SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

An Argument That Should Never Be Made Again

by Daniel Loxton, Feb 02 2010

Cryptozoology is my first love. As a child, I spent endless hours planning the cryptozoological expeditions I thought I would one day lead. Even today, as a “professional skeptic,” I carry a torch for monsters and hidden beasts.

Which is how I came to frequent the popular cryptozoology blog site Cryptomundo. Presided over by the prolific Loren Colemen, Cryptomundo is updated constantly, and always a source of fantastic claims and speculations.

Screen capture from Cryptomundo.com

Screen capture from Cryptomundo.com

I get on quite well with Loren, who is one of the more skeptical and responsible pro-cryptozoology writers. (He has, for example, critiqued the “Jacko” story from sasquatch pre-history, writing, “in reality Jacko may have more to do with local rumors brought to the level of a news story that eventually evolved into a modern fable.”)

Before long, I found myself contributing regular comments on Cryptomundo posts. I knew something about the subject matter, and joined Ben Radford and one or two other “resident” skeptics at the blog site. I even contributed a guest post at one point. I love these mysteries, so it was pleasant to talk about them with others who found them interesting.

(As you might expect, the skeptics at Cryptomundo did take some abuse. That’s a shame. I argue that name-calling and straw men are always ugly and counter-productive, whether coming from cryptozoologists, from skeptics, or from anyone else — see comments on the posts “Is Scoftic a Useful Term?” and “Speaking of Name Calling and Skeptics.” I’m not quite sure how I ended up becoming a cheerleader for civility, but there it is.)

Then, one day, I posted a comment only for it vanish almost immediately. It turned out my comment had broken a house rule: by raising a comparison between cryptozoology and other paranormal claims, I had posted “off topic.”

I found this discouraging, although there are good reasons for this rule. Serious cryptozoological enthusiasts believe cryptids are living species of animals, and wish the scientific world would make an effort to locate these “hidden” creatures. What mainline cryptozoologists do not want is to be lumped together (and further marginalized) with other “paranormal” topics like ghosts or aliens. They are especially touchy about this because a loud fringe within the cryptozoological community insists that cryptids must be understood in paranormal terms. (Like, “We can’t find Bigfoot because it’s a psychic shapeshifter from another dimension.”)

An Argument That Should Never Be Made Again

My deleted post was a mild rebuttal to an argument heard often in cryptozoological circles — an argument that should be immediately and permanently laid to rest. It’s wrong, and I think that’s easy to demonstrate to the satisfaction of almost anyone.

If I may paraphrase, this common pro-cryptozoology argument goes something like this:

There are thousands of sightings of Bigfoot! They can’t all be wrong. Sure, some may be hoaxes, and some are probably mistakes — but all of them? Come on. I think the skeptics are the ones making the extraordinary claim, there!

This “where there’s smoke there’s fire” argument is central to cryptozoology — and to most paranormal claims. That universal popularity is a huge red flag, and exposes a critical flaw.

Whether you’re a skeptic, a cynic, a mystic, a believer or what have you, I think you should join me in agreeing right here:

Yes, it is possible for entire categories of paranormal claims to be completely, 100% bogus. Yes, it is possible for hundreds or thousands of supporting testimonials to comprise nothing but mistakes and hoaxes.

To see that this is true, just scan this short sample list of paranormal claims. Stop as soon as you see something you’re persuaded doesn’t exist:

  • Bigfoot
  • fairies
  • ghosts
  • alien abduction
  • telepathy
  • mermaids
  • visitations from angels
  • “therapeutic touch” energy healings
  • astral projection
  • demonic possession
  • the Loch Ness Monster
  • reincarnation
  • phrenology
  • predicting future events using tea leaves
  • Mesmerism
  • dowsing
  • miraculous weeping statues
  • Satanic ritual abuse cults
  • saintly apparitions

…and so on. We could add hundreds of similar things on this list. If any one of them is false it debunks the “where there’s smoke there’s fire” argument, revealing it as a non sequitur. Where there’s smoke, there’s smoke. (Note that my purpose today isn’t to assert that this sample list of paranormal claims are untrue — only to point out a flaw in one argument they share in common.)

It’s a fact that many people have claimed personal encounters with Bigfoot, ghosts, mermaids, and psychics. But, that fact is ultimately trivial: it does not, by itself, allow us to draw any conclusions about whether these things are real or not. (As the old saying goes, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”)

Comparisons Are Poisonous

Cryptomundo has good, practical reason to avoid paranormal digressions. Believe me, those are a genuine pain for anyone who wishes to do serious research on cryptozoological topics. As a purely administrative matter, I think they should continue to maintain some version of their “stay on topic” rule.

But, I submit that this habit of compartmentalization is wrong in principle. It’s artificial, and it’s deeply misleading. Pretending that one’s favorite claim exists in isolation is to reduce it to a kind of soap bubble or hothouse flower. Are cryptid cases so delicate that they cannot survive encounters with the wider literature on hoaxes, paranormal claims, and the ways in which thinking goes wrong?

In the case of Bigfoot, it is obviously relevant that people routinely report encounters with paranormal and supernatural creatures like aliens and angels. It is obviously relevant that people claim literal or de facto conspiracies to explain away absence of evidence for many different kinds of paranormal claims. (“Scientists are too dogmatic to consider psi/sasquatches/homeopathy/creationism because this would threaten their funding/world view.”) Trace evidence like ectoplasm is relevant to trace evidence like Bigfoot tracks. The existence of habitual, multi-year crop-circle hoaxers, professional fake psychics, and other scammers and practical jokers is relevant to arguments about cryptid hoaxes.

Confronting relevant comparisons is poisonous for many paranormal claims — and for some claims, lethal. But, I suggest that this exercise is necessary for any proponents who hope to move a paranormal topic away from the fringes….

Like Daniel Loxton’s work? Read more in the pages of Skeptic magazine. Subscribe today in print or digitally!

Recommended Reading

37 Responses to “An Argument That Should Never Be Made Again”

  1. Jim says:

    Wow. I just listened to SGU, then Skepticality and now read this. Not only are you everywhere, you’re quickly becoming my favorite skeptic! Hope to see you again at Dragon*Con and keep up the great work. Can’t wait to get your new Evolution book and hope it’s just the first of many. Thanks!

    (I know I’m sounding too much like a fan boy and not enough like a skeptic, but I seriously appreciate the tone of civility you bring. It’s something I liked about Sagan and Asimov, the guys who brought me into “skepticism” in the first place.)

  2. Priscilla Hummlegold says:

    Ah yes, the well known logical fallacy ‘argument from moderation’.

  3. Andrew Jagow says:

    “Where there is smoke, there is smoke.” That tells me that for one to be a skeptic, one has to firmly ground reality in the material world. There may be something that lays beyond, but until it can be classified and cataloged, it does not exist. What this article would suggest, however, is that this “something” (like Bigfoot) can still be pursued and studied until it is proven to exist. Do I see a hint of faith here?

    • SeanG says:

      Not faith, just that it’s a misconception that when a skeptic says “I don’t buy it” they mean “It can’t happen.” Rather the opposite is true. Many of us skeptics would love to find a bigfoot, ghost, or alien. We’re not grounding reality in the material world, we’re asking believers to ground extraordinary claims in reality. A grainy old video and a pile of unidentified poop in the woods isn’t nearly enough evidence. No matter the claim (cryptid, paranormal, medical) it has to stand up to true scientific inquiry. I’ll be jumping up and down when someone finds a real bigfoot with the DNA test to back it up. For now I just roll my eyes at yet another rubber suit.

  4. Dax says:

    Off-topic:
    You might want to remove the input in the excerpt field, or make clear that there’s an entire post hidden behind that small snippet (there’s no continue reading link, which might be a bit confusing).

  5. Brian M says:

    Well, I think they have a good point to fear the skeptical eye when lumped in with paranormal phenomenon. They haven’t produced any good evidence, which is why scientists don’t take them seriously. Thousands of sightings will not increase the search, but a carcass would. Bigfoot is just their sacred cow. As long as it doesn’t affect their, or others, lives in a negative way, then I really don’t care what they do. Until then, bigfoot is just crypto-zoologists’ chinese tea pot orbiting the sun.

  6. GL says:

    Great points. I enjoy reading Cryptomundo for much the same reason you seem to. Loren has given the site a relatively sane viewpoint on these things. Debunking the more obviously absurd evidence is fun mental exercise.

    Nevertheless, your take on why compartmentalization is wrong is dead on. I know why the moderators try to keep discussion “on topic,” but I really wish comments such as yours, that are civil, can be accepted as relevant specifically for the reasons you mention.

  7. Great commentary on something that more skeptics should be aware of.

    I think that last year at Dragon*Con, one of the best moments was when Joe Nickell went and spoke jointly on the X-Track about some Cryptozoology stuff to the audience. Even the Director of the track was really happy about it in the end. She was still talking about how well that went at the first Directors meeting this year.

    We need more time investigating the ‘common ground’ that can actually exist between the ‘believers’ and we skeptics. :)

  8. ZenMonkey says:

    I’ll be honest: I can’t understand this viewpoint. If you get into cryptozoology, I would imagine that you’d simply have to make your peace with the skeptical crowd. It seems like an epidemic of cognitive dissonance to simply pretend that this field isn’t at odds with scientific evidence (or lack thereof).

    I guess it comes down to belief being stronger than reason. This sentence stood out for me: “Are cryptid cases so delicate that they cannot survive encounters with the wider literature on hoaxes, paranormal claims, and the ways in which thinking goes wrong?” That’s a very similar question to one that many non-theists have about defensive theists: can’t their God withstand criticism from others?

    Thanks for an interesting look into this community.

  9. dglas says:

    I have recently presented an argument unpopular among my former skeptic friends (at a popular skeptic site) and it is remarkable the kinds of fallacies and rhetorical ploys that arise from folks calling themselves skeptics – all in attempts to avoid the subject matter. All logic seems to go out the window at the merest hint of dissent. I worry about this. How can any subject matter advance if the first response is ad hominems and straw men.

    • SicPreFix says:

      I too have encountered exactly this phenonmenon several times. I have, with some regret, stopped viewing and participating in many of the Skeptical websites and blogs I used to frequent simply because they seem to eventually descend into some degree of sycophantic clique violently resistant to dissent and disagreement. It’s also worrisome how many hosts and site authorities feel quite comfortable using ad hominems and plain old censorship and gagging (through moderation) toward the lay participants simply because they can get away with it. I think it’s called shooting one’s self in the foot.

      • rustle says:

        Seriously? The two of you just made ad hominem attacks on skeptics as a group without a shred of evidence nor attribution. But, perhaps you are qualified to answer this question for me; what do billy goats taste like?

  10. Lone Wolf says:

    Cryptozoology is allot more like other pseudosciences than cryptozoologists like to think. It is solely based on the fallible perception and memory of eye wittinesses and mythical animals. That is no basis for a science.

  11. Pete says:

    I think that there is a ‘good’ cryptozoology and a ‘bad’ cryptozoology. The good one deals with all those “new species of frog found in Amazon” type cases – one where the creature is a normal animal, but just a previously undocumented species. The bad kind deals with the chupacabra and flying rods.

    There is a bit of overlap at Bigfoot – some consider it to be a ‘normal’ large primate and others attach all sorts of paranormal attributes. There’s no a priori reason a large bipedal primate could not exist, but there is real evidence for it to, and much indirect evidence it cannot exist. There is, however, plenty of reason to be skeptical of the woo-woo versions of Bigfoot from the get go.

    • Akusai says:

      There are plenty of a priori reasons a large bipedal primate cannot exist in the locations bigfoot is speculated to exist, most involving the necessary population dynamics for maintaining a presence in the pacific northwest while leaving exactly zero physical evidence of that presence. Orangutans are down to a paltry 25,000 or so, and even if we stop all logging and other habitat destruction tomorrow, they’ll still most likely be extinct in the next half-century. There would have to be far more than 25,000 sasquatches for even the same area as the forest in Borneo and Sumatra; take into account that the pacific northwest is far larger, and the number becomes even more dramatic.

      Also remember that, as what is most likely a great ape, bigfoot probably has single births (not litters) and long birth spacing and weaning periods, which makes population requirements even larger because reproduction takes longer than it would in, say, a small monkey or a rodent.

      And despite the general paucity of other great ape species (bonobos come to mind as well as orangutans, as there are likely only about 10,000 of those left) in far denser forests, it’s easy enough for primatologists to find not only bonobos, but the exact same troop of bonobos years later in a different area after a raging civil war. Indeed, in the incredibly dense foliage of Borneo, they can follow the same handful of orangutans for years without issue. Yet, nobody can get a single non-blurry photo of bigfoot, much less an in-depth survey of behavior.

      All of the above constitute fairly strong a priori reasons to doubt the existence of a new large bipedal ape species in the pacific northwest.

      • tmac57 says:

        I completely agree, and it always makes me wonder why a person would spend so much time and resources, pursuing what is almost certainly a product of lore and the human imagination. When the truly obsessed, get to the end of their lives, I can only imagine how some might reflect back and think to themselves, “what a waste”.

      • Pete says:

        @Akusai
        I guess I wasn’t quite clear – I agree that the population needs rule out Bigfoot – but a large bipedal primate itself is not an impossible creature (unlike the supposed ‘flying rods’); that’s the overlapping area that I mentioned, where the physics and biology don’t preclude the creature, but ecology and such do.

      • Akusai says:

        Oh, yeah, I absolutely agree, which is one of the reasons why, like Daniel, I’ve always found guilty pleasure in cryptozoology. It has the potential to actually do science, unlike, say, ghost hunting, because one can make predictions based on the hypothesis “Bigfoot exists.”

        The first book of “mysteries” (read: woo-woo) I ever read was in first grade and it was called, simply, Monsters. It covered bigfoot, Nessie, Ogopogo, etc. and it scared the crap out of me for a year.

        I am, like Brian Dunning, a “bigfoot hopeful.” It would be awesome if it existed. There’s just the niggling little problem that it probably doesn’t, and probably can’t.

  12. Daniel, whom I likewise respect, has decided to post a rather foggy reflection of his take on a phrase he appears to be projecting his own meanings onto and then transferring them to cryptozoologists.

    He writes: “This ‘where there’s smoke there’s fire’ argument is central to cryptozoology — and to most paranormal claims. That universal popularity is a huge red flag, and exposes a critical flaw.”
    and
    “Yes, it is possible for entire categories of paranormal claims to be completely, 100% bogus. Yes, it is possible for hundreds or thousands of supporting testimonials to comprise nothing but mistakes and hoaxes.”

    Daniel appears to be saying that if there is not something valid and concrete and a Bigfoot-like new species, for example, then there is no fire. I think he has misread the proverb and misunderstood how cryptozoologists use this saying, for finding a hoax to us is still finding a “fire.”

    Let’s go back to the specific definition of this proverb.

    In E. Cobham Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1898), the phrase “Where there is smoke there is fire” is defined as “Every effect is the result of some cause.”

    Wolfgang Mieder in his 2009 article in Forbes, “The Nature of Proverbs,” notes “there exist thousands of proverbs in various languages is due to the fact that they are based on similar structures that become ‘formulas’ on which to base new insights with different concepts and ideas. A very popular formula is ‘Were there is X, there is Y'; it has been the linguistic basis for dozens of proverbs, including ‘Where there is smoke, there is fire’ and ‘Where there is life, there is hope.'”

    Daniel appears to be saying that cryptozoologists like myself say things like “Where there is smoke, there is fire,” and then Daniel seems to be extending this to say something like, “If people say they see Bigfoot, then there must be Bigfoot.”

    But that is not what is being said, at all. Most serious, scientific cryptozoologists are merely talking about not ignoring the ethnographic testimony, physical evidence, and other “smoke.” Investigate what is happening, what is found, and discover if the “fire” is a bear, a prank, a misidentification of some sort, a wild human, a known species, a psychiatric situation, and/or even a possible unknown primate.

    Perhaps an easier example, which avoids the pitfalls of the anthropomorphic Sasquatch, is the notion that many “if there is smoke there must be fire” investigations regarding Lake Monsters tend to find that the “fire” is an otter (hello Joe Nickell), a tree trunk (hello Ben Radford), a teenage prank (hello Daniel Loxton), an alligator (hello Loren Coleman), and on and on and on.

    Daniel, frankly, does not seem to be acknowledging that cryptozoologists are saying, “hey, we see the smoke, let’s go see what this fire is, whether it is a new species or not.”

    Cryptozoologist have few preconceived notions about what is there, and yet, we keep looking. The reports may be “labeled” something but that does not mean that is what we are looking for or even think we might find. Jeez, some “unicorn” (“smoke”) reports might be new rhinos (the fire) in the swamps, perhaps one island’s “fairies” are old Homo floresiensis sightings, could those strange fat bird reports from over there be surviving dodo accounts? Those are the dramatic ones, but hey, we also find the dead domestic cats, the misid’ed angus calf, and the rear end of a moose, as the “fires.” Why would we NOT look just because the human screening process gives the “smoke” some funny names like “Bigfoot,” “fairy,” or “werewolf”? Yeah, I’d be cautious of “smoke” named Lizardman, for it is highly unlikely to be a Reptilian, but does that mean I shouldn’t go looking for the “fire.”

    Maybe Andrew Jagow’s comment is insightful for another reason. Are skeptics the real “true believers” in this, and already have made up their minds that no “fire” is there, without even looking? How scientific is that, versus almost religiously blind?

    At least cryptozoologists want to look, even if what we eventually are told is that a teenager pulled a lizardman prank at a humanmade lake.

    :-)

    • Most serious, scientific cryptozoologists are merely talking about not ignoring the ethnographic testimony, physical evidence, and other “smoke.” Investigate what is happening, what is found, and discover if the “fire” is a bear, a prank, a misidentification of some sort, a wild human, a known species, a psychiatric situation, and/or even a possible unknown primate.

      Yes, there are cryptozoologists who feel this way. By some criteria, I’m one of them. After all, I (like Joe Nickell, Ben Radford, and some other skeptics) do actively investigate cryptid cases with an eye toward solving them. (I’m even a member of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club.)

      Where a researcher does approach such claims with a genuinely skeptical, open-minded, follow-the-evidence-where-it-leads attitude, there is no quarrel between cryptozoologists and skeptics. There isn’t even a distinction: it’s all just critical investigation.

      But this is not the only attitude held within the cryptozoological community…

      Daniel appears to be saying that cryptozoologists like myself say things like “Where there is smoke, there is fire,” and then Daniel seems to be extending this to say something like, “If people say they see Bigfoot, then there must be Bigfoot.”

      I certainly didn’t mean to speak for Loren, and I actually think his position is much more nuanced than this. But it would be disingenuous to suggest that this exact argument is not common among cryptozoological enthusiasts, bigfooters, and paranormal authors. After all, I’m not picking this argument at random: people have forcefully argued to me in person that the “mountains of eyewitness testimony” prove that an undiscovered primate roams North America.

  13. Cthandhs says:

    Thanks for the post. I also have a secret love for cryptids (i always hope that the decaying pile of whale blubber will turn out to be a shoggoth). The way I’ve heard it put best: A mountain of bad evidence does not equal a single piece of good evidence. One high definition shot of a bigfoot is worth more than all the anecdotes put together.

  14. Sharon says:

    I admire your viewpoint, Daniel, and your ability to take the high road. I can’t really agree with you on Cryptomundo. They seem to focus more on getting web traffic for ad revenue and raising funds for the museum. I stopped visiting when I was not allowed to post comments because they were skeptical (not mean or off-topic). Worse, some comments were edited. That’s really awful so I never bothered to try again.

    In scientific circles, we are used to reading comments and critiques on blogs and in journals that are clearly critical. That’s part of the scientific process. I would like to hear why Cryptomundo thinks it’s OK to censor criticism.

    This is one of the reasons why the field is saddled with the adjective “unscientific”. It’s a closed community. I would really like a cryptid forum that is open to all views. They would actually get more traffic. The many that left disgusted might return if things changed.

    • Myron Getman says:

      I used your handle in my response below!

      Regardless, I feel I need to second the observation that “editing” occurs frequently on Cryptomundo. It is so bad that when I reference a post, I use WebCite to save the page. Coleman will go back and alter his posts after the fact to cover his tracks when he is wrong about something.

      This has been note by others besides myself and I became aware of it after the Georgia Gorilla hoax. Coleman had stated he thought it was the “real thing” based upon photos given him by Tom Biscardi. After it was revealed as a hoax, I went back to what I thought was the original post only to discover it had been edited to reflect doubt of the claim — exactly 180 degrees from what it used to say.

      Additionally, I have caught him plagiarizing and other intellectually dishonest practices. While he may be personable in person, this is no excuse for his shoddy “research”.

      I also second the observation that the site is now pumping out a mess of fluff pieces about newly discovered animals. While I’m certain it does serve as a means to generate traffic through SEO techniques, I also suspect it is an attempt to legitimize cryptozoology in the eyes of the general public through association with real Zoology and Biology.

  15. Skepacabra says:

    For the first 25 years of my life I held a belief in numerous paranormal claims even after discovering atheism. And while I was never on the far fringes of the paranormal movement, I held onto a moderate view for exactly the reason you describe. While I was certain that 99.9% off all UFO/alien sightings/abductions and ghost stories were false, I kept thinking that a couple of them had to be true. I’m glad I finally recognized the fallacy.

  16. Myron Getman says:

    I think it should be noted that Loren Coleman used to be one of the paranormal bigfoot adherents and it is possible he still is. Daegling covers this in his book Bigfoot Exposed — which is an excellent read.

    Anyone who’s read any of Coleman’s fortean stuff realizes he really is out there and finds tenuous correlations between disparate events. I doubt he suddenly can turn that off when it comes to bigfoot.

    Also, he seems to becoming extremely defensive to criticism. Both idoutit’s and I have written about him only to have him post a reactionary screed filled with strawmen on Cryptomundo. On the plus side, I have noticed an up tick in real Skepticism in the comments section. I don’t know how he’s handling that. Yesterday, someone wrote they found it very unlikely that bigfoot exists — even though they wished it did.

  17. Kenneth Polit says:

    As a child, I too was fascinated by cryptids, and part of me still holds out hope that there really is a bigfoot. However, I agree that only solid evidence will be truly convincing. How about another proverb: When a thousand people do a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

  18. Ron says:

    “Yes, it is possible for entire categories of paranormal claims to be completely, 100% bogus. Yes, it is possible for hundreds or thousands of supporting testimonials to comprise nothing but mistakes and hoaxes.”
    Don’t forget an obvious example: Millions of people believe in Christianity and millions of people believe in Islam. I’ve never heard a Christian say that since millions of people follow Moslem teachings they must be true. Or vice versa.
    And what you believe has nothing to do with what is true — or false. That is why evidence is required.
    I applaud all those who see smoke and investigate to see whether there is fire. Or swamp gas.

  19. Myron Getman says:

    I think you are missing Sharon’s main point — that the site is going SEO. There is nothing wrong with that. However, as I addressed above, that is represented by the increase in fluff pieces about new birds and the like being discovered. Again, there is nothing wrong with that except for the fact that it has nothing to do with cryptozoology. New species are discovered regularly by Zoologist, Biologist and the like. It is my opinion that the increase in these posts serve two primary purposes: 1) to increase search engine traffic and, therefore, revenue and 2) to associate cryptozoology with established and respected sciences.

    Additionally, the claim that Cryptomundo is not a revenue source is specious in that every single one of your posts has a donate button located at the bottom and you have posted in the past specifically for the purpose of gathering donations for your museum — which, I suspect, pays you a salary of some sort. Even if it doesn’t you are raising funds via Cryptomundo.

  20. Everett Williams says:

    I cannot imagine a child who was not fascinated with cryptids of one variety or another, but I cannot imagine an adult who cannot distinguish between childish imaginings and reality. While there are definitely the occasional new species to be found in this or that corner of the world, and there are probably things in the deeps of the ocean that we have never and may never see, the idea that there is anything as complex as an undiscovered primate, existing almost in our back yards, is nothing more than a fantasy. This next may sound profane, but is not, so read on. Does a bear shit in the woods…and the obvious answer is…of course it does. Well, so would any other animal living in those woods. If we have feces, then we have DNA, and also a roadmap into what the creature eats. Even if you cannot find the creature, it has to defecate someplace, or leave hair with roots, or an hundred other ways in which it can leave DNA in it’s environment that even a modestly good tracker, especially with dogs, can find. If we find DNA, then money will be forthcoming to find the creature from which the DNA comes. It is that simple. The only reason something so simple has not been done is that it would, once and for all, get rid of this whole branch of pseudo-science on which so much time and blather has been spent. No one seems to want that result and I can see that if I had spent my whole life on such nonsense, I would not want that result either, however correct it might be. This is a put up or shut up point. It is not up to the rest of the world to support these extraordinary claims It is up to those who make those claims to support them with the best available evidence, and that evidence is DNA. Do it or shut up.

  21. Loren Coleman says:

    While I feel my friend Daniel Loxton is grounded in his initial discussion of the topic in his blog, allowing for a reasoned rebuttal on the topic, several comment makers have decided to use ad hominem attacks, and to get distracted down a road of personalized unfounded claims verging on near-libel, most of which have been addressed elsewhere previously. I have decided to not engage and respond here any further if this is the direction this posting wishes to go. People are allowed their different points of view, but please respect my right to ignore those that wish to hurdle charges that have no basis in reality.

    Thank you.

    • SicPreFix says:

      How did you manage to sneak a February 5 post in between two February 3 posts, but before a February 4 post?

      Must be magic.

  22. Reality Bytes says:

    Loren Coleman is comically insecure with his censorship of informed skeptics on Cryptomundo. He has a long history of doing this and whining about skeptics. Recently I was posting detailed comments containing important facts and links about various things such as the fallacy of using “undiscovered” tribes of people to support Bigfoot and Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson’s connection to Bob Heironimus. Bob is the only man ever to claim to be the purported Bigfoot in the PGF. Bob G was riding Bob H’s horse the day the PGF was filmed and Bob H appears on numerous parts of Patterson’s film. Bob H in fact lives nine doors from Bob G and the two are old friends, despite Bob H coming forward.

    One example of a comment of mine that was approved only to be quickly deleted by Loren was when he posted a video under the title “High Sasquatch Activity” without any other text on Cryptomundo. The video shows nothing but broken trees and rocks and I pointed out it was made by a person that goes by the handle trailriderresearch on youtube who is a well known nut that posts various videos of “plasma UFO’s” in the company of Bigfoot. With my post censored readers have no idea that Loren posted a paranormal kook’s video. He also deleted one other person’s post that referenced mine and was in agreement with it. This is extremely intellectually dishonest of Loren. What is he afraid of?

    Loren went in and deleted all my comments in his blogs, even going so far as deleting a single sentence comment I made about the Bigfoot Museum in Felton, California letting readers know that museum head Michael Rugg was a gifted and respected dulcimer player. Why so petty, Loren? For some reason Loren seems to be very threatened by informed and knowledgable skeptics. He insists on artless and boring ad homs with his whiney rants on evil “scoftics”.

    It’s very nice that Loren can come here and say his piece regarding Daniel’s blog on his comments at Cryptomundo being deleted without being subject to the same censorship he does to others. I, too, made the exact same point to Bigfoot enthusiasts there who cited the reams of sightings that people claim to see all sorts of things in high numbers from Gray aliens to Reptoids to Jesus. That comment was also deleted.

    Apparently the man simply has too much of a vested interest in having people believe in the likes of Moth Man and other cryptids to tolerate knowledgable discourse following his blogs. I think he would do well to have some courage and not shun real discussion so much.

  23. Reality Bytes says:

    Loren even went so far as to delete a comment of mine offering condolences to the family of Ed Raggozino, director of the classic Bigfoot movie, Sasquatch, The Legend of Bigfoot, who recently passed away and expressing my fondness for his film. What is wrong with this person? Who does that? They’re condolences, you petty man.

  24. Elian Gonzalez says:

    You go where the money goes. And if saying Bigfoot is a cryptid rather than an UFO traveling interdimensional shape-shifting being is what paying audiences want to hear, well then, you say it’s a cryptid. Not hard to fathom.