|
|
Reader Martin Blazevich clarifies a detail about the Bigfoot item of last week:
At a recent Halloween convention (Hauntcon '04 in Charlotte, NC), I met Philip Morris (no relation to the tobacco folks). He made the costume (for $435) for Roger Patterson to use in this famous Bigfoot video. And technically, Amy Morris (Philip's wife), stitched the costume.
There are interviews (on the web via Google) where Morris gives some interesting details about this transaction: phone calls from Patterson, advice on how to comb the fur to make it look more realistic, etc.
And, I think Mr. Morris said that the same costume is still available for anyone to buy.
Some staunch supporters of the existence of Bigfoot/sasquatch/yeti/whatever, clinging to this rather abandoned notion, wrote me in alarm that I would question the claim for a fuzzy beast who apparently evaporates after dying, and needs far too few of its members to maintain the sort of gene pool we’d expect. Reader Stanley Rose points out that the clip I linked to, was prepared by M. K. Davis, a staunch defender of the Patterson film, on a website full of articles defending its authenticity. Writes Stanley:
If you would take 5 seconds and actually do some basic anatomical measurements from those film stills, you'd see one of the reasons why the film endures. The legs, arms, chest, etc. are way out of proportion to just about any human you could find, so any hoax would require major enhancements to any "monkey suit" – serious padding and prosthetics for the long arms for example – which in turn would make it very difficult for a hoaxer to walk with any degree of relaxed movement. That's why despite numerous attempts by well-funded individuals nobody has done a decent job at replicating the "hoax." Add to that the remote location (I’ve been there – it’s not a place you'd want to drag a monkey suit to!), the corroborating prints at the site, not to mention why the heck anyone would add breasts to the suit, and just maybe you can begin to understand why the film endures.
Pause for comments: First, making reasonably accurate proportional measurements from a blurred image is just not possible. This is one of those analog situations in which a researcher can interpolate and extrapolate with freedom, to obtain figures well suited (no pun intended!) to a theory. Viewing the clip, I honestly don’t see anything like the information suggested here, though I cannot claim any anatomical expertise. Any “major enhancements” made to the costume are not unlikely, at all; I’d spend some time on them, if I were – perish the thought – involved in any such hoax. The fact that no one has succeeded in “replicating” the film, proves nothing; I believe that if the JREF were appropriately funded for a special project of this sort, we could turn out a great film along these lines – but replication would only prove that it’s possible to make a convincing film. It would not say anything about the original. I have to wonder why Stanley tells us that it’s a major job to take a monkey suit to a remote location, and wonders why anyone would add breasts to the suit – an addition that’s not at all obvious to me, on viewing it. That addition, if it’s there, would be precisely the sort of detail that I’d add, if I were involved….!
But even Stanley has his own doubts:
I personally wouldn't bet on the existence of Bigfoot; I think there's a serious lack of solid evidence. I don't know whether the film was a hoax or not. But your dismissal was pretty lame.
Stanley, I wasn’t trying to provide an historical event, merely pointing readers to a new bit of evidence. Yes, the Patterson film will be embraced and held aloft by Bigfoot fans, into coming generations. Sigh. But dead Bigfoots (?) will still not be found, hair samples will continue to mysteriously match bison and bears, more fuzzy photos will surface, and it will never quite go away – as the mythical beast itself, like King Kong, seems to always be with us….
Reader Greg Hilliard, Community news editor of The Arizona Republic, reports to us on how “psychics” can always seem to come out on top, no matter how badly they perform, and their victims don’t even notice that they’ve been hornswoggled:
About a year ago here in Phoenix, we had one of those terrible cases in which a woman, Loretta Bowersock, 69, disappeared, her male friend was suspected, but then he committed suicide without ever telling anyone whether he had killed her. There was no clue where a body might be found. The woman's daughter, Terri, has scoured the desert since with friends and families and, alas, psychics. Her mother's body was found by chance in December by some hikers in the desert. You'll likely see psychics claim success in this case. Here is a paragraph from a follow-up story in one of The Arizona Republic's local sections, which I edit:
In the past year, Terri turned to friends, co-workers and strangers for desert walks on weekends. One search party was small: two of Loretta's sisters and Terri, along with a psychic. They walked south of the Valley along Interstate 8, near Stanfield Road. It's an area police identified as a likely burial site – and near the spot where the body was discovered west of I-8 and Arizona 84.
Yes, I stopped dead at that use of “near the spot” – as you probably did, too, and it got Greg’s immediate attention. “Spot” indicates a precise location, but “near” softens that up rather considerably. Reader, at this point, think of what you’d accept as “near the spot,” and remember that no psychic actually located the body. Greg continues:
I tried to get something more precise than "near" in that description, but we were unable to, on deadline. Turns out the body was three miles from that location. I guess in the psychic world, that's near. Or at least will be in this case. From what the reporter tells me, Terri still believes the psychics helped her, although she went more than a year without finding the body.
Three miles? I might have accepted 500 feet, but not 16,000! And this was a location already declared by the police to be a likely burial site! Greg closes with:
Phoenix's most notorious psychic, Allison DuBois, was too busy with her TV hit, "Medium," to help in the case. She had been approached when Loretta Bowersock disappeared, but begged off.
What? That’s hard to believe! Allison was enthusiastically endorsed by Dr. Gary Schwartz, of the University of Arizona! Of course, Gary has endorsed every psychic he’s ever met or heard of, and I hear he’s now considering Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy….
This is an example of a newspaper sub-editor chancing on an item, fluffing it up with woo-woo flavor, and publishing it to elicit admiration from readers….
Reader “Brian” in Northern California:
The letter from the ex-chiropractor inspired me to drag a flier (that was inserted in the local newspaper) out of the recycling bin so I could copy a few lines to send to you. It starts with the usual life story of chiropractor telling how he decided to go to chiropractic school instead of medical school after his asthmatic brother was helped by a chiropractor when the doctors couldn't help him, then how he keeps his own family healthy with chiropractic adjustments. etc. etc., then:
...It's strange how life is because now people come to see me with their headaches, migraines, neck pain, shoulder/arm pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, athletic injuries, whiplash and numbness in the limbs. Their children see me for ear infections, asthma, allergies, anxiety – even ADD & dyslexia – just to name a few.
Notice that he states "people come to see me with their..." and he never claims that he can actually help with any of the ailments listed, just says that people come to him with these problems. After a few testimonial quotes, he laments:
Being a chiropractor can be tough because there's a host of so-called experts out there. They tell people a lot of things that are just plain ridiculous about my profession...usually it's "My neighbor's sister's friend said..." Let me ask you, do you make your health care decisions based on honest facts or biased opinions? Interesting question, isn't it? [ellipses in the original text]
Well, at least I agree with him about making "decisions based on honest facts" rather than "biased opinions."
Thank you, Brian. We have here a note from last week’s anonymous ex-chiropractor who was involved, and I think it will be encouraging to others and give a new source of assistance. He writes:
Thanks for forwarding me the nice emails from your readers. While it will probably be a while before I "come out of the chiropractic closet" and use my real name, I do currently participate in an email discussion list called Chirotalk. The address is: http://chirotalk.proboards3.com/index.cgi
The members of this list are mostly former chiropractors along with a few Physical Therapists who are chiro skeptics. The purpose of the list is to support chiropractors trying to get out of the profession (suggestions for new careers, encouragement, etc.) and to keep information on the web to discourage new students from enrolling in chiropractic college.
I have gotten a lot of ideas from this list as to how to move forward with my life. The main reason I wrote you is that I respect your opinion a lot and, also, I wanted to bring attention to the fact that there are students like me who have been ripped off by the chiropractic schools.
I agree that I have a moral obligation to help potential students see the full picture. Chiro college recruiters are very good at painting chiropractors as mainstream healthcare professionals based in science. This is fraud – as far as I'm concerned – since all chiropractic is still based on subluxation theory, although some modern chiros call subluxations different names, like fixations, spinal lesions, etc.
Allen Botnick, D.C., is the chiropractor who started the discussion list. He is also graduated from my college and has written, under his real name, about his experiences as a chiropractor. He has really endured a lot of hatred from the chiropractic profession for his honesty. It’s at: www.chirobase.org/03Edu/botnick.html
Anyway, thanks for spreading the word. While I certainly wouldn't accept donations from anybody, I am inspired to consider telling my story in a more public way in the future. The kind messages from your readers have shown me that skeptics really have big hearts.
Very true, sir, and as you read this I’m surrounded by almost 800 of them, in Las Vegas, at The Amaz!ng Meeting 4. And that’s why this week’s SWIFT is a little brief, since all the JREF staff and co-workers are gathered to learn more about reality and how it’s challenged. I hope I’ll be forgiven for leaving this scene now; it’s Monday, and I have to send this off to our tireless webmaster Jeff Wagg, so he can get it up on the page in time….
Next week, more news and views from this curmudgeon….!