some women just read way too many romance novels, if you ask me. I’m not referring to all women who believe in Bigfoot, but I’m fairly certain that almost all (if indeed not all) women will deny being portrayed in such a manner as I have showed them here. But I’m just as sure that most men (believers and skeptics alike) easily recognize what I have written, and are very likely amused by it all.  Taking ‘Bigfoot in Shining Armor’ in an entirely different direction, I would like to bring up the Wildman or “woodwose” of medieval Europe. Medieval drawings, heraldry, misericords, etc, depicting wildmen are often used by those who believe in Bigfoot to support its existence. While it is entirely possible that half-crazed naked men roamed the woods of medieval Europe, even the most cursory scholarly reading of the woodwose shows that it is ridiculous to believe there were actual manlike creatures completely covered with hair which were therefore the medieval version of Bigfoot. Everything I have read about the woodwose clearly pointed to the fact that they were little more than religious allegory and not real creatures. Those who argue that the carvings would not exist if there was not something real to inspire them should look more closely at some of the misericords. If they truly believe a real creature is, in fact, necessary to inspire the depictions, then they must give unquestionable credence to wyverns, dragons, gargoyles, and even birds with hooves. Trying to use the woodwose to support the existence of Bigfoot is yet another failure.
Still, if Bigfoot did exist, it would have made a pretty formidable knight, don’t you think? Not to mention a really great character in a Monty Python movie.  When I scratched down an outline for this rather lengthy article in all its parts, there was no “Bigfoot the Pirate”, but after fooling around with photoshop and seeing how my depiction of Bigfoot looked sporting a well-worn tricorne and a fancy eye patch, I just had to show it off. And I must admit I enjoy entertaining the thought of a large, baleful Bigfoot pirate captain patrolling his ship, squinting menacingly down on his crew who evasively keep their eyes to their tasks as they cringe at the sound of his wooden leg knocking against the deck. The knocking suddenly dies as Captain Bigfoot stops to survey his ship for a moment, slowly looking this way, then that, betraying no emotion. He then turns his attention to the sea with dramatic deliberation, eyeing the horizon with an intense ferocity that seems to remain frozen in his glare. Standing straight and broad, he is over four hands higher than the tallest man on ship and a great deal more powerful than the strongest. Massive arms end with a devilish gilt hook replacing one hand, and a blood-stained cutlass gripped with furious, determined strength by the other. When not plundering treasure, Bigfoot the pirate—the most feared and dreaded buccaneer that ever lived—seeks Doby Mick, the great white plesiosaur. It’s the stuff of great—oh okay, “silly” fiction; as Bigfoot ever has been, and ever will be.
While I have Bigfoot on the water, I would like to mention a brief exchange on a now defunct music forum I once frequented. We were discussing song lyrics when the subject of Bigfoot came up merely in passing. The usual “I wonder if it really exists” comments were posted before the subject was quickly forgotten. Then a few days later, out of the blue, someone posted that they scared Bigfoot one day, and it jumped into a lake and swam away. The post was completely ignored until a few days later when someone else posted that Bigfoot wouldn’t have been swimming (treading water, obviously), but would have gone under water because they have gills. He/she knew this, because an uncle had said so. Was an uncle just having a little fun with a niece or nephew? Most likely, and yet…. I have read a small number of posts by people claiming to have seen Bigfoot swimming, and, (despite being ape-like), I have no problem believing Bigfoot could swim if it existed; I mean, it can do everything else, so why not be able to swim as well. But gills? I did a half-hearted search on the internet to see if anyone else shared this unscientific belief, and was relieved to find that no one, in fact, did. At least not so that it was posted on one of the more popular Bigfoot or cryptozoology sites, or if it was, I failed to see it. Still, when one considers all the other incredible, and oft times impossible, attributes assigned to Bigfoot, you really have to wonder if there couldn’t be a small group of folks out there who sincerely believe, for whatever reason, that an alleged ape-like creature actually does have gills. The existence of such a group is far more plausible than the existence of a giant North American ape, anyway. Still, perhaps “gills” could explain the occasionally proffered “disappearing Bigfoot” theory. You see, each time Bigfoot hides beneath the surface of a lake for any length of time, it gets eaten. Think about it. It’s general knowledge; just as there are Bigfoot concealed in every forest and woodland of North America, there are big, hungry monsters concealed in every large body of water. Hey, you never know; one of them might even be Doby Mick. More of this article to follow in a week or so. If you would like to comment on what you just read, please click here. |
An apology (or excuse, depending on how you look at it): I try to choose topics that demonstrate a modicum of intelligence as well as show substantial relevancy to skepticism as it relates to cryptozoology, but such topics take time to research, and every once in a while I’m cornered by difficult and/or unavoidable circumstances that greatly absorb my time and I must pick a less time-consuming topic which isn’t quite as cerebral as I would like it to be, or write nothing at all and leave folks to wonder if (or perhaps hope) I’ve given up on the site. I could, of course, sacrifice a little sleep (more so than I already do, that is), but this site simply is not high enough on my list of priorities to make such a sacrifice. The topic I have chosen—to meet my time restrictions—is one I have attempted to write several times before; (I even photoshopped the images for it some months ago), but I abandoned each attempt as I realized that my approach to the topic was little more than a dense lump of biased opinion that lacked all power to get up and go. Even if I was able to get the topic to move somehow, it was completely without direction. None of that has changed, but I feel as though I should write something for the site so that the few people who occasionally return to it are not doing so in vain. The topic would do a great deal better with research, especially psychological studies; still, it can get by without the research, but sadly at the cost of being significantly informative and categorically correct; making it, as I already stated, a dense lump of biased opinion. Oh well. Since I cannot make the topic intelligent, I will at least try to make it entertaining.  In the realm of cryptozoology the outstanding superstar of cryptids is without question, Bigfoot. Some people prefer to call it Sasquatch, a few others recognize it by more obscure names, but whatever name it goes by, it is nevertheless the idol of cryptozoology.
In my youth, when I naively believed in the existence of most cryptids, Bigfoot wasn’t even in the top ten of my list of interests. Whenever I read a cryptozoology book, I would often skip over the parts about Bigfoot or Yeti because those parts tended to bore me. I’m sure there are many today who are less interested in Bigfoot than they are in other favored cryptids, especially the younger cryptozoologists whose interests lean more toward prehistoric survivors and weird alien animals, but the overwhelming majority of cryptozoological interest inarguably falls upon our big, hairy, elusive, imaginary friend. So much so, that Bigfoot very nearly dominates the subject of cryptozoology. So why does Bigfoot’s popularity dwarf that of all other cryptids? I honestly don’t know, but I certainly won’t let that stop me from speculating. Despite a strong history of Native American folklore*, I believe Bigfoot is a modern-day creation. Stories of a large, hairy, man-like creature had been circulating through newspapers and among the general population for a good long while before Native American folklore was brought up as a historical support to convince people of the alleged reality of those stories. Because it is a modern-day creation, there is a certain sense of ownership accompanied by a good deal of personal investment in its development. Those who believe in Bigfoot are not unlike the King of Cyprus who chiseled a statue of a woman quite fair to behold and then fell in love with his creation; so much so that Aphrodite brought the statue to life as the beautiful Galatea. Just as Aphrodite brought the creation of the King of Cyprus to life, so did the intense infatuation of Bigfoot believers for a big hairy hominid bring their creation to life. But just like the story of Galatea, a real life Bigfoot has proven to be nothing more than a myth. Still, that myth becomes a reality for many who approach the subject of Bigfoot believing and recycling many of the same stale opinions, speculation, and wishful thinking that have been presented countless times before in vain, as though they were fresh and novel ideas filled with sound logic and solid reasoning to support the existence of Bigfoot. They nonetheless fail to support Bigfoot’s existence (in the eyes of mainstream science), but phenomenally succeed in perpetually refreshing its creation; thereby unwittingly adding themselves, with their incessant and redundant contributions, to the “religion” of Bigfoot creators; frequently involving themselves so thoroughly that they become unable or unwilling to part themselves from it. There are even some who sincerely believe they have seen their creation, but that is a subject in and of itself to be written at a later time. And where do I get the audacity to call a belief in Bigfoot a “religion”? To be clear, I’m not demeaning religion in any way, as I myself am a religious man, I am instead implying a “fanatical religious fervor” that is recognized by both the religious and unreligious. Nor am I applying the term to those who simply believe in the possibility of Bigfoot’s existence, or hope for its existence. I am also not saying that anyone worships Bigfoot … well, not most anyone. The people I’m pointing at are those who have absolutely no doubt that Bigfoot exists despite the fact that there is not one shred of irrefutable evidence to even remotely support that belief. I call it a religion because of the self appointed apologists who preach the word of Bigfoot with an ardent fanaticism and defend their beliefs valiantly, if not viciously against the evil, vile skeptics who dare to question in any way the existence of their creation. It is this “ardent fanaticism, accompanied by a (sometimes urgent) need to convert or convince, more so than with any other cryptid, that—I believe—contributes to Bigfoot’s overbearing popularity. On closer examination, it may not really be so much like a religion as an enlightenment of self-fulfillment, self-awakening, and oneness with Bigfoot:  The Seven Steps to Complete and Total Bigfoot Bliss
You know, it wouldn't surprise me one tiny bit if anyone should take any of this seriously, and decide to construct the temple of Bigfoot at Bluff Creek. I can just see the countless believers making their yearly pilgrimage on their journey to enligtenment.  Now I admit that not everyone who is sure that Bigfoot exists does so with a religious fervor. Some are more apt to give the cryptid a celebrity status, viewing it as they would a movie idol or rock star. They immerse themselves in Bigfoot sensationalism, gullibly believing nearly everything they see, hear, or read. Their attitude is such that one would almost expect dozens of paparazzi to crowd Bluff Creek in hopes of getting photos of “Patti” as she strolls by wearing her three hundred dollar Fendi sunglasses and fifty-five hundred dollar designer dress. Thousands of fans would crowd her for autographs and her agent’s phone would ring non-stop with movie offers and appearance requests. It wouldn’t surprise me if such believers started their own magazine; “Foot”, or some such title with all the latest Bigfoot gossip. No doubt the classifieds would be as—if not more—entertaining than the articles:
 Do we have to wonder if any young women would respond with an avid willingness to participate? They’re out there, folks, and I’m sure you know it. While Bigfoot sensationalism isn’t much greater than that of any other cryptid, when coupled with the “religious fervor” of other believers, it significantly enhances Bigfoot’s popularity in the field of cryptozoology.  I realize, of course, that not everyone who believes that Bigfoot exists belongs in the above mentioned categories, (though I’m sure they easily account for the vast majority of believers). There are about as many ways to believe Bigfoot exists and as many types of Bigfoot believers as there are physical descriptions of the creature to accommodate the imagination. But all differences aside, the one thing that all but a very few Bigfoot believers accept as fact is that the Patterson film is of a genuine female Bigfoot. Just about everything related to Bigfoot rotates around this brief little snippet of film. Having stated why I believe Bigfoot is far more popular than the other cryptids, I would like to add that I believe it is Patterson’s little piece of media, lasting less than a minute, that almost solely sparked Bigfoot’s extraordinary popularity. I have to wonder just how popular Bigfoot would be today if Patterson had honestly gone looking for Bigfoot instead of creating one, and came back with nothing more than a lot of empty forest scenery.
That’s basically all there is to it, and I don’t believe it’s necessary to elaborate my opinion any further, but in ending, I would like to mention one other type of believer who strives mightily to make Bigfoot as popular as it is today. Actually, I shouldn’t call them believers, because most, if not all of them, merely pretend to believe in order to maintain the confidence of the gullible. They are very much the public relations for Bigfoot. For them, keeping Bigfoot popular is important for one reason and one reason only: It’s all about the money.  * All Native American folklore that has been used to support the existence of Bigfoot that I have thus far researched has proven to be of spiritual entities or were nothing more than nursery bogies, none of which has in any way resembled Bigfoot as its appearance and actions are described today. If you would like to comment on what you just read, please click here. |
The excessively debated Roger Patterson film of an alleged Bigfoot has been volleyed about in so many ways by so many people who accept it or reject it, (or just plain have an opinion about it), for so long that an entire book could be written about the controversy alone. And though many minds have changed a little, and a few minds have changed a lot, and even fewer minds have changed completely; overall, in the last forty years, neither side has succeeded in changing the mind of the other as to whether the creature is genuine or a hoax. The film has been analyzed, probed, enhanced, slowed, enlarged, scrutinized, filtered, stilled, etc, in an attempt to support the observations and interpretations of the opposing sides, but always in vain. Each side sees their own observations as proof sufficient to accept or reject the film while dismissing the observations of the opposing side for whatever reason. The tenacious stand of each side is a very strong indication that the Patterson film, in and of itself, is not going to settle the debate any time soon, if ever. When the observations from film analysis of each side are rejected by the other, quite often they turn to supporting arguments to maintain their stand. Those who believe the film is a hoax will often state that “many scientists” believe the Patterson film is of a man in a suit. They rarely offer names to back this statement up, but doing so would be moot, because most of the opposing side is already well aware that the majority of mainstream science does not believe in Bigfoot, and regards the film as a hoax. Still, the opposing side tries to rationalize the rejection of mainstream science by pointing out that the majority isn’t always right. While this is certainly true, the majority isn’t always wrong either. In fact, (in present day science) the majority is right a great deal more often than it is wrong. A few of those who believe in Bigfoot will nevertheless demand to know who these “many scientists” are. Jeff Meldrum mentions a fair number of them in his book, “Sasquatch—Legend Meets Science”, but all anyone really needs to do is look up the name of a reputable scientist, and realize that there’s a 95% chance that whoever belongs to that name believes that the Patterson film is a hoax. Anyone who rejects or dismisses that fact is in denial or delusional, pure and simple. I must fretfully admit that some skeptics make use of some incredibly ignorant arguments in an attempt to disprove the Patterson film, but I’m not going there; I’ll let the “believers” point those arguments out if they wish. Instead, I would like to highlight the ignorant arguments of those who try to prove that Bigfoot is real and is in the Patterson film. While there are many such arguments, (a few of which I touched on in “Namedropping” and “Comparisons”), for the sake of brevity, there are only three upon which I would like to concentrate in this article. The first argument I would like to bring up is the occasionally quoted 1969 interview of Disney executive Ken Peterson by John Green which is mentioned by Grover Krantz in his own argument to support the Patterson film. After viewing the Patterson film, Ken Peterson is quoted as saying, “that their technicians would not be able to duplicate the film”. Before going further, I would like to point out that this is a man who is quoting a man who is quoting a man; which has never been a reliable ingredient for accuracy. Still, let’s give Dr. Krantz the benefit of the doubt, and treat the argument as if it is accurate; as far as I know, Ken Peterson never denied the quote, so it may very well be accurate. Dr. Krantz uses this quote to support his argument by stating that if the Disney personnel, who were among the best special effects technicians at that time, could not duplicate Patterson’s film, then it would have been very unlikely that Patterson could have faked it. If the argument were water tight, the reasoning would be sound, but there are clear glitches in the argument which destroy its foundations: Ken Peterson is a businessman, not a special effects man or film technician; therefore his quote is clearly opinion, not fact. Also, he speaks for the technicians, but nowhere do we see any of them corroborate his statement. So, even if he was experienced enough to know what he’s talking about (and I’m aware of nothing indicating that he is), it’s still the word of one man that is in no way backed up by those for whom he’s speaking. Additionally, in 1969 Ken Peterson produced a 24 minute documentary titled “Man, Monster, and Mysteries”, which can be seen in the bonus material of the “Pete’s Dragon” DVD. This leads to the possibility of one or two things: 1.) Ken Peterson had some kind of interest in Bigfoot, or “monsters” which, may have biased his opinion of the Patterson film. 2.) Footage from the Patterson film is included in the documentary, which means that, as a businessman, Ken Peterson may have envisioned financial potential in the film. A potential that would have crumbled had he said something like, “Oh yeah, our technicians could easily duplicate that.” Anyway you look at it, the possibility of bias is undeniably seen here. The argument is, therefore, so full of holes that it holds about as much water as a fish net. The second argument I would like to approach isn’t used as often as it once was. Common sense has prevailed over most “believers”, but there are still a few who demand, “If the Patterson film is of a man in a suit, then show us the suit!” The demand is extremely ludicrous. There are, no doubt, those who would accuse me of blowing hot air and copping out by simply calling the demand ludicrous, but instead of explaining the obvious to them, I’ll make them a deal:  “The Perils of Pauline” is a 1967 movie in which a man in a gorilla suit can be seen. The man in the suit was stunt coordinator Max Kleven (who also went by “Max J. Kleven” and “Max Klevin”). If you can find where that gorilla suit is today, and prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is indeed the suit that was used in the above mentioned movie, I’ll grant that your demand to see the Patterson suit is not an entirely preposterous one. Just to be fair, the year of the movie is the same as the Patterson film, and if you click on the lobby card, you’ll see all the IMDB information about the movie to help you on your way. And simply saying it’s in such and such a warehouse, or in someone’s personal collection, or some movie memorabilia museum, or destroyed, etc, isn’t going to fly. I want absolute proof; just as you would demand absolute proof if I said I had the Patterson suit. If, however, with all the information provided by IMDB, you cannot locate the present whereabouts of the gorilla suit, or its fate, then you will understand why I believe the demand to see a suit with virtually no traceability is extremely ludicrous, not to mention stupendously idiotic.
The third argument I would like to tackle is the incessantly frequent demand to duplicate the film; the argument being that if the film is such an easily made fake, then why is nobody duplicating it to show how easy it is to fake. But ask yourselves; would a successful duplication of the film convince “believers” that the Patterson film is a hoax? No, absolutely not. A few might sway slightly in their beliefs, but the vast majority of “believers” would steadfastly cling to their cryptozoological Holy Grail. A duplication would be a huge waste of time, energy, and finances, and those talented filmmakers who believe the Patterson film is a hoax are fully aware of that. Especially when the “believers” emphatically state that a duplication can never be made, which is a clear indication that they have already made up their minds about what they’re going to see, no matter how good the duplication might be. “Believers” aren’t really asking why no one has made (or tried to make) an acceptable duplication. Instead, they’re saying that no one can make a duplication that they will ever accept; so what would be the point? Another problem I have with this argument is that the “believers” only give us half of it. They always demand duplication of the hoax, but never offer duplication of the Sasquatch. Don’t demand repeatability if you’re not willing to give it. But you can’t give it, can you? In forty years, no one has filmed another Sasquatch. Perhaps it’s because Patterson didn’t film a Sasquatch either. If one can be filmed, so can another, and another, and another. The fact that it hasn’t happened should cause one to rationally ponder substantial reasons instead of irrationally re-evaluating the usual empty excuses. You want to see the Patterson film duplicated … done! But it has to be a trade; you bring me a real live Sasquatch, and I’ll give you a real live hoax. There are many other supportive arguments for the Patterson film I have problems with, and most of them are attached to “maybes” and “what ifs”, which, more often than not, kills the argument before it even has a chance to breathe. Perhaps I’ll cover more of them in future articles. It may be futile to argue against interpretation of analysis of the Patterson film, but all the supportive arguments for the film being of a genuine Sasquatch stand on the weakest of legs. If you would like to comment on what you just read, please click here. |
It is nauseatingly common to see someone compare “lack of discovery” to “relatively recent discoveries” in a vain attempt to justify the existence of cryptids. For example: “Just because Bigfoot hasn’t been found doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist; a lot of people didn’t believe the rumors about the gorilla until they were discovered.” Or, “Just because no one has found a living dinosaur doesn’t mean they aren’t out there, just look at the coelacanth, everyone thought it had been extinct for millions of years.” The people who make these partial comparisons never complete them, and are too blind (or too foolish) to see and understand that such comparisons always fail. Why? Because when we look for gorillas or the coelacanth, we find them!!!. It’s as simple as that. Still, I can’t help but feel that such a basic and yet undeniably obvious fact did little more than bounce off all those who completely lack logic and common sense, so perhaps I should elaborate a bit, as well as offer a few contrast comparisons.  Let’s begin with the gorillas. The statement that “nobody believed” or “a lot of people didn’t believe” that gorillas existed is false. The fact is, before Robert von Beringe shot two of them in 1902, little more than a small circle of people even knew anything about gorillas. Prior to their official discovery, there was no media as we enjoy it today. Africa was unfriendly to photographers; the elements, difficult terrain and frequent theft made the already difficult process of photography almost impossible. Newspapers and freelance writers, for the most part, saw no profit in venturing into the remote parts of Africa, so any information they received was second hand or worse. The most reliable information came from a handful of explorers and missionaries. In 1847, one of those missionaries, a Thomas S. Savage, obtained the skull of a gorilla from a clergyman. Later, he easily acquired more skulls, along with other gorilla bones, from the local natives; which leads one to wonder how many other earlier Europeans and Americans were able to easily obtain bones, or even bodies. With the help of Jeffries Wyman, Savage named the creature Troglodytes gorilla, after the species name 'gorilla' they adopted from the report of the Carthaginian seafarer Hanno1. Wyman would later describe the gorilla a full fifty years before its official discovery. A supremely small number of people—because ignorance and pride played a large part in science in those days—would reject that description out of hand without even bothering to go and see for themselves; if they had, they would certainly have found the gorillas. Those same people would also influence others, who were completely ignorant of the subject, to agree with their rejection. Hence, the false rumor and blatant exaggeration that “a lot” of people didn’t believe gorillas existed until they were discovered.
It’s a tad different with Bigfoot though: The media is absolutely everywhere today. Instead of an insignificantly small number of ignorant people disbelieving without good reason, an overwhelming majority of knowledgeable people (thanks to the media) disbelieve with very good reason. Gorillas were hidden in the remote parts of a greatly unexplored 19th century Africa. Bigfoot is said to be romping all over the forested areas of a vastly explored 21st century North America. Many people native to the gorilla’s habitat saw them frequently, and were easily able to produce conclusive evidence and , more importantly, type specimens. A tiny fraction of the people who have visited, or live in or near, the forested areas of the North American continent claim to have seen Bigfoot or accept the possibility of its existence, but have completely failed to obtain even a shred of conclusive evidence, despite some of them (including scientists) making concerted efforts to search for that evidence. In less than a hundred years after discovering them, they had gorillas in zoos. In well over a hundred years of stories about Bigfoot, we have nothing.  The coelacanth is an even poorer comparison. For years, a smattering of people have gone looking for living dinosaurs, or indisputable evidence of such (without success), but before the coelacanth was discovered, no one was looking for it at all. Its discovery wasn’t preceded by years of rumored existence surrounded by doubt and disbelief. In fact, it was discovered entirely by accident at a fish market. If a comparison should be made, it should be that if a prehistoric creature thought to be extinct for millions of years can be captured (frequently at that time, according to the local fisherman), then why haven’t mokele mbembe or the ropen, or some such been captured as well? Why hasn’t anyone found mokele mbembe meat being sold at a street market? Also, now that the existence of the coelacanth is common knowledge, we know where to go, and can readily study living specimens in their habitat. If the existence of mokele mbembe is so obvious, then why can we not study it as readily as we study the coelacanth? Saying that the coelacanth can be more easily captured by a fisherman’s net than mokele can be captured in a swamp is a fallacy. Creatures large and small, that are extremely elusive, have been captured (dead or alive) in even the most dangerous swamps time and time again.
These are but a few contrast comparisons. I’m sure that many of you reading this could come up with a number of others that would further support my point. If people are going to toss skepticism aside to make ridiculous comparisons, the least they can do is make complete comparisons, not partial comparisons that show a reprehensible lack of thought. But if they did that, it would be self-defeating, wouldn’t it? In a relatively short time, gorillas were proven to exist while the coelacanth just suddenly appeared. After many years, on the other hand, Bigfoot and mokele mbembe have proven to be little more than shadows of the imagination. In fact, the more these alleged creatures are investigated, the stronger the evidence leans toward their non-existence. Comparing them to the discoveries of the gorilla and the coelacanth only serves to strengthen their non-existence, not the reverse. 1.) There is some debate as to whether Hanno actually captured gorillas during his voyage of about 450 B.C. In his own words: In the recess of this bay [which would later be known as the Southern Horn] there was an island, like the former one, having a lake, in which there was another island, full of savage men. There were women, too, in even greater number. They had hairy bodies, and the interpreters called them Gorillae. When we pursued them we were unable to take any of the men; for they had all escaped, by climbing the steep places and defending themselves with stones; but we took three of the women, who bit and scratched their leaders, and would not follow us. So we killed them and flayed them, and brought their skins to Carthage. For we did not voyage further, provisions failing us.Some scholars believe Hanno actually encountered pygmies and not gorillas; others speculate that he found chimpanzees or perhaps another smaller ape or monkey. I feel it is unlikely that he happened upon pygmies; else he would not have described them as having “hairy” bodies, unless he justified the description for no other reason than that the pygmies were hairier than the Carthaginians. Even then, it is very doubtful that his crew would skin something that was human. It is just as unlikely that he captured gorillas or chimpanzees, because their superior strength would have assisted them in doing a great deal more damage than mere biting and scratching. It’s possible that a much smaller simian was originally given the name, “gorilla”. If you would like to comment on what you just read, please click here. |
It is not uncommon to see names “dropped” for the purpose of bolstering or supporting a particular cause or belief. Though namedropping certainly has some merit in particular circumstances, I have always considered the practice to generally be a rather pathetic one. In many cases, it appears to be little more than a desperate attempt by a group or faction to show non-believers or non-sympathizers that someone of “importance” believes as they do and stands by their cause. In effect, by namedropping, many groups or factions are basically admitting that their cause or belief does not or cannot stand on its own, and therefore, by namedropping, they are probably weakening their cause or belief more than strengthening it. The field of cryptozoology is no stranger to the practice of namedropping. It is especially popular among those who believe in, or strongly accept the existence of, Bigfoot. While there are a small handful of names that are commonly dropped in the cryptozoology namedropping process, there are two names that are dropped more frequently than all the other names put together: Dr. Jane Goodall, one of the world’s leading primatologists, and Dr. Jeff Meldrum, a university professor who has been somewhat lionized in the field of Bigfoot or Sasquatch (whichever name you prefer) research. Now to be clear, I have a great deal of respect for both Dr. Goodall and Dr. Meldrum. Dr. Goodall has especially proven herself an extremely valuable primatologist and scientist time and again under the most ardent conditions, and Dr. Meldrum never hesitates to put his actions where his mouth is. But despite Dr. Goodall’s excellence as a scientist and Dr. Meldrum’s commendable attitude as a researcher, both are nevertheless subject to human frailties that impede critical thinking with romantic notions and scientific bias. So that I don’t appear presumptuous, I shall back up my accusations of human frailties among these two scientists, which is supported by mainstream science with its ready admission of such frailties even among the strictest and most respected scientists. During an NPR interview, when asked about her opinion concerning Bigfoot or Sasquatch, Dr. Goodall responded: “Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist.” She goes on to explain that her “assurance” is based entirely on (mostly Native American) anecdotal evidence, and a story about the DNA testing of alleged Yeti hair; a story she read in a “little tiny snippet in the newspaper” which offered no conclusions, but Dr. Goodall nevertheless surmised, “They don't match up with DNA cells from known animals, so—apes.” Now everyone who even remotely understands critical thinking knows that Dr. Goodall didn’t have anywhere near enough information, especially from a “little tiny snippet in the newspaper” upon which to base such a conclusion. And even she admits, “That was just a wee bit in the newspaper and, obviously, we have to hear a little bit more about that.” So why would Dr. Goodall so readily say “apes”? Though many people will disagree with me, in my opinion, it is clearly a conclusion based on a personal bias. She is, after all, a leading primatologist who has grown affectionately close to the subjects she so enjoyably studies. Such affections and joy for apes can easily churn up emotions that create a desire to believe in a rumored, unknown ape-like creature; a desire which Dr. Goodall wastes no time admitting by stating in the same interview, “I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist.” And finally, despite being “sure that they exist” initially, at the end of this portion of the interview (about “Yeti or Bigfoot or Sasquatch”), Dr. Goodall clearly states, “Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to.” Not only does Dr. Goodall reiterate her “romantic desire” for their existence instead of her “assurance” of their existence, she clearly states that when it comes to their absolute existence, she really isn’t so sure after all. Dr. Goodall’s credentials are unquestionable, but just as unquestionable are her (admitted) romantic notions that, though rarely, can nonetheless clearly interfere with her critical thinking. So we see that Dr. Jane Goodall’s “belief” in Bigfoot is actually a “desire to believe” that is not based on her being a scientist as much as being a romantic. Therefore dropping Dr. Goodall’s name to support a belief in Bigfoot is no more effective than dropping any other name of someone who merely “wants to believe”. As for those who will argue that as a leading primatologist, Dr. Goodall’s position is, by itself, enough to qualify her belief in Bigfoot, or at least the possibility of its existence. Let me remind you that all behavioral patterns pertaining to a very large, unknown ape-like creature in the forests of North America are purely anecdotal (much of which is completely without precedent) and absolutely all physical evidence is entirely inconclusive, which technically, in the strictest science, means that despite presumptions (however reasonable they may appear), no one can state with any certainty whatsoever that the rumored creature is, in fact, ape-like, or anything else-like for that matter; therefore no “expertise” (not Dr. Goodall’s or that of anyone else) can truly be “qualified” for “belief”. Unlike Dr. Goodall, I don’t believe we can accuse Dr. Meldrum of being a “romantic”; at least not in the same sense. When it comes to researching Bigfoot or Sasquatch, Dr. Jeff Meldrum has—I think we can all agree—gone all out, and is recognized as the leading authority on the subject. Nevertheless, on page 20 of his book “Sasquatch—Legend Meets Science”, Dr. Meldrum admits that his first viewing of the Patterson film left a lasting impression on his young and adventurous mind. So we can say that Dr. Meldrum isn’t necessarily smitten with a “romantic notion” so much as a “lasting impression” that leads him to strongly accept the possible existence of Bigfoot. It is quite possibly this “lasting impression” that greatly influences his Sasquatch research, creating an undeniable bias in his approach. Despite his bias, Dr. Meldrum has never, as far as I know, stated that he believes in the absolute existence of Bigfoot or Sasquatch. To the contrary, in his book and many interviews, Dr. Meldrum recognizes the fact that a type specimen is necessary to establish existence; though he has stated his wish that DNA testing alone would be sufficient to that establishment. Also, on page 271 of his book “Sasquatch—Legend Meets Science”, Dr. Meldrum writes: Belief generally connotes the acceptance of something as true in the absence of objective evidence or conclusive proof. It is usually equated with a position of faith. Science is about subjecting hypotheses to evaluation by marshaling evidence that may either refute, or lend support to a premise. Therefore, from a scientific standpoint I can say that a respectable portion of the evidence I have examined suggests, in an independent yet highly correlated manner, the existence of an unrecognized ape, known as Sasquatch.The direction in which Dr. Meldrum leans in the Sasquatch debate is quite apparent in his quote, but as can plainly be seen, and as I emphasized in his quote, he clearly states that the evidence only suggests the existence of Sasquatch. Still, I’m curious as to just how highly correlated the evidence is, and [independently] by whom. As I have read in several science periodicals, the scientific method can, at times, be saturated with bias, which, more often than not, results in incorrect or misleading presumptions and conclusions. So then, if you are among those who merely believe in the possibility of Bigfoot’s existence, then I suppose that dropping Dr. Meldrum’s name would not be entirely inappropriate. But doing so would obviously support your belief subjectively more than objectively, which would do little to promote it in an objective light. As for those who are sure that Bigfoot exists, dropping Dr. Meldrum’s name would be counterproductive, because he manifestly does not agree with you. Anyway you look at it, namedropping to support a belief in Bigfoot or Sasquatch is either ineffective or negatively effective. So, to those who believe in the existence or possible existence of Bigfoot or Sasquatch and insist on dropping names: Drop away, but you’ll simply be hindering your belief, not supporting it. If you would like to comment on what you just read, please click here. |
Time is brief, and in light of the fact that my last article was rather lengthy, I will keep this article as brief as my time, and make a simple observation. The last book I read was, “The Demon Haunted World” by Dr. Carl Sagan, and I am presently reading, “How We Know What Isn’t So”, by Dr. Thomas Gilovich. Though I do not agree with everything I have read, I nevertheless agree with most of it, and cannot praise these books highly enough. They were written by brilliant men, and I strongly recommend them to anyone who wants to read about “common sense science” and “common sense psychology”. While reading the book by Dr. Gilovich, I was reminded of something in Dr. Sagan’s book which prompted me to make a somewhat obvious observation that had never occurred to me before. Should this observation have occurred to anyone else, please excuse me for being a bit slow.  I have noticed that those who believe the Patterson film is of an actual Bigfoot, and those who believe the Mansi photo is of an actual plesiosaur make a slight contradiction in belief concerning certain events that pertain to those two media.
Bob Heironymous claims to be the man in the Patterson suit, yet he could not remember how to get to the location of the filming. People claim that being unable to remember something so significant indicates the Bob is not telling the truth. On the other hand, Sandra Mansi's memory also falters, and she cannot recall how to get to the location where she took her famous photo; despite the fact that Sandra’s event would have been a great deal more significant to her (whether or not she’s telling the truth) than Bob’s event would have been to him (whether or not he’s telling the truth), she is excused, and her forgetfulness justified by the same people who will not excuse or justify Bob’s lack of memory.  In actuality, it isn’t a lack of memory that is being condemned or justified. Instead those who [want to] believe that the Patterson film is of a genuine Bigfoot, and that the Mansi photo is of a genuine plesiosaur are condemning what they don’t want to believe, while justifying what they do want to believe. In the process—in this instance—they are neck deep in contradiction. Shouldn’t that tell them something? Will they even see and admit that a contradiction exists? Probably not, especially if it casts doubt on what they do want to see exist.
As I said, just an observation. If you would like to comment on what you just read, please click here. |
Little Hans, little Hans, what can it be? Your thoughts are filled with such confusion. Little Hans, little Hans when will you see? You're barking up the wrong conclusion. --Little Hans (from Freudiana) – Alan Parsons Project It is little surprise that mainstream science keeps a safe distance from cryptozoology when one considers that the subject is incessantly being suffocated by ignorance. Few, if any, will argue that among those that show an interest in the subject, there are a fair number that are wildly imaginative, psychologically unbalanced, senselessly and/or unreasonably insistent, foolishly adamant, incurably gullible, or a combination thereof. Whether these make up the majority of those who follow cryptozoology or not, I don’t know. But I do know that they certainly make enough noise to give an appearance of being the majority. As I peruse the cryptozoology forums, I never cease to be unenthusiastically astounded when I [gratefully] see members who possess common sense presenting evidence that clearly shows fallacies in another’s opinions or beliefs, and yet, despite clear and obvious logic, the “ignorant” members consistently and thoughtlessly dismiss the undeniable evidence and stringently cling to their erroneous belief, defending it with utter nonsense, which mostly seems to consist of illogical speculation that they probably make up as they go. It’s as if they are being pushed into the sunlight, but keep their eyes tightly shut so that they can stubbornly remain in the dark. But it isn’t enough that they remain in the dark while steadfastly clinging to their deep-rooted ignorance; they insist that others do the same. They would have everyone leave common sense behind to waste all time, effort and resources chasing after fleeting shadows and fanatical visions. And then they fail to understand why mainstream science avoids cryptozoology, when in actuality, mainstream science isn’t avoiding cryptozoology so much as it is avoiding fools and their pointy words of ignorance which they aggressively use to incessantly poke everybody they can reach. Perhaps I should present a few generalized examples so that I may better define what I’m going on about. Say-so Quite often we will read or hear, “So-and-So saw such-and-such, and So-and-So is a very reliable witness”. As I pointed out in an earlier article, there are witnesses more reliable than others about certain things, but there is no such thing as a “perfect witness”, therefore testimony cannot be considered any more flawless than the witness who gives it, especially when it comes to the more unlikely cryptids: Giant winged creatures, many prehistoric survivors, rainbow-colored blood sucking alien creatures, bipedal canines, etc. This isn’t to say that all cryptid testimony should be automatically disregarded due to possible flaws, but the testimony should be supported by at least a little common sense before the witnessed event is given even the slightest possibility of actually having occurred.  Johnny Needtobelieve would desperately like to see a creature out of the ordinary. This intense desire could (and most likely does) fire up an active or uncontrollable imagination in Johnny, if he doesn’t already have one; so, when Johnny sees a relatively large flying creature, his imagination pushes all reason aside, and he sees what he wants to see instead of what he may have truly seen: Johnny convinces himself that he just saw a thunderbird. Being fooled by one’s imagination is not at all uncommon, especially among younger people. Anyone wishing to learn more about this can do so by simply reading just about any reputable paper on the psychology of the imagination. Johnny feels his “sighting” is nearly worthless if he doesn’t tell somebody about it, so he races home and tells his friends. One of his friends gets excited and posts Johnny’s sighting on an internet forum. Of the variety of people who read Johnny’s sighting, there are four groups I will mention here:
When Johnny’s friend posts that Johnny saw a thunderbird, the unbelievers flatly state, “No he didn’t“, those who employ common sense state, “I don’t see how he did or, it’s unlikely that he did”, the believers state, “Yes, he saw a thunderbird, and don’t let the stinking skeptics tell him otherwise”, and those who are gullible … well, they’re all basically mindless, aren’t they? I mean, that’s what happens when you carelessly leave your mind open too long and unguarded; someone comes along and takes it to put into their brainless monster (which is fallacy controlled by empty arguments), in a futile attempt to better defend their senseless opinions, hollow assumptions, and erroneous beliefs, but—as usual—before their monster can destroy everything that stands in their way, those who are ignorant realize too late that the arguments they need to control the monster are weak or illogical and they lose control of their monster, so—also as usual—it turns and destroys them instead. But I [wickedly] digress. Tell you what; let’s just not worry about what the gullible people have to say, shall we? It would be meaningless anyway. The unreasonable unbelievers, without taking time to evaluate the sighting, automatically and instantly label Johnny as definitely mistaken, crazy, or a liar. This makes them no less ignorant than the unreasonable believers who also take no time to evaluate the sighting, and do just the opposite. Each backs up their arguments with ignorance instead of common sense. Those with common sense may not necessarily come to the same conclusions as others with common sense, but they all take time to evaluate the sighting, and take all the factors into consideration to better understand the circumstances of Johnny’s sighting, and then determine what Johnny might have actually seen, if anything at all. Those with common sense first recognize that the sighting was posted by Johnny’s friend, who was not with Johnny when he allegedly saw the thunderbird, and therefore, if Johnny’s friend is not making it all up, the evaluation of the sighting must be based on second hand information that may not be entirely accurate. Also, those with common sense know or learn that turkey vultures are commonly seen in the area in which Johnny had his sighting. The initial post, or further prodding, reveals (directly or indirectly) that Johnny is a wildly imaginative teenager who has always wanted to see a thunderbird. This information, coupled with the fact that there must be a breeding population, along with the logic that giant birds simply cannot hide in areas that are vastly populated by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people, many of whom are bird watchers that occasionally spot even the smallest, sometimes rarest, birds in the most remote areas, tells those with common sense that Johnny’s sighting is highly unlikely if not downright impossible, and most probably attributable to mistaken, or psychologically altered, identification. The unreasonable unbelievers will, of course, agree that Johnny’s sighting is downright impossible, but they lack the imagination and intelligence to do anything else. The unreasonable believers, on the other hand, will vehemently disagree, probably stating that those with common sense weren’t there, so they can’t absolutely state that it is unlikely that Johnny saw a thunderbird. But it isn’t always necessary to be “there” to make a determination or conclusion. If someone on one side of the world tells someone by phone on the other side of the world that they just saw a dragon swallow the sun, common sense has every right—even though it wasn’t there—to say, “No, you didn’t. Go find a book on astronomy and look up ‘eclipse’”. But “eclipse” won’t be looked up, or it may be dismissed if it is looked up, because some people just can’t get as excited about the moon temporarily blocking the sun as they can get when watching an enormous dragon swallow the sun, and spit it out again. Just as it is more exciting to believe someone saw a thunderbird than to think they just saw another ordinary turkey vulture. Johnny’s friend, who posted the sighting, might defend Johnny’s sighting, saying he couldn’t mistake a turkey vulture for a thunderbird, because he’s seen turkey vultures up close and personal all his life, so he’d certainly be able to tell the difference between a turkey vulture and a thunderbird. This simply tells those with common sense that turkey vultures are indeed prevalent in the area. And it doesn’t dismiss the probable fact that Johnny was so tired and bored of seeing just another turkey vulture that he allowed his imagination to both fool and run away with him enough to convince himself that he actually saw a thunderbird. If you’ll forgive me for belaboring this point a bit further, I would like to bring up another example that has been rearing up its ugly head a bit more than usual as of late; pterosaur sightings. Unlike Johnny, who just wanted to see something out of the ordinary, those who claim to have seen pterosaurs, along with those who promote the alleged sightings of others who claim to have seen pterosaurs (and other prehistoric survivors), almost exclusively belong to a group of people who “use” these sightings in a religious fervor to discredit science. Their reasoning is pure folly, and though they might be able to discredit some “scientists”, they can never discredit “science”. Science is an unbiased, self-correcting mechanism that seeks only to present the facts. Living pterosaurs or no, how does someone discredit something like that? They don’t, of course. Still, many religious zealots make a show of doing so anyway, but what they do instead is miserably fail to discredit science and phenomenally succeed in discrediting religion. Their ridiculous use of religion to attack science is just as irritating for people who embrace religion intelligently as it is for those who find fault with religion, or dismiss it altogether.  Most pterosaur sightings are restricted to remote, rarely explored areas on jungle islands, but occasionally one will hear or read about a sighting in a rural area of the United States. The same rules apply to a U.S. pterosaur as they do to the thunderbird (breeding populations, inability to hide, etc.); common sense shows that they do not exist in America. Those who rise up to wave the “migration” banner can sit back down, because a giant or leather-winged migrating bird would be seen more easily and often than one remaining in a particular area. And stating that they fly only at night fails also, because there have been far too many alleged daytime sightings to pin them exclusively to nighttime flying. And personally, I have seen and even identified plenty of much smaller birds flying in the darkness of night with the assistance of moonlight.
When someone sees a pterosaur, it isn’t necessarily for the same reasons that Johnny thinks he saw a thunderbird. Quite honestly, I personally believe that most of the people who claim to have seen a pterosaur in the U.S.—or anywhere else for that matter—are out and out liars. But if they truly believe they saw a pterosaur, it could be due to a psychological need fired by religious fanaticism. If you don’t believe such fanaticism exists, or affects one’s mind in such a way, just watch a video of extremists dancing with venomous snakes. Those who promote pterosaur sightings adamantly defend the witness against doubt or disbelief, not necessarily—in my opinion—because they are sure the witness actually had the sighting, but because the sighting supports their “agenda”. It’s just common sense. As for the remote areas of jungle islands; I find it interesting that the testimony of a handful of people (which is often coaxed from them) is taken very seriously, while the hundreds of people who are native to the island that say the sightings are all just ordinary big birds or bats are completely (and ignorantly) dismissed, and even avoided. The testimony of the majority aside, applying one simple point of common sense to the island sightings puts grave doubt on the existence of living pterosaurs there. Papua New Guinea has a huge wildlife poaching problem. If you don’t believe me, just contact the law enforcement there, or type “Papua New Guinea” and “poaching” into Google. Pterosaurs would, without argument, be hugely valuable on the black market. But since there are no specific legal restrictions on living pterosaurs (anywhere), they wouldn’t even have to go through the black market. And yet we never see any street markets, or “new age” shops selling powdered pterosaur beaks, or wings being prepared for extravagant pterosaur leather, nor do we ever see exquisitely delicious pterosaur eggs (as they would be advertized) being prepared by Japan’s finest chefs. If the pterosaurs were truly there, the poachers (who know the demand would be astronomical) would find them, capture them, and sell them, period. And yet, they do not, because there are no pterosaurs to find, capture, and sell. There are many more examples for “Say-so” (the say-so of those with doctorates, the say-so of well known, highly respected people, the say-so of popular field researchers, etc.), and I could go on and on (and I may yet cover those), but you all have the basic idea. This article has become rather lengthy (I try to keep them relatively brief), and needs to reach an end, though I haven’t even touched on “I know what I saw”, or “But common sense defends their existence”, or “You can’t dismiss all the testimony, even if it is just say-so”, or “The evidence alone is overwhelming”, or “There’s always the paranormal explanation”. Perhaps I can bring those up in separate parts when time permits. Little Hans, little Hans, I found a clue; I think I've made the right connection. Little Hans, little Hans, all I can do Is give a common sense injection. --Little Hans (from Freudiana) – Alan Parsons Project Common sense is easy and free, the only requisite is that you have to possess intelligence to employ it. On the other hand, ignorance is also easy and free, but there is no requisite to employ it; not even [a modicum of] intelligence, though foolishness and stupidity come in awful handy. Perhaps that’s why ignorance appears to be so much more prevalent than common sense. “Common sense” would “say so” anyway. If you would like to comment on what you just read, please click here. |
Though I have titled this “The Photoshop Experiment”, it would more correctly be titled, “The Photoshop Experiment That Went Awry”, or perhaps “The Photoshop Experiment That Failed”. In this day of “seeing is not necessarily believing” when it comes to photographs, I wanted to see if there was a percentage of folks who can still be easily fooled. I have a fair number of cryptid images (along with many other images) I have photoshopped as a hobby of sorts. I chose five of the cryptid images, one of which I posted on this site briefly, another that I created for a blog at cz.com, though I have modified it a bit, and three others that I have never shown off. I also photoshopped two more images just for the experiment for a total of seven images. I decided to show them to people in my area to see what kind of reaction I would get. Afterwards, I would reveal that I had photoshopped the images, and let them in on the experiment. I wanted to print the images onto glossy paper along with everything else I needed to do to give them the appearance of bookplates that were torn out of a book, but I knew I would have to have them professionally printed to get away with that. I couldn’t afford a professional job, so instead I printed them on regular good quality paper, so they wouldn’t smear when handled, with the intention of telling everyone I found them on the internet. I started at my place of work. A few people there know of my photoshopping hobby, so I swore them to secrecy, brought the images out during lunch, and asked everyone what they thought of them. The response was extremely underwhelming; only three people gave the images a good look, but didn’t believe any of them were real. Ten or so gave them a cursory glance, but not before instantly labeling them as fakes. The other thirty to forty people simply walked away as if the images weren't even there, having no intentions of wasting part of their lunch break looking at pictures in which they had absolutely no interest. Seeing how horribly my little experiment had gone, a young man I work with who is a student at the local college offered to show them off at his apartment. On our next day off, I met him at his apartment where he introduced me as a fellow cryptozoologist. Nearly everyone responded with “a crypto what?” The images were given much better attention this time, but only by ten or so people; nobody else seemed to care, and no one asked where I found them on the internet. Again, save for one young lady, everyone said they were obvious fakes. This was all a huge blow to my photoshopping ego. I was beginning to think that the experiment, in fact, showed that people cannot be fooled any more, even with a little effort at pretending the images were real, much less easily. Still, knowing that strong imaginations can be a powerful cryptozoology magnet, I asked if there were any fantasy gamers at the school. The kids I asked said they were sure there were, but didn’t know where. Then one kid came along that said he knew some roomies at a house that were into “weird things and monsters and stuff”. All the kids who had seen the images were in on the experiment by this time, so a small group of us headed over to see what kind of reaction we would get from the “house roomies”. We were led to the house which was shared by six young men. All were home playing video or computer games except one who appeared to be studying. The kid who knew them introduced me as someone interested in cryptozoology. I was relieved when none of them said “crypto what?” With so much web activity going on, instead of saying I got the images off the internet, I made up a story about finding the images on a picnic table at a nearby park, and asked the students if they knew anything about them. The group that accompanied me pretended to believe some of the images were real, though I had not asked them to do so. Two of the house roomies looked at me, and those who accompanied me, suspiciously; the other four quickly got excited over some of the images. Seeing the excitement of the other four roommates, the doubting two, while continuing to act doubtful, also evaluated the images. I let the roomies debate the images for about five minutes until one of them attempted to scan one of the images (without asking if he could), at which point I revealed that I had photoshopped them as an experiment. The two who doubted simply said “I knew it” (even though they both had expressed strong interest in one of the images), while three of the others looked quite disappointed. One young man became angry, and insisted that I could not have possibly photoshopped one of the images. My ego was spared … somewhat, and the experiment didn’t go the way of complete disbelief. Below are the images I photoshopped and showed to those who would look. The reactions the images received are printed next to them.
Technically, when you consider that only six people who were willing to believe in cryptids saw the images, the experiment was a failure; reliable statistics cannot be drawn from such a small number of participants. I could have continued the experiment elsewhere of course, but time is not a generous commodity in my life; which explains why articles on this site are so few and far between. Still, I learned that in real life, people are generally not interested in cryptozoology, and that’s if they even know what it is. Whether that has anything to do with demographics, I don’t know. But I can’t help but feel that it is generally the same everywhere; though many are curious, most just don’t care. And among those who do care, only the smallest percentage are willing to accept, or even believe, without question; which, of course, is better than a large percentage. I wish I had the time and money to perform the experiment correctly. I would very much have liked to see if more cryptozoology followers would have believed in the images. Cryptozoology followers who are seeing the images now, on this site, can offhandedly deny (with the knowledge that they are all fake) that they would ever believe any of the images were real, but I sincerely have to wonder. If you would like to comment on what you just read, please click here. |
Two recent anonymous submissions asked me why I link to the two most popular cryptozoology sites on my home page when I don’t believe in cryptozoology. Well the fact is, I do believe in cryptozoology; I just happen to be extremely picky about the cryptids to which I give a possibility of existence. What I don’t believe is nearly all the definitions that various types of “believers” insist apply to the word “cryptozoology”. Sadly, when Sanderson, and later, Heuvelmans coined the term “cryptozoology”, they failed to chisel an absolute definition in stone that could be referred to when necessary. But it probably wouldn’t have done much good anyway when one considers that mainstream science gives cryptozoology the same attention that society generally gives a leper. Without the recognition of mainstream science, a definition (even with a strong originating source) can be, and often is, ignored or altered to accommodate personal opinion or belief. Unfortunately, the harsh fate of cryptozoology is that it is largely defined by an extremely varied and somewhat stubborn opinion. As a result, cryptozoology can be broken up into a number of forms:
One of the problems I have with most cryptozoologist wannabes is their intense desire to embrace fantasy instead of reality. They have no real interest in a newly discovered rodent or amphibian; they’ve seen hundreds of rats and frogs and find such discoveries boring. They are much more interested in big hairy people roaming through a seemingly primordial forest, or plesiosaurs racing through mysterious oceans and lakes, or sauropods towering in impenetrable, unexplored jungles. They aren’t really cryptozoologists so much as they are imaginative time travelers. Such people should abandon cryptozoology, and immerse themselves into the “lost world” stories of Doyle, Haggard, Burroughs, Marshall, and others, for that is where they will find their greatest satisfaction, and very likely the only place they will find the cryptids they seek. Cryptozoology isn’t about obsessions with Bigfoot, or mistaking every little wave for humps, or exaggerating the size of every large bird in the sky, or believing nearly everyone who says they saw “something” without question. It’s not about chasing after shadows, dreams, or every whim of the imagination. It’s not about endless, redundant, and completely unverified speculations. It’s not all about the stranger the creature, the better. Then again, perhaps it is. Perhaps cryptozoology has become all that … that and much more of what mainstream science is bound to completely reject. Perhaps that’s what most people want cryptozoology to truly be; a sensationalistic dream, safely out of reach of the rending talons of reality. If so, then simply remove the science, and cryptozoology is exactly what it should be. However, crushed and suffocating among the myriad opinions concerning cryptozoology is my own seemingly insignificant opinion: Cryptozoology should be the investigation, search, capture, and study of rumored and undiscovered animals so that they may be removed from the realm of cryptozoology and soundly placed in the science of zoology. I believe a true cryptozoologist will realistically whittle away at the “crypto” until only the “zoology” remains. Instead, most exert all their energies into perpetuating myths and nonsense. My apologies for veering off onto a soapbox; back to the question at hand: Why does a site focusing on skepticism link to the two most popular cryptozoology sites despite a great deal of disbelief and a whole lot of criticism on the subject? I link to them because amidst the flood of nonsense found on those sites, rational thought can be seen floating about here and there, with more and more of it appearing all the time. Differentiating between the nonsense and the rationality on those sites is what taught me much of what I’ve written in this article. I have read posts by folks who claim to have made similar discoveries in the same way. It is my hope that others will also do the same, so I show them where to look. It’s as simple as that. If you would like to comment on what you just read, please click here. |
Every rare once in a while I will see a program that interviews a police officer or forest ranger that claims to have seen Bigfoot. The narrator or interviewer will almost always state that due to the occupation of the witness, he or she is very reliable. This is tantamount to saying that simply because policemen or rangers claim they saw Bigfoot, then surely the creature must exist. Policemen are certainly better witnesses than the average Joe or Jane on the street; they are, after all, trained to be precise in all that they observe. And no one can argue that forest rangers are much more adept at recognizing the wildlife that makes its home in the ranger’s neck of the woods better than most tourists. They are therefore, overall, very reliable witnesses, but individually, that is not necessarily the case. Police and forest rangers are just as human as the rest of us, and just as prone to human weaknesses. In fact, in some cases, they are more prone due to the very nature of their jobs. No one can deny that law enforcement is a highly stressful occupation, and psychology 101 teaches that constant stress is a major ingredient for hallucination. Also, long sleepless hours are often required of law enforcement, which is another ingredient high on the list for hallucinating. Let’s not forget the tensions such a job causes at home, (the divorce rate for law enforcement is far above the average), the [sometimes excessive] “escape” drinking done by much of law enforcement, as well as the internal political struggles of each agency. Law enforcement is in a constant battle with head games, and sometimes the head games win. Even should you remove all the ingredients for hallucination and all the head games, there are still individuals in the law enforcement fields, in and out of the woods, that are “unique”. Being a policeman or forest ranger does not necessarily prevent one from believing they were abducted by aliens, or regularly seeing ghosts, or accepting unproven phenomena as reality. Law enforcement officials can be just as passionate about Bigfoot as the next person, which can impair, and very probably has impaired, their reliability as witnesses. But let’s remove that factor as well. When you compare all the law enforcement officials who claim to have seen Bigfoot to those who have not, or do not believe it exists, you have far less than the smallest fraction of 1%. The numbers alone should send up some warning flags. When a witness is required for a crime scene, I’ll choose the policeman over the other witnesses, because he or she was trained to analyze the crime scene, and has seen many of them. When an expert is needed to identify trees and spore, I’ll choose the forest ranger, because he or she has been trained to recognize them, and has seen them often, if not every day. But the policeman and the forest ranger have not been trained to analyze or recognize Bigfoot, and certainly have not seen it many times. Though law enforcement officials are clearly more reliable witnesses than most, they are far from perfect witnesses. Therefore, when someone tells me that Bigfoot must exist, or probably exists because a “reliable witness” in law enforcement saw it, I’m simply going to have to disagree. If you would like to comment on what you just read, please click here. |
While perusing past posts at some of the cryptozoology forums, I noticed a wide range of opinion concerning Loren Coleman. The range went from considering him a very bad name for cryptozoology to being a bright shining figure and the greatest example in the field. Folks seem to love him or disapprove of him, with little variance in between. Some time ago I made an offensive remark about Ivan T. Sanderson in a blog I wrote for cryptozoology.com. Being a friend of Mr. Sanderson, Loren found the remark unsettling, and using the information I revealed about myself, acquired my phone number and gave me a call. Loren spoke very calmly while telling me the kind of man Mr. Sanderson truly was. We also talked about other things. Loren found my skepticism amusing, and my ignorance of some of the cryptozoology names of fame even more amusing, but I discerned that amusement from the pauses in his speech, not from any rude or untoward remarks. Indeed, Loren remained polite and congenial throughout the entire phone call, even when I spit out a few venomous skepticisms. Overall, we had a very pleasant conversation, and in willing reply to Loren’s humble request, I looked more deeply into the life of Ivan T. Sanderson, recognized that I was, in fact, in error, and recanted my offensive remark. Though Loren is nothing more than a brief acquaintance and a name I frequently read, I would like to do him the same favor he did for Ivan T. Sanderson. I must admit that I know very little about Loren Coleman; only what he has revealed about himself and the little his brother Jerry has offered in his own writings. But I do not wish to go into Loren’s personal life; I’m sure it’s safe to assume that he is as human as the rest of us. After all, it isn’t Loren Coleman the man I’m defending; in all honesty, I lack the knowledge and, therefore, the right to do so. Instead I would like to defend a much more public and better known figure; Loren Coleman the cryptozoologist. I feel it necessary to point out that I do not agree with everything Loren Coleman writes, says, or does. I believe I can safely state that our cryptozoological ends will not likely ever meet, so it should be undeniably clear that I have nothing to gain in any way by defending him. Frankly, it is not what I agree or disagree with that matters in this defense when all is said and done, but, instead, what is unfairly said about Loren by those who are quick to judge most, if not everyone, rashly. One of the more common injustices against Loren is the accusation that he is a hoaxer. He is occasionally, and erroneously, named alongside other well known hoaxers. I speak mainly of those who promise much for the sake of reputation and money, but deliver nothing. Well, they get their reputation alright … along with the fool’s money. But Loren Coleman is not one of them. For those who claim they can prove he has published hoaxes, please keep in mind that in researching and relating cryptozoological stories and accounts there is an almost unavoidable thorn that the author is bound to step on: Those who write for the non-skeptic side of cryptozoology are very likely going to unknowingly pass along a hoax. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible to filter out all the hoaxes in one’s research. That is not to say that Loren has unknowingly passed along any hoaxes; I have not read everything he has ever written, but I do know that his younger brother Jerry—who certainly knows Loren better than you or I—credits him with the integrity to thoroughly and honestly research his subjects and stick to the facts. So, if any hoaxes were, in fact, passed along, I don’t believe anyone has the right to accuse Loren of doing so intentionally. While some label him as a hoaxer, others accuse Loren of embellishing the accounts in his books. Quite personally, I very much hope he does. Who wants to read a dry, boring account? Please keep in mind that it is not uncommon to embellish accounts and testimonies to keep the interest of the reader, but in such a manner that it doesn’t alter, exaggerate, or twist the facts. I believe it is entirely unfair to place Loren Coleman’s name alongside men who are vilified for their obvious deception in the field of cryptozoology when he has never proved himself to be of that caliber. Another unfair accusation is that Loren is in it only for the money, which is why he openly asked for contributions to sustain him. Would everyone prefer that he got the money deceptively? Everyone who isn’t born into money needs to make a living. Loren has chosen to make cryptozoology his living, and no one can deny that it isn’t the most promising living to choose from. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, cryptozoology books don’t top the best selling charts. But the interest and demand, however small, is still there, and Loren is one of the few authors who have taken it upon themselves to meet that demand. Some may ask if he can’t work in an office or something and write for cryptozoology on the side. Of course he can, but he has chosen to make cryptozoology his full time occupation, and no one has the right to tell him that he cannot do so. Money dries up fast when your books don’t stay long on the market, and anyone who has ever searched for a cryptozoology book realizes that they have a relatively short shelf life. When you’re spending all your time trying hard to write a number of articles for several sites every single day, not to mention keeping them interesting, and all the while maintaining contact with your sources, as well as occasionally traveling about to do or verify research, it is all but impossible to work at a conventional job. After all I just wrote, no one can justly say that Loren isn’t working hard to earn whatever he gets. And the number of people willing to admit that they are very much enjoying the fruits of Loren’s labors is anything but small. Whether they find his writings enlightening, or entertaining, or whatever, there is always a demand for more, and there is no reason that Loren should not be compensated for his efforts, even if it requires asking for that compensation. Bottom Line: Of course he’s in it for the money, who isn’t? But it is unfair to say that he is in it only for the money. I see no point in going further with this when the point has clearly been made. I was once asked to look deeper and more objectively into a man’s life, and when I did, I found a better man than I had accused him of being. I’m not saying Loren Coleman is a saint; who is? I’m just asking you to do what I once did and see if you can’t find a better man. If you still cannot find a better man, at least in some respects, then I have to ask, when you look long and hard in the mirror, what do you see? If you would like to comment on what you just read, please click here. |
Before I get into numbers, I need to make an undeniable fact crystal clear: “Bigfoot sighting” statistics are extremely unreliable. Perhaps I should write that a little more emphatically: “Bigfoot sighting” statistics are extremely unreliable. Personally, I believe that almost all Bigfoot statistics are completely unreliable; but let’s stick with the undeniable fact. Why is it an undeniable fact?
With that in mind (open or closed), if you add up the number of recorded sightings, take into account the estimated number of non-reported sightings, countered by the bottom five bulleted statements above, one can roughly estimate that there have been about 5,000 sightings of Bigfoot; which is admittedly (as pointed out above) a terribly unreliable number. There will be those who believe the number is much higher, and others who insist that it is much lower; but I believe the number is a fair compromise, and not unimpressive toward establishing the possible existence of a rumored creature … until we start comparing numbers. Now let’s look at some statistics we can rely on: World population statistics. According to the U.S. Census Bureau and various information sites (pick one, they all basically share the same information), in 1800 the population of the United States and Canada together was approximately 44,000. This number does not include the Native Americans overall. A little over two hundred years later there are now over 302,000,000 residents in the United States, and over 33,000,000 residents in Canada. The world population is over 6,600,000,000. Subtract the American and Canadian numbers and you still have well over 6,000,000,000 people, of which a phenomenal number continually visit the United States and Canada. Add all the tourists and visitors to the 335,000,000 residents, and the United States and Canada can boast up to 1,000,000,000 potential eye witnesses a year. I realize that I need to exclude the millions and millions of people who never leave the city or venture into Bigfoot habitat areas, but keep in mind that I’m not adding the millions and millions of people who lived and died or came and went between the time there were only 44,000 people (not including the Native Americans) and today. Still, I realize that it is unrealistic to expect all 1,000,000,000 people to have the opportunity to spot Bigfoot. So, let’s add a few more statistics. Of that 1,000,000,000 people, the National Park Service claims that over 3,000,000 visited parks in the United States alone in 2006. That number does not include the millions of people who are hunters, hikers, campers, explorers, researchers, recreationists, scout troops, etc, that are not monitored by the National Park Service. Add them, and the number conservatively triples to 9,000,000. Canada’s numbers would at least bring that to 12,000,000; and quite frankly, I believe that number is extremely low considering that it’s drawn from an estimated 1,000,000,000. But let’s take that nice low number and use it to find a percentage. When 12,000,000 people are in a position to see Bigfoot, but only 5,000 people claim to have seen it, then Bigfoot was allegedly seen by only .042% of all potential witnesses; far less than one percent. All of a sudden the number is, in fact, very unimpressive. Are the numbers accurate? Of course not. Are the numbers realistic? I believe they are and conservatively so, though, no doubt, many will disagree. But no matter how much anyone realistically reworks the numbers, the percentages will always be (for the Bigfoot enthusiast) dishearteningly low. I cannot count the times I’ve heard or read statements declaring that all the eyewitness reports alone are enough to encourage a belief in Bigfoot’s existence. Well, all those who base their belief mainly on the thousands of eyewitness reports need to take an eye-opening look at the numbers and see what they truly persuade one to believe. If you would like to comment on what you just read, please click here. |
The psychology of lying is a great deal more complex than I had ever imagined; but I will not bore you with the many intricacies of telling a lie by quoting a dozen different psychologists and experts. Anyone interested in learning about the more detailed aspects of the psychology of lying can simply enter “lying” or “lie detection” into Google, and you will get all the information and references you could ever want. There are, of course, people who tell lies, but among them are those who, by some quirk of psychology, genuinely believe they are telling the truth, and others—generally unaffected by the quirks of psychology—who are also telling lies, but only because they are mistaken about what they heard or saw or are simply relating what they heard and believe is the truth, causing them to believe they are actually telling the truth. In these cases, though the people are unknowingly telling a lie, it would not justly be recognized as a lie. There are a number of other reasons that telling a lie would not technically be recognized as a lie, i.e., denying any knowledge of a surprise party, or bluffing at a poker game. Though it would all be very interesting to discuss in detail, such people and cases are a subject for another time. In this article I would like to discuss the people who are intentionally lying for no other reason than the pure pathological thrill of trying to fool others. This “thrill” of telling a lie is what Dr. Paul Ekman, a renowned and respected expert in the field of “lying” calls, “Duping Delight”. Dr. Ekman speculates on some reasons that lead up to duping delight, but I don’t wish to focus on the possible causes for intentionally lying as much as the act of lying itself. I realize that there are those who intentionally lie, but not necessarily to get their jollies. Such are the subject of a much deeper article than this one. It is my intent to focus only on those who do it for nothing more than giggles. To be clear, I am not talking about the thrill of lying in general, but specifically of lying about cryptid sightings, and even more specifically; cryptid sightings found on cryptozoology sites and forums. On cryptozoology forums, it is not uncommon for people to be accused of lying. But the people being accused have a slight advantage that allows them to easily and off-handedly deny the accusations: They are separated from their accusers by a computer monitor. It is impossible to look at them face to face and detect certain traits that can give a liar away; tell tale changes in their voice, the nervous dilation of their pupils, facial expressions that betray them, etc. Unwittingly or not, the liars know this, and therefore do not hesitate to post their lie, or ‘tall tale’ as some prefer to call it. Not only are the liars thrilled to see they have duped a number of people, but that thrill intensifies when they and their lie are defended against those who accuse them of lying by some of those duped individuals. And the thrill only grows when they—sometimes viciously—attack their accusers, and see them back down. Their little ruse has suddenly gone from the thrill of fooling people to the intoxicating power of manipulation. The more successful they are, the more they lie, and the more complex the lies become. Usually this occurs until they slip up and expose themselves. But some are very clever and don’t slip up, or are able to cover their slip ups by taking advantage of the gullibility that surrounds them. There is no way to determine how often such lies occur, but it is my opinion that they are very common to cryptozoology. And it is these frequently told tall tales that give rise to cryptozoology’s unattractive disrepute. Such lies lure the gullible people interested in the subject, who in turn use the lies to distort and twist cryptozoology into a non-science. This, in turn, simply adds one more reason that mainstream science refuses to give cryptozoology a serious thought. Not all the liars get away with their falsehoods, especially the inexperienced and younger liars. When a young boy states, “My friend was hiking alone (an exact time might be stated) when he was attacked by something that bit his head off. When the rangers found him, his last words were that it was some sort of prehistoric bird.” Amazing that his friend was able to speak without his head, and yes, I actually read something much like this. Or a young girl might post, “I saw this thing yesterday and I didn’t tell my friends about it for a week…” Wow, a time traveler. I also read one like that. Such lies are easily detected, but it doesn’t necessarily deter the liar when these obvious errors are pointed out to them. They merely change their internet personas, and concoct a different lie much more carefully the next time. And yes, according to all the references I read, there is almost always a [pathological] next time. So what can be done to stop the posting of lies? Not a whole lot I’m afraid. But something can be done to prevent the spreading of such lies: If a story cannot be validated in any way shape or form, no matter how reliable the person is who posted the story, it should not be repeated. That does not mean it cannot be collected and filed for further personal research, but until the story can be verified somehow, it should be considered a possible lie. If you must pass the story on, at least make it cl |
Let’s begin with the image that absolutely no one believed was real. Everyone who commented on it basically said it looked like a drawing that was photoshopped into the trees. In reality, it is the modified head of a photographed rhinoceros. Nearly everyone also stated that it didn’t look like the swamps of the Congo. They were correct; it is a forest somewhere in Japan.
Two of the house roomies showed brief interest in this image, but did not say whether or not they believed it was real. All others felt it was fake; some because they didn’t think a creature could leap that high and catch a seagull in flight, others because there was no visible splash. Almost all believed it was the modified body of a dolphin. They were correct, except that the bottom portion of the image is unchanged; in reality, there was no visible splash.
Two of the house roomies gave this image the possibility of being real, while all of the others felt it was clearly photoshopped, save one man at work who thought it might be a cgi still from a movie or special. Two young men from the apartment said the neck looked like that of a modified dolphin. They were correct, it is a modified dolphin. Another young man at the apartment amazed me by saying that the mouth looked like that of a tigerfish; it is, in fact, the mouth of a tigerfish.
Nobody bought into this one save for one young lady at the apartment. Almost all the students realized that a plesiosaur would not be found in such frigid waters. A few gentlemen at work were sure it was a cgi still from a National Geographic special, or something. When a student pointed out to the young woman that the water was far too cold for a plesiosaur, she became quite defensive and insisted that millions of years of evolution could have changed that. The student countered with the fact that if that were the case, then crocodilians, which have survived for millions of years, would likely have evolved into ocean dwelling reptiles and migrated to the extreme north and south by now where they could happily munch on seals and penguins. The young lady was prepared to argue further, but I ended the argument by confessing that I had photoshopped the image. She gave me a glare that was icier than the image, and stormed off without another word. The young man she came to see (which was not the one she debated with) forlornly said, “Oh great”, and quickly followed after her.
This is the image I photoshopped for cz.com. In that image I gave the ropen a crest to see if anyone would notice. One member did indeed notice. I removed the crest for the experiment. This image also received accusations of being a cgi still. But four of the house roomies were prepared to believe it was the genuine article. The four who believed the image could be real pointed out that the photo was clearly taken in Papua New Guinea, which is where the ropen is occasionally spotted. They were wrong though; the village is located in West Africa.
This is one of the images I photoshopped exclusively for the experiment. Everyone dismissed this image without a second thought save for five of the house roomies, and even four of the five were doubtful. One of them never stated that he thought it was genuine, but he acted as though he truly wanted it to be real.
This is the other image I photoshopped exclusively for the experiment, and it was the pièste de résistance. Though the folks at work and the students at the apartment who looked at it were sure it was fake, they admitted that it was a pretty darn good fake (which I admittedly enjoyed hearing). The young lady who thought the icy plesiosaur was real might have bought into the image, but she stormed off before she had a chance to see it, or any of the other images. The six house roomies, however, went nuts over it. One of them was more excited than all the others put together. He named off several big names in Bigfootdom that I won’t repeat in this article, insisting that they absolutely needed to see the image.