Deceptions of "Professional Skeptics"

Skepticism is an essential aspect of western intellectualism, and the scientific method. Skeptical perspectives and analyses can reveal the truth behind false claims, such as those from people who claim to have "super powers". In that context, among others, skepticism has an important role in society.

Professional skepticism can be very unscientific though, especially when it is directed at burgeoning scientific questions that need the attention of qualified skeptics (i.e. scientists). Professional skeptics are merely trying to fill a literary niche by bundling and selling sensible-sounding, counter-arguments to various unproven theories.

Professional skeptics become corrupt when they knowingly mislead the public, and scientists, and journalists, for the purpose of maintaing their notoriety as the counter-argument authorities.

Whenever the professional skeptics are only interested in filling the niche of counter-argument, rather than trying to discern the truth, they demonstrate a lack of concern for those to-be-expected situations where something that is, so far, unproven, is actually true.

Their blatantly biased treatment of the sasquatch subject shows their willingness to deceive the public in order to maintain their identities as the "go-to" skeptics.

Keep in mind, the official discovery of a large, unclassified primate species in North America will be the biggest embarrassment of their adult lives, because they took an authoritative stance on the subject, which was obviously 100% wrong. Down the road, when their prior writings on the subject are reviewed, in a post-discovery world, it will be appalling, in retrospect, how they distorted the facts.

At least one professional skeptic/ author (who is closely associated with the editorial staff of the Skeptical Enquirer magazine) has tried to hinder legitimate scientific inquiry into this subject. A few years back he tried to prevent Dr. Jeff Meldrum at Idaho State University from doing any further work on the bigfoot subject, by sending a letter to the administrative staff of the University that made some bizarre, false claims about Dr. Meldrum and his work. He claimed, among other things, that Meldrum also has an interest in "little green men" and should be stopped. Fortunately, the University did not stop Meldrum's research (and supports it even more now) but was rather puzzled and shocked at how someone from the Skeptical Enquirer would blatantly lie to University officials in an apparent attempt to prevent a professor from doing some very respectable, thorough scientific analyses on various rare pieces of physical evidence.

Why was Meldrum the target? Meldrum's lab has the largest collection of physical evidence (mostly track casts) of sasquatches anywhere in the world. Meldrum's collection demonstrates the deception of the professional skeptics for repeatedly asserting that "there is no physical evidence." They know the difference between physical remains and physical evidence. In one breath they will say that there is no physical evidence, and in the next they will say there is no evidence that has "convinced most scientists." They say that knowing that the best collection of physical evidence has convinced every scientist who has ever bothered to examine it in person.

***

Quoting the "Skeptics Dictionary" - a bigfoot/sasquatch is ...

An apelike creature reportedly sighted hundreds of times around the world since the mid-19th century.

In order to make bigfoots/sasquatches seem like a biological impossibility, they "define" them as if there is only one of them (which would be a biological impossibility). They paint a picture of a single creature that has been "sighted hundreds of times around the world since the mid-19th century" ... in order to propagate the false concept of a lone, mythical figure, rather than an elusive species.

The descriptions and oral traditions describing these animals extend back thousands of years. They have been sighted by many thousands, not hundreds, of living eyewitnesses.

The creature is variously described as standing 7-10 ft (2-3 m) tall and weighing over 500 lb (225 kg), with footprints 17 in. (43 cm) long. The creature goes by many names, but in northern California it is known as ?Bigfoot.? (It is also known as the Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas, Mapinguari [the Amazon], Sasquatch, Yowie [Australia] and Yeti [Asia]).

Note the misleading characterization of "the creature".

The creature is big business in the Pacific Northwest along a stretch of US-101 in southern Humboldt County known as the Redwood Highway. Numerous shops line the roadway, each with its own Bigfoot chainsaw-carved out of majestic redwood.

A few shops along the Redwoods Highway display and sell wood carvings of dozens of different animals -- mostly bears, fish and birds. Some of those shops have a bigfoot totem carving among their collections.

A half-dozen wood carvings in front of a few shops on the Redwoods Highway do not make the subject "big business in the Pacific Northwest."

The purpose for inflating this idea of "big business" is to give their skeptical audience a false impression of why so many people have claimed they've seen a sasquatch. They hope readers will think this phenomena, which dates back thousands of years, is the result of "big business". Everyone knows that evil "big business" interests would stop at nothing to sell wooden statues on a Northern California highway.

Most scientists discount the existence of Bigfoot because the evidence supporting belief in the survival of a prehistoric bipedal apelike creature of such dimensions is scant.

Bigfoot/sasquatch researchers also discount the concept of a single creature being responsible for all the evidence and observations ...

The existence of a "prehistoric bipedal apelike creature", closely matching the descriptions of what people see in modern times, is fully supported by scientists because of some scant remains. The scant remains for Giganopithecus Blacki demonstrates how a species could exist for a long, long time without humanity finding an abundance of their remains.

One notable exception is Grover S. Krantz (1931-2002), an anthropologist at Washington State University. For nearly forty years, Krantz argued for the probable existence of Bigfoot, but was unable to convince the majority of scientists.

Grover S. Krantz was not the only scientist who argued for the modern existence of large unclassified primates. He was the most visible scientist to openly state that the culmination of evidence suggests an elusive species, rather than a mythical figure. Now more scientists are starting to see the writing on the wall. Those scientists now believe that the numerous eyewitness descriptions and the mountain of other evidence simply would not occur and continue to happen if there was really nothing there.

The evidence for Bigfoot?s existence consists mainly of testimony from Bigfoot enthusiasts, footprints of questionable origin, and pictures that could easily have been of apes or humans in ape suits.

This is where their deceptions are most blatant. According to their assertion, whenever a sheriff's deputy, a park ranger, a scientist, or any other credible observer, sees a sasquatch, he/she must be a "bigfoot enthusiast," and the track casts made by rangers and law enforcement officers are all of "questionable origin".

The pro skeptics say the films, pictures and videos "could easily been of apes or humans in ape suits." Yes, part of that is true. They could easily have been of apes -- giant apes, in fact. As for "humans in ape suits"... more than a year ago the BFRO challenged CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer to replicate the Patterson footage with "a man in an ape suit." A representative of CSICOP eventually wrote to us and admitted that they could not do it. He stated that they would not even try. CSICOP conceded defeat in a pathetic, squirming, face-saving way. They said they don't actually do those types of investigations; this from the "Committe for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal" and the "Skeptical Enquirer". They don't do any real investigating or enquiring, in a practical sense. They are not scientists. They are writers, authors and failed magicians. The CSICOP representative emphasized if they did try to demonstrate that the Patterson figure could have been a "man in a costume," their own costume would not look like the figure in the footage! They admitted they could not create a reasonable approximation, with respect to the anatomical oddities of the figure.

So why can't they (or the BBC with an unlimited budget) duplicate an "ape costume"? How hard could it be?

There are no bones, no scat, no artifacts, no dead bodies, no mothers with babies, no adolescents, no fur, no nothing.

No bones have been found yet in North America... Does it necessarily follow that "there are no bones." Any wildlife ecologist will tell you that doesn't mean much.

Scats are found every so often, but there are no DNA labs in North America consistently willing to cover the expenses and dedicate the hours to the various samples that are collected. DNA tests aren't going to happen in North America, consistently, unless North American DNA labs offers to do the work for free.

There are hair samples with DNA from Asia that have been analyzed by one of the top DNA labs in the world (in England). That DNA does not match any known species. The skeptics don't like to mention that annoying fact.

The "no artifacts" argument assumes that bigfoots/sasquatches would necessarily manufacture solid objects that would become "artifacts" eventually. Humans are the only animals that manufacture "artifacts".

Bigfoots/sasquatches do not exist in sufficient numbers to leave bodies around that will be easily found by humans. Ivory-billed woodpeckers and eastern cougars also do not exist in sufficient numbers to leave bodies around that will be easily found by humans.

There is no evidence that any individual or community of such creatures dwells anywhere near any of the ?sightings.?

Oh, the stench of deception ... In fact, all of the physical evidence comes from areas where people have reported sightings ...

In short, the evidence points more towards hoaxing and delusion than real discovery.

That is not what an increasing number of scientists are saying, privately, these days. Every scientist who is quietly making an effort to look into this phenomena is saying that the annecdotal and physical evidence points to an unclassified primate species.

New challenges to "The Skeptic's Dictionary" and CSICOP and the Skeptical Enquirer:

We want you to identify one or two scientists (not biased authors) who have sufficient credentials to change your own opinions. There must be someone good enough for you. We'd like to show that person some interesting things.

Take this challenge seriously, and try to be intellectually honest, and try to show some ethical fiber. Be willing to eat some crow, for the sake of science, and the sake of the environment.