Thanks for posting the photo.

I met Mr. Radford literally seconds before this photo was taken. I confess that I had a previous prejudice that a “professional skeptic” would be dry, uptight, emotionally rigid, and generally socially maladroit. I found Ben to be anything but, and in fact spent some quality time talking with him about the films of William Friedkin!

Sadly, time constraints forbid discussion of more substantive issues like razor blade preference…

Any subject that is approached, in particular if it falls outside the mainstream, must be approached with, not only an open mind, but lacking any pre-conieved outcome. Paranormal research is not given respect by “real” scientisits, for the same reason, “biblical” archaeologists aren’t given the same degree of respect given a typical “non-affliliated” archaeologist. Only a believer would be involved in the field, and therefore the findings must be considered tainted at best.

Short of dragging in a body, the only way Bigfoot, or Nessie, or any other Cryptid will be accepted, is if by some chance, another group of scientists doing completely unrelated work stumble onto one of them. Don’t be too hard on the skeptics or the believers, they’re just wired that way.

Project Alpha was a famous hoax played on the McDonnell Laboratory for Psychical Research. It involved two fake psychics that were actually magicians, Steve Shaw and Michael Edwards, who enrolled in a program studying paranormal powers. They fooled the researchers with fairly common magic tricks and, in doing so, were able to show the flaws in the research protocols and in the impressionability of the researchers themselves.

Let’s face it, even in cryptozoology, researchers and scientists who are strongly motivated to obtain positive results (either for monetary gains or because of their own beliefs) can lead to poorly designed experiments and inappropriately favorable interpretations of data without critical review.

At the same time, those who are strongly motivated to disprove cryptozoological ideas can lead to bias and blindspots when presented with substantial evidence.

Skeptics and believers both fulfill a balancing function on one another. As such, it is best that we all be skeptical but also open to the possibility of new ideas when the evidence is convincing.

The burden of proof is central to any investigation.

Based on the standards you’ve set for being sufficient to be considered a twin, we may as well throw in Bruce Willis, Patrick Stewart and Telly Savalas so that we can contemplate possible quintuplets!