Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Dinwar]

I've never met a stratigrapher I didn't like. In the interests of full disclosure however, I have never actually met a stratigrapher.

I've never cut someone from my life over the difference between silty sand and sandy silt. It's not an uncommon source of disagreement among stratigraphers (well, the field workers anyway--the ones in the lab laugh at such subjective designations and burry the rest of us in ternary diagrams).

 

[tsig]

I've never met a stratigrapher I didn't like. In the interests of full disclosure however, I have never actually met a stratigrapher.

I have met a few curvygraphers.

 

[jerrywayne]

Abominable Tree Stump

In a section on Bigfoot in Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and Other Famous Cryptids (with Donald R. Prothero), Daniel Loxton writes about misidentification errors:

One fundamental problem with eyewitness tales of Bigfoot encounters is that people make up stories. Another, even larger problem is that people make mistakes. As Grover Krantz noted, “With enough imagination almost any object of about the right size and shape can be seen as a sasquatch.”

Loxton then relates a story about what occurred to him and his fellow hirelings who were acting as shepherds in British Columbia near the Alaskan panhandle, three people shepherding 1,500 sheep on a tree plantation. He writes:

One day, I returned to the flock to find shepherds Jill Carrier and Jolene Shepherd (a much remarked-on coincidence, that surname) talking excitedly. “While you were gone,” they began, laughing a little nervously, “we, uh, saw a Sasquatch.” They hastened to add that they were, well, pretty sure that it was a tall stump. After all, it stood still for a very long time, and half-burned stumps and broken logs are everywhere on overgrown clear-cuts in British Columbia. Such logging debris (slash) can look like anything. A Sasquatch is a perfectly predictable occasional illusion, although this time it was especially compelling. The women laughed, confessing that they could have sworn that the Sasquatch turned its head to follow them.

I will not keep you in suspense. It was indeed a stump. (We were able to examine it later.) But the illusion from the original vantage point was very powerful. Even staring right at it, we could not be sure that it was not a Sasquatch. If we had not had the chance to check it out, this sighting could well have become a strong case for the existence of Bigfoot. Think of it: an extended, broad-daylight sighting by multiple witnesses, all of them experienced outdoor professionals. And memory is collaborative and malleable. If we had left the plantation at the end of the summer believing that we had seen a Sasquatch, our memories of the event would have “improved” over time.

Loxton goes on to relate other misidentifications they experienced as shepherds, such as when he mistook sheep for bears once, and vice versa, and when one of his team mates thought she was seeing a dog and went to chase it away from the flock, only to find herself face to face with a mother grizzly and her two grown offspring

 

[Resume]

In a section on Bigfoot in Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and Other Famous Cryptids (with Donald R. Prothero), Daniel Loxton writes about misidentification errors:

One fundamental problem with eyewitness tales of Bigfoot encounters is that people make up stories. Another, even larger problem is that people make mistakes. As Grover Krantz noted, “With enough imagination almost any object of about the right size and shape can be seen as a sasquatch.”

Loxton then relates a story about what occurred to him and his fellow hirelings who were acting as shepherds in British Columbia near the Alaskan panhandle, three people shepherding 1,500 sheep on a tree plantation. He writes:

One day, I returned to the flock to find shepherds Jill Carrier and Jolene Shepherd (a much remarked-on coincidence, that surname) talking excitedly. “While you were gone,” they began, laughing a little nervously, “we, uh, saw a Sasquatch.” They hastened to add that they were, well, pretty sure that it was a tall stump. After all, it stood still for a very long time, and half-burned stumps and broken logs are everywhere on overgrown clear-cuts in British Columbia. Such logging debris (slash) can look like anything. A Sasquatch is a perfectly predictable occasional illusion, although this time it was especially compelling. The women laughed, confessing that they could have sworn that the Sasquatch turned its head to follow them.

I will not keep you in suspense. It was indeed a stump. (We were able to examine it later.) But the illusion from the original vantage point was very powerful. Even staring right at it, we could not be sure that it was not a Sasquatch. If we had not had the chance to check it out, this sighting could well have become a strong case for the existence of Bigfoot. Think of it: an extended, broad-daylight sighting by multiple witnesses, all of them experienced outdoor professionals. And memory is collaborative and malleable. If we had left the plantation at the end of the summer believing that we had seen a Sasquatch, our memories of the event would have “improved” over time.

Loxton goes on to relate other misidentifications they experienced as shepherds, such as when he mistook sheep for bears once, and vice versa, and when one of his team mates thought she was seeing a dog and went to chase it away from the flock, only to find herself face to face with a mother grizzly and her two grown offspring

As to the highlighted and boldened. No, not a strong case.

Many fly-fisherman will tell you of a tree or stump or log in a riffle of their favorite trout stream that resembles an angler already angling. I've done it, the excellent outdoors author John Geirach details such an occasion, most anglers have had such an experience I reckon. Then, the self-delusion disappears once the mistake is recognized. A tree isn't an angler, a stump isn't a bigfoot. I think the bias to see bigfoot takes over in any misidentification scenario. Which is why such anecdotes do not make a strong case for anything.

 

[jerrywayne]

As to the highlighted and boldened. No, not a strong case.

Many fly-fisherman will tell you of a tree or stump or log in a riffle of their favorite trout stream that resembles an angler already angling. I've done it, the excellent outdoors author John Geirach details such an occasion, most anglers have had such an experience I reckon. Then, the self-delusion disappears once the mistake is recognized. A tree isn't an angler, a stump isn't a bigfoot. I think the bias to see bigfoot takes over in any misidentification scenario. Which is why such anecdotes do not make a strong case for anything.

So, are you saying, since there can be no Bigfoot sighting, there cannot be a "strong case" Bigfoot sighting report in principle?

Just curious --- why do you call the innocent misperception that you describe, a tree stump misperceived as an angler for instance, a self-delusion?

 

[clayflingythingy]

In a section on Bigfoot in Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and Other Famous Cryptids (with Donald R. Prothero), Daniel Loxton writes about misidentification errors:

One fundamental problem with eyewitness tales of Bigfoot encounters is that people make up stories. Another, even larger problem is that people make mistakes. As Grover Krantz noted, “With enough imagination almost any object of about the right size and shape can be seen as a sasquatch.”

Loxton then relates a story about what occurred to him and his fellow hirelings who were acting as shepherds in British Columbia near the Alaskan panhandle, three people shepherding 1,500 sheep on a tree plantation. He writes:

One day, I returned to the flock to find shepherds Jill Carrier and Jolene Shepherd (a much remarked-on coincidence, that surname) talking excitedly. “While you were gone,” they began, laughing a little nervously, “we, uh, saw a Sasquatch.” They hastened to add that they were, well, pretty sure that it was a tall stump. After all, it stood still for a very long time, and half-burned stumps and broken logs are everywhere on overgrown clear-cuts in British Columbia. Such logging debris (slash) can look like anything. A Sasquatch is a perfectly predictable occasional illusion, although this time it was especially compelling. The women laughed, confessing that they could have sworn that the Sasquatch turned its head to follow them.

I will not keep you in suspense. It was indeed a stump. (We were able to examine it later.) But the illusion from the original vantage point was very powerful. Even staring right at it, we could not be sure that it was not a Sasquatch. If we had not had the chance to check it out, this sighting could well have become a strong case for the existence of Bigfoot. Think of it: an extended, broad-daylight sighting by multiple witnesses, all of them experienced outdoor professionals. And memory is collaborative and malleable. If we had left the plantation at the end of the summer believing that we had seen a Sasquatch, our memories of the event would have “improved” over time.

Loxton goes on to relate other misidentifications they experienced as shepherds, such as when he mistook sheep for bears once, and vice versa, and when one of his team mates thought she was seeing a dog and went to chase it away from the flock, only to find herself face to face with a mother grizzly and her two grown offspring

The whole point is BS. See the hilite. They knew it was a stump even before they examined it. To turn this into a BF report they would have been deliberately lying.

 

[Resume]

So, are you saying, since there can be no Bigfoot sighting, there cannot be a "strong case" Bigfoot sighting report in principle?

No I'm saying no single glimpse of what you imagine a bigfoot to be is a strong case.

Just curious --- why do you call the innocent misperception that you describe, a tree stump misperceived as an angler for instance, a self-delusion?

Because as an angler, you are biased to imagine that's what you are seeing rather than the log. It takes only a moment to realize your error. To continue on thinking "there's a guy fishin' my run" is self-delusion. Much the same way and enthusiast goes on thinking stumpfoot is bigfoot.

 

[jerrywayne]

Don't know if this has been posted before, but it's worth a look here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnHX1TfUQ7A

 

[William Parcher]

Good video, Jerry. My only complaint is that you should post a short description of what the video is about instead of just plopping the link in a post. That's a nice courtesy but not mandatory.

Bigfooters would simply say that this person hasn't seen a Bigfoot in New York like they have done. Once that happens you learn that New York forests contain barred owls and Bigfoot.

 

[jerrywayne]

Good video, Jerry. My only complaint is that you should post a short description of what the video is about instead of just plopping the link in a post. That's a nice courtesy but not mandatory.

Bigfooters would simply say that this person hasn't seen a Bigfoot in New York like they have done. Once that happens you learn that New York forests contain barred owls and Bigfoot.

Thanks for the suggestion WP.

Your post brings up an interesting question. Why do we post skeptically about Bigfoot?

1. Are our posts meant to change Bigfooters' minds about Bigfoot?

2. Are our posts meant to reinforce our own beliefs as skeptics about Bigfoot and to entertain one another?

3. Are our posts meant to offer possible non-Bigfoot solutions to Bigfoot phenomenon for those genuinely curious about it?

Perhaps it is a mixture of all three. But the idea that is gaining currency here at this skeptic blogsite, that virtually all of the Bigfoot phenomena is attributable to con-artists and liars, from people claiming to see Bigfoot to even those who write pro-Bigfoot books, is, I submit, for the benefit of number 2 above, and excludes 1 and 3.
.

 

[William Parcher]

It's mainly entertainment for me. I also learn things about the natural world, not from Bigfooters but from other skeptics and from researching ways to rebut the proclamations of Bigfooters.

The idea that you are going to "change Bigfooters' minds" is not properly founded in the evidence and history. That idea can't come from critical thinking because it requires ignoring the reality of what actually happens. The minds do not change no matter what you say or do. Indeed the reverse may actually occur where interactions with skeptics cause believers to reinforce their position and bonding with other believers.

I've tried to imagine what the world would be like if there was no skeptical response to Bigfootery whatsoever. Not agreeing with them, disagreeing with them, criticizing or commending... but instead nothing at all. If a dramatic encounter story is told to you then you have no response or one simply limited to "Oh". The believers could talk to each other all day long but there is nobody opposing them. I then imagine that Bigfootery would dwindle from boredom and lack of anything to push against.

 

[Dinwar]

Why do we post skeptically about Bigfoot?

For me, there are a few reasons.

First, it impacts my field of study directly. The money put towards crypto"zoology" could easily be spent on REAL biological and paleontological studies. If even a fraction were put to real scientific use, we'd be able to fund some pretty awesome research.

Secondly, I occasionally get fed up with the dogmatic approach of some skeptics. No, I don't believe in bigfoot--however, certain ideas proposed by bigfoot believers are not trivially false. For example, it's not impossible for large apes to have moved from Asia to North America--we know it happened at least once with apes, and a few times for other taxa. There is a very specific reason we cannot conclude that this happened with Gigantopithicus--we have no Giganto fossils in the areas which we would expect to see them if this group underwent such a migration. That's just one example. While I agree that there's no evidence for bigfoot, simply saying someone's wrong because bigfoot doesn't exist isn't skepticism in any philosophical or intellectually honest use of the term--it's dogma. You know, that thing skeptics are supposed to be fighting.

 

[dmaker]

^^ Curious. What skeptics do you think have argued, without evidence, that bigfoot does not exist? Where do you see a bigfoot does not exist because I say so, or my hunch is bigfoot does not exist, presented here? I find most arguments against the bigfoot hypothesis that are presented here carry more than a hunch or a just because I said so vibe. Most arguments carry the weight of analysis of the evidence offered. Or, rather, in the case of bigfoot, the lack of evidence offered.Dogma,as you say, seems to me to be the condensed consensus of many people who have examined the available evidence and found it lacking. Where, specifically, is skepticism failing when claiming that bigfoot does not exist, based on the evidence? I fail to see dogma while proclaiming a failure of the evidence.

 

[Castro]

About Gigantopithecus, are we also supposed to consider the existence of leprechauns in our backyard as possible because of the discovery of the "Flores Man"?

 

[The Shrike]

^No, but reports of "little people" become less fantastical when you realize that there used to be little people. Flores ain't Eire, of course, so I'm reasonably sure that my pot o' gold is safe from the little mischief-makers.

 

[Resume]

^No, but reports of "little people" become less fantastical when you realize that there used to be little people. Flores ain't Eire, of course, so I'm reasonably sure that my pot o' gold is safe from the little mischief-makers.

Everyone forgets about the menehune.

 

[Castro]

^No, but reports of "little people" become less fantastical when you realize that there used to be little people. Flores ain't Eire, of course, so I'm reasonably sure that my pot o' gold is safe from the little mischief-makers.

Really? cause, you know, it's not impossible for large apes little people to have moved from Asia to North America... Methinks you'd better check that pot again. Just sayin'...

 

[bruto]

Everyone forgets about the menehune.

I never forget. But unfortunately they apparently don't like the climate here in Vermont, because nothing ever seems to get done around here.

 

[Correa Neto]

Really? cause, you know, it's not impossible for large apes little people to have moved from Asia to North America... Methinks you'd better check that pot again. Just sayin'...

Yeah, and if they had boats, there would be no fossils of them at exposed continental areas between Asia and NA.

HEY! This explains bigfoost too! They came by boats!

 

[clayflingythingy]

Thanks for the suggestion WP.

Your post brings up an interesting question. Why do we post skeptically about Bigfoot?

1. Are our posts meant to change Bigfooters' minds about Bigfoot?

2. Are our posts meant to reinforce our own beliefs as skeptics about Bigfoot and to entertain one another?

3. Are our posts meant to offer possible non-Bigfoot solutions to Bigfoot phenomenon for those genuinely curious about it?

Perhaps it is a mixture of all three. But the idea that is gaining currency here at this skeptic blogsite, that virtually all of the Bigfoot phenomena is attributable to con-artists and liars, from people claiming to see Bigfoot to even those who write pro-Bigfoot books, is, I submit, for the benefit of number 2 above, and excludes 1 and 3.
.

If the sissies in this video were truly scared, and ran like rabbits at some noises in the woods, had reported this as a BF encounter, they would be lying about their "encounter". Anyone who claims that such noises are BF are lying. All they can truthfully say is they heard some noises they could not identify.

For some reason it seems very important to you that there be "something" behind BF besides lies and hoaxes. Why is that?