Agreed Alton…

The man has burst onto BTR shows on occasion with bluster and bravado…like some kind of a rock star…instead of the wind bag he appears to be. Perhaps the Big Folks need a Barnum and Bailey side show? I wish he would quit grandstanding and stay the hell out of the way…he’s giving us all a black eye…JMHO

I may be in the City soon…fire those puppies up…let’s do lunch.

live and let live…

ole bub and the dawgs

I gave up a long time back hoping to see crypto matters get a fair shake in the media.

Thanks. Hope springs eternal, I guess. That is about as serious a treatment as any realistic person should expect from the media at the moment.

It flummoxes the heck out of me that more news organizations wouldn’t think the evidence on hand, and the simple possibility of the animal, the big story here. But given such things as the Fox Noze for Nooze, should any of us really be surprised?

Incidentally, some people, notably the clear-thinking critical thinkers (two SMU professors) at the CSICOP-linked “Inquiring Minds” site, mixed it up with the Wallace film and stated on their site in 2004 that Patterson’s son had shown off a suit and had confessed that it was a hoax. He was obviously confusing this with Wallace’s son or nephew. I tried for a year to get them to correct their error, first e-mailing CSICOP and then twice e-mailing Prof. Cotton, one of the site-authors, but he wouldn’t respond.

Eventually ABC “put their foot in it,” perhaps relying on the misinformation found on the Inquiring Minds site. On Jan 29, 2006, in its “Good Morning America” segment dealing with the recent Malaysian sightings, it stated: “The most famous caught-on-camera footage, from 1967, was debunked after the family of the photographer admitted it was someone in an ape suit.”

Later the Voice of America also picked up that misinformation, either directly from Inquiring Minds or indirectly via ABC, and broadcast it round the world. When Bigfooters protested, the VOA responded that they’d based their assertion on Internet research–presumably meaning the Inquiring Minds site. (Which seems no longer to be active.)

Therefore, early in 2006 I made another effort to get them to put a stop to this, e-mailing the other site author, Prof. Scalise, and finally got him to remove its erroneous paragraph. However, Scalise refused to concede that it hadn’t been Patterson’s son he saw showing off the suit, only that the son hadn’t made a confession. He claimed he’d made the error in good faith. Maybe his initial error was in good faith, but:

1. He should have done five minutes’ research on such a spectacular and damaging claim before posting it. A tiny bit of Googling, or an e-mail to CNN, or a search of the CNN site, would have revealed his mistake and saved the day. (But I suspect he was operating under a cynical rule for journalists: “Don’t check your “good” stories–that’s how you lose them.” I.e., I suspect he wanted to post something damaging about the Patterson film, and was reluctant to look for disconfirming evidence. He certainly was reluctant to accept my correction that he hadn’t seen Patterson’s son.)

2. His co-author, prof. Cotton, was guilty of egregious arrogance (something not unheard of “skeptical” circles) in not responding to my e-mails or forwarding them to Scalise.

3. He (Scalise) was arrogant in continuing to maintain that it was Patterson’s son he’d seen showing off a suit. He baselessly treated me as though I couldn’t have known more about the matter than he did (when I claimed he had mixed up the person he saw with a Wallace relative). His arrogance was also reflected in:

His refusal to consider that his blunder (that there was a Patterson-confession) didn’t indicate that his memory might also be at fault about the person he saw on TV; and

His refusal to look into the matter to back up his claim to me that it was Patterson’s son who’d been on TV with anything more than his own recollection; and

His failure to apologize for the damage caused by the possible spread of his misinformation onto the national media.

(I suspect he thinks it was a good thing that it did receive wide coverage, regardless of whether Patterson’s son had actually made such a confession. “Any stick will do to beat the devil”: that’s what the behavior of Skeptics’ indicates they really believe.)

The talking head basically said that all this was the smoking gun, definitive proof that Bigfoot did not, nor ever did exist. Cryptozoological stories will never get their just due in the mainstream media. Just my two cents.

Certainly media coverage of bigfoot-related news is often approached superficially, erroneously, and with condescension, but that’s not always the case. Here’s a link to a news story where the reporter attempted to be thorough and objective.

http://www.cbs19.tv/video/newplayer.php?id=3156

And from what I caught on the broadcast, Mr.Biscardi was rudely commented upon and he had made the comment to even the score!

in my best carny barking voice…..clears throat uhuumm…

step right up folks we have cameras looking for bigfoot and have images. for only a quarter see the images from the bigfoot sighting location. bark bark bark. well i didnt say they were pics of bigfoot just images from the sighting location. yeeessss

step right up folks see the skinned bear paw err i mean bigfoot hand. yessss

step right up folks we have a captured bigfoot pics to come shortly. pay just 59.95 for live feed of bigfoot being cared for by a doctor. step right up folks.

disclaimer. money up front keep your mouth shut and absolutely positively no refunds. i need a new fake bigfoot costume because the one me and ivan used has fallen apart.