To me, “belief” in this discussion is a handicap. Evidence is the gold standard.

I prefer Grover’s way of saying it, which he deliberately juxtaposed with “belief” for contrast: “My review of the evidence has led me to CONCLUDE…”.

But I agree with you on Radford.

DWA I don’t see why being a bigfoot believer is necessarily a great handicap. Who is more likely to get evidence of bigfoot a sceptic who attacks any evidence or a bigfoot advocate? Todd Disotell (NY labs) who has done nat geo dna analysis for years stated his job was not to prove anything but to disprove, surely his job is to do it right and let others be the judge. His is not a recipe for scientific advance and goes some way to explaining the failure of science in America to come up with the goods on bigfoot and generally not do appropriate research.

(Other than that none of those involved in this critical problem are scientists.)

Trumpeting finds before they are proven worth the noise is not science. There is no response more reliable than straight dismissing anything that is said before proof is obtained. When you hold the press conference, you must have the proof in hand.

Hapa: your puzzlement re: Skookum is justified. The Skookum cast has intrigued everyone with serious scientific chops who has looked at it, and was the critical piece of evidence swaying Daris Swindler, one of the most prominent primatologists. I have seen no negative criticism of that cast that holds water. Anyone who thinks it’s an elk needs to explain how elk levitate; there are no elk prints where they would have to be. Critics with no scientific chops get away scot-free in these discussions, as they’re preaching to a public raised on kneejerk scoffing at certain subjects, and totally ignorant of the science (to say nothing of the common sense: just watch an elk get up!) involved.

So both sides in this debate are crippled: cryptozoology by true believers and proponents who don’t understand science, and skepticism by cynicism and ignorance.

As to Grover, he did make claims he shouldn’t have. But he had more reason to take his position than the scoffers do to take theirs. Also, anyone who understands this subject knows that one cannot blame the animal’s nonexistence on the people looking for it. The evidence is all that counts.

Hopefully also, any major tourism boost won’t drive these creatures or perhaps humans (?) deeper into the Siberian Snows, making it harder to discover.

There is not room for a great deal of optimism in that the cave site seems to have been well trampelled by homo sapiens and the local tourist industry are either exploiting genuine evidence which is ok, or transforming it to something it isnt, which isnt ok!

Of course what’s in the papers is often not true nor cryptozoological and cryptozoology should not take the blame !

Ben Radford, You are a hard man to please! If your critical examination leads you to conclude your 3 book shelves are full of cryptozoological exaggerations I wonder what kind of standards you are applying and do you apply the same standards to those books you approve of ? Because much of the sceptical literature is full of logical error as: One footprint is a fake so they are all fake, because an event is probable it must be so!

The problem for many sceptics is that have an inbuilt attitude, barely mentioned, that does not allow them to accept new ideas and they cling on to their comfort zone within the prevailing scientific paradigm. It is common knowledge that some of us are too ready to believe and research much welcomed by sceptics, has been done to prove it. But to acheive balance the opposite needs to be appreciated.

It is a mistake for a scientist to state that something is impossible or cannot be faked. Grover Kranz did it but it is not a monopoly of cryptozoologists to make this mistake they are at heart rational people able to see both sides of a case. Grover Krantz made a positive contribution to cryptozoology re sasquatch not matched by any sceptic I know of !

Hello again. I’m puzzled about your mention of the skookum cast among the list of exaggerated claims and hoaxes. Although It might be premature to call it a 100% Bigfoot body print (we don’t have a body of a bigfoot to compare with), I have no knowledge of it being blown over the top or being a hoax. Having said that I don’t know whether it was claimed upon discovery to be a fully certain Bigfoot body print. Meldrum wrote about it in his book but i’ll have to reread that section to see if they told the media that it was indeed a Bigfoot body print instead of a possible bigfoot body print, or that the evidence strongly leaned in that direction. As far as I have know it has neither been purely debunked or found to be a hoax.

As for Minnesota Iceman, well that may never be fully explained, unless the original Minnesota Iceman exhibit is found.

When a “new” or important paleontological discovery is reported in the news (“Largest North American Sauropod Discovered”) somewhere in the report you’ll read that the discovery was made perhaps a year or more earlier. The report to the media is made once they have done all the examinations on the find.

When it comes to cryptozoology, the reports seem to come out immediately after the incident (Woman Films Sea Creature Over Holiday Weekend). Maybe it’s the human interest angle, or the sensationalism of the subject, but it needs to run its scientific course before cryptozoology news is reported.

As always, Loren. Your professionalism shines through.

A “possible” anything is not a story the MSM will report in almost all instances. An “exaggeration” (given or added to an account) invariably is. Whether a report is an “exaggeration” or is “added” or “given” quickly becomes nearly impossible to establish. The exercise is in selling advertising (readers) not accuracy. It’s been that way for a long, long time now.

“Exaggeration” invariably occurs in all diciplines. From the pure sciences to politics (as Loren rightly points out), from education to police enforcement. It’s human. It’s rarely possible to use it as an absolute yardstick, though it’s tantalizing to do so. A scientist seeks truth, not assumption. A scientist tests a theory through experiment and observation – not media reports or “exaggerating” attention seekers. If it were any different we’d not have been likely to have split atoms, put a man on the moon or develop treatments for ailments prolonging the lives of so many.