Litigious Bigfoots!

Check out some totally crazy sabre rattling from Tom Biscardi, courtesy of the inestimable bigfoot news machine that is Bigfoot On Ice. Do it right now, it is so good oh it is so good!

Bi-coastal lawyers?

Bi-coastal lawyers!

Am I the only one who thinks that "Bi-Coastal Lawyers" would be one of the greatest band names ever! What the hell does that even mean? You do know, Tom Biscardi, that you don't have to be in the same vicinity of a person to sue them, right? It's not an issue of range; lawyers aren't classified by their distance-to-target, nor do they have killzones, Tom Biscardi.

More importantly, what the heck is the point of saying that you have "bi-coastal lawyers"? Are you going to sue someone, Tom Biscardi, because they say mean things about some guys who claim to have a bigfoot on ice in GA? Are you going to sue them because some people are asking for some proof of these claims?

Once again, I have to say this...these things, right here? That is why no one in academia takes cryptozoology seriously. It is not because scientists don't like controversy. Hell, we thrive on it (I know, because I am one). It is not because scientist don't get in ragging arguments (because we do). The reason, gentle readers, that crytpozoology can't get any respect from anyone in authority is because of stunts like this whole GA bigfoot thing. If you find something, do up the required work, then release your findings, period, making your data (i.e., the body) and your interpretations available to the harsh light of peer-review.

Lemme break it down for everyone, in a series of vignettes:

Cryptozoologist 1: Hey, I found a bigfoot!

Skeptic: Oh yeah, where is your proof, wiseguy?

Cryptozoologist 1: Right here! (hands body, pictures, notes, and all interpretations to scientist).

Skeptic:...(reading). A bigfoot! This is an interesting and useful contribution to the field of biology and zoology. Good work! When is the Nature article coming out?

(end scene)

I promise you, it would be JUST THAT EASY! Instead, we get situations like this:

Cryptozoologist 1: We have found a Bigfoot!

Skeptic: Oh yeah, where is your proof, wiseguy?

Cryptozoologist 1: Oh, we've got it, all right. Lots of proof. Yep. Got us a bigfoot on ICE!

Skeptic: Well, may I see it, please?

Cryptozoologist 1: No, of course not. Don't be silly. We'll show it to you in sept- I mean in October, yeah, that's the ticket. October.

Skeptic: I think you guys are full of shit.

Cryptozoologist 2: I WILL SUE YOU FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE COUNTRY! I HAVE BI-COASTAL LAWYERS!

Skeptic: ...what?

(end scene)

Can you spot the difference in these little scenes? In the first one, everybody acted like adults who actually wanted to learn and advance human knowledge and understanding. In the second one, the cryptozoologists acted like douchebags. It's not that people are hostile to the IDEA of a Bigfoot from Georgia; it's that people are hostile to the idea of dissembling assholes who make cryptic claims regarding "amazing new finds", then yell and pout about people asking "where's the beef".

I am the David Mamet of the one-scene, bigfoot-themed play.