The Truth about some Bigfoot Skeptics & Media Reports
More that what meets the eye often, we find that some picking on the phenomena lack the credibility to do such .
Often when conducting internet research I receive "Google Alerts" on Bigfoot news reports and stories from around the web. I often read some in disgust, some fraught with inaccuracies, one even from a major news agency.
When I spoke with author and former Canadian journalist John Green, he stated it's almost as if the media, once in love with the phenomena has picked up the mantle of trying to smash it, the way science used to.
The unfortunate truth is media is supposed to be unbiased, but often personal beliefs creep into journalism. Sometimes for sensations sake, but let's look at such of example of ignorance followed by arrogance.
In 2006, ABC news erroneously stated that the Patterson Gimlin film was a hoax because when the film maker died in 2004 his family came forth with shoes used to make tracks and stated he had faked the whole thing.
TRUTH:
In reality they had mixed up a man by the name of Ray Wallace with Roger Patterson. The film had never been proven a fake. When ABC was notified with the exact details of their mistake they stated they would research and file a retraction if the facts were incorrect. ABC never retracted nor responded to further inquiries, showing marked arrogance.
An article on Io9.com, by Ed Grabianowski, highlights the fringe elements in Bigfoot research including those that believe in Bigfoot being extra-terrestrial, having psychic powers, or being a human. lost Native American Tribe.
THE TRUTH:
The articles first theory is the one this site subscribes to, and most of the mainstream Bigfoot Research community, however he arbitrarily and without evidence to support such flippant remark, ("While it is technically possible such populations of large primates could exist in several places throughout North America and have escaped detection, it is incredibly unlikely.") and concentrates with vim and vigor on the fringe.
What we've learned about him is he is a contributor to IO9.com, but runs, get this... a role playing, video gamer site. Although the article is well written, where does his knowledge come from other than the 5 sources he lists, used to write the article? G
et this...he nick names himself, on his own website, "The Mighty Overlord." Seriously, I can't make this stuff up.
A man claiming to be a "Colonel" (pictured left) in the "Israeli Secret Services," claimed to have conducted his own investigation into the Patterson Gimlin Film and discovered the film to be a fraud and a fake. This fellow made his rounds in print, and on a popular Canadian internet radio show, called the "X-Zone."
TRUTH:
This man has been known to make wild claims such as solving the Kennedy assassination, being part of the OJ Simpson prosecution, and making threats of having the "Israeli Secret Services" open up an investigation of corruption in the State of Oregon. He later was forced to confess the "Israeli Secret Services" was actually a private security company. (A Google Search shows no company with such name exists, and the man is a Colonel as much as Colonel Sanders was.)
The above represent what are three different types of skeptics.
Type One is the Ignorant Skeptic:
ABC News didn't care to get the story straight, nor fix it when it was pointed out they were wrong.
Type Two is the Malicious Skeptic:
"The Colonel" has an agenda and will say, do and outright lie to achieve the perception of being in the right. I had an opportunity to debate this gentleman, but he balked and demanded he be on by himself for the first hour, and let the opposition take the second hour.
Type Three is the "I've Learned Enough to Be Dangerous" Skeptics:
Usually trying to mean well, they often tell an accurate view without looking at the picture from inside an out, as did Brian, reading a few stories, but covering more of the lesser believed theories than covering what most in research DO believe. Skeptic Scientists, often seen on Bigfoot Documentaries, often fall into this category. Rarely, if any, actually accompanying or doing any real field research, but rather just do an interview for the camera offering an opinion, no more steeped in science than any other opinion. Just, the arrogance in their belief that because they have a PhD, which is supposed to make their opinion mean more than researcher's scientific observations. Again some of which falls on the media assault of the phenomena.