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.
Showing posts with label Hoax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hoax. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
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.
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!
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Bigfoot Corpse?
HAS A BIGFOOT BODY BEEN FOUND!?!
Probably not, and even if it were, I doubt that it would warrent all-caps.
Anyway, some salt-of-the-earth types in North Georgia have recently made the claim that they have found the corpse of a male bigfoot (see the story on the Fayetteville, GA, newspaper website right here). These guys, Matthew Whitton and Rick Dyer, are obviously very serious and credible, since they chose to make their claims known via that bastion of reasoned thought and careful documentation, YouTube.
These two guys run a website, bigfoottracker.com, which apparently sells spots on bigfoot searching expeditions in the hill country in North Georgia. I might also mention that the hill country of North Georgia is where Deliverance was set, so interested parties might wanna prepare accordingly.
The two "researchers" put up further videos with a "pathology prof" and his shock at the frozen Bigfoot body. Turns out, though, the "prof" was actually the brother of Whitton. But despite the hoaxed professor thing, these guys STILL claim that they have a bigfoot body, and are willing to sell it to the highest bidder.
Just another day in the totally awesome and completely respectable field of cryptozoology, I guess.
Probably not, and even if it were, I doubt that it would warrent all-caps.
Anyway, some salt-of-the-earth types in North Georgia have recently made the claim that they have found the corpse of a male bigfoot (see the story on the Fayetteville, GA, newspaper website right here). These guys, Matthew Whitton and Rick Dyer, are obviously very serious and credible, since they chose to make their claims known via that bastion of reasoned thought and careful documentation, YouTube.
These two guys run a website, bigfoottracker.com, which apparently sells spots on bigfoot searching expeditions in the hill country in North Georgia. I might also mention that the hill country of North Georgia is where Deliverance was set, so interested parties might wanna prepare accordingly.
The two "researchers" put up further videos with a "pathology prof" and his shock at the frozen Bigfoot body. Turns out, though, the "prof" was actually the brother of Whitton. But despite the hoaxed professor thing, these guys STILL claim that they have a bigfoot body, and are willing to sell it to the highest bidder.
Just another day in the totally awesome and completely respectable field of cryptozoology, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
