Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[The Shrike]

I remember some web sites were excoriating Nickell for his owl interpretation while championing Friedman for his solid investigation. Sad, really sad.

That's why it's so important to get EVERYTHING right when providing a competing hypothesis. Nowhere in Nickell's comments did I see that he had talked to any ornithologists in West Virginia about the abundance and distribution of owls in WV in the 1950s. He read some things, got in his head the notion that Barn Owls make a scary noise, and he ran with it. He missed:

1) that other, more common species make equally scary, screeching and hissing noises

2) that the habitat at the location is likely unsuitable for Barn Owl

3) that owls have a threat display that creates a shape very much like that described by the witnesses.

All it takes is one person to point out something like "there are no Barn Owls in Braxton Co., WV" and Nickell's opinion is discarded as nothing but a skeptical brush-off. It ends up doing more harm than good.

I see this often with skeptics, including such heavy hitters as Radford or the SGU, that "wildlife" information can be poorly understood and poorly presented in their statements. I just think they're ignorant of what wildlife scientists, birders, hunters, etc. actually know about their species of interest. They think they can check a wiki page and get it, but they can't. They end up making the same mistakes for which they would skewer other folks, and it erodes their credibility on some issues. If you leave that door open even a crack, the Woo-ites will be on you like white on rice.

 

[jerrywayne]

Good points, Shrike.

Also, the monster defenders were arguing that folks in and around Flatwoods would know what an owl looks like.

In looking at sightings in the most literal way, which is how the paranormals look at sightings, robs the event of the roles of imagination, memory, and a host of other human elements, social and personal, that may shine light on it.

 

[William Parcher]

Put in a branch and you've got a perched bird viewed from below.

 

[jerrywayne]

And the cultural elements helped convert an owl into a monster. The previous year: http://classicscifi.blogspot.com/2007/09/thing-from-another-world.html
"Watch the skies!"

 

[bruto]

What about Barred Owls? I have many here in South Carolina and have been swooped by one late at night. You don't what real fear is until a Barred Owl flies in your face.

Second that. A barred owl, even though a little smaller than a great horned, and even if you know what it is and even if you realize it was just an owl a minute later, will make you jump right out of your skin.

 

[JohnWS]

I loved the Flatwoods Monster story as a kid - but I must admit I always thought the explanation they had 'seen an owl' was more an attempt to explain it away rather than any attempt to explain what they may have actually seen.

The postings above put an entirely new light on it though.

 

[jerrywayne]

Eyewitness Studies

Cryptozoology is the study of hidden or out the normal animals. With few exceptions, the maybe-animals studied have little or no evidence for their existence, with the exception of eyewitness testimonies. Eyewitness accounting is the engine that pulls cryptozoology along the tracks of popular culture.

I've been meaning to post some formal rebuttals to the idea that eye-witnessing is a strong form of evidence, in and of itself. Some of the cases I cited above show how far off the mark an eyewitness can be. Here is one paper that addresses some of the issues we all should be familiar with.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

 

[Resume]

Cryptozoology is the study of hidden or out the normal animals. With few exceptions, the maybe-animals studied have little or no evidence for their existence, with the exception of eyewitness testimonies. Eyewitness accounting is the engine that pulls cryptozoology along the tracks of popular culture.

I've been meaning to post some formal rebuttals to the idea that eye-witnessing is a strong form of evidence, in and of itself. Some of the cases I cited above show how far off the mark an eyewitness can be. Here is one paper that addresses some of the issues we all should be familiar with.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

That's a nice link.

I know you've spent some time bantering with bigfoot folks and I understand they have a grading system they apply to their sightings (A, B, C, etc) that I guess leads to the term "knower." Have you had any success with these folks in regards to memory fallibility and cognitive errors/biases?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

The article stresses the importance of cross-examination by the opposing side, and a pre-selected unbiased jury making the judgement.

So in the case of sightings accounts in a place like the Bigfoot Field Researcher's Organization you have two of the three elements missing - the cross examination and the impartial jury.

 

[jerrywayne]

Bigfoot Conference and Lake Worth Monster

Recently the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy held their annual conference in Ft. Worth, Texas. The Conservancy has changed its name to the North American Wood Ape Research Conservancy for reasons given here:
http://woodape.org/index.php/news/news/227-nawacannounce

The conference didn't garner much newspaper coverage, strange given its prior statements that it has located a group of giant apes unknown to science in the hills of eastern Oklahoma. According to the Star Telegram:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/03/16/4707495/bigfoot-believers-gather-in-fort.html

The statement in this article that concerns me is by Lyle Blackburn, the young writer encountered above about an unvetted Fouke Monster eyewitness account. Blackburn states "At one point, 40 people saw this thing." "Forty witnesses is one of the outstanding cases." He is referring to the Lake Worth Monster story. The sightings of the strange creature is covered above in this thread.

The Lake Worth Monster was initially a goat man story, later converted into a Bigfoot encounter. The Lake Worth story has an improbable monster at its core, enough teenagers running around pranking and panicking to seriously confuse the issue, little follow up to make sense of it all, and an eventual confession by one of the prankers.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if Blackburn's next book will include the Lake Worth Monster of momentary, dubious fame, converting it to fit into a Bigfoot casebook.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

From the TBRC link jerry cited:

we feel that the needs of this amazing species are poorly served by the silly patina that has accreted over the term "Bigfoot."

Hopefully, our efforts or the efforts of others will make the North American wood ape a serious topic. We believe changing the very words we use while getting there is an important part of that process.

Heh. We'll change the name from bigfoot to wood ape and that will make it a serious subject.

 

[jerrywayne]

That's a nice link.

I know you've spent some time bantering with bigfoot folks and I understand they have a grading system they apply to their sightings (A, B, C, etc) that I guess leads to the term "knower." Have you had any success with these folks in regards to memory fallibility and cognitive errors/biases?

Some are more open than others, but generally speaking, no. They have the idea that eyewitness accounts are less fallible than they really are. When it is noted that such things as the problems with memory fallibility and other errors taint the certainty of reports, they move the goal post to include not just eyewitness testimony per se, but the number of such accounts, the consistency of such accounts, etc., that they believe strengthen eyewitness accounts. If you note that such factors actually support as well the idea that Bigfoot is a cultural meme, a contemporary bestiary of lore, then Bigfoot enthusiasts fall back again on the alleged strength of individual sightings: People see what they say they see; eyewitness testimony is good enough to determine verdicts in courts of law, etc. It is arguing in a circle.

I recently tried introducing contemporary werewolf sightings at BFF when Bigfoot eyewitness accounts were being discussed. The responders, fully acclimated to Bigfoot lore, basically argued that everyone knows that werewolves are not real, and that Bigfoot is evidenced by the number and consistency of reports. The fact that singular sightings of werewolves and Bigfoot are constructed similarly and with the same seeming authenticity, if you dismiss one account (werewolf), you're dismissing the very idea you are trying to assert, namely, people see what they claim to see.

 

[Resume]

Some are more open than others, but generally speaking, no. They have the idea that eyewitness accounts are less fallible than they really are. When it is noted that such things as the problems with memory fallibility and other errors taint the certainty of reports, they move the goal post to include not just eyewitness testimony per se, but the number of such accounts, the consistency of such accounts, etc., that they believe strengthen eyewitness accounts. If you note that such factors actually support as well the idea that Bigfoot is a cultural meme, a contemporary bestiary of lore, then Bigfoot enthusiasts fall back again on the alleged strength of individual sightings: People see what they say they see; eyewitness testimony is good enough to determine verdicts in courts of law, etc. It is arguing in a circle.

I recently tried introducing contemporary werewolf sightings at BFF when Bigfoot eyewitness accounts were being discussed. The responders, fully acclimated to Bigfoot lore, basically argued that everyone knows that werewolves are not real, and that Bigfoot is evidenced by the number and consistency of reports. The fact that singular sightings of werewolves and Bigfoot are constructed similarly and with the same seeming authenticity, if you dismiss one account (werewolf), you're dismissing the very idea you are trying to assert, namely, people see what they claim to see.

This is the problem with seeing cryptids in general. The first principal isn't seriously considered or is dismissed out of hand; in this case, did x really see what is claimed? If one is just going to accept the claim out of hand, the garbage is already in, and you're gonna get garbage out. Everything is skewed at point A.

 

[CORed]

In a post above I lay out a hypothetical about how a Bigfoot sighting could originate from a moose sighting.

Check out the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rPsUJH3NHY&feature=player_embedded

The fellow commenting on the video mistakes the back end of a moose for a sasquatch. He remarks about the "upright" stance of the animal, and even infers that the Bigfoot dropped something, implying a grasping hand, when all it is is a moose stepping on some debris.

I remember seeing a large bison head-on in Yellowstone and my initial impression was of a large hairy biped.

 

[The Shrike]

Recently the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy held their annual conference in Ft. Worth, Texas. The Conservancy has changed its name to the North American Wood Ape Research Conservancy for reasons given here:
http://woodape.org/index.php/news/news/227-nawacannounce

Wow, thanks for that link. This was the first I'd really dug into their "wood ape" thing.

I still don't get what they think bigfoots need to be protected from.

 

[Resume]

Wow, thanks for that link. This was the first I'd really dug into their "wood ape" thing.
I still don't get what they think bigfoots need to be protected from.

From the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy I imagine. I mean, aren't these folks trying to shoot one? I get all these groups mixed up.

 

[MikeG]

From the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy I imagine. I mean, aren't these folks trying to shoot one? I get all these groups mixed up.

Do try and keep up

Recently the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy ........has changed its name to the North American Wood Ape Research Conservancy .............

 

[Resume]

Do try and keep up

I actually knew that due to my ability to, I dunno, read. They're still trying to shoot them despite the name change, correct?

Which makes the whole conservancy name change kinda ironic.

I mean as ironic as trying to conserve a non-existent cryptid can be.

 

[The Shrike]

I mean as ironic as trying to conserve a non-existent cryptid can be.

Well it's way more ironic than rain on your wedding day.

 

[Resume]

Well it's way more ironic than rain on your wedding day.

Think Alanis wants that one back?