how about that, grabbing their cajones and knocking out an article.
Full Version: National Geog. article
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...23_bigfoot.html
how about that, grabbing their cajones and knocking out an article.
how about that, grabbing their cajones and knocking out an article.
It's great...until they get to the end:
A. No, we don't have a body. That's why we need one. Get one, and the rest of the article is moot...
B. Sure, some hair has proven to be from other, known sources, but a bunch hasn't. Would have been nice for them to mention that.
C. Many casts and sightings are faked, but there are a whole bunch that defy such easy dismissal. And to use the word 'many' without talking about how many that really is, they leave the impression that 'many' means 'most', which is demonstrably not the case.
D. Wallace is a closed case. When will we ever stop hearing his name. Oh, I know. When the next crackpot comes along claiming to have been behind the PG film. I forgot.
QUOTE
The Skeptics
But the vast majority of scientists still believe Bigfoot is little more than supermarket tabloid fodder. They wonder why no Bigfoot has ever been captured, dead or alive.
"The bottom line is, they don't have a body," said Michael Dennett, who writes for Skeptical Inquirer magazine and who has followed the Bigfoot debate for 20 years.
Bigfoot buffs note that it's rare to find a carcass of a grizzly bear in the wild. While that's true, grizzlies have not escaped photographic documentation.
Hair samples that have been recovered from alleged Bigfoot encounters have turned out to come from elk, bears or cows.
Many of the sightings and footprints, meanwhile, have proved to be hoaxes.
After Bigfoot tracker Ray Wallace died in a California nursing home last year, his children finally announced that their prank-loving dad had created the modern myth of Bigfoot when he used a pair of carved wooden feet to create a track of giant footprints in a northern California logging camp in 1958.
Dennett says he's not surprised by the flood of Bigfoot sightings.
"It's the same kind of eyewitness reports we see for the Loch Ness Sea Monster, UFOs, ghosts, you name it," he said. "The monster thing is a universal product of the human mind. We hear such stories from around the world."
But the vast majority of scientists still believe Bigfoot is little more than supermarket tabloid fodder. They wonder why no Bigfoot has ever been captured, dead or alive.
"The bottom line is, they don't have a body," said Michael Dennett, who writes for Skeptical Inquirer magazine and who has followed the Bigfoot debate for 20 years.
Bigfoot buffs note that it's rare to find a carcass of a grizzly bear in the wild. While that's true, grizzlies have not escaped photographic documentation.
Hair samples that have been recovered from alleged Bigfoot encounters have turned out to come from elk, bears or cows.
Many of the sightings and footprints, meanwhile, have proved to be hoaxes.
After Bigfoot tracker Ray Wallace died in a California nursing home last year, his children finally announced that their prank-loving dad had created the modern myth of Bigfoot when he used a pair of carved wooden feet to create a track of giant footprints in a northern California logging camp in 1958.
Dennett says he's not surprised by the flood of Bigfoot sightings.
"It's the same kind of eyewitness reports we see for the Loch Ness Sea Monster, UFOs, ghosts, you name it," he said. "The monster thing is a universal product of the human mind. We hear such stories from around the world."
A. No, we don't have a body. That's why we need one. Get one, and the rest of the article is moot...
B. Sure, some hair has proven to be from other, known sources, but a bunch hasn't. Would have been nice for them to mention that.
C. Many casts and sightings are faked, but there are a whole bunch that defy such easy dismissal. And to use the word 'many' without talking about how many that really is, they leave the impression that 'many' means 'most', which is demonstrably not the case.
D. Wallace is a closed case. When will we ever stop hearing his name. Oh, I know. When the next crackpot comes along claiming to have been behind the PG film. I forgot.
Congratulations on posting that link. 
I agree this is an important article, and is an indication of the way the mainstream is gradually edging in our direction. However, I wasn't happy with the following:
There have been quite a few photos taken, they just haven't been real close and real clear. The implication of the quote above is thus misleading. See Mike Quast's 132-page, large-format book, Big Footage: A History of Claims for the Sasquatch on Film. (Curiously the book lists no price, year of publication (2001?), or publisher's address, so I can't provide them here. The June 2000 address I have for Mike Quast is 1302 19 1/2 St. S. #20 / Moorehead, MN 56560.)
To be correct, the word "Some" should have been inserted at the start of that sentence. Not to have done so was "slippery." There are at least two dozen samples that have been evaluated by experts as coming from Unknown Animals, and many of those samples have distinct resemblances to primate hair.
If you eliminate sightings and finds by "researchers," I think the proportion of fakes isn't that great. Out of thousands of sightings, of course there'll be scores or even hundreds of fakes, which tend to be portrayed by scoftics as representative of the whole. But such fakery is a fringe activity that shouldn't discredit the whole field, any more than "Dr. Scott's magnetic corset" discredited the reality and worthiness of the field of magnetism. For instance, there have been about 30 sightings reported by police officers, in some cases involving lengthy observations with several witnesses. Were ALL of them hoaxes too? If not, we've got a real phenomenon on our hands.
There's a link at the bottom of the story where one can send feedback to the magazine. I think I'll copy what I've written here & send it to them.
EDIT: OK, I've sent them a much-improved version of the above. (Bipto--I stole your sentence about their misusing "Many" to imply "Most"--it was too good not to use. I trust you're OK with that
?)
I agree this is an important article, and is an indication of the way the mainstream is gradually edging in our direction. However, I wasn't happy with the following:QUOTE
Bigfoot buffs note that it's rare to find a carcass of a grizzly bear in the wild. While that's true, grizzlies have not escaped photographic documentation.
There have been quite a few photos taken, they just haven't been real close and real clear. The implication of the quote above is thus misleading. See Mike Quast's 132-page, large-format book, Big Footage: A History of Claims for the Sasquatch on Film. (Curiously the book lists no price, year of publication (2001?), or publisher's address, so I can't provide them here. The June 2000 address I have for Mike Quast is 1302 19 1/2 St. S. #20 / Moorehead, MN 56560.)
QUOTE
Hair samples that have been recovered from alleged Bigfoot encounters have turned out to come from elk, bears or cows.
To be correct, the word "Some" should have been inserted at the start of that sentence. Not to have done so was "slippery." There are at least two dozen samples that have been evaluated by experts as coming from Unknown Animals, and many of those samples have distinct resemblances to primate hair.
QUOTE
Many of the sightings and footprints, meanwhile, have proved to be hoaxes.
If you eliminate sightings and finds by "researchers," I think the proportion of fakes isn't that great. Out of thousands of sightings, of course there'll be scores or even hundreds of fakes, which tend to be portrayed by scoftics as representative of the whole. But such fakery is a fringe activity that shouldn't discredit the whole field, any more than "Dr. Scott's magnetic corset" discredited the reality and worthiness of the field of magnetism. For instance, there have been about 30 sightings reported by police officers, in some cases involving lengthy observations with several witnesses. Were ALL of them hoaxes too? If not, we've got a real phenomenon on our hands.
There's a link at the bottom of the story where one can send feedback to the magazine. I think I'll copy what I've written here & send it to them.
EDIT: OK, I've sent them a much-improved version of the above. (Bipto--I stole your sentence about their misusing "Many" to imply "Most"--it was too good not to use. I trust you're OK with that
?)
Thanks for the link Cronic. Interesting reading. Too bad the writers of articles like this feel the need to bring up Ray Wallace in everything they write on the subject. 
I was glad to see the BFRO and TBRC on the links at the bottom of the article.
I was glad to see the BFRO and TBRC on the links at the bottom of the article.
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Oct 23 2003, 07:33 PM)
(Bipto--I stole your sentence about their misusing "Many" to imply "Most"--it was too good not to use. I trust you're OK with that ?)
?)You are so sued.
I keep getting my email to Nat. Geog. bounced back to me as "unknown user," even though I've clicked on their email button to send it to newsdesk@nationalgeographic.com. (I'll keep sending it until it gets through.) So I've sent a complaint email to "rescor" at the same site complaining about this, but I've received only an automated response so far. Perhaps I'll get some action as a result, because I used the Subject line to explain the problem.
Incidentally, on rereading the article I discovered it misquoted Meldrum as saying "jive" where he must have used "jibe," so I've pointed this out in the latest version of my email. It's nice to be able to demonstrate little flaws in one's opponent's presentation--especially when it's an "authoritative" publication with a proofreader and copy editor on-staff to catch such common mistakes--and take it down a peg or two. (It's one of the bonuses of having been a proofreader .)
Incidentally, on rereading the article I discovered it misquoted Meldrum as saying "jive" where he must have used "jibe," so I've pointed this out in the latest version of my email. It's nice to be able to demonstrate little flaws in one's opponent's presentation--especially when it's an "authoritative" publication with a proofreader and copy editor on-staff to catch such common mistakes--and take it down a peg or two. (It's one of the bonuses of having been a proofreader
.)
Hey, that's a pretty good idea, sending a reply correcting their 'mistakes'.
It's shows N.G. that readers are not only taking the article seriously, but also that N.G. didn't do enough research before publishing the article.
I'm also going to shoot them an email w/ links to Meldrum and Krantz's anatomy analysis. I think it would be great if they republished anything by them, especially if it included pictures (ie Bossberg cripple track analysis). People love pictures
Enough comments might provide them motivation to write a longer more detailed article.....especially when the comments aren't mocking the idea of Sasquatch, but instead providing them more relevant information.
Yeah, the BFRO link is definitely good, but they also need to add the BFF link!
It's shows N.G. that readers are not only taking the article seriously, but also that N.G. didn't do enough research before publishing the article.
I'm also going to shoot them an email w/ links to Meldrum and Krantz's anatomy analysis. I think it would be great if they republished anything by them, especially if it included pictures (ie Bossberg cripple track analysis). People love pictures
Enough comments might provide them motivation to write a longer more detailed article.....especially when the comments aren't mocking the idea of Sasquatch, but instead providing them more relevant information.
Yeah, the BFRO link is definitely good, but they also need to add the BFF link!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.