The "X Thought Experiment"

 Last night I was turning the radio dial and happened upon an interview with a scientist about "X." I don't remember the station, or know what program it was. Turned out the scientist was Michael Shermer. I only listened for about two minutes, but it went like the following, and of course, I am paraphrasing:

Shermer: (remember, I'm paraphrasing) For example, Bigfoot. If you hear a claim that Bigfoot exists, okay, you then have X. If there's Bigfoot, there has to be more than just one or two. If there's more than or two, X says there are thousands. If there are thousands, X then says there'd be bodies: road kill, etc. 

The problem with this X idea or process is that it is based on a lot of assumptions about a being that is allegedly non-existent. If we don't know Bigfoot exists how can we assume things about it? We don't know what Bigfoot is. So we can't assume Bigfoot is like other animals.

Shermer -- as well as many Bigfoot researchers -- assume that Bigfoot is just a flesh and blood animal. Nothing paranormal or supernatural about it. Simply a really big kind of bear or ape. Probably intelligent, but, not as smart as humans. Just a big old animal lumbering around out there. So of course the X game follows these assumptions as a given. Big animal, have to be a lot of them, needs a lot of food, we'd find their bodies as road kill or maybe bones off in the woods. Surely hunters would have found something by now. 

Another problem is that, while assuming all those things about Bigfoot (number, bodies, etc.) Shermer, etc. ignores the data that is there. Witness narratives about their Bigfoot encounters are entirely valid. Anecdotal evidence is not proof, but it is evidence. And if a scientist cannot sift through a very large data pile of reports and cannot discern a pattern to those witness accounts, then that scientist is being dishonest and disingenuous. 

When it comes to the paranormal and/or cryptids, going through the X process won't get you very far.

We Love Bigfoot, Even Though We Hate Him

Just because: From November 2008; I wrote this when I was contributing to American Chronicle.

We Love Bigfoot, Even Though We Hate Him

I happen to think that Bigfoot exists. I don´t know this for a fact, because I´ve never seen one. I do know a number of people who have. These are people I know, trust, and are -- contrary to the opinion of ignorant or knee-jerk uber-skeptics -- often educated, professional people. The fact that some of these people have college degrees and work in white collar jobs doesn't mean that those who do not hold degrees or work in fields like education are any less intelligent or credible. In fact, those who spend much of their time hunting or camping, or living in rural areas and are familiar with the wildlife, have just as much credibility as anyone else.

I also have this opinion based on years of study about the phenomena. Given the fact I know people who've seen Bigfoot, and my own explorations, I have the strong opinion Bigfoot exists, not only here in the contiguous United States, but I also have the opinion a Bigfoot like creature exists in several places the world over.

Naturally, I could be wrong. But so far, I haven´t come across any compelling evidence to convince me that the reasons for its nonexistence hold up.

Uber-skeptics and debunkers have a very different opinion about Bigfoot of course. It doesn´t exist, end of story. Well, you´d think that´d be the end of the story, but it isn´t. For something that they are certain doesn´t exist, and that only the liars, delusional, or drunken/drug addled see, the pathological debunker spends a huge amount of time arguing about its nonexistence. For some reason, I find this stubborn insistence of disbelief fascinating.

The James Randi Educational site is a popular on-line site, with its own message board: the James Randi Educational Forum. The forum is divided into several different sections, like religion, politics, etc. and, of course, one category called "skepticism and the general paranormal." Everything from ghosts, UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, all the expected and usual stuff, is discussed here, including things that don´t make much sense at all as to their inclusion, like being a vegetarian.

Bigfoot is there too. Bigfoot is currently being discussed, in one way or another, in thirty-seven different threads (!) on the forum.

Thirty-seven separate threads on why Bigfoot doesn't exist! Wow.

To be fair, some of the threads are obvious jokes and attempts to have fun at poor Sasquatch´s expense, like "I Saw Bigfoot Kissing Santa Claus." A few are just snipe fests: attacks on pro-Bigfooters, or, attacks/defenses from pro-Bigfooters in the midst inside Skeptoid Land. One thread is actually interesting; that´s the "Native American myths/traditions support Bigfoot? A critical look" thread.

Overall though, the number of threads insisting that Bigfoot doesn´t exist is an intriguing insight into the mind of the debunker. To argue, so insistently, so persistently, that something doesn't exist seems . . . well, a waste of time, for one thing. Sheesh.

We´re still left with the big question: what is it that people are seeing? To dismiss such reports as, at best, cases of mistaken identity (a bear, an elk, etc.) and at worst, being an ignorant drunken fool, ignores the fact of the witness.

I happen to believe (but take note, it is not a dogmatic belief) that Bigfoot exists, but I don´t have thirty seven separate threads going on about it. The skeptics, who don´t believe, do. Which is the more rational?

Pinning Down

But what about the people?! . . .

I always want to pin down the chronic skeptics and others who flat out don't “believe in” Bigfoot.

I understand the genuine skeptical perspective of wanting evidence. But it’s also here we get into trouble. For plaster casts of footprints, reports and recordings of tree knocking and screams, grainy, fuzzy video and photos, and tantalizing but inconclusive results from hair samples are debatable, they are evidence. Not proof, but evidence. And as open to debate as they are, (for crying out loud, just take a look at the three or four Bigfoot threads on the uber faux skeptic forum JREF) those things are evidence.

There’s one kind of evidence that isn’t accepted, and that’s anecdotal evidence. The refusal to accept anecdotal evidence as valid has seeped from the infrastructure of scientism (you can’t prove anything with an oral report of an encounter from a witness in a lab) to the rest of the culture. Skeptics of all varieties, and even some who should know better, accept the idea that anecdotal evidence is really not evidence at all. It's not valid.

This stubbornly smug stance forgets that, without anecdotal evidence to begin with, there’d be nothing to go out and investigate in the first place. Observation is a much a part of science as anything else, and yet, the observers and their reports are rejected.

Even that’s beside the point. The point is, I want those who reject the idea Bigfoot exist to address the fact of witness stories.

What do they think of the people with stories to tell? Not just one or two cases, but several dozen, at least. Story after story of Bigfoot encounters. And yet the faux skeptic plods on with condescending explanations of how humans get scared in the woods, how under stress we mistake an elk or bear for a Sasquatch, how we’re influenced by other tales of Bigfoot and that’s what our belief systems make us think, etc.

How can anyone genuinely keep this up in the light of hundreds of witnesses? Allowing for the usual disclaimer of hoaxers, liars and the mentally ill (that last a very small percentage I’m sure) we still have a huge amount of data in the way of witness reports.

I always wonder what one of these skeptic types would do if their spouse, child or close relative or friend said they saw a Sasquatch. Believe me, if I saw a Sasquatch, and my husband insisted, with persistent smugness, that I was misidentifying a known animal, or I was fearful of the big dark woods, etc. I’d leave him. (And, in fact, I know personally someone who did divorce over not being believed in regards to UFOs )

After awhile, the insistence we "make things up," to quote skeptic Michael Shermer, really shows itself to be the flimsy excuse it is for not paying attention.


When faced with the reality of people’s -- fellow human beings -- experiences, I think it would be difficult to keep up the “you just mistook a bear you were scared you’re a liar were you drinking?” routine. That would be a real test, to step outside of the walls of scientism and really listen for a time. What do you hear in these stories, what do you see when the person you're sitting across from is telling you their story?

Observation. Listening. Hearing. For some, that's as scary as encountering a Bigfoot.

“Show me the body”

Only a cold hard body will do . . .

In the article Bigfoot: Fact or Fiction as a sidebar to They’re on a mission to find Bigfoot in California, Michael Shermer, persistent uber skeptic, had this to say:

“Show me the body,” says Dr. Michael Shermer, executive director of the Altadena-based Skeptics society. “No one names a new species based on anecdotal evidence such as something spooky they heard in the night.”

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence however, and valid evidence. It isn’t enough to shout to the world Sasquatch exists, but it’s a start. That isn’t what has me shaking my head in a moment of surreal cognitive dissonance ; it’s the following comment by Shermer in response to Dr. Jeff Medlrum's plans to start an on line journal (The Relic Hominoid Inquiry,”) devoted to discussion and research on the topic:

Such efforts, Shermer says, are an exercise in futility.

Yes, but isn’t looking for something not yet proven to exist kind of scientific and all? If you want to find out if a thing exists, and you reject anecdotal evidence, why reject other avenues of exploration? Particularly avenues of exploration from your colleagues? (Yes, Mr. Shermer, Dr. Meldrum is too a scientist.) Isn’t making available and encouraging discussion of the thing you want to find out about a right step on the road to scientific discovery? Or at least inquiry?

Do faux skeptics even want Bigfoot to be found?

Let’s do it the uber way for a moment; going about it following the proper channels of the Scientism Code of How We Do Things. Anecdotal evidence, out! Okay. So the only other way to see if Bigfoot exists is to go out and look for it, right? And take castings of prints that could be, might be, of the big hairy darling. And chronicle the associated events in the context of Bigfoot encounters/sightings; wood knocking, rock throwing, scents, calls. Gather data.

And even encouraging other scientific individuals -- instead of the average Joe these pathological skeptics dismiss with such snooty rejection -- to communicate with each other.

And yet, confusingly, the Shermers of the world don’t see these endeavors as good things, or even well meaning but misguided things. Their minds seem to be made up, even while making dramatic demands: don’t waste time looking for Bigfoot or seriously studying the topic, but do please bring me a dead body.

Mr. Shermer seems more concerned with the evils of the imagination than looking for Bigfoot:

People have genuine experiences. The question is – what do those experiences represent?” Shermer says. “People have incredible imaginations. We're really good at just making stuff up.”

Let’s play their game and ask for proof, or at least really good evidence, that this is so. Shermer made a statement, now let’s see him prove it. Why and how do we make things up, and to what end? Why would the Bigfoot encounters share similarities? How does that all work; how and why do our minds create a big ass hairy monster in the woods? And why is that this hallucination, for lack of a better word, appears to more than one person at times (multiple witnesses) ? If we are to use the stale and often abused Occam’s Razor, Shermer’s “explanation” seems the less likely one. Are we to seriously accept that people, particularly those that live in rural and remote areas, are so unfamiliar with the local flora and fauna, so out of touch with the natural rhythms of their environment, so distanced from the behavior and personalities of their own pets and animals (cattle, sheep, etc.) that they have to “make stuff up?”