Human culture and civilization is markedly resilient, and we've been able to spread to practically every corner of the globe, putting us up there with rats and cockroaches on the survivability scale of things. What is so amazing, of course, is how modern day researchers have really just scratched the surface of the whole history of human societies and migrations, often finding evidence for human habitation in surprising places.
Resent work from the University of Florida has shown that, in the area of the Upper Xingu in the Amazon Basin (in Brazil), humans had created elaborate urban settlements in the heart of the modern day rain forest. These urban centers were laid out in grid-like patterns, centered around large plazas, and connected by extensive roadways. A summary of the recent find is available at the BBC Science headline site.
The researchers used satellite imagery and good ol' fashioned field work (identifying pottery shards and "black earth", where farming or waste dumping occurred) to identify the settlements. Evidence for dams and extensive earthworks were also found. Additionally, and most importantly, the ruins were identified by the Kuikoro tribe, were are believed to be descendants of the Xingu settlement folks.
The Upper Xingu people are believed to have been wiped out by European diseases brought by colonists, sometime in the 15th Century.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Bigfoot Trackin'
The quintessential bigfoot evidence (and, I reckon, Yeti evidence too) always seems to be the footprints left after the crypto-apes have, supposedly, stomped around a bit. The various researchers seem fairly meticulous in taking width and length measures, depths, spacing, etc. All in all, it seems that stompin'-prints are the big line of evidence most people look for and report.
Anyway, I was wondering, do any bigfoot researchers out there employ actual tracking techniques. There are several wildlife and wilderness tracking schools and workshops (in the States, at least) that offer some exceptionally training in tracking methodology and interpretation. Any bigfoot folks out there use these resources, or have taken any of these classes?
Anyway, I was wondering, do any bigfoot researchers out there employ actual tracking techniques. There are several wildlife and wilderness tracking schools and workshops (in the States, at least) that offer some exceptionally training in tracking methodology and interpretation. Any bigfoot folks out there use these resources, or have taken any of these classes?
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Any publicity is good publicity, right?
Well, maybe not. The Sasquatch detectives have been put squarely in the crosshairs of The Onion. Go forth, my brothers and sisters, and enjoy the humor.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Cryptozoology Hoaxes
With the GA Bigfoot fiasco shown to be what it is (i.e., Bullshit), and the completely ridiculous obfuscation, lies, and downright sneakiness of the squatchdetective radioshow (available here, courtesy Bigfoot on Ice; if you ARE going to listen to it, fast forward to around 70 minutes or so...everything before there is powerfully boring filler that serves as a powerful, sleep-inducing narcotic), it might pay for people to think about WHY people perpetrate hoaxes.
Loren Coleman, on his Cryptomundo site, has an (old) post regarding the 10 Reasons Why People Commit Hoaxes. It is a pretty straightforward list, with all the ole standbys there (i.e., money, fame, etc).
I think it is important, however, to recognize that the reason why people CAN perpetrate these hoaxes is because the cryptozoology community has a bizarrely credulous nature. I think that a big part of this is the fact that these crypto-folks have dangerously misinterpreted the scientific method, perhaps in an attempt to present themselves as rigorous. The philosophy of cryptozoology seems to be one of blunt, literal objectivism, treating all claims equally until proven differently (as evidenced by this GA Bigfoot episode).
I'll let everyone in on a little secret...scientist DO NOT treat all claims with equal weight, which is why we always want to see careful documentation of the observation and data related to any problem. Scientists make their living by being SKEPTICAL about claims, including (and especially) their own.
Cryptozoology needs to discard this willingness to sit back and observe, but instead needs to begin acting like the respectable field they claim to be: start evaluating claims skeptically and rigorously, with the recognition that extraordinary claims require extraordinary support.
Loren Coleman, on his Cryptomundo site, has an (old) post regarding the 10 Reasons Why People Commit Hoaxes. It is a pretty straightforward list, with all the ole standbys there (i.e., money, fame, etc).
I think it is important, however, to recognize that the reason why people CAN perpetrate these hoaxes is because the cryptozoology community has a bizarrely credulous nature. I think that a big part of this is the fact that these crypto-folks have dangerously misinterpreted the scientific method, perhaps in an attempt to present themselves as rigorous. The philosophy of cryptozoology seems to be one of blunt, literal objectivism, treating all claims equally until proven differently (as evidenced by this GA Bigfoot episode).
I'll let everyone in on a little secret...scientist DO NOT treat all claims with equal weight, which is why we always want to see careful documentation of the observation and data related to any problem. Scientists make their living by being SKEPTICAL about claims, including (and especially) their own.
Cryptozoology needs to discard this willingness to sit back and observe, but instead needs to begin acting like the respectable field they claim to be: start evaluating claims skeptically and rigorously, with the recognition that extraordinary claims require extraordinary support.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Dixie Bigfoot
Man, you turn your back on the Internets for one measly little week, and the ol' GA Bigfoot thing dies with a whimper, huh? Bigfoot On Ice, of course has kept up on all the news, and that news is sadly (but not entirely unpredictably) that the whole thing is one big ol' hoax.
Furthermore, it seems that the DNA results are bullshit as well. According to this Discovery News post, a University of Minnesota scientist has determined that the DNA from the samples represent two sources: one sample was human, and one sample was from an opossum. Of course, I suspect that Tom Biscardi and his bi-coastal curious lawyers will remain undaunted by the facts, and press on with the whole sham.
Now, the fact that Tom Biscardi (AND his bi-coastal lawyers) is associated with a Hoax is nothing surprising; he's kinda famous for being a, how do you say, money-grubbing shyster asshole. What IS surprising, of course, is how the cryptozoology community payed any attention to this sideshow nonsense. If folks with a history of playing fast and loose with the truth starts shooting their mouth off about their dead, frozen bigfoot, your natural skeptic-o-meter (located in the hypothalamus) should start buzzing.
Hopefully, the cryptozoological community will FINALLY learn the lesson of these silly little episodes: until the evidence is made public, all anybody ever has is a story.
Furthermore, it seems that the DNA results are bullshit as well. According to this Discovery News post, a University of Minnesota scientist has determined that the DNA from the samples represent two sources: one sample was human, and one sample was from an opossum. Of course, I suspect that Tom Biscardi and his bi-coastal curious lawyers will remain undaunted by the facts, and press on with the whole sham.
Now, the fact that Tom Biscardi (AND his bi-coastal lawyers) is associated with a Hoax is nothing surprising; he's kinda famous for being a, how do you say, money-grubbing shyster asshole. What IS surprising, of course, is how the cryptozoology community payed any attention to this sideshow nonsense. If folks with a history of playing fast and loose with the truth starts shooting their mouth off about their dead, frozen bigfoot, your natural skeptic-o-meter (located in the hypothalamus) should start buzzing.
Hopefully, the cryptozoological community will FINALLY learn the lesson of these silly little episodes: until the evidence is made public, all anybody ever has is a story.
Friday, August 8, 2008
The Large Hadron Collider and the End of the World
Let us take a break from bi-coastal lawyers and frozen bigfoots, and look to the world of legitimate science (and VERY LONG POSTS).
MAD SCIENCE, that is!!!
On September 10, 2008, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a 27 km long particle accelerator located on the Franco-Swiss border, is set to begin the first of what are hoped to be many fundamental experiments into the nature of matter. Current efforts by workers at the structure have included circulating superfluid helium around the structure, lowering the LHC’s temperature temperature to 1.9 K (about -271 °C, or “Fuckin’ Cold”, as Physicists would say), these low temperatures being necessary for the upcoming experimental phase of the research.
What is the LHC, and more to the point, WHY is the LHC?
To answer the first question, the LHC was commissioned by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (which somehow, comes out to the acronym CERN, probably because they’re speaking europeanese or somethin’. Damn ferners, acceleratin’ OUR particles…). The LHC is a big ass particle accelerator, which pretty much does what it says; it accelerates particles. However, the special thing about the LHC is HOW fast it accelerates those particles. By the time the little bastards have circled through the tubes in the LHC, they will be travelling at around 0.99999c or so. That c, on the end of that 0.99999 is the same c as in the ol’ E = mc2 equation, that is, c is the speed of light. So this particle accelerator will, um, accelerate a particle to ALMOST the speed of the light (or, as Physicists would term it, “Fuckin’ Fast”).
The picture below was nabbed from Google Earth, and shows the extensive research facilities maintained by CERN, including the underground LHC, located in the middle of the picture. Nice digs, for sure.
Anyway, WHY would we want to chuck particles around that fast, you ask? Well, why don’t we let the good people at CERN tell us that? The following text was gleaned from the CERN LHC website:
More specifically, the LHC has been built to try to understand what makes “Mass” by trying to identify the Higgs Boson, a predicted but hitherto unobserved fundamental particle. Additional research will try t o understand what Dark Matter and Dark Energy are (which together make up 96% of the known universe), what happened during the first few seconds of the universe after the Big Bang, and why there is antimatter but no or very little antimatter left. These are lofty, if somewhat obscure and heady, goals, right. Human knowledge and understanding march on unimpeded, right?
Well, not entirely.
There are some out there who seem to think that the operation of the LHC will result in the destruction of the Earth. Among these, a group calling themselves Citizens Against The Large Hardon Collider seem to have the slickest website. I pulled the following statement from their front page:
And as a second bit of nonsense, Point the Second): CERN does NOT acknowledge a “real possibility” of blowing up the universe. In fact, CERN’s LHC Safety link makes their position VERY clear: there is no danger from the LHC. So that is a falsehood, in fact, and just one of numerous half-truths and outright lies in the LHCdefenders website.
Beyond that statement, what are the Anti-LHC guys worried about, exactly? Well, they tell you at their risk link, which states micro black holes and strangelets as their big concerns. Of course, the LHC Safety site explains how those things, as well as many other possibilities are not in fact a threat to the Earth.
The anti-LHC crowd seems to be pinning much of their arguments against the LHC on the fact that the energy involved in the operation of these experiments is greater than any experiment previously attempted. In other words, the scale of the LHC experiments are what make them dangerous; the energy involved is such that the possibility of a catastrophic “oops” is that much greater than that ever attempted by humans before!
How does the LHC respond to this concern? By pointing out that, YES, the LHC is the biggest, best, and most energetic particle collider humans have ever made; HOWEVER, it is MUCH LESS powerful than the NATURALLY OCCURING phenomena they are trying to emulate. Cosmic ray collisions in space occur that involve higher energy, more matter, and with much greater frequency than the piddly-little LHC experiments. If the products of these processes were destructive to planets, stars, or galaxies, THEN THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY STARS, PLANETS, OR GALAXIES around for us to see! What the LHC is going to do is nothing new; nature has been doing it for billions and billions of years. What is new is that humans are finally going to be able to see it happen, and therefore gain some understanding of how these processes work. Just to reiterate, I’ll link to the LHC safety site once again. Read it, and see that everything is A-OK.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE “EXPERTS FEAR”?
Indeed, what about the experts fear? Let’s start off by looking at the founder of the Citizens Against the Large Hadron Collider, one Walter L. Wagner. According to the bio link posted at the Coast to Coast AM site (where ol’ Walt has been a guest), Wagner has some interesting but obscure credentials. For instance, he refers to himself as a Doctor, but apparently never went to graduate school (at least, not in physics, which sort of limits his credentials in that area).
Oh, and he also had the exact same concerns regarding the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. Last time I checked, the world hadn’t exploded when they were running that machine.
Another prominent name listed on the LHC website, under their Expert link, is Dr. Frank Wilczek, winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics. So I guess he’s sort of a big deal. His name is mentioned in the same breath as ol Walt Wagner there (interestingly, AFTER Walt’s own name. Feel a little vain, much?). Anyway, I was shocked to see his name there. Afterall, Wilczek is a real-live MIT physicist, and one who won the Free Trip to Stockholm, no less. Mighty powerful credentials!
However, through the power of the internets, I was able to find out that the inclusion of his name with the anti-LHC folks is an ignorant mistake at best, and an outright distortion of the truth at worst.
According to Dr. Wilczek’s own website, the LHC will not blow up the universe. Additionally, in this link, we learn that the Scientific American letter attributed to Wilczek was actually a heavily edited work that Wilczek wrote IN RESPONSE to a letter about a particle collider blowing up the world. What Wilczek was trying to say was that there is no cause for concern regarding micro-black holes killing us all. So either Wagner doesn’t understand enough of physics to realize that this is what Wilczek was saying, or he is just lying and is willfully misrepresenting a Nobel Laureate’s position. Which is it Wagner, are you stupid, or just a liar?
The LHC is an unprecedented opportunity to study in controlled conditions, albeit at lower energies, some of the fundamental processes in the universe. Hopefully, this will allow us to gain a better understanding of the basic nature of matter, and how the initial moments of the Big Bang helped to shape the universe as we see it today.
The anti-intellectualism of the Citizens Against the Large Hadron Collider, most likely born out of ignorance and the prideful assumption that the rest of the world doesn’t understand things as well as they do, will not stop fundamental research. The true tragedy, of course, is that the scientific community has done such a poor job of representing themselves, their work, and its importance, that this anti-intellectualism has been able to thrive. The LHC is not going to destroy the world; rather, it will clarify our view of the world, and let us develop a better understanding of how the universe works.
MAD SCIENCE, that is!!!
On September 10, 2008, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a 27 km long particle accelerator located on the Franco-Swiss border, is set to begin the first of what are hoped to be many fundamental experiments into the nature of matter. Current efforts by workers at the structure have included circulating superfluid helium around the structure, lowering the LHC’s temperature temperature to 1.9 K (about -271 °C, or “Fuckin’ Cold”, as Physicists would say), these low temperatures being necessary for the upcoming experimental phase of the research.
What is the LHC, and more to the point, WHY is the LHC?
To answer the first question, the LHC was commissioned by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (which somehow, comes out to the acronym CERN, probably because they’re speaking europeanese or somethin’. Damn ferners, acceleratin’ OUR particles…). The LHC is a big ass particle accelerator, which pretty much does what it says; it accelerates particles. However, the special thing about the LHC is HOW fast it accelerates those particles. By the time the little bastards have circled through the tubes in the LHC, they will be travelling at around 0.99999c or so. That c, on the end of that 0.99999 is the same c as in the ol’ E = mc2 equation, that is, c is the speed of light. So this particle accelerator will, um, accelerate a particle to ALMOST the speed of the light (or, as Physicists would term it, “Fuckin’ Fast”).
The picture below was nabbed from Google Earth, and shows the extensive research facilities maintained by CERN, including the underground LHC, located in the middle of the picture. Nice digs, for sure.
Anyway, WHY would we want to chuck particles around that fast, you ask? Well, why don’t we let the good people at CERN tell us that? The following text was gleaned from the CERN LHC website:
The LHC was built to help scientists to answer key unresolved questions in
particle physics. The unprecedented energy it achieves may even reveal some
unexpected results that no one has ever thought of!
For the past few decades, physicists have been able to describe with increasing detail the fundamental particles that make up the Universe and the interactions between
them. This understanding is encapsulated in the Standard Model of particle
physics, but it contains gaps and cannot tell us the whole story. To fill in
the missing knowledge requires experimental data, and the next big step to
achieving this is with LHC.
More specifically, the LHC has been built to try to understand what makes “Mass” by trying to identify the Higgs Boson, a predicted but hitherto unobserved fundamental particle. Additional research will try t o understand what Dark Matter and Dark Energy are (which together make up 96% of the known universe), what happened during the first few seconds of the universe after the Big Bang, and why there is antimatter but no or very little antimatter left. These are lofty, if somewhat obscure and heady, goals, right. Human knowledge and understanding march on unimpeded, right?
Well, not entirely.
There are some out there who seem to think that the operation of the LHC will result in the destruction of the Earth. Among these, a group calling themselves Citizens Against The Large Hardon Collider seem to have the slickest website. I pulled the following statement from their front page:
Citizens Against the Large Hadron Collider is a non-profit organizationSo, two points on the ol’ Anti-LHCer’s statement here. Point 1) “experts” is a pretty meaningless phrase. Experts in what? World Destructology? Doomographers? Particle Physics? Who knows? The statement doesn’t really cite anything, so we are left to mentally fill-in-the blanks on the whole “experts fear…” line. A perusal through their website shows that they have a “WHAT EXPERTS SAY” link, which mostly seems to reiterate the position of Anti-LHC group member/founder, Walter Wagner (and also states nobel-prize winning physicist Frank Wilczek as suggesting a similar doomsday scenario; more on this falsehood later), as well as letters, some from journalists, some from “concerned citizens.”
established for the purpose of using legal action to prevent the operation of
the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) until further safety tests are conducted.
The LHC is a particle accelerator located on the France/Switzerland
border; it has been dubbed the largest, most expensive, most powerful experiment
ever attempted, certainly dwarfing all particle colliders ever built before,
both in terms of size and power.
Some experts fear that the risk of operating the LHC disproportionately outweighs anything science might gain from this experiment. It is not possible to know what the outcome of the experiment will be, but even CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) scientists concede that there is a real possibility of creating destructive theoretical anomalies such as miniature black holes, strangelets, and deSitter paces transitions. These events have the potential to fundamentally alter matter and destroy our planet.
And as a second bit of nonsense, Point the Second): CERN does NOT acknowledge a “real possibility” of blowing up the universe. In fact, CERN’s LHC Safety link makes their position VERY clear: there is no danger from the LHC. So that is a falsehood, in fact, and just one of numerous half-truths and outright lies in the LHCdefenders website.
Beyond that statement, what are the Anti-LHC guys worried about, exactly? Well, they tell you at their risk link, which states micro black holes and strangelets as their big concerns. Of course, the LHC Safety site explains how those things, as well as many other possibilities are not in fact a threat to the Earth.
The anti-LHC crowd seems to be pinning much of their arguments against the LHC on the fact that the energy involved in the operation of these experiments is greater than any experiment previously attempted. In other words, the scale of the LHC experiments are what make them dangerous; the energy involved is such that the possibility of a catastrophic “oops” is that much greater than that ever attempted by humans before!
How does the LHC respond to this concern? By pointing out that, YES, the LHC is the biggest, best, and most energetic particle collider humans have ever made; HOWEVER, it is MUCH LESS powerful than the NATURALLY OCCURING phenomena they are trying to emulate. Cosmic ray collisions in space occur that involve higher energy, more matter, and with much greater frequency than the piddly-little LHC experiments. If the products of these processes were destructive to planets, stars, or galaxies, THEN THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY STARS, PLANETS, OR GALAXIES around for us to see! What the LHC is going to do is nothing new; nature has been doing it for billions and billions of years. What is new is that humans are finally going to be able to see it happen, and therefore gain some understanding of how these processes work. Just to reiterate, I’ll link to the LHC safety site once again. Read it, and see that everything is A-OK.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE “EXPERTS FEAR”?
Indeed, what about the experts fear? Let’s start off by looking at the founder of the Citizens Against the Large Hadron Collider, one Walter L. Wagner. According to the bio link posted at the Coast to Coast AM site (where ol’ Walt has been a guest), Wagner has some interesting but obscure credentials. For instance, he refers to himself as a Doctor, but apparently never went to graduate school (at least, not in physics, which sort of limits his credentials in that area).
Oh, and he also had the exact same concerns regarding the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. Last time I checked, the world hadn’t exploded when they were running that machine.
Another prominent name listed on the LHC website, under their Expert link, is Dr. Frank Wilczek, winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics. So I guess he’s sort of a big deal. His name is mentioned in the same breath as ol Walt Wagner there (interestingly, AFTER Walt’s own name. Feel a little vain, much?). Anyway, I was shocked to see his name there. Afterall, Wilczek is a real-live MIT physicist, and one who won the Free Trip to Stockholm, no less. Mighty powerful credentials!
However, through the power of the internets, I was able to find out that the inclusion of his name with the anti-LHC folks is an ignorant mistake at best, and an outright distortion of the truth at worst.
According to Dr. Wilczek’s own website, the LHC will not blow up the universe. Additionally, in this link, we learn that the Scientific American letter attributed to Wilczek was actually a heavily edited work that Wilczek wrote IN RESPONSE to a letter about a particle collider blowing up the world. What Wilczek was trying to say was that there is no cause for concern regarding micro-black holes killing us all. So either Wagner doesn’t understand enough of physics to realize that this is what Wilczek was saying, or he is just lying and is willfully misrepresenting a Nobel Laureate’s position. Which is it Wagner, are you stupid, or just a liar?
The LHC is an unprecedented opportunity to study in controlled conditions, albeit at lower energies, some of the fundamental processes in the universe. Hopefully, this will allow us to gain a better understanding of the basic nature of matter, and how the initial moments of the Big Bang helped to shape the universe as we see it today.
The anti-intellectualism of the Citizens Against the Large Hadron Collider, most likely born out of ignorance and the prideful assumption that the rest of the world doesn’t understand things as well as they do, will not stop fundamental research. The true tragedy, of course, is that the scientific community has done such a poor job of representing themselves, their work, and its importance, that this anti-intellectualism has been able to thrive. The LHC is not going to destroy the world; rather, it will clarify our view of the world, and let us develop a better understanding of how the universe works.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Bigfoot Corpse*
The dread asterisk is never a good a sign; the inclusion of one at the end of a phrase tends to let you know that there are some caveats, here and there, that may change a meaning or two. So it seems with the supposed Bigfoot on Ice from North Georgia. Both Cryptozoology and the Bigfoot On Ice blog have made it known that the Bigfoot Trackers have recently put a tiny little italicized "for entertainment purposes only" on the bottom of their website.
As I said in a previous post, just another day in the the totally awesome and completely respectable field of cryptozoology!
As I said in a previous post, just another day in the the totally awesome and completely respectable field of cryptozoology!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
