Posted by: Craig Woolheater on March 28th, 2006
The Spectrum, the University at Buffalo campus newspaper,
reported on a lecture titled "Applying Science to the Paranormal" that Benjamin Radford gave last Friday night there.
The next target for Radford’s objective and critical approach was
Bigfoot. He had molds of footprints and lots of popular pictures, such
as the Bigfoot who sells Spam, as examples of how the legend exists in
the media and in peoples’ minds. Radford then took the time to go
through all of the well-known eyewitness testimonials and the few
pictures and tangible evidence that exist.
Many were proved at some point or another to be a hoax, but most are
at the very least highly suspect. His biggest point of proof was that
there has never been any Bigfoot hair, bones, teeth, blood or bodies
found, ever. No Bigfoot has ever been hit by a car, no body found in the
woods or a river, and nobody has accidentally shot one either.
"There is no lack of evidence, just a lack of good evidence," Radford said.
There was a here on Cryptomundo titled
Answering the Bigfoot Skeptics addressing these issues. Mr. Radford weighed in with his opinions in the comments section of that blog entry.
The photo that was included with the article shows Mr. Radford and
one of the photos used in the lecture. The photo used was one of the
Wild Creek Bigfoot photos. This is one of a series of 14 photos
supposedly taken by an off-duty forest patrol officer near Mt. Ranier on
July 11, 1995. They were purchased by Cliff Crook. They are generally
thought to have been made using a small model posed in a watery setting.
Having not seen Mr. Radford’s presentation yet, I will give him the
benefit of the doubt on the evidence he presents. I will agree with his
quote "There is no lack of evidence, just a lack of good evidence" if
what he is presenting the Wild Creek photos as evidence. The majority of
the "Bigfoot believers" have no problem with these photos being
presented as bad evidence. What else does he purport is bad evidence?
Is he showing the very worst evidence and most obvious hoaxes and
painting the rest of the evidence for Bigfoot with weakest case.
Detailed in the information following, we will get a chance to see his
arguments and judge their validity.
Last year, Mr. Radford and I exchanged emails concerning the annual
Texas Bigfoot Conference that I host. He sent me an email stating:
I saw your notices about the upcoming TBC. I noticed there is a
distinct lack of noted Bigfoot skeptics in the speakers and panelists.
You have the usual suspects: Jeff, Loren, Rick Noll, etc. But Dave
Daegling isn’t there, nor is Mike Dennett, nor myself. This can lead to a
case of "preaching to the choir," and a lack of meaningful exchange
between the skeptics and the believers. It seems to me that it is
exactly these two groups that need more communication between them.
It appears that the schedule has already been set for this year,
but if you are interested, I would be willing to speak at the
conference. The Texas Bigfoot Conference could be the first major
Bigfoot event to bring skeptical researchers to the table, let the
diversity of ideas and positions be heard. I think both the audience and
the panelists would find the exchange of ideas instructive and
refreshing. I could give a talk such as "The Role of Skeptics in
Cryptozoology" or "Bigfoot: The Skeptical Position." (If people assume
that they already know the skeptics’ position, I assure you they are
wrong.) The addition of a well-known Bigfoot skeptic into the mix would
almost certainly increase interest in the event.
I have long pointed out to Bigfoot proponents that they have more
in common with us skeptics than most realize. Unlike many in the
public, we take Bigfoot seriously; we don’t dismiss Bigfoot as a waste
of time. As you may know, I have been involved in cryptozoology for many
years, and worked closely with people such as John Kirk to find
cryptids.
I had invited Mr. Radford’s colleague, Dr. David Daegling, on March
19, 2005 by email, but had gotten no response from him at the time that
Mr. Radford and I corresponded on July 20, 2005. Mr. Radford said that
he would try to contact Dr. Daegling to let him know of the invitation.
On July 24th, Dr. Daegling contacted me by email to inform that his Fall
schedule would not allow him to participate.
While we were not able to accomodate him at the 2005 Texas Bigfoot Conference,Mr. Radford will get his chance
twice
this year. The Bigfoot in Texas? museum exhibit and lecture series
apparently, according to Mr. Radford, will have the honor of being
the first major Bigfoot event to bring skeptical researchers to the table, let the diversity of ideas and positions be heard.
Mr. Radford will be speaking in San Antonio on June 3, 2006 at the
Bigfoot in Texas? lecture series. 2 weeks later he will be speaking in Pocatello, ID at the
Bigfoot Rendezvous.
In my discussions with Mr. Radford concerning our Bigfoot conference
last year, I brought up the fact that the CSICOP events appeared to be
just as one-sided as he accused the "believer" events to be. Mr. Radford
responded with:
You are only partially correct about the CSICOP events. In fact,
we have often hosted well-known and well-regarded speakers on the
opposite sides of the coin, and invited them to share their views. A
few examples: John Mack (Harvard psychiatrist / alien abductee
researcher); Gary Schwartz (psychical researcher who has worked with
John Edward, Allison DuBois, and many others), author of The Afterlife
Experiments); and near-death researcher Kenneth Ring (author of Life
at Death). We’ve also had The X-Files’ Chris Carter and others. So it’s
simply not true that "believers" are excluded, though they are not
included as much as I would like.
I personally would like to see far more interaction and "meeting
of the minds" of different views at these conferences, but
unfortunately I do not choose which speakers are invited. We haven’t
really done anything on Bigfoot for years (conference-wise), but the
next time we do I will suggest that we get Loren or Jeff or Rick Noll
to give a talk. It’s also true that, to my knowledge, very rarely do
those on the other side of the issue contact us to express their
interest in participating in events (as I have to you). Perhaps they
assume (incorrectly) that they would not be welcome, but all of our
"believer" speakers have commented that they were pleasantly surprised
and felt like they were treated respectfully and allowed to make their
case.
So now the ball is in the skeptics court. Will they invite the "believers"?
This post was written by
Craig Woolheater – who has written
1833 posts on
Cryptomundo.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's
Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter",
Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's
Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's
MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker",
The Wild Man of the Navidad
Source:
