Cryptomundo » Cryptid Witnesses’ Catch 22

Cryptid Witnesses’ Catch 22

Posted by: Loren Coleman on February 5th, 2008

Click on the cartoon to see the other panels.

There are some old tried and supposedly true axioms. One is that if you acknowledge you are crazy, you probably aren’t. Another is that by the time that you realize you are in the Illuminati, it’s too late.

But how about the one about cryptid sightings?

In a blog called “Why hasn’t anyone seen Bigfoot?”, the blogger Thudfactor writes:

Not that there aren’t any witnesses. It’s just none of them are credible. In his Darklore essay, Loren Coleman makes the point that part of the reason these witnesses aren’t credible is they claim to have seen Bigfoot. That’s what you would call something of a Catch-22.

“Catch-22″ is a term coined by Joseph Heller in his novel Catch-22, describing a paradox in which one is a victim regardless of the choice one makes. In probability theory, it refers to a situation similar to “Heads I win, tails you lose.” (Of course, for those who have recently seen No Country for Old Men, you might understand the outcome of not flipping the coin too!)

When you begin to think about it, the Catch-22 of seeing Bigfoot is rather incredible.

What kind of factors come into play when one joins the ranks of those who report they have seen a cryptid, a creature that is said to not be there by the majority of rational people?

Additionally important to consider is the “ridicule factor,” which I’ve dealt with in more detail in my Bigfoot, Sasquatch, and Sea Serpent books.

I’ve written:

If people are seeing Sea Serpents, but not reporting them, the ridicule factor is likely to blame. A witness’s reluctance to report a sighting, fearing fallout to one’s reputation or livelihood, has always been a problem, of course, but the power of ridicule may be even more pronounced these days with science having a greater say about what’s real in our world and what’s not than ever before. ~ The Field Guide to Lake Monsters, Sea Serpent and Other Mystery Denizens of the Deep

Thudfactor, of course, points up the underlying quicksand of sightings too. Thudfactor concludes, after his blog’s metaphorical journey, with these words:

I’m not saying that Bigfoot exists. I’m not even saying that there’s necessarily an undiscovered great ape out there somewhere staying hidden, although there could be. What I am saying is that Skepticism Unchained causes us to discard evidence out of hand that might actually deserve a cursory look. It can even be discarded by the witness him or herself.

If Bigfoot exists, there have probably been thousands of sightings. But did those people know enough to know what they were looking for? And if they did, did they just get ridiculed by people who’s idea of fieldwork is raking the lawn? ~ Thudfactor, “Why hasn’t anyone seen Bigfoot?” February 5, 2008.

Being an eyewitness to a creature that is not suppose to exist is a difficult kind of existence. This is a point we shouldn’t forget when analyzing cases.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 5th, 2008 at 10:13 am and is filed under Bigfoot, Breaking News, CryptoZoo News, Cryptomundo Exclusive, Cryptotourism, Cryptozoologists, Cryptozoology, Eyewitness Accounts, Lake Monsters, Public Forum, Sasquatch, Sea Serpents. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

23 Responses to “Cryptid Witnesses’ Catch 22”

DWA responds: February 5th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Thudfactor hits it on this for sure: there have to be reasonable limits on everything, Even skepticism.

This is the problem we all should have with skeptical dismissal of what is, I think, the most compelling evidence for hairy hominoids: the sightings. Here’s the distance I see skeptics go with this: visual evidence is bad evidence.

Well, no it’s not! It’s the evidence that most of us have used, with great success, in every act of our lifetimes. “Visual evidence is bad” simply makes the incredible – if one only pauses to reflect – presumption that you can never trust what you see enough to act on it IN ANY WAY.

It has been my experience that every person I have ever heard rationalize the nonexistence of Bigfoot announces him or herself ignorant of the evidence rather quickly. And in most cases, it’s because the person “discard[s] evidence out of hand that might actually deserve a cursory look.”

Science is curiosity. And it’s unfortunate that, given the compelling evidence that credible witnesses on this and other continents are seeing something that is (a) unknown to science and (b) extraordinarily consistent from observer to observer, that is for something that doesn’t exist, that curiosity is so conspicuously lacking on this topic. You’d think they’d want to know.

“[D]id they just get ridiculed by people who’s idea of fieldwork is raking the lawn?”

Well, my eyes do seem to send me that impression. And my eyes don’t lie.
gavinfundyk responds: February 5th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Excellent articles and comments. Especially science’s role in squashing curiosity.

I am reading ELEMENTUM BESTIA, and there is another potential roadblock to even investigating these reports. (An excellent book by the way).

One of the articles, “Bigfoot Hoaxes”, reflects what I felt was that particular author’s bitterness about Bigfoot research and Researchers. The author takes to task researchers in the field on things she disagrees with. Disagreement is fine, it’s vital, but hammering at persons because they accept certain evidence(such as the Skookum Cast), and leaving the clear implication that doing so was basically an embarrassment to cryptozoological research, doesn’t help the search. (For right or wrong, I did not mention the author’s name, because I don’t know the individual, and it was the conclusions reached I disagreed with.)

Do I have the credentials of those who have done serious research? No. Not even close. But this subject endlessly fascinates me, and I hate to see potential evidence or eyewitnesses be ignored.
Ceroill responds: February 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
To my mind this also links to the question of just what is needed to be considered credible? Some points are fairly obvious, such as readily apparent substance abuse problems. But aside from elements like this, there seems to be an assumption that you need to be a credentialed scientist or something to be a ‘credible witness’. I wonder about why a garage worker, or a cashier, or a cab driver would not be considered credible, if there is no obvious factor to rule them out.
DARHOP responds: February 5th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Wow ! Well said, and I agree with the 3 comments above. Very well said indeed!
CamperGuy responds: February 5th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Sightings probably go unreported because of likely negative responses and unlikely positive ones.

Most people want to belong to their group and are unlikey to say things that will diminish their standing within their group.

I’d say that most people accept scientists statements as scientific fact rather than opinion thus setting the standard of what people believe in general about Sasquatch.

Scientists who state Sasquatch do not exist basing their statment on science to me is inexplicable. Science has not proved the non-existence of Sasquatch.

One argument is the area would not support an animal of that size. ( a personal pet peeve) First it is impossible to know what an area would support if the animals diet is an unknown. Second if an area would support two Grizzly Bears how could it be stated it would be impossible to support at least one Sasquatch?
hudgeliberal responds: February 5th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Excellent point Camperguy. How can these so called “men of science” conclude that there is not enough land or a year round food source when so many other creatures(that would have far less ability,physically and mentally,than sasquatch)can find enough space and food to survive and,in many cases,thrive? I read,almost weekly it seems,about a new species being discovered,yet most scientists will not even DISCUSS,much less investigate anything that is considered “out of the norm”? I thought that was exactly what science was supposed to be about..right? Well,no disrespect to any college graduates or scientists but I think we have all seen that even an Ivy League degree doesnt automatically make you smart..ahem..Mr. President.
DWA responds: February 5th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
CamperGuy says: “Scientists who state Sasquatch do not exist basing their statment on science to me is inexplicable.”

Me too; and precsiely because that is not what they are doing, as you illustrate.

The can’t-support argument is simply not based on the most basic read of what’s out there. As Pyle says: the vast majority of food in the backcountry is composted uneaten. With woodcraft (nothenkyewveddymuch) my family could live indefinitely in the little woodlots around our house. Which are already ‘full’ of hungry mammals. (Squirrels and deer and voles and mice, yum-yum!) It’s a non-starter.

No fossil evidence? This is scientific? The giant panda had no fossil antecedents ’til one was found - in TENNESSEE. (OK, only the 500th time we’ve trucked that one out.) Chimps and gorillas? Zippo fossil evidence. Aaaaah, but they live in tropical areas where fossilization doesn’t happen. Except, hee hee, for all those fossils of dinosaurs and mammals accompanied by fossilized plants suggesting a tropical environment. To say nothing of all the fossils that human activity probably destroyed before we even knew what they were, and the ones we continue to destroy Paving The Planet. How do we know there’s none? Have we found anywhere near all the ones there are to be found? Quite clearly, not.

I could go on. Fact is, though, I don’t gotta. I have never heard a scientist express the ‘unlikelihood’ of the sasquatch without a practical verbatim read of what I call the urban-ignoramus arguments against.

The ones that stick to science are of one of two minds:

It’s a worthy subject of search, or

It exists.
springheeledjack responds: February 6th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Go people go!

This is a valid thread running on a variety of fronts. As was stated, the ridicule factor is alive and well–I am into this stuff, but I do not openly advertise my cryptozoology hobby–it has been my experience, that when you bring that stuff up to most people, they either give you that “sure whatever you say” look or they openly start giving you crap. I have run across the open minded persons, but in general, most people either choose not to think about that stuff and don’t want those possibilities cluttering their thoughts, or they are convinced that it is complete crappola without ever really looking into it.

As for the scientific attitude…it reminds me of all those 1950’s sci-fi movies: there is always a scientist and whatever he says in those movies is taken as gospel–even a scientist who’s background is in nothing related to what is going on has more creedence than some joe off the street—and I see the same parallel’s in cryptozoology.

Someone labeling himself “scientist” can state that there is no such thing as BF, sea critter, etc. and that statement gets ten times the credibility as someone who just had a ten minute encounter with the thing (and someone who is intimately more experienced with their surroundings)–and don’t say give me an example, because there are plenty…

The point is, “scoftics” continually love to hide behind the guise of science and pseudo-scientific processes, but in reality many of them are just trying to make themselves sound more credible when in fact they have no expertise at all.

Science as a tool is fine…science that uses the word to push narrow minded ideas is irresponsible.

Science by its very nature is to be curious AND open minded.
springheeledjack responds: February 6th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Yeah, what all of you have said…

In my own experiences, I am heavily into cryptozoology, but I do not openly discuss it on a regular basis. When I mention my hobby in sea critters or mention BF I usually get one of two responses: either the cocked eyebrow followed by, “Sure whatever you say” or someone openly having a laugh over it.

Now there are some who can talk about the subject intelligently and who are open to the ideas, but they are the minority, and to just bring up the subject in open conversation is asking to be tossed into the “weird” category–not that I mind, but to say that there is no ridicule factor is ignorance pure and simple.

And as for the Science, buzzword, I will say this: whether it is by design, or just idol worship…science and scientists often act like their word is unnerring law and that to question it is blasphemy and sacrilege. These days some of the scientist thought reminds me of the sci-fi movies out of the 50’s…the monster movies where the scientist in the group has all the answers (anything in the world whether it is actually in his field of study or not), and everyone else in the movie takes everything the scientist has to say as gospel truth.

At present, I feel the same pressure–that if a scientist takes issue with something, well then it is a dead issue, because, well, a scientist did say it after all…

And before I continue, I am generalizing against scoftic pseudo-scientists, and those in scientific study who throw in their two cents without checking to see if they were actually pennies or not.

IF you wish to say: “from the evidence I have seen so far, I do not believe in the existence of BF” then that is your opinion and belief, and I will have no issue with you. HOWEVER, if you say: “BF does not exist because there is no evidence that is valid scientific evidence to support it,” then you are not being a good scientist, nor a good researcher…and realistically you’re just plain lazy and don’t want to deal with the possibility at all, and just toss it out because you are too narrow minded to really think beyond a laboratory or a microscope.

Science is by its nature, fallible. Science is all about making mistakes and learning from those mistakes to learn more about the world around.

Science is and always was about being curious and open minded. Science is a tool to explore the world around you, to use it to learn more about your environment and what is in it. Nothing more.
darkshines responds: February 6th, 2008 at 3:23 am
When I was a child I saw a unidentified animal swimming in Lake Windemere. I took pictures, but when I got home and showed my mum, she told me not to be silly, its “only Loch Ness that has a monster”. I think I still have the pictures somewhere, I might re-evaluate them now, 17 years on, and see if my suspicions as a child were correct, or if my mums sceptisism was justified.
DWA responds: February 6th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Springheeledjack says:

“And before I continue, I am generalizing against scoftic pseudo-scientists, and those in scientific study who throw in their two cents without checking to see if they were actually pennies or not.”

Precisely. This is what CamperGuy and I are talking about (not presuming to speak for him, I hope): scientists who run off at the mouth without thinking about what it is they’re saying.

People do listen to what scientists say; and scientists sometimes take unfair advantage, letting their sloppy-layman selves get in the way of the scientist they bring to work. No scientist who pronounces a verdict on the sasquatch, or any cryptid, regardless his field, is basing his statement in science unless he has done his homework on the animal.

Which, it’s quite safe to say, almost all have not.

When I, a layman, can pronounce you, an ‘expert,’ ignorant with total confidence, you, sir/madam, have not cracked a book or clicked a mouse in any of the right places. Keep your expertise where it belongs; and either apply it here or keep your opinion to yourself until you have real evidence to back it up.

Science-as-jackass-chorus is science besmirched.
gavinfundyk responds: February 6th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
What I can’t understand is the unwillingness to consider that a Bigfoot/Sasquatch has had time to adapt to a new environment. I mean, every time I turn on a nature program, all they talk about is how some creature adapted to it’s surroundings. But that can’t possibly be true here in the U.S.?

Primates are quite intelligent.I was watching some program where scientists are working with bonobos. They can do some amazing things. But the idea of a North American Ape adapting to the Pacific Northwest and avoiding the public eye as a whole is suddenly impossible?

It boggles the mind. I think the real problem is that scientists have been taught that if you go against the establishment, you will be marginalized and left out in the cold.

And if your livelihood is in the scientific field, it would make it very difficult to buck the system.
DWA responds: February 6th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Gavinfundyk: I’m not so sure adaptation to a new environment is the issue here at all.

I think it’s more the scientific inability to get hands around the idea that apes don’t have to be solely tropical animals.

Cetaceans, pinnipeds, canids, felids, and cervids are a small selection of animals with representatives in the tropics, the temperate zone, and the Arctic. (Add the Antarctic for the first two, and add in birds there too. And fish. That’s just the higher animals, too.) A few primates live in areas where it snows; and one lives pretty much everywhere.

Aren’t apes more than a bit conspicuous by their absence from the list?

And this is, what, logical? What, apes are too stupid for this? (Or is it that they have too much common sense? Don’t know about you; I can avoid the Arctic. But let me choose between the temp zone and the tropics, I’ll take the former, any day.)

I’d rather look at what people are seeing, and decide for myself whether it’s worth following up, than presume “no way, because here’s what we KNOW.”

If nature teaches us one thing, over and over, it’s this: you didn’t think about that possibility, did you?
gavinfundyk responds: February 6th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
DWA: Actually, you made my point, just you did a better job of it. “What, apes are too stupid for this?” That is exactly the point. Apes are more than intelligent enough to avoid detection.

Part of the problem is most persons, including scientists, don’t seem to comprehend how big the forests are in the Pacific Northwest, or in other areas. They assume that if there is a map of an area, it must be fully explored. Which is completely untrue.

Let’s face it, mountain gorillas weren’t supposed to exist in Rwanda (I think), until they were “discovered” in the 1950’s! And large primates are expected in Africa.

But, scientists are not going to be of much help. At least until Bigfoot is found, and someone can take credit for it.
cryptidsrus responds: February 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I personally would not tell anyone around me if I saw Sasquatch or any other weird creature.

I would consider myself privileged to have seen such a wonder, but aside from that, my lips would be mum except for my mother and two other people whom I could trust.

And MAYBE you good folks here.

NOBODY likes ridicule.

I agree with DWA and GAVINFUNDYK. I would add that science has become the “final arbiter of truth” (to use the philosopher Quine’s famous phrase) and as such it fosters in society and our ordinary reality an attitude of “if it cannot be seen, it does not exist.” As such, any eyewitness report, not matter how accurate, truthful-sounding, or compelling, is almost certainly going to be discounted.
So, no thank you, Bigfoot researcher, but I’ll keep my wondrous sighting to myself.

I once heard a Bigfoot eyewitness who hunted it for many years and saw it three times and SHOT at it (I don’t remember his name but he was featured in Cryptomundo) responding to why he did not try to FILM it when it was in front of him—to the effect—”If they did not believe Roger Patterson and his film, why are they going to believe me?”

‘Nuff said.
Benjamin Radford responds: February 8th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Hmm. Maybe we need to re-examine at least one assumption here.

Is there really a shortage of Bigfoot sightings? The above seems to suggest that there are sightings all the time, but few are reported. Yet often Bigfoot proponents argue exactly the opposite: that there are huge numbers of sightings, therefore at least some must be credible.

Which is it? Are the sightings plentiful, therefore good evidence for Bigfoot? Or are the sightings sparse because of “fear of ridicule”?
springheeledjack responds: February 9th, 2008 at 12:20 am
The point is, there are most probably more sightings than what we have reported and the more sightings we get, the more pieces to the puzzle we get—the more details we get about sightings the more we can put together in the way of patterns of behavior, patterns of diet, movement, etc.

And the real point of this thread is exactly what Thudfactor said up there–”is that Skepticism Unchained causes us to discard evidence out of hand”

That and the fact that the minute witnesses come forward with testimony on a cryptid they do get people who not only scrutinize their testimony (which IS a good thing), but who actively try to discredit their claims at all costs–there is a huge difference between scrutinizing testimony for accuracy and sincerity and just trying to discredit testimony for the sake of proving a negative (which I will lay on the scoftics).
DWA responds: February 9th, 2008 at 10:03 am
springheeledjack says:

“That and the fact that the minute witnesses come forward with testimony on a cryptid they do get people who not only scrutinize their testimony (which IS a good thing), but who actively try to discredit their claims at all costs…”

There it is, well stated, in a nutshell. And here’s what gets me about these so-called skeptics:

1) they weren’t there;

2) their debunkings almost invariably include theories wackier than what the person says he saw;

3) they almost invariably have no expertise even remotely related to the topic at hand. Sorry; psychology doesn’t count. Particularly when you are presuming out of hand that the person is a nut. (Or seeing things; which people, contrary to popular belief, almost never do unless they ARE insane.)

But thanks for playing.
DWA responds: February 9th, 2008 at 10:12 am
“Which is it? Are the sightings plentiful, therefore good evidence for Bigfoot? Or are the sightings sparse because of “fear of ridicule”? ”

False choice.

1) Sightings are plentiful. As John Bindernagel says, these animals are being seen far more often than the public realizes.

2) The sightings are rarely if ever reported to anything other than sas websites. Which, of course, carry virtually no weight with the mainstream scientific community. Even when witnesses report to sas websites, which, remember, are actively LOOKING FOR REPORTS, they frequently feel compelled to include in the account that they are NOT crazy and NOT seeing things.

In virtually every case I have read - and I’ve read hundreds - of witnesses telling other people what they saw, the response was: ridicule. It is THE universal response to cryptid sightings. Exceptions? Sure. But I’ve rarely read an exception that didn’t also note that the exception was, in the event, indeed that. One person believing you sure doesn’t seem to swing science, does it?
Ceroill responds: February 9th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
DWA- what I noticed about the pair of questions is that it the second one is totally nonsensical, unless it was misstated. Ridicule has no effect on number of sightings, it is the number of reports that are affected because of the ridicule factor. Unless there’s a new definition I’m unaware of reports and sightings are not quite the same thing. One can have many sightings, but not report any of them for fear of ridicule.
DWA responds: February 9th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I suppose that I should add here that in the hundreds of reports I’ve read (how many do you think scofftics read?), one of the most common threads is this:

The witness was pretty sure the animal didn’t exist until the witness saw one.

Under those circumstances, people who know will tell you, you are far more likely to think an ape a bear than you are to think a bear an ape. You don’t pigeonhole a sighting under “unknown animal” unless you know it is.

This is just human nature, and logic, at work.

People know just what they are seeing, and they report it.
DWA responds: February 9th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Ceroill: of course you’re right; and when you read reports, you see: and just so it in fact is.
MïK responds: February 11th, 2008 at 8:16 am
I’d like to interject a thought: How can an amateur make sure the evidence he collects is believeable? I, as a camera-carrying, watchful, resident of the Pacific Northwest, am not afraid to put my evidence on the table, but I wonder if there is stuff I could do, during the encounter, to help prove the existence of the cryptid. What should I prepare for? Is there a scientific “how-to” that would make any evidence I collect more acceptable for public scrutiny?

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Spread the Word!

23 Responses to “Cryptid Witnesses’ Catch 22”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

microsoft office 2003 oem,

cheap software downloads,

The Logo Creator MEGA pak 3.6;

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

software oem cd line business;

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

oem software bundle

"Buy cheap PhotoShop CS 2"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

oem software bundle

software oem cd line business;

inkjet definition oem software

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

"locate software oem files"

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

adobe any cs2 from photo photo shop shop upgrade version

"how to activate reget deluxe"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

"locate software oem files"

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training