The Mad Skeptic

I Must Speak Up About LeRoy, NY

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 02:16:00 +0000

No, I'm not going to provide you with a possible explaination about what is going on. I don't know. Rather, I'm going to address the media narrative I saw reinforced on the NBC Nightly News this evening.

Unless you live under a rock or Newt Gingrich's moon base, you know a dozen or so girls in the LeRoy High school started experiencing Tourettes-like symptoms recently. The narrative that NBC reinforced is that no one was looking into LeRoy (or the two Corinth, NY cases) until Erin Brockovich showed up. I state that narrative is completely false and is either being propagated out of malice, ignorance, or for ratings/readership. How do I know? I work for the New York State Department of Health -- where, wouldn't you know it, samples from LeRoy have been and are being analyzed!

I, literally, work down the hall from where some of these sample are analyzed. While I am not involved with their analysis, I know the people who are. Furthermore, I know they have been working their asses off! Any implication to the contrary is false.

I have resisted commenting on this case because of my position but the "at least somebody is doing something now" narrative I saw put forth on NBC forced me to write. There are dedicated scientists and technicians who are using their skills to try to find a possible environmental source for the LeRoy cases. They've been working on it for some time now. Because these people work in anonymity and have a tendency not to speak up for themselves, media outlets can run with their version of the story. Well, I'll say something in their stead. Work has been done. Work is being done and work will continue to be done -- with or without Erin Brockovich.

When Anti-vaccination Is Forced On Your Family

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:00:00 +0000

The anti-vaccination movement is probably one of the most misguided and deliberately ignorant cults to have ever reared its ugly head in any society. This movement is comparable to Holocaust-deniers and Creationists in their refusal to acknowledge established fact and scientific consensus. Ever since the discovery that people inoculated with the cowpox were protected from deadly smallpox (warning, upsetting image), untold millions of people have been saved from deadly diseases. To turn your back on the scientific body of evidence which unequivocally demonstrates the benefits to personal and public health is not only the epitome of stupidity, it is morally and ethically abhorrent.

Obviously, I'm not an anti-vaxxer and neither is my Ex – who is a nurse. Correspondingly, our daughter has had her vaccinations and is up to date with her vaccination schedule. You would think I would be fully comfortable, knowing my child was fully protected from such potentially fatal diseases as whooping cough or measles. I'm not secure for a couple of reasons. Recently, my worries became much more real. A child in my daughter's Pre-K class came down with pertussis.

While my daughter has been vaccinated against whooping cough (pertussis), there is no guarantee that the vaccine would be effective. While vaccines are remarkably effective and, yes, they have even the potential to eliminate certain diseases from the face of the Earth but they don't do it entirely from protecting every person inoculated. Vaccines work by granting people immunity and they work by making things that much harder to spread through the process of “herd immunity” -- a condition where so many members of a population develop immunity to infection that the disease can not propagate and infect new individuals. Even though certain members of a population may not be immune – either because a vaccine didn't work for them or because the couldn't have the vaccine in the first place (like immune-compromised people or infants) – they are protected by the immunity of their fellow members of the community.

So, I'm concerned that there may be a remote chance that my daughter is not immune to something she was vaccinated against. There is that possibility. I'm also worried that there is the chance that she (or anyone else for that matter) could become a vector for the transmittal of a life-threatening disease.

Like I said, one of my daughter's classmates had whooping cough and I received the notice early in December. Just last week, four other cases were reported locally in two different schools. It would appear that whooping cough is coming back to Upstate New York. Would this be happening if people were vaccinating their kids according to the vaccination schedule? No. Instead, we have parents opting to not vaccinate their children at all or choosing some alternate schedule based upon information propagated by the anti-vaccination cult. The consequence is that kids are getting sick. Personally, I do not believe an unvaccinated child should be allowed in a public school. As far as my thinking goes, if you want to take advantage of the benefits of being in our society (like sending your kid to public school), you need to also be responsible to that society by not compromising public health. In this case, all it takes is getting your child vaccinated like any respectable pediatrician would recommend.

While pertussis usually isn't fatal for kids older than toddlers, that is no excuse for putting other members of society at risk. I think of it as a serious warning. In my case, I live in an apartment building and my upstairs neighbors have a newborn. Wouldn't it be horrible if my vaccinated daughter unknowingly brought home pertussis only to give it to this innocent baby? She sits right next to the infected child in school so she was certainly exposed prior to her classmate being taken out of school. Because of the actions of some parent(s) who felt it was alright to send their unvaccinated child to school, a newborn child – the pride and joy of a young couple – could have been exposed to and then killed by pertussis. Whooping cough may not be fatal for older kids but it is brutal, and can be deadly, for an infant.

I'm afraid it's only a matter of time before easily preventable diseases like whooping cough start breaking out in epidemics. I'm also afraid that it's only a matter of time before more and more kids die because of their parent's ignorance or stupidity. Why will it have to come to that for people to take notice? What will it take? Smallpox returning? Get your kids vaccinated! It's your civic responsibility and the people you save may not be your own.

Ketchum DNA Project Shaping Up to Be A Hoax?

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:35:00 +0000

It's been said a couple time (including on this blog) that 2012 is supposed to be the year of Bigfoot. One of the main reasons some “Bigfooters” are saying this is that the results of Veterinarian Dr. Melba Ketchum's DNA project are supposed to be published this year. Once that occurs, the Bigfooters say, the “scientific establishment” will be overturned and all kinds of unsupportable hyperbole will be vindicated.

I'm starting to think, shudder, that this whole Ketchum DNA study might not be the scientific venture it's being presented as.

I'll tell you why. First, there is the unwashable taint of Tom Biscardi's involvement with the project. The man is a recognized fraudster and I'm surprised he isn't in jail – his greatest stunt, probably, being the recent “Georgia Gorilla” which turned out to be nothing be an expensive costume stuffed with animal viscera.

Then, there were the unsubstantiated rumblings that the Ketchum paper was rejected outright as being garbage (the blog post on which this claim was made has since been deleted). If this was to be the case, as I've highlighted before, the journals the paper was submitted to would not announce they had rejected the paper. The only place such an announcement could possibly come from would be from someone actually involved with the project – most likely Ketchum herself as she's an author. However, if she's only interested in attention, there is no motivation for her to let the world know her paper was rejected. Furthermore, it is unlikely she would want anyone to know that what was submitted did not survive peer review. Consequently, I believe she would not say anything about rejection and then continue to string the Bigfoot community along with announcements about when the paper will be published but never say when the paper would be published or where it would be published.

Lately, there seems to have been a lot of the “when the paper is published” talk. As a published author and coauthor, I do find this pre-publication promotion atypical to my experience and that of my coworkers but that does not really prove anything. It does make me a little more suspicious, however. I'm starting to wonder if this paper will ever be published or if it even exists.

Now for the biggie. In reading the Bigfoot Evidence blog lately, it is hard to avoid something that really stinks. Apparently, Ketchum has copyrighted a documentary on her search for Bigfoot DNA. Examination of the copyright filing will show something that Ketchum has tried to downplay -- her bias. Despite some special pleading to the contrary, Ketchum is not an unbiased researcher. Unsurprisingly, she is a believer out to prove her position. As you can read from the above link, her position is that Bigfoot is a "New Tribe of Living Humans". Evidentially, she's ignorant to the meaning of or is misapplying the term "tribe". This by itself really isn't damning proof of anything beyond a true believer putting all their eggs in one basket but it does raise suspicion and certainly explains the purported non-disclosure agreement (NDA) everyone involved with the project has been forced to sign. In my experience, NDAs are not routine in real scientific research where sharing of information and knowledge is the goal. There are even instances where unpublished results are freely given and even referenced in other author's papers! It appears to me as though Ketchum is withholding information but why? I think it all has to do with money.

Color me suspicious but I think Ketchum and crew are possibly participating in a fraud. Maybe it's pious fraud but I do not believe a real scientific paper is going to be published this – or any – year proving the existence of Bigfoot. Why? Let's look at the situation. Biscardi once claimed to have had a live Bigfoot and, if you were willing to pay, he said he would let you look at it like some cryptozoological peepshow. Despite having gone on shows like Coast to Coast AM to promote his captive and raise money, there never was a Bigfoot. Biscardi further demonstrated his method of withholding information when he leaked pictures of the Georgia Bigfoot hoax. This tactic proved very effective and Biscardi managed to get the national news outlets worked up enough that Fox News and their ilk covered his news conference at which he announced having a Bigfoot carcass. Despite only being shown crappy pictures, the media ate it up – along with lots of credulous Bigfooters. How do you top that? Well, I think you'd say you're going to publish definitive proof of Bigfoot's existence in a reputable scientific journal all the while never showing any of that so-called “proof”.

Modus operandi: 1) make unsupported claim, 2) string people along with hints of something, 3) provide a picture or other unsupportable "evidence", 4) repeat steps 2-3, 5) profit!

But why have the documentary? This is where the money comes in! If you go to Biscardi's site (I won't link to it but you can find it by doing a quick Internet search) you'll notice he's selling a documentary he's made that claims to “prove” the existence of Bigfoot. Combine that with his previous history of teasing people with “secret” information concerning Bigfoot and his media-centric proclivities, I think the documentary can be seen for what it really is – the actual goal behind this whole thing – the money generator. Biscardi, Ketchum, and probably others are expecting to make money off of this little venture. Generate interest by saying you've got DNA. Film the “research” to be presented in the form of a credulous documentary, and then sell the documentary to either a credulous outlet like the History Channel (Hello home of “Ancient Aliens”!) or well meaning folks with little understanding of scientific research. In the event the paper is never published, the documentary will still make money from the true-believers who will buy the line Ketchum would undoubtedly put out – that the scientific establishment suppressed her research.

Sure all of this is conjecture and I can't prove a damn thing. We'll see if I'm right and I'm already on the record stating I believe 2012 will be the year of the “Bigfoot cover-up conspiracy” (should I copyright that?). Regardless, nothing in the way this project is being handled now leads me to believe it is being done legitimately. It seems to me as though this is nothing more than a different media outlet for a Biscardi-related (if not inspired) hoax. He's done radio, the internet, network news, and now it seems academic journals are the targeted vector. Every single time, there has been a claim to having proof of the existence of Bigfoot. Although I think it would be awesome if there was a large bipedal ape lurking around, I believe the documentary is the keystone that shows the whole project is either being bungled by well-meaning but naive researchers looking for money or being promoted by deliberate fraudsters looking for money.

Misperceptions at Boy Scout Camp

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:54:00 +0000

It's interesting how things can coalesce in your brain. Earlier this week, I was correcting someone on Facebook about the Mormans' influence over the Boy Scouts (for the record, the Mormons do not own the Scouts. They do use the Scouts as their official boys youth program, however, and that means there are a lot of Mormon boys in the group and a lot of Mormon money flowing into it). A day or so later, I was listening to Brian Dunning's Skeptoid episode on the Grey Man of Ben MacDhui when, suddenly, I remembered a couple of instances I could relate that occurred during my tenure as a summer camp staff member which illustrate how unreliable our perceptions can be. Initially, Dunning talking about the sound of the steps of the Grey Man helped me remember the last incident I'll relate. The first two quickly fell in line once I was on that train of thought. So here we go, the Grey Man and the Boy Scouts present some incidents where human senses lied:

The Case of the Menacing Black Mamba of Seriously Deathly Doom

Both of the summer camps I worked in hosted troops from urban and suburban communities. Consequently, the kids only experience with living in nature often was their 1 or 2 weeks at summer camp. As part of our orientation to living in nature, among the plants and animals, was each troop would be brought through my area for a mandatory orientation. I was the Ecology/Conservation Director and ran the Nature Lodge. As well as instructing the kids on how to correctly identify poison ivy and not to eat this plant or that plant, I would eventually get to talking about snakes. Kids love snakes and, somehow, where there are snakes they automatically believe there are poisonous snakes. In some parts of the country, this belief is mostly true. However, at my summer camp, the only poisonous snake that might be present was the extremely rare Timber Rattlesnake. These snakes are very timid and small so it was unlikely they would see them if they were in the area. I would instruct them about Garter Snakes and Eastern Ringnecks -- which they had a much better chance of finding. However, I would usually wrap up with an experience I had with the fabled Black Racer.

Black Racers are a relatively large constrictor that is rarely seen. They are extremely fast and when people do see them, they often appear smaller than they really are due to how fast they are moving. Rarely caught out in the open, all that is seen is a portion of the body and when something blows past you wickedly fast, it looks shorter. Another interesting aspect of these snakes is they will lift up their heads cobra-style to look over low-laying vegetation. One day while walking down the trail right next to the Nature Lodge, I got to see one of these elusive snakes. It came up to the side of the trail and did the cobra-style look around. I came upon it at this moment. The wind must have been in my favor because it looked around briefly, must have suspected something was there (snakes aren't the best at seeing things but they can smell and feel vibrations like they have supernatural abilities) and off it went. The snake dashed across the trail and extended from one end to the other (a distance of about 8 feet). In a blur, it was gone and I believe the whole experience lasted, at most, about 10 seconds. Naturally, this story excited the kids and the idea of a elusive 8 foot long black snake living nearby was pretty cool to many of them. Some, though, were a little less receptive to the story.

One of our troops that summer came from Jamaica, Queens, NY. To those who are unfamiliar with Jamaica, it is an inner-city neighborhood and, unsurprisingly, there are no snakes there which aren't pets living in a terrarium. This troop had been through the Nature Lodge earlier than the rest of the troops and I had related the Black Racer story to them. They finished their orientation and tour of the camp before most of the other troops and, with some free time on their hands, they returned to their campsite to wait for dinner and the evening's program.

News quickly came to me that they had found and attempted to kill a cobra in their campsite! Remembering my story of the Black Racer, they thought they located an even larger snake! Apparently, they noticed this vile serpent lurking in the weeds off to the side of their site and ran, got their camp-issued axe, and chopped it -- not doubt in fear for their lives! The thing is, it was the water supply line for their campsite! Soon water was spurting all over the place, water pressure all but disappeared in the other sites, and the camp Ranger was called out. He wasn't as amused by the story of this misidentification as I was.

The Case of the Bellicose Bears

Most summer camps have something of a little store where kids can buy candies and souvenirs. Boy Scout camps, traditionally, call this store the Trading Post. Apart from the Waterfront or possibly the Rifle Range, the Trading Post is the favorite place for most campers -- probably because parents aren't involved and they can't tell the kids not to buy that fizzy snooker sugar tooth-rot bomb. It is pretty common for kids to buy their candies or snacks and then take some back to their site to eat later. Because of this practice, many camps provide each troop site with a "bear box" -- a metal container which is meant to store food items to help prevent them from being eaten by menacing natural rovers like bears and....chipmunks (which are called "mini-bears" by some due to their tendency to rip into packages and get into food).

One summer, I started getting stories about marauding bears coming into campsites and fighting with each other! During my time at the camp, bears were becoming more populous in the area so I made it my business to keep track of whether they were making it into the camp. Fortunately, we scared them off when we set camp up for the season and I never saw any other signs (tracks, scat, scratches, etc.) after that first week. When the kids came to tell me about the attacks upon their campsites, I assured them that I hadn't seen any signs of bears but that they should continue to put their food in the bear boxes whenever they weren't in the site. They said they would follow my advice but the stories kept coming in. Finally, one day a camper assured me he had evidence of the bear attack and that I should come and look at it.

After lunch that day, I went to the campsite. The scene of the crime had been preserved for my examination. It was directly behind the camper's tent and, sure enough, something had been there. The grass and some of the soil had been significantly disturbed and pieces of a candy wrapper were scattered about. I recognized the scene as soon as I saw it because I had the exact same experience when I was a boy. Raccoons were fighting over the candy the camper had, despite my advice to the contrary, stored in his tent!

Was the evidence there? You bet. I showed the boy the some raccoon prints and some raccoon scat that even had pieces of candy wrapper in it! You see, raccoons can be very, very noisy when they fight and, when they fight, they are furry balls of hate. The end result is a noisy battle royale and when it happens right outside your tent, you can get scared shitless. What happened was the kids were interpreting the loud noise as coming from a big animal -- hence their insistence their campsite interlopers were bears. I am confident this exact same phenomenon is responsible for many, if not all, of the "bigfoot vocalizations" being promoted by many Bigfooters as authentic. They are authentic....authentic fox, coyote, and raccoon noises!

The Case of the Stalking Bigfoot

I've already written about my personal Bigfoot experience which was, in all reality, a case of mass hysteria. That summer, there were also reports of "something big" stalking the campers at night as they walked back to their campsites from the Trading Post. Brian Dunning's Skeptoid episode talks about how the natural sounds of erosion -- large rocks falling -- were misinterpreted as foot steps of a giant creature. When I heard him relating these stories, I immediately recognized the similarities with mine -- poor visibility and sounds that seemed to be nearby footsteps.

In the Ben MacDhui case, the sounds were the result of the mechanical breakdown of the mountain as rocks are weathered away. In my case, the source was biological. Kids always reported walking back to their sites on the main trail (which really was a dirt road) after leaving the Trading Post. Almost all reported they were eating their candies and talking while carrying their flashlights. As they walked, they would start hearing a "crunch, crunch, crunch" as though something was walking alongside them but in the woods and out of range of the flashlights. Occasionally terrified, the kids would then run back to their sites scared out of their wits.

When I investigated this phenomenon, I noticed one interesting thing -- it always occurred in the same stretch of the trail which, incidentally, was in the center of camp and nearest to some of the most human activity at night. As the prevalent story at the time was that Bigfoot was stalking the campers, I found it unlikely because someone would be almost certain to see it if it was choosing to engage in this activity in this area -- activity contrary to the supposedly ultra-shy and sneaky cryptid. The limited area where this phenomenon took place led me to believe the culprit was a smaller animal going about its routine in its territory. My investigation bore this hunch out.

First, I found a porcupine was living in the middle of this area. Porcupines are mostly arboreal -- where they eat leaves, shoots, and bark. However, they do come down, sloth-like, to move from one tree to another, to snack on berries and so on and they do so, mostly, under the cover of darkness (they do some more wanderings in the winter when they go looking for salt sources -- which leads to them destroying latrines). One source of the noise was identified but I didn't stop looking around. I also found plenty signs of our friends the raccoons as well. Raccoons are really smart and they knew the kids walked through there and littered as they went. The raccoons would forage through the brush looking for the tasty discards of careless campers. There were also much smaller animals in the area that are also active at night which can, surprisingly to some, make a good deal of noise -- mice. Mice can be, relatively, noisy at night as they scurry about both on top of and under the leaf litter.

No, Bigfoot wasn't stalking. Lots of naturally occurring sounds were being created by known animals. The only difference was that the campers couldn't see the animals and so their imaginations ran wild. The end result? A mythical monster stalking campers in a summer camp. Sure it's a more exciting story to tell around a campfire but that doesn't mean it's reality. Just like the previous two stories, the stalking Bigfoot was nothing but a case of our human senses being deceived either by rationalizations, wishful thinking, or ignorance.

I Won an Award!

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 03:41:00 +0000

I hope the title's joke becomes self evident. Here's a clue: listen to the end.

The guys over at Strange Frequencies Radio did their third annual Listener Awards and I finally got around to listening to it today (more on that later). Imagine my surprise when I heard I was among the recipients of the award for owning Loren Coleman's keyword and link-farming ass! Other recipients included Sharon Hill as well as the cast of Strange Frequencies Radio! Yes, the award is a self-congratulatory tautological exercise in self congratulation.

Having said that, I've been waiting the 10 or so years I've been blogging about Skeptical topics for some real recognition and I'll be putting my statuette up on my mantle to proudly display. So Bobby and Jason, when can expect my award in the mail? If it has to be sent psychically, let me know so I can arrange to hire out a sensitive to craft it out of alligator dung.

So, why did I only get to listening to it today? Here comes the criticism: Y U NO USE BETTER COMPRESSION?! I use Google Listen on my phone and Google Reader to aggregate my feeds and, guess what, your fat-ass files caused my Google Listen to time out at least three times! Also, could you please post your regular shows as one file instead of two? Google Listen will only download the first half of your show. I have to go back and manually download the other file to the phone before I can listen to it and I am too lazy for that kind of a thing. Cater to my whims and I will not send some bad juju your way! Don't try to get me back. I've got serious grisgris.

Seriously though, thanks for the mentions guys!

The Mad Skeptic's Primer to Weight Training

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:59:00 +0000

The new year has past and countless numbers of people have made resolutions to get into shape all the while suspecting they will never achieve their goals. Sometimes, it's because they really are lazy and are simply self-deceived about their commitment towards their physical health. Sometimes, life manages to stick it's ugly nose into things and mess everything up and, sometimes, people with the best intentions and real enthusiasm get intimidated and discouraged by the gym and its inhabitants.

I'm here to provide some advice to that last group.

First, a little of my background. I've been weight training off and on (mostly "on") ever since my parents bought me a basic weight bench set when I was 15. I was a heavy kid and my parents thought I would take to the sport. At first, I didn't but, somewhere around the time I was in high school, I came to the realization I was fairly well suited to the sport and I actually liked lifting weights. Since that day, I have been lifting weights and have incorporated it into my lifestyle. Sure, there were long periods not lifting when the "simple" process of living interfered but the following tips helped me to get back on my feet quickly and as easily as possible.

First things first. Remember why you are at the gym in the first place. Is it to worry about being stared at by strangers? Is it to stare at strangers? Is it to talk for an hour with a friend while going through the motions? No. You are there because you want to improve some aspect of your health. To that end you need to learn this rather difficult lesson: stop giving a shit about what other people might be seeing or thinking and stay focused on your objectives.
Have goals. Some people would like to loose so many pounds. Others would like to be able to lift X number of pounds on a certain exercise. Regardless of your goals, be aware of them. Some people write them down and keep track of their progress as they get closer and closer to achieving them.
Record your progress! I don't think I can thoroughly emphasis the importance of this step to my progress in the gym. Not only will it allow you to see how well you're doing, it can satisfy the inner nerd. Whether you use a paper notebook or an app on your smartphone, recording your performance really is a "secret weapon" with many benefits. It really improves motivation. For example, I plot and then perform various regressions on my progress to see how well I might be doing in the future. A spread sheet is a weightlifter and scientist's friend!
Never skip doing your cardiovascular workout. All the talk about weightlifters having a higher resting metabolism is well and good for party conversation but it does nothing for your over all health if you are not exercising your heart and lungs. Personally, I do my cardio BEFORE I hit the weights. Since doing so, I've found that my delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS for short) has all but disappeared. I suspect this has to do with my getting warmed up and having the liver and kidneys ready for the lactic acid onslaught. I'm a Geologist though so this could be total crap. It works for me and you might want to try it. While on the topic of cardio, I would like to point out that stationary bike -- especially the recombinant ones -- are a great place to multi-task. You can read a book and work out! I just finished reading Randi's Flim-Flam! and I'm currently reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense.
Before you can be strong, you have to learn how to be weak. Yes, it sounds all new-agey and Yoga-ish but it is true in the world of weightlifting. You can not walk into a gym and expect to play with the big boys or girls right out of the gate. You have to start slow and take your time. Otherwise, you will fall victim to the great workout resolution killer -- injuries. Trust me, weightlifting injuries can be unbelievably painful and debilitating. If you remain focused and take your time, you will avoid this serious problem. I'm 40 now and I've been at this for 25 years. I've seen 20-somethings come in, throw weights around and then rupture discs in their lower back. They came in all gung-ho and macho and left with a life-altering injury. Take your time!
Push yourself. I know I just told you to take your time but that doesn't do much good if you keep doing the same weight every single time. Your body will become accustomed to the weight and any gains you initially make will quickly evaporate. My personal rule is to try to do one extra rep (rep=1 repetition of the exercise, i.e. 1 more bench press) or 5lbs more on each set. Which one of those two mini-goals I choose is dependent upon how I'm performing that day and how the exercise is progressing. You'll know what you want to do once you've been lifting for about a month or so.
Mix up your routine. One mistake I started with and one I see repeated today is the tendency for people to do the same workout every time they go to the gym. If you're looking for the fastest way to become discouraged and bored, this is the way to go about it. You need to split your routine up -- not only for your body but for your mind and motivation. There are many websites out there which illustrate different "splits" and routines and I would encourage you to investigate them. The general rule is not to work a muscle group more than once a week but people's bodies behave differently so your mileage may vary. This guideline would translate into you doing an arm routine (arm curls, etc) once a week. However, many "power" movements (bench press, dead lift, squat) involve more than one muscle group. When planning your workout routine, take this into consideration.
Leave the ego at the door. I'm talking mostly to the men here but I've seen some women behave poorly as well. If you come in with a hot head and looking to prove how awesome you are to everyone, you're a dick and deserve the pain you will eventually inflict upon yourself. Throwing weights around is not a sign of a macho man, it's a sure sign of an asshole. The only person you really are in competition with is yourself. If you hate yourself so much that you feel compelled to throw a temper tantrum on the floor, you need to seek professional psychiatric or psychological help. When I lift, I deliberately relax my body right before performing a set (set= a number of planned reps -- ex. 10 reps = 1 set). Zen Buddhism? Taoism? Fuck no! I've found it significantly helps me focus and visualize the lift I'm about to do. If I fail...I fail.
Never, work outside the natural range of motion for your body. I've seen people come into the gym and attempt to perform some, honestly, ridiculous things because they saw it in a magazine. If your body is not meant to move in a certain way, don't force it. You want to do your exercises in the natural "plain of motion" (it's not really a plain but I like the term anyway). The most common culprit that I observe is people attempting to do an exercise called the "behind the neck shoulder press". It involves lowering a barbell to your shoulders behind your neck and then pressing it upwards. While this exercise can be accomplished with very light weights, once you put something heavy on, you have a great recipe for a torn rotator cuff.
Enjoy yourself. Yes, it's cliché but it's true. If you aren't enjoying what your doing or how your body is changing, you are only going to succeed in making yourself miserable. Weightlifting isn't for everybody. If you are just starting out, I would recommend you try a little bit of everything. Some people use machines. Some people only use free weights. Some like to use kettle bells and some people decide weightlifting isn't for them at all.

Personally, I've found weightlifting to be a very rewarding sport. Although I've been approached, I do not compete in power lifting or strong man competitions. I see weightlifting as an avenue for self improvement. Plus, I like being strong so it kind of works itself out.

In closing, I would like to emphasize that weightlifting really is gender neutral. Women often tell me they are either intimidated by being around male weightlifters or that they are afraid of becoming too "muscle-y". To the first point, I would suggest women do not judge the book by its "muscle-bound" cover. Many male weightlifters are very friendly and more than willing to help out one another regardless of someone's sex. I routinely spot (spot=a person who watches another person doing an exercise. Should the exerciser fail, the spotter then assists them to put the weight back.) men and women I don't know only because they asked for some help. We all aren't thick headed lugs only there to mock or gawk. Some might actually be weightlifitng Skeptics! You could also bring along a female friend to be a training partner if you aren't the kind to talk to strangers (I'm in that category myself). As for getting "muscle-y", there are limitations to what weight training can do to your body. Chances are, the people who have this fear have seen photos of bodybuilders or fitness competitors. Your body will not turn into something bulging with muscles and popping veins unless you train like a fiend (as in 4 hours a day 6 or 7 days a week) OR you take steroids. Weight training will improve your muscle tone and help to reduce your body fat but there are limitations to the natural biological response to the exercise. Weightlifting can be as much a women's sport as a men's sport if you want it to be.

The Top Ten Mad Skeptic Posts of 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 22:17:00 +0000

In a fit of "Wow, that's obvious!" I realized I can compile a list of the most read Mad Skeptic posts of 2011. With that in mind, I'll now torture you with yet another "top ten" list!

10) I Can Marry You: I announce my drinking problem and my receiving Credentials of Ministry with the Universal Life Church. I took this action during the stressful days where it was uncertain as to whether New York would legalize same sex marriage. I wanted to be able to offer a secular or Atheist alternative to the religious celebrants and to allow anyone who wanted to get married the opportunity.

9) Why Do Transhumanism and Singularitianism Get a Pass?: Really? Why do Skeptics seem more than willilng to look the other way with what, in many ways, looks like a cult. Is it because they are adequately "sciency" or can be rationalized as reasonable due to some nerdtastic Star Trek fetish? If so, I suggest interested Skeptics look into Scientology -- it's full of sciency garbage as well.

8) Poopie Head Post of the Day: Loren Coleman get's called out for going on one of his ad hominem attacks on Skeptic Sharon Hill. Much hilarity ensues and Coleman ends up with an ostrich egg on his face.

7) Bin Laden's Been Dead for Ten Years?!: Far-right kook Alex Jone's conspiracy that Osama bin Laden had been dead ten years prior to his killing this year is examined. Where the lizard people or Illuminatii involved? Read and find out yourself!

6) Is Cryptomundo Stealing Discovery News' Content?: Cryptomundo rears it's ugly head again as evidence clearly shows Craig Woolheater stealing content from yet another website. Should SOPA be passed, Cryptomundo will be seriously fucked -- seeing how they can't follow copyright law now.

5) Analysis of the BIGFOOT SIGHTING!!! Video: A popular YouTube blobsquatch is examined and shown to probably be, in technical terms now, dumbassery.

4) So What is Sexism Anyway?: 2011 was the year of idiotic mysogeny on many levels in the Skeptic crowd and a lot of intelligent and plain out stupid conversation developed. In response to the claim that only women can be vicitms of sexism, I was compelled to write.

3) Finding Bigfoot. Not Worth Your Time: After watching the entire first season of Animal Planet's "Finding Bigfoot" television show, I came the conclusion you'd learn more real science by watching either the Thundercats or Voltron.

2) Loren Coleman Gets Caught Again. Lashes Out.: Loren Coleman is caught using the aniversary of the attacks on 9-11 in a disgusting attempt to generate traffic to Cryptomundo. His arguments are systematically lined up and knocked down. Shameful!

1) Finding Bigfoot. A Delayed Initial Review.: The post that launched a thousand clicks. My initial feedback was that I had seriously pissed off the whack-a-loon true believers. Now, I suspect a lot of people agree with this initial review of the show -- it's garbage.

2011 Wraps Up with Bigfoot Baffoonery

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:58:00 +0000

As the year ends, one shouldn't be blamed for missing some of the foolishness in the realm of the Bigfoot. After all, really important things have happened. I wouldn't blame you if you failed to notice some of the brain-rotting stupidity coming from the Bigfoot camp as events like the Arab Spring, the Occupy Movement, the circus called the "Republican primary campaign", and the assault on First Amendment Rights called SOPA really should be foremost in your thoughts.

Don't worry though. I'm here to ruin that for you.

First, let's just get this out of the way. I'm not going to address whatever bullshit blobsquatch has popped its fraudulent head up on YouTube. I've addressed those in the past. I'm not even going to include the attack on rational thinking called "Finding Bigfoot". I've already done that as well. I want to specifically address 3 very recent events which have developed within spitting distance of New Year's Eve.

Bigfooters Take a Swing at Real Science and....MISS (again)

Much yapping and carrying on has gone on the Internet about how the existence of Bigfoot would be proven this year because of DNA analysis being performed on various samples of supposed Bigfoot material. Of these, only two really warrant addressing here. First, there was the analysis of a "Yeti" artifact (I understand the difference between a Yeti and a Bigfoot by the way but Yeti and Bigfoot mythologies have been so interwoven since the late 1950's, I'm going to take the liberty and deal with them as the exact same phenomenom -- just located in different parts of the world). Many of us who are familiar with Bigfoot and the Yeti are bound to recall the famous story of Yeti artifacts being stolen by Peter Byrne and then smuggled out of Tibet by Tom Slick -- a wealthy American with money to burn on foolishness like stealing Tibetian artifacts. This story has remained wedged in my head alongside the famous picture of supposed Yeti footprints taken by Sir Edmund Hillary but I, and a lot of the world, had put the story on the back burners of our minds -- until 2 days ago. They "Yeti" finger made a triumphant return! You see, someone decided to test the finger's DNA. The results: HUMAN. Sorry folks, no Yeti here. Move along.

The other much ballyhooed DNA story of the year is the so-called Ketchum DNA samples. For the uninitiated, a series of samples were supposedly tested for DNA. Some of us have been waiting to hear the results of these supposed tests. It doesn't bode well when recognized fraudster, Tom Biscardi, is involved with these samples but many of us (yes, Bigfoot skeptics are interested in this stuff and, yes, many of us -- myself included -- would love there to be such a thing as Bigfoot) have been waiting for the paper with the results to be published. Something, though, doesn't seem to be right. Despite some making claims that 2012 will be the year of Bigfoot (although, I thought it was supposed to be the end of the world -- again), trouble seems to be bubbling up. There are now rumors that the paper submitted by Ketchum has been rejected outright. Now, here's the deal, if the paper has been rejected, there will not be a statement from the journal that rejected it. What we will be gifted with is a series of excuses and post-hoc rationalizations from this segment of the Bigfoot world. So, although I'm not in the business of making predictions, I'm going to make one now. My prediction is that 2012 will be the year of the Bigfoot-DNA cover-up conspiracy. There will be claims made about how the information was so "damaging" or some other such nonsense to the "Scientific establishment" that the men in black (or other secretive agents -- perhaps the Illuminati?) prevented the paper from being published. None of this mindless drivel will be challenged by the journal(s) that rejected the paper. Why? That's not their job. They had the paper reviewed and, if the rumors are true, it was rejected because it was unscientific garbage. Science journals do not waste their time explaining why they didn't publish unscientific garbage. The end result will be the true-believers saying all manner of craziness.

The Laughable Return of Jacko

Embedded in Bigfoot lore is the story of Jacko -- the wayward ape-creature supposedly captured by a railroad company and then which mysteriously disappeared on his way to appearing in sideshows. There is, of course, no evidence of Jacko ever existing with the exception of one newspaper story. Regardless, when I think of Jacko, I think of the great Minnesota Iceman -- a hoax shown in sideshows and perpetrated for years and proclaimed as a real Bigfoot by some "experts". When I think of hoaxes, I think of people trying to get attention and that leads me to...Russia!

Many people are aware of the recent nonsense where some Russians proclaimed they had irrefutable proof of the existence of Bigfoot. Later, the "evidence" proved to be a fraud perpetrated in an attempt to generate tourism in a region of the country. Not to be outdone, some other Russians have upped the ante in their game of hoaxes with a modern day version of Jacko! Yesterday, word came out of good ole Russia that someone in the town of Narzan had gone and captured themselves a Bigfoot! No joke. Well, actually, it is. You see the whole damn thing was a fraud (even if it was supposed, somehow, to benefit orphans)!

Honestly, if the denizens of the world of Bigfoot really want to be taken seriously, they need to start acting seriously. All these crazy shenanigans with stealing ancient relics and then waffling about the testing of supposed samples needs to stop! Instead of trying to fit the facts to your predisposed hypothesis, why not let the facts actually lead you to reality? Why not grow up and actually use the Scientific Method. Not willing to do that? At the very least, you can stop paying any attention to the mindless fraudsters looking for attention -- or is that a part of the Bigfooter's "scientific" method?

The Great Pious Santa Fraud

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 02:38:00 +0000

Well, here I am in the second year of attempting to teach my daughter some critical thinking skills. How am I doing this? Simple. I'm lying to her.

Many of my readers will recall my previous post on my thoughts about Santa Claus and how I plan on using this myth to teach my daughter some critical thinking skills, to question authority, and to have a little fun at the same time. Initially, I was slightly conflicted about whether I was going to propagate the Santa myth in my household but then I recalled how much I liked it as a child and how little it really effected me when I found out Santa wasn't real. To this end, I decided to play the part of Santa for my secular celebration of the pagan traditions claimed by the Christians as their own. I won't go into the foolishness of Christians claiming the tree, the Yule log, and the various accoutrements of the season as their own. I may at a later date but I reason the arrogant stupidity of many Christians doesn't need any further elaboration today.

I started this experiment of pious fraud as an avenue to rational thinking last year when my daughter was 3 years old. I didn't do much apart from ask her questions about what she Santa did to get all the presents to all the kids in the world. I didn't bother to go into how Santa somehow forces gifts upon unbelieving Jews, Muslims, Buddhists... and somehow fails to provide food and resources to starving children if he really brought presents to every child in the world. Fat lot of good a La La Loopsie will do when what you really need rice and the drought to end! I just wanted to hear her thoughts and question them a little bit - as far as you can with the 3 year old.

As a random aside, how do Christians get away with Santa in the first place? Sounds like the jolly old elf is a supernatural fellow and isn't that against one of those ten rules they're supposed to be following?

This year, the Kiddo is 4 years old and she is much more aware of the world around her. Kids in her class at school tell her things and she gets more information from the seasonal specials on television. My approach altered a bit this year. I still asked her about what she thought of Santa ("a very nice man" - I, ahem, can't argue there) and how he managed to get presents to everyone in one night ("magic" - I like this answer. It'll be easy for her to tear apart later) but I added another element -- clues.

As a single father, I only have my daughter on alternating holidays dependent upon the year. Many single parents will know exactly what I'm talking about. For those of you who aren't single parents, it is a relatively common practice for the kids to spend alternate holidays at one or the other parent's house. I had my daughter for Christmas last year which means she was with her mother this year. However, this weekend would normally be my weekend with her as per our custody agreement (we have a 50/50 arrangement). The end result was I was celebrating Christmas with my daughter on Saturday instead of Sunday which means I had an opportunity to present my first clue. Santa, somehow, managed to make it to my place on Friday night! I really don't expect her to pick up on this hint but when she looks back, she will. If Santa delivers presents to all the good boys and girls on Christmas eve, what the hell was he doing making a special trip to our house?

The second clue was much more obvious -- at least to someone who's not an excited 4 year old. I keep a roll of wrapping paper to use exclusively as Santa's wrapping paper. Doesn't it stand to reason that Santa's paper would be different from most of the homes he's delivering presents to? I think so and each year I wrap some presents with "my" wrapping paper and wrap some in "Santa's" wrapping paper to reinforce the appearance of Santa delivering alien presents. The presents in her stocking are wrapped in this paper. The presents under the tree are wrapped in this paper. This year's second hint was in her stocking. One present in her stocking was wrapped in "my" wrapping paper. I was hoping she would notice and then ask me about it.

So, how did this Christmas go? She didn't pick up either clue but I'm not in the least bit disappointed. I'm just happy she's having fun and now I've added another element to the holiday I rather enjoy. What will be my clue next year? I don't know quite yet and coming up with something will be fun. I'll be keeping the mis-wrapped present from here on out but it will be fun giving my daughter new clues to a puzzle she isn't really aware of yet. When she figures it out, it won't be because I told her that Santa wasn't real. Hopefully, it won't be because some kid in school blabs. I hope it will be because she figured it out on her own by using her own critical thinking skills.

Finding Bigfoot. Not Worth Your Time.

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 03:18:00 +0000

I've completed my viewing of the entire first season of Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot. Before I go any further, I would just like to say that I think calling 6 shows a “season” is pathetic. Seriously, how do the networks get away with it?! Is our collective memory so ruined that we forget what we've seen after only 6 shows. Don't answer that. The truth might be painful. I digress. Well, seeing how my initial review got a lot of people all upset, I'm certain this one isn't going to assuage many of them. Even though there were only a paltry 6 shows in the first season, Finding Bigfoot still isn't worth wasting your time on.

The Show's problems start with its introduction. Matt Moneymaker clearly states that he founded the BFRO to prove the existence of Bigfoot. To most people, this might be nothing worth paying attention to. Scientists and Skeptics, however, will quickly pick up that Moneymaker is working from a bias and, as such, he is setting out to prove his belief. Consequently, he will be resistant and dismissive of information which contradicts his preconceptions and this tendency is borne out through the season. This behavior is observed several times during the season and I will discuss a couple of these occasions later.

Season 1 of Finding Bigfoot consists of 6 episodes wherein Matt Moneymaker and his BFRO team travel to different localities and “investigate” Bigfoot sightings. I deliberately put investigate in quotes because what they are doing is not investigation by any real standard. First and foremost, the show heavily relies upon witness accounts of unknown vintages. These accounts are then “investigated” where the Moneymaker crew provides the witness with numerous leading questions. It has been established that eyewitness testimony is not as reliable as people would like to believe. Not only are eyewitness accounts not always factual, the investigator can alter the memories of the witness by providing (surprise, surprise) leading questions. These questions are then woven into the witnesses' story line. This is not to say the witness did not see something! There is a good chance they had a genuine experience but that experience may not be what they thought it was. Time and time again on Finding Bigfoot I observed the BFRO team asking leading questions (ex. “did it do this” or “was it this tall”) and then followed up the questioning with a definitive “I'm certain what you saw was a Sasquatch” -- thereby solidifying the idea in the person's memory.

These witness accounts and their corresponding recreations make up a good portion of the show. The bulk, however, is the supposed field investigations. These are nothing more than a repackaging of the Ghost Hunters formula wherein people walk around in the dark with night vision cameras and infrared imaging all the while scaring each other with “what was that noise” and “did you hear that" sprinkled in to lend some semblance of credibility. If they were actually looking for an animal that is nocturnal and avoids people, they shouldn't be going out in the woods at night! Instead, remote traps would be called for – especially those which can get tissue samples. Hair traps and other forms of tissue traps would be good for those who would be squeamish about shooting one of these animals should they exist (personally, if I was going to find Bigfoot and knew there was a chance I'd get it, I'd be bringing my .30-06 and putting this whole nonsense to rest once and for all). This does not make good television. Instead, we are supposed to accept that tying a rabbit in a cage in a tree with glow sticks dangled around is somehow an acceptable way to perform any sort of research -- a technique actually used in the show. Perhaps it is, but only if you're researching the gullibility of the Animal Planet viewing public or the ignorance of the BFRO team.

Another big portion of the show has either Matt, Cliff, or Bobo yelling into the woods. They claim to get calls back from Sasquatch while on these nocturnal stomping forays into ineptitude. While the post-production of the audio makes these calls the more suspect (compression and echo can really change a sound and its relative significance in a given situation), I recall one particular instance when they call and claim to hear back from Sasquatch in multiple locations. What I heard reminds me of going out on my parent's land and faking a coyote howl and then being answered by animals from two different packs. I have actually done this on several occasions. The sounds were almost identical to what they claimed to be from a Sasquatch on the show. I should also point out that it is extremely difficult to impossible to judge anything like distance from howls at night in the woods. Furthermore, the tonality of the sounds alter as the sound waves travel through the landscape and trees -- potentially significantly altering the sound when it arrives at the listener.

Character wise, my opinion hasn't changed much about Cliff. However, I do believe Cliff to be well intentioned. My opinion of Bobo is about the same from my first write up. Even though he is a true believer, he doesn't seem to be as unwilling to accept contrary evidence as Moneymaker. Moneymaker appears to be a closed-minded true believer who is, frankly, an asshole based upon the show's portrayal of his leadership skills.

This brings me to Ranae. While I still think she doesn't do as good of a job of critically examining the evidence as she could, she hit Moneymaker in the, well, moneymaker on a number of occasions. I wouldn't be surprised if most people missed them as they were downplayed in the shows. There were three instances where she successfully applied Occam's Razor and spoke truth to the lie. The first is in episode 3 “Caught on Tape”. The Finding Bigfoot team, essentially, demonstrates that supposedly “unfake-able” thermal camera footage of a Bigfoot was, well, fake-able. Ranae rightfully points out that the image of Bobo was identical to that of one claimed to be a Bigfoot. Moneymaker rejects her observation outright and at the end of the show they keep repeating over and over again that they know the person who shot the video and that he's a good guy. Apparently, Moneymaker's never heard of pious fraud, appeal to personality, or positive confirmation bias. The second shot Ranae gets is in the next episode, “Fishing for Bigfoot” where, again she correctly points out that a Bigfoot in a video is not only the size of a person, it looks like one too. This footage is addressed in the wrap-up special and, surprisingly, Cliff agrees with Ranae. Moneymaker? Not so much. Another good example of skepticism from Ranae occurs in the next episode, “Frozen Bigfoot” where she points out that a famous photo of Bigfoot looks like that of a hiker with a backpack. In all instances (I believe) she asks for proof that the photos couldn't be what she thought them to be stating that she needed to see they couldn't be faked. Every time, Moneymaker dismisses her. Ranae has potential for being the rational and reasonable member of this cast. Hopefully, they will use this to the show's advantage.

Unless you really want to see this show, don't waste your time. My opinion remains unchanged from my initial review – Finding Bigfoot is the worst show I've ever seen on the topic. If I were running things, I would have Ranae and another skeptic examining the actual wildlife in the area being examined. Their signs, calls and markings could then be examined. I would also get rid of the self-selected “town meetings” and have people interviewed on the street – without identifying the show. Finally, Ranae could interview some wildlife managers, biologists, or other experts in the field for each area. Then, the differing lines of evidence could be critically examined at the end of the show.

I'm afraid that would never happen (apart from my not being the producer of the show). The producers want you to believe that they are actually doing research and that there is a possibility that Bigfoot exists. This formula, potentially, keeps you coming back for more. With a few exceptions, credulous, escapist television reigns supreme but something tells me that watching Matt Moneymaker get angry as his theories get demolished by rational explanations week after week might help create the tension producers and viewers are often looking for. Until that happens, I don't expect this show to be anything worth wasting your time watching.

Finding Bigfoot. A Delayed Initial Review

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:42:00 +0000

I started this blog three years ago with a review of History Channel's show Monsterquest. Ever since watching In Search Of as a kid, I've had a soft spot for these kinds of shows that purport to "critically" examine the "unexplained". With that in mind, I decided to sit down and watch Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot.

I realize I'm a little behind the game because I've only seen the first two episodes of the first season but, hey, I'm a single dad and I have more important things to do than watch television. Regardless, I've utilized modern time-shifting technology to enable me to watch back episodes and, I must say, I'm very disappointed.

I don't know why television producers feel they have to make, and I mean this honestly and literally, stupid television. The first two episodes have some of the most credulous and useless "investigation" I've ever seen. I routinely work with evidence and the standards of evidence BFRO is shown using to make conclusions is not only laughable, it is damaging to the understanding of the Scientific Method. I've previously addressed this topic when I appeared on Skeptically Speaking a couple of years ago and I suspect many may have disregarded my opinion at the time. I ask those individuals to watch Finding Bigfoot and tell me where any Science is being portrayed being done! I would then ask these people how do they think critical thinking or the public's understanding of Science is being benefited.

I really do hope the series matures and improves. I'll be watching more episodes tonight and I really want it to be entertaining but, right now, the ignorance and credulity being portrayed is so distracting I can't enjoy the show. So far, the only character I like is Bobo -- who is the 6'6" guy who often stands in as a Bigfoot surrogate. Perhaps, I identify with him because I'm 6'7" and one of my nicknames in college was "Sasquatch". My least favorite characters are Cliff and Ranae. Cliff, despite his Animal Planet profile, is the most ignorant of the rules of evidence. Ranae does a shitty job of being the "token skeptic" and, honestly, I question whether she really is a Field Biologist based upon her portrayal on television. Her profile indicates she works with salmon -- which may explain why she doesn't understand mammalian and terrestrial wildlife.

As for the first two episodes, the first involves nothing more than witness anecdotes and a supposed set of footprints. Much is made of the footprints when they are found but I noticed that they didn't track the set further and only two prints were found. Anyone who spends any amount of time in the woods tracking wildlife knows you can still track animals in and through the woods. Their prints can still be left behind underneath the leaf litter -- you just have to peel back the leaves. Sure, those prints may not be distinct but they will still be there. Whether they bothered to do this is unknown as the show only has Cliff and Ranae making casts of the prints they "coincidentally" find. Frankly, the circumstances under which the tracks were found are suspicious. A witness takes them to a site he claims to have seen a bigfoot and, low and behold, two perfect prints are right there! I smell something suspicious. If you want to watch a really good example of how not to find any sort of wildlife, watch the scene where they drive 5 or 6 cars caravan-sytle through the woods! It's so bad it isn't even laughable. At the end of this episode the group's leader, Matt Moneymaker (yes, that's his real name if you've never encountered it before), "determines" that bigfoot is in the area based upon eyewitness reports and a terrible police dashcam video -- not evidence by any substantial measure. Remember the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence.

In the second episode, the BFRO team examines reports of the skunk ape in Florida. Again, the episode is nothing more than anecdots and Ghost Hunters-styled moments of "did you hear that?!" I'm surprised these experienced bigfoot "researchers" aren't aware that the woods are not quiet at night. Regardless, they use infrared cameras to get blobs to look at on television and they get spooked by deer grunts at least once. They examine what appears to be a curious bear's interactions with a family home and walk around in the Everglades at sites witnesses claim to have seen bigfoot. I also noticed at least one time when they attempt to call a bigfoot with what they consider one of its "vocalizations". I immediately recognized it as a poor imitation of a fox call (some examples here). If you haven't heard one before, they are creepy. Finally, the high point of the episode was when Animal Planet put up a factoid quiz that asked why the skunk ape supposedly smells as bad as it does. The answer? Apparently, they live underneath alligator dens and methane collects in the sasquatch's hair! The stupid, it burns! In case you were wondering, alligators, when they have dens, have them at or just above water level. I guess the skunk ape is also aquatic. Oh wait, nevermind. That's just bullshit special pleading being made up by people who really don't know anything about this creature -- should it exist.

Based upon these first two episodes, I'd have to say Finding Bigfoot may be one of the worst shows on the subject I've ever seen. It is little more than a promotional instrument for Matt Moneymaker and the BFRO and there isn't even the most basic attempt at even portraying an analytical examination of what little evidence they have. Instead, we are presented with a version of a ghost hunter show and unconvincing anecdotes. If you really want to be educated on this subject I would recommend you read David Daegling's book on the hunt for bigfoot. While I'm going to continue to watch the first season and my opinion may change, I am not confident the show will improve. Currently, I think that if you want to be entertained, hell, watch reruns of the Smurfs. It's as accurate to reality as Finding Bigfoot.

12/17/11 Edit: corrected typo and underlined "any"

When the Bad Economy and Asbestos Intersect

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:06:00 +0000

Most readers of the Mad Skeptic are aware that I research asbestos. Personally, I find it to be a rewarding career where I get to combine my Mineralogy skills with Forensics while helping people at the same time. I spend a lot of time on various forms of microscopes examining all manners of fibers and microscopic goodies. In the future, I'm fairly confident that the analytical skills I and those who work in my field possess will prove extremely valuable as nanoparticles become more wide spread. I'm not saying they will be dangerous. I'm saying we already know how to look for them. You see, the most common type of asbestos, chrysotile (a fibrous serpentine for the non-Igneous/Metamorphic Mineralogists playing at home) is a nanotube! And humans have the hubris to suggest they invented them!

I'm going to briefly address two issues in this post. While one is somewhat humorous, the other isn't but both demonstrate where asbestos has intersected with the Great Recession (I believe it is quite fair to refer to this recession as the Great Recession. It has spread across the World and damaged the lives of untold people). Fibrous minerals and economics? Yup, two scary things mixing it up.

The Great Recession and the Asbestos Lab

I work for New York State. Recently, New York's Governor, Andrew Cuomo, and the second largest public employees Union, the Public Employees Federation (PEF), entered into contract negotiations -- but not before Cuomo initiated the layoff process of approximately 500 PEF represented employees. As a Shop Steward, it was a tough time but the negotiations produced a tentative contract. The layoffs were rescinded for a vote -- which failed. After the contract wasn't ratified, Cuomo laid off 3496 PEF members. I was one of them. Let me tell you, getting laid off in such a stressful and public fashion is horrible and trying to help your fellow workers --without answers or real encouragement -- at the same time is something I hope to never repeat. It was an extremely difficult time for me and my fellow co-workers.

At almost the 11^th hour, Cuomo and PEF came to an agreement and a second tentative contract was sent out and, thankfully, ratified. My fellow co-workers and I get to keep our jobs but this post really isn't about my sob story, it's about what would have happened to my lab had I been laid off. My laboratory runs on a skeleton crew. It really isn't a problem for me because I enjoy my work but, had I been forced to leave, the lab would not have been able to function properly. Due to analytical procedures we're required to undertake to produce proficiency samples (test samples which are sent out to laboratories certified by New York), we have to maintain a "blinding" process to ensure each of us performs analysis without any prior knowledge to the makeup of the sample we are examining. Had I been removed from the equation, the New York State asbestos program would have, if not functionally shut down, been severely damaged.

Now, many people would say "So what? Asbestos is banned anyway." I've found it is easy for people to be ignorant of the situation in the United States and it is understandable that they might think asbestos has been banned. Well, it hasn't. Asbestos can be legally used and manufactured in the United States. It is still used in many friction products like brake shoes and still can be found in new building products like floor tiles and roofing material. There are no operating asbestos producers in the United States because of the massive liability associated with its production but that doesn't stop the importation of the material from overseas and Canada. Regardless of the new material being shipped in, the existing material is massive. The contamination of buildings in the form of spray-applied fireproofing, floor tiles, insulation, and so on is untold and nearly beyond measure. Plus, a new issue was revealed with the vermiculite mined by W.R. Grace. There is attic insulation in, literally, hundreds of thousands of homes which contains a particularly dangerous asbestiform mineral. This problem is not going away and it may get worse before it gets better. Tired of those mesothelioma advertisements? They ain't going anywhere.

Cuomo's laying me off (which was rescinded but I was laid off) was an arbitrary decision made with no consideration to what my laboratory does. This decision was predicated upon the economic situation of New York and Cuomo's anti-union proclivities. In an effort to save money, Cuomo took out those of us who he could most easily and some of us just happen to work in the Department of Health laboratories. Had the layoffs proceeded, the Science that is done daily in these laboratories to benefit people's health would have been seriously damaged. I'm sorry to all those fiscal conservatives who may read this blog but I feel as though people's lives are far more important than money. In my case, if my lab was no longer able to produce those proficiency samples, it is quite possible a commercial lab would not remain competent to analyze samples and, therefore, innocent people could have been unknowingly exposed to asbestos. Here's the scary part -- schools have a lot of asbestos in them and asbestos abatement projects are done during the summer months when school is out so parents may not even know there could be a contamination problem. I don't know about you but I don't want my daughter dying from mesothelioma when she's 30.

The economy is damaging Science and Research as we speak and much of it is due to the short-sighted politics of a few. My case is only one example. It is going on across the country and around the world. Think about it next time you hear or read about budgetary cutbacks on T.V. or the paper. Scientists tend not to speak up about these issues -- viewing the work as the most important part. Yes, the work is critically important and that is why I'll say something.

Enough about how a myopic Governor nearly exposed people to asbestos! Here's the humorous story. Well, it is kind of sad too.

The Great Recession and the Asbestos Barn

Here in the Northeastern United States, there has been a marked increase in people scrap-metaling as a means to earn some income in these difficult financial times. To those unfamiliar with the process, scrap-metalers go around looking for discarded metal. It doesn't matter if they find aluminum, steel, iron, or what have you. Almost all metal has a resale value and there are places to sell the metal you find. These recyclers then take the metal, weigh it and then pay the scrap-metalers by the pound for what they've recovered. First, I believe scrap-metaling can perform a very real benefit by recycling materials that might have ruined the environment or been wasted in a landfill. Under these circumstances, scrap-metalers are doing society and the planet a good service. However, looking for scrap metal can prove a rather difficult task and some people choose to get their metal illegally.

Many people are aware of the recent case in Pennsylvania where an entire bridge was dismantled and then sold for scrap. Well, the case I'll now relate is similar. In Scotland, one particular scrap metal thief thought he had a sure thing when he found what he thought was an abandoned steel-framed barn. He recruited some buddies and they set about dismantling the structure to sell as scrap. Unfortunately for these miscreants, the barn really wasn't abandoned and the farmer's neighbor saw them taking the barn apart. Yup, he called the police and the scrap metal thieves were arrested.

Where's the asbestos? Turns out the barn had is all over the roof! As these scrap metal thieves were disassembling the barn, they were covering themselves in, exposing themselves to, and breathing in asbestos as they cut into the barn! One is left to wonder how dire a financial situation one would have to be in to consider disassembling a bridge or a barn but I'm certain those circumstances are increased because of the current economy. As people become more and more desperate for money, they are going to do things like take buildings or machines (or parts of them) apart. Asbestos (remember the spray applied fireproofing I mentioned earlier?) will often be a part of those buildings and machinery and being exposed to it without the proper breathing apparatus and suits will significantly increase your chances of dying a horrible, lingering death. In the case of the asbestos barn, during the trial, the judge referred to the case as "not exactly the crime of the century".

Albany's Mystic Faire - Whithering on the Vine

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 16:56:00 +0000

Some good news for the members of the reality-based community! After 5 years of holding a credulous psychic woo-fest on New York State property, it would appears as though the "popular" Mystic Faire may be loosing steam.

Last year's event was one of the largest ones I could recall since the event started being held. I've been to all of them and have written about them on the Mad Skeptic as well as elsewhere. Last year's fair included psychics, amateur ghost hunters, and people selling all kinds of crap which lacks anything resembling scientific possibility for their claims. I saw people selling acryllic "crystals" they claimed focused your energy to cure whatever ails you as well as Power Band knock offs and magnets that are supposed to cure your pain.

This year, I'm pleased to let everyone know, things were different. First, the size of the Mystic Faire was about half of that last year. At first, I though it was enormous but I quickly realized the Albany Farmer's Market was being held concurrently -- lending the event an appearance of being something bigger than it really was. However, once I started walking through the event itself, I quickly realized that the event wasn't so much a Mystic Faire as it was a run of the mill craft fair. The only woo present was 6 psychics and they weren't there consistently. Additionally, they didn't look to be doing any sort of real business. In the past, I've seen people sitting in the psychic's little "waiting areas" they constructed around the pop-up canopies they use to hold their cold-readings. I did not observe anything of the kind this year. While I did see some "psychics" working, for the most part, they sat idle.

Whether this year's woo-fest is a taste of things to come remains to be seen. The economy is in the tank and a lot of people are going to spend their money on things that are important. Food and mortgage payments take precedence over sitting thought a cold reading or buying a piece of plastic to focus "energies". This year's event was more a craft fair that was focused, more or less, on Halloween as a fun holiday.

I'm pleased to say the mystical is fading away from New York's mystic faire. Hopefully this trend will continue. Regardless, I'll be there to call out the looney woo-woo when I see it.

Preemptive Strike. No UFOs Over Troy, NY

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 01:16:00 +0000

I was at Occupy Albany this afternoon and this evening. After a day of getting honked at (in support), reading, and then attending most of the General Assembly, I decided it was time to head home. I hadn't made any plans or arrangements to stay overnight and I have to work tomorrow so staying was kind of out of the question.

On my way home, I was ruminating on some language on a proposal I had been discussing at the General Assembly and probably living inside my skull a little too much. I was sort-of driving on auto-pilot on the route I routinely take home -- north along I787. When I was somewhere between the South Troy exit and the Green Island exit, I happened to look above the horizon into the night sky and saw...mysterious floating lights!

I instantly knew what they were. "But how?" you might ask. First, they were floating in the wind direction and I could see, approximately, where they had launched. It was rather simple, by "connecting the dots" I approximated their launch location to be somewhere around the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) campus. Still driving, I got off at the Green Island exit and, as I crossed the Green Island bridge, I got a completely clear, unadulterated view of four of the floating lights.

The were sky lanterns. Absolutely no doubt about it. If your you or your kid has watched the Disney film "Tangled" recently, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

So, in an effort to offset any potential credulous UFO reportage, I'm letting everyone know that I'm a first hand witness and I got close enough to clearly see sky lanterns. I'm just trying to avoid all the nonsense with sky lanterns that happened in Washington Terrace, Utah.

No story here folks -- unless you like sky lanterns. It was a beautiful night for them and they were quite a nice break of pace.

It's the End of the World as We Know It? I Feel Fine.

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:22:00 +0000

It's October 21st, the day religious wingnut, Harold Camping, claimed would be the last day of the Earth. Camping convinced a large number of gullible and equally religious nutjobs that his so-called "calculations" based upon the so-called "infallible" Bible were correct. Many spent huge sums of money to support this fraud. Some even spent all their retirement savings to advertise Camping's previous failed end-times predictions -- May 21, 1988, September 6, 1994, and May 21, 2011.

You would think people would learn. Camping has been wrong three times before today. Like all the previous doom-sayers (Christian and otherwise) he was wrong. No smiting. No fire and brimstone. No select few gloating on the damned below. It's all half-assed prophesy based on half-baked ideas cooked up by pre-scientific, Bronze-Aged people anyway so I wouldn't expect it to have any validity.

So, what am I doing today? Instead of roasting in the fires of eternal damnation (as the "loving" Christians say I would be as I'm an Atheist), I'm volunteering time to help my Union save jobs (I volunteered last night as well). I'm thinking and planning as best I can for my daughter's future and I'm working at a job that helps me help others scientifically. All of these things are important to me but my daughter's future is paramount.

Everyday, I work to instill in my daughter critical thinking skills. Sure, she's only four but starting early is already showing benefits. She asks lots of critical questions and is a knowledge sponge. I take her into the woods and try to impress upon her our part in nature while I show her deer tracks or wild garlic chives.

Her mother is a believer...in something...Christianish. I suppose she's an a la carte Christian (aren't they all) and the little one has been coming home after her time with her mom and asking me questions about god and Heaven. I used to say things like "some people believe in god," or "some people believe in Heaven." I've now changed my approach. I tell her flat out that I do not believe in either god or Heaven. She challenges me too. While I can't go into depth with all of my explanations as to why I've come to the conclusion there is no god, there is one that I do use fairly often. I tell her I've yet to see any proof that god is real. When she challenges me on this, I tell her I know she's real because I can pick her up and give her a hug. I tell her that I know she's real because I cook her food and tuck her into bed at night. I ask her if she can show me anything god has done that is real. When she come up with something, we talk about it and, wouldn't you know it, god ended up loosing. One of my favorite conversations was about how god doesn't make it rain. At 4 years old, I'm pretty certain my daughter now has a rudimentary understanding of the basic water cycle. She now accepts that god doesn't make it rain and that clouds transport water from other locations from which it evaporated.

In case you're wondering, I am an Agnostic (most Atheists I know are as well). Should there ever be real proof for god, I'd have to change my position. Though, I don't see it coming any time in, oh, forever.

It is unlikely my daughter will turn into a mindless Camping-type religionist. However, they challenge her future. From their attacks on a woman's right to choose or LGBT rights, these people seek to subjugate us with their dogma. The rise of the American Taliban, otherwise known as Dominionism, should clearly demonstrate their intentions in establishing a theocracy in the United States of America. While we can fight them here and now by challenging their nonsense in court and ridiculing their laughable prophesies, we can also fight them in the future -- by educating our children. Education is the ultimate enemy of baseless, myth-based belief. We must work to improve our children's futures culturally and socially while we improve their futures intellectually and morally.

At some point, we will be handing the fight for over to them.

Is Cryptomundo Stealing Discovery News Content?

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:56:00 +0000

Wow! Talk about the gift that keeps on giving! Just after Loren Coleman is caught making a fool of himself by attacking Sharon Hill and being called out for his disgusting usage of 9-11 to generate book sales and traffic to his site, it appears Craig Woolheater -- the site's owner -- has now chosen to violate copyright law.

Readers of my blog are well aware I have caught and criticized Coleman and Woolheater for their flagrant practice of copying and pasting of entire articles. In this case, Woolheater has gone through a slide presentation on Discovery News written by Sarah Goforth which highlights 10 points Ben Radford has made that illustrate how unlikely is the existence of Bigfoot. Woolheater went to each slide, copied the text and then pasted the content onto his blog. While they do provide a hyperlink to the original content, they are still lifting the entire article and, as such, appear to be violating Discovery's copyright.

I contacted the article's author, Sarah Goforth and, while she no longer works for Discovery, indicated she believed it unlikely Discovery would grant permission for Woolheater to reprint the content. I also emailed Lori Cuthbert at Discovery News but have not heard back from her in time for this post. In an email exchange, Ben Radford indicated he was unaware of Woolheater getting permission to use the article stating, "I personally don't have a problem with Craig or Cryptomundo generally, but they do need to respect copyrights. As a writer and editor, I'm familiar with Fair Use, and posting all (or even most) of another person's work without permission is clearly illegal." If one goes to Discovery's Visitor Agreement site, they will read the following passage:

The materials available through the Discovery Sites are the property of Discovery or its licensors, and are protected by copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws. You are free to display and print for your personal, non-commercial use information you receive through the Discovery Sites. But you may not otherwise reproduce any of the materials without the prior written consent of the owner. You may not distribute copies of materials found on the Discovery Sites in any form (including by e-mail or other electronic means), without prior written permission from the owner. Of course, you're free to encourage others to access the information themselves on the Discovery Sites, and to tell them how to find it.

As the archived Cryptomundo site clearly demonstrates, Woolheater blatantly distributed "copies of materials found on the Discovery Sites...." Now, the question is: does Woolheater have written permission to use the content? Based upon my observations of Cryptomundo's previous behavior, I don't they don't have it.

Coleman and Woolheater seem to believe that anything that appears on the internet is, somehow, public domain. Fortunately for content creators, this is not the case. In this example, Woolheater took someone's work and copied it verbatim on his site. This is plagiarism pure and simple but there are cases, however, where people are allowed to do this. With traditional copyright, you can get written permission. There is also Creative Commons licensing (which I use for this blog). There are different flavors of Creative Commons licensing and some require written permission and some don't. In the software world, there are licensing structures like GPL and Open Source. The important thing to remember is you must operate within the confines of the copyright agreement -- something I believe Woolheater has not done.

Then there is fair usage. Fair usage allows people to use things like quotes like the license agreement I put above and photos into their content as long as it is commentary. Consider this a type of quotation similar to what you would use in a term paper or thesis. If Woolheater has any sort of shaky defense to his illegal activity, it would be that he's using the article in "fair use". However, when you read the article is exactly the same as the original minus one paragraph, Woolheater didn't copy the pictures, and substituted one blogsquatch photo for the one on the Discovery site. Fair use does not stand up.

As I have not seen a "used with permission" notification associated with the Cryptomundo post, I am left to assume that the content was stolen from Discovery. The original article was published on October 12 and the Cryptomundo post went up on October 19. It is possible Woolheater got permission to use the article in the intervening 7 days but, as I stated earlier, I doubt it. These doubts, naturally, would be resolved should Woolheater provide proof he could use the article.

Cryptomundo content archived on 10/19/11.

Poopie Head Post of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:18:00 +0000

Seeing how Loren Coleman has resorted to calling his critics names, I thought I'd return the favor.

Na na na na na! Loren Coleman is a poopie head!

In the post archived above, Coleman calls fellow Skeptic, Sharon Hill, a "scoftic" -- a term his been trying to propagate as a derogatory term for Skeptics that he feels are out only to debunk cryptozoological claims. Haven't heard the term before? Don't worry too much about it. Coleman's really the only one trying to use it (I believe the term "blogstalker" also falls into this category).

In his post, Coleman attributes a "scoftic quote of the day" to Hill. It would appear as though this is the first time he's done a "scoftic" quote of the day. In a recent post, Coleman took Bobby the Paranormal Skeptic to task for not doing his homework when Bobby claimed Cryptomundo was owned by Coleman. I will now turn the exact same criticism on Coleman. He should have done his homework and actually read the release -- and where it came from! You really should do your homework but, I suppose, Coleman isn't really known for intellectual rigor.

In reading the press release quote he reprinted and attributes to Hill, it is plainly evident the "quote" from Hill is, in fact, not from Hill. Rather, someone else is speaking for Sharon as the press release plainly states "A spokesperson for Sharon Hill said, 'She looks forward to proving that Hidden Lakes is too small to support a lake monster, and to finally earn money for her skepticism!'" [emphasis mine].

So, again we have caught Loren Coleman using an ad hominem attack against someone in an attempt to silence their criticism and, again, we have an example of Coleman not accurately portraying the situation. If Coleman has been reduced to the point of calling people names rather than defending his position, what does that say about him as an investigator and the so-called Science behind his cryptozoology?

Sure, the press release quote is poorly worded and sounds as if it may have been made up whole-cloth. Were I in Hill's position and being quoted (which, remember, she was not), I would have said something to the effect of "we will be examining whether Hidden Lakes is large enough to have an ecosystem capable of supporting a creature which would fit the description of the lake monster."

Then Coleman makes the most "pot calling the kettle black" statement I've read in a long time (That's hypocritical for those of you keeping score at home. If you are playing the "Loren Coleman logical fallacy" drinking game, now's the time to take a shot.). He criticizes Hill for earning some money from her investigation of the Hidden Lake monster and even goes so far as to indirectly equate her with the infamous bigfoot hunter Tom Biscardi!

Loren Coleman has made a career out of "investigating" so-called monsters. Hell, the man ran into trouble with the IRS for his conflation of his "museum" of cryptozoology (at the time it was his home) and his personal income. If there ever was a person more guilty of being what I'll call a cryptozoological mercenary (using his terminology), it is Loren Coleman. There seemingly hasn't been an outlandish, crazy, fruit-basket monster this man hasn't been willing to write unscientific gibberish about in an effort to either sell books, get himself on television, or generate traffic to his "museum". Likewise, it would appear as though Coleman accepts anything he reads on the Internet as fact.

In my opinion, it is obvious Coleman is frustrated a vocal and public critic of his is getting attention and has no rational basis on which to criticize her. Oh, and then there's the fact that his source, the Boilingbrook Babbler, is a humor site. You know, a spoof -- as in a joke site. A place where funny stories show up for people to read. A ridiculous location for funny articles. Did I forget to mention that? Am I belaboring the point? Shame on me! Looks like the Loren Coleman couldn't be bothered to do his homework and actually find out his source!

Hey Loren, the joke is on you.

Cryptomundo posts archived on 10/18/11

Edit: Coleman deleted his post and gloating tweets last night. Fortunately, the post was archived by yours truly as well as Sharon at Doubtful Newsblog.

Coleman, then, slightly retooled his post into a sort of a backhanded apology where, again, he tries to push the "scoftic" name. (Cryptomundo post archived on 10/19/11)

Wolves and New York. A Wild Love Story?

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:47:00 +0000

Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote about "bush wolves" in New York. These critters are a coyote/wolf hybrid and present an interesting way in which the Eastern Grey Wolf could genetically repopulate its old stomping grounds.

As I related in my first story, I've seen these critters first hand. Since writing that story, I've encountered another individual dead on the side of the road on Route 7 about 5 miles outside of Troy, NY. Again, the animal was about 50% larger than the average pure-blood coyote and definitely was not a dog. I also learned of another one having previously been hit by a car in the general vicinity and my daughter's mother saw one near her house in Pittstown, NY.

Then, I heard some stories of hunters encountering them in the field. Interestingly, these encounters were not reported to have taken place while hunting coyote -- implying that the "bush wolf" exhibits a behavior different from that of coyotes. Earlier this year, I had decided to start hunting this season and it was during my hunter safety training course that I heard what I thought was a big whopper of a story. One of the instructors claimed he knew someone who had thought he had shot a very large hybrid and was so impressed he had the pelt preserved and displayed it. This instructor claimed that some biologists came and took the pelt and ran tests on it. The results? Wolf!

Hunters like to tell stories so I didn't put much weight in the story. Turns out, I should have listened a little closer. There might be truth in them thar yarns and it ain't cryptozoological in the slightest. Wolves are real animals who lived here until, relatively, recently. Hunters also are in the field and often see things long before biologists catch up. For example, my friends were telling me of coming across where moose had bedded down and their droppings at least 5 or 6 years before their reappearance was reported in the press.

Evidence has just been released that shows that the Eastern Grey Wolf is back in New York and Vermont! They may not be living here but they are traveling though. Like the cougars that seem to be showing an interest in moving back to their natural habitats, wolves seem to be checking out the new neighborhood. Could these "rogue" wolves be a source for the coyote hybrids? I find the possibilities very exciting. While these wolves aren't out looking to eat our children or local peasants while they mind the flocks, the idea of the area's once top predator returning after its extinction regionally is something I thought I'd never even contemplate. Camping is going to get a lot more interesting....

Loren Coleman Gets Caught Again. Lashes Out.

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:57:00 +0000

In a recent post on the the Bent Spoon Magazine blog, Bobby the Paranormal Skeptic called out Loren Coleman for being, well, Loren Coleman.

Bobby noticed one of Coleman and Craig Woolheater's favorite tactics to generate traffic -- SEO tactics and, more specifically, the use of keywords. In this instance, Loren Coleman was using the attacks on 9/11/01 to generate traffic to Cryptomundo in an attempt to sell some books. To those who have followed this blog or Cryptomundo, actions like these by Coleman really should not come as much of a surprise. I have highlighted his tactics in his past as have others. However, Coleman really did cross the line and Bobby was right to call him out on it. Coleman chose to respond to the Bent Spoon post with a giant post hoc rationalization that illustrates either the degree of his unscrupulous behavior or his complete obliviousness to his actions.

Having written SEO in the past as a means to earn a part-time income, I am aware of keyword placement and concentration (Tim Farley recently wrote an interesting article on the topic). Based upon that experience, I am convinced Coleman knew exactly what he was doing in an attempt to generate traffic for his site. I too say "shame on you Loren" but I already knew the man to have questionable online ethics. When you examine the post, "September 1, 2001" or variations are repeated at a density which smacks of blatant SEO manipulation. The post, although it is about an alligator attack and Coleman's book, ends with a picture of the burning World Trade Towers. Despicable.

This isn't the only SEO technique Coleman and Woolheater have used. Another of their favorites is to post photos of women in bikinis in a post supposedly about cryptozoology. The pictures themselves will bring in traffic -- especially if the name of the person in the photo is mentioned in the text as well in the meta information of the photo. A curious fan (or creepy letch) will click in the picture during a Google search and be directed to Cryptomundo. Additionally, Coleman and Woolheater used Hurricane Irene and the death of Osama bin Laden as means to generate traffic in the same manner as I have outline above. It should also be noted that neither post really had anything to do with cryptids or cryptozoology.

In a post entitled "Some 'Skeptics' Don't Get It" Coleman, first, takes Bobby to task for not doing his research when he stated that Cryptomundo is owned by Coleman. Cryptomundo is owned by Craig Woolheater but the overwhelming majority of the content is produced by Loren Coleman. I would not consider it inaccurate to state that Cryptomundo is Coleman's site in as much as a lead author on a paper would call it his even though there were co-authors. Regardless, the offending post was written by Coleman.

Coleman then goes into his post hoc rationalization as to why he published the post in the first place -- simply to remember someone who was killed by an alligator in Florida on 9/11/01. While my sympathy goes to this gentleman's family, I find Coleman's explanation lacking. You see, this particular story is recounted in a book by Coleman and he, ever so helpfully, links to it's Amazon.com sales page to possibly encourage you to purchase it. Coleman seeks patterns in all kinds of ridiculous things and, somehow, he sees non-existent connections between the alligator attack and the religiously-inspired airplane attack on innocent men and women in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C. He says he's interested in the "copy cat effect". Really? Are other alligators going to read about that 10 year old attack and eat another Floridian?

Coleman then goes into a non sequitur argument from authority wherein he notes how Benjamin Radford wrote an introduction to his book. So what? Noting this does nothing to dull Bobby the Paranormal Skeptic's criticism.

Coleman also claims that he had shut down comments on the post to avoid problems with trolls. As ANYONE critical of Coleman knows, they heavily edit and censor their comments. They also completely re-write posts when caught on something as well. The point here is, Coleman is not honest when it comes to the actual content of the blog. I expect the comments were shut off because he knew exactly what he was doing and did not want to be called out on it. Regardless, it is his blog and he is entitled to do whatever he wants with it. Well, within reason.

Which brings me to Coleman's big lie. In his response, Coleman states, "Being an old academic, I always cite my sources, even when they are my own books.... [emphasis mine]" This is a flat out lie. I have caught him plagiarizing an entire news article without accreditation. After he was called out on it, Coleman went back and rewrote the article at least two times to conceal his dishonesty. It is for this reason I now archive the blog posts I criticize. Since my earlier days in dealing with his creative "editing", I have found it is best to show people the archived article as, more often than naught, the original has been defaced to save Coleman's appearance. As recently as yesterday (9/27/11) Coleman posted a claim that the cougar (again, not a cryptid) that was recently shot in Connecticut only had "67%" of the DNA of a South Dakota cougar -- from where it was supposed to have come -- but FAILS to provide citations or even links. Colman claims to always cite his sources but, for some reason he chose not to in this article. Maybe there aren't any sources. Coleman appears to be trying to drum up a conspiracy theory in that entry.

Finally, I really fail to see why people give Coleman and Woolheater any attention what so ever. Ben Radford and Joe Nickell seem perfectly happy to rub shoulders with Coleman from time to time. Why is that? To keep up "good face"? To humor him? If I was in their position, I would have nothing to do with the man. And what about the blog itself? Does it even warrant attention from those interested in the likes of Bigfoot or Nessie? While I watch it as a study in an attempt to make cryptozoology mainstream, I don't know if anyone else should. The writing is poor and fairly vapid. Doing a quick analysis of his blog postings recently, I found only 23% or 27% to actually be about cryptids or cryptozoology. The majority of the posts are now about television shows, out of place animals, deaths of individuals, new species discoveries (not cryptids, mind you), and assorted errata about Coleman's "museum" or books. As far as the site is concerned, it is a self-promotion vehicle for Coleman and his linking to the Amazon sales page for his book on the 9/11 post is as unsurprising as it is disrespectful and self-serving.

So, Bobby, I appreciate you catching Cryptomundo up to its old tricks. I missed the post to be honest. I've stopped reading the site beyond scanning the titles in my RSS reader. Had it not been for Coleman's attempt at a rebuttal, I would have missed your post. Coleman does not like criticism. Like any true believer, he can not accept the fact that certain things he does are inappropriate, unethical or down right false. I certainly hope you join the ranks of me and my fellow Skeptics who watch this man and continue to point out his failings and try to keep him honest.

All links to posts by Loren Coleman have been archived as of 9/28/11.

First Amendment Hero or Freeloader?

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:00:00 +0000

Here's one for the “theocracy” and “do your job” files. While it is a local story for me, it may touch upon a violation of the First Amendment by the State of New York. As some of my readers are probably aware, I have previously reported on an evangelical Christian group holding prayer breakfasts within New York's Legislative Building (because it was somehow determined that giving away food is not lobbying for religious organizations). This story could further illustrate how theocratic thinking can be present in what is, supposedly, a “liberal” state government.

Michael Cunningham was a 30 or so year employee of the New York State Department of Labor (DOL). Back during the Governor George Pataki administration, Cunningham claims he was pressured by his supervisor (a Pataki appointee) to attend a prayer breakfast sponsored by the Governor. Instead of going to this flagrant violation of the First Amendment, Cunningham says he chose to call them on their illegal activities. What resulted was akin to something one might expect from the movie Brazil or a story by Kafka.

The State claims Cunningham faked his time sheets, left work early without permission, and was disruptive to his coworkers. New York's punishment of him is, at best, bazaar.

When I look at the situation as it is represented in the papers, the “faked time sheets” story doesn't seem to make sense. First, Cunningham was removed from his physical office and forced to work from home. That's right – he got to telecommute! The interesting thing is that, at least at one point, his only responsibility while working at home was to call in at the start of the day to report for duty and then to call at the end of the day to sign off. Hardly an effective use of an employee. He was just sitting around his house in a sort of house arrest. Cunningham was also forbidden from interacting with his fellow DOL coworkers. As I see it, these actions seem to be incongruous to those I would expect to punish an employee who cheated on their time sheets. Wouldn't it be more appropriate just to fire that employee? Apparently, the State seems to think it is a better idea to keep that type of a bad apple on the payroll and then require they not show up for work or produce anything. My gut tells me this isn't right. Was the State trying to buy him off or get dirt on him? Possibly both.

The New York Department of Labor chose to secretly install a GPS tracking device onto Cunningham's personal vehicle. Then they tracked him 24 hours a day. They also tracked him with State investigators and got a hold of his E-ZPass records and tailed him with State investigators. They docked him a full days pay for calling in too early and put him on unpaid leave for months on end. Using the information gathered by the GPS and investigators, they claim they demonstrated he was, in fact, cheating on his time records. As I write, I am unaware as to whether these claims of falsifying time records occurred while he was working from home. If so, I suspect the State placed him there with the expectation he would cheat and not charge time. Whether this action is legal or appropriate, I can not say but it certainly reeks of institutional malfeasance.

What does concern me is the fact the DOL placed a GPS device on this man's car! It wasn't a work vehicle. Such a violation of privacy astounds me. How can this be, in any way, Constitutional. No search warrant was applied for despite a recent New York Supreme Court of Appeals ruling which states warrants have to be acquired for such surveillance. The DOL did this entirely on their own. Turns out, we will find out shortly. Cunningham has taken the State to court challenging the GPS tracking as a violation of his rights. The hearing was held recently and I'll add the result when the come out to this post as an edit.

Why did the State do this in the first place? It would seem as though they REALLY wanted to get this guy. I'm left wondering, however, why they didn't fire him before they forced him to work from home? It seems like a lot of resources and money were wasted if Cunningham only shirked his responsibilities and cheated on his time sheets. Was the State really trying to shut him up? If the paper work already existed and it could have been demonstrated he wasn't doing his job, why would you pay him for 3 or 4 years to do nothing? Cunningham wasn't accused with something like a RICO violation or international espionage. They say he falsified time records. It should be an open and shut case and he should have been fired and the State would have saved money, labor, and reputation. Instead, the story is now public and we are left wondering.

I had been following the story here and there but only thought of it as something along the lines of an issue the Electronic Freedom Foundation might be interested in. That impression shifted, however, when I heard that Cunningham claims his problems started when he refused to attend the prayer breakfast. I know they are happening so the story took on an entirely new perspective. It does not take a leap of faith to envision the Cunningham case as an example of a whistle blower experiencing retribution from a theocratic agenda within a State's government. I suspect I'm not the only one who's noticed the First Amendment claim.

There are problems with Cunningham's story and it doesn't take much digging to find them. Initially, Cunningham claimed his problems stemmed from a racial anti-discrimination suit he brought against the State in 2005. So, which is it? Racial whistle blower or theocracy whistle blower? Like everything in this case, it is hard to tell. Then there are the records which show Cunningham wasn't at work when he said he was. I haven't read any story wherein he disputes their accuracy. The man was fired based upon the GPS evidence which showed he wasn't working when he said he was. Instead, the argument is that the State never should have gotten that evidence in the first place. Frankly, I don't see Cunningham's credibility as all that great. Could he just be raising the prayer breakfast as a smoke screen? After all, Dominionism has been in the news lately and he could use those news reports as inspiration to create a story.

What scares me, and should scare any reasonable person, is that the mere possibility of retribution against a man for blowing the whistle on a mandatory prayer meeting within New York State Government is real. If what Cunningham says is true, there is a theocratic undercurrent in New York State. Should we all be paranoid about this? Maybe but only to the extent that we all be good citizens and pay attention to what our governments are doing. This means getting off your couch and actually becoming an active citizen. Is a certain member of the Assembly claiming divine requirements? Vote him or her out. Is a Senator trying to direct funds to religious organizations when they should be going elsewhere. Vote them out. Are religious groups bribing legislators with free food and who knows what else? Report them to the IRS. If the government is rotting, it is partially our fault for not paying close enough attention. If we as a people recognize the value of the separation of church and state, it is our job to make sure it is forever realized. Take action and kick the theocrats out – wherever they may be and no matter who they are. We shouldn't be worried about Big Brother watching. In the States, we must fear Big Jesus. In Pakistan, we must fear Big Allah. In Israel, we must fear Big Yahweh. This is a real problem folks and it is up to US to fight back.

Help Me Help Others

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:20:00 +0000

No, this isn't about doing something just for the Skeptic or Atheist communities. Sorry if you thought that it would be but I hope it does not bias you against helping your fellow Human being.

You see, being a good Skeptic or a good Atheist means looking out for others.

My daughter and I are going to be walking in the 2011 Capital Region Heart Walk as a member of my Union's team. The benefits go to the American Heart Association and, in turn, will go towards education and research -- two very "Skeptical" goals!

I have set a goal of raising $200 for the walk. Honestly, I have no clue if I can do it. I haven't tried to raise money for anything like this in a very long time. Regardless, head over to my website at http://heartwalk.kintera.org/albanyny/myrongetman (or click on the thermometer) and be treated to one of the few public pictures of my beautiful daughter I've allowed to go up on the web (to settle some bets, Techno-daughter stands about 5 feet tall....Maybe not.). While you're there and if you can spare some money in this abhorant economy, please make a donation in the provided box. Everything is secure and it goes to a very good cause.

EDIT (9/26/11): Thanks to my donors' generosity, we have met my initial goal! I've now raised my goal to $250!

The Lowrey Castle Investigation

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 00:30:00 +0000

The Case of the Never Haunted Un-Castle

Some time ago, I was cruising around the Internet looking for some local "hauntings" to investigate. My main Skeptical interest being cryptozoology, I felt it would behoove me to get my feet wet with an actual investigation. Although I was very interested with ghosts when I was younger, they lost their luster for me well before I finished High School. I figure it was sometime around Middle School that I determined that the chances of ghosts being real were about the same as my being attractive to the girls at school -- you know, way beyond slim to no fucking way.

Imagine my surprise when I encountered a case near my parents' farm out in the middle of New York State! I determined I would make this my first investigation and involve my mother in it. You see, she has some title in the local Heritage Society.

Introduction

Outside of Utica, NY is a small town called Poland. Outside that small town is an even smaller town called Newport. This is where my parents live. Outside of Newport is a town that is so small, it no longer exists -- Old City. This is where the haunting supposedly takes place...at the site of the...

Lowrey Castle!!!

Dum dum DUM!

The haunting story (as I heard it) goes like this: An eccentric millionaire named Marklove Lowrey decided to build a grand castle for he and his true love. During the construction of the castle, Lowrey's wife dies. Despondent, Lowrey quits the construction as it reminds him of his love. After his death, either he or his wife haunts the unfinished love-castle -- forever mourning what was never meant to be. Time passes, and the castle becomes unsafe and has to be demolished. Lacking a castle to haunt, the still unnamed specter chose to haunt the road leading to the site of the building. I like to think of it as the stray cat you made the mistake of feeding once and now it won't get the hell off of your driveway.

Despite looking around on the Internet, I couldn't uncover any other version of this story as I've outline above. Armed with this information, I went to my parents.

When I asked my Mom and Dad about the castle, not only did they know about it, they told me they went on their first date there. You see, back in those days, the locals would go to the unfinished building to have lunches and go swimming. It was a very popular swimming hole. As my mother grew up a mere 5 miles away, I asked her if she knew anything about the supposed haunting. It was news to her. I guess this haunting story was generated sometime after her and my father's courtship (in the Sixties).

I asked for whatever information they had at the Newport Historical Society concerning the Lowrey Castle. What I got was photocopies of the original newspaper clippings they have at the Society as well as hand-written transcriptions of interviews with locals about the Lowreys and the castle. Using these original sources, I was able to confirm what is true about this story and what is false. Like most of these stories, the truth is more interesting than the fiction.

Background

Yes, there was a man name Marklove Lowrey. He was a very successful landscaper from Utica. In 1916 and after he achieved a level of success he wanted, he decided to build the house of his dreams in Old City. The spot he chose overlooked a creek with a waterfall and the corresponding pool. I've been there and it really is a dramatic location -- the creek cutting sharply through the inter-bedded shale and limestone. As for the house, he wanted something grand. Something different. He decided to build something akin to the castles of Scotland. However, it was never meant to be that large and it never had any true design. You see, he scratched out the foundation in the dirt and told the workmen to start there. Building commenced on July 4, 1926. He added towers and an exterior stairway and its overall appearance was quite dramatic. Yes, the house resembled a castle in a sense but it was more like an eccentric house built by an eccentric man.

Over time, news spread of the "man building a castle". News paper stories were run and, soon, a scene developed around the construction site. People would drive in from Utica and the various farm towns in the region to eat lunch and watch the house being built. Before long, traffic was so bad it blocked up the roads in the area. The Lowrey Castle's construction was so popular, tour buses were commissioned to take out spectators!

Lowrey, although he was building his dream house, also purchased a farm house up the street from the castle site to use as a summer home during the construction. Here, he and his wife took care of their children while he oversaw the construction and ran his business. The traffic jams that formed around the building site prevented Lowrey and his neighbors from getting to and from their homes. Also, vandals started taking an interest in his creation and people looking for souvenirs would take things. Frustrated by the Frankenstein monster of a tourist attraction he had created, Lowrey eventually gave up on building his dream house out of frustration and disgust.

Mrs. Lowrey died on July 28, 1938. The obituaries indicate she expired while at the summer house down the road from the castle. Far from being despondent for the remainder of his life, Lowrey is remembered as being a friendly and welcoming individual after his wife's demise. No indication of the mourning his ghost (if it is his ghost) is supposed to exhibit.

In time, the unfinished castle fell into further disrepair. Locals would go there to picnic and go swimming and it became known as a place for teens to go and make out and drink. Eventually, though, the building became such a threat -- due to its popularity and decomposing condition -- it was determined it needed to be demolished. In the late 1990's, what remained of the building was taken down. All that now remains is the footprint of the building and the road leading in to the site.

Conclusion and Discussion

The building was never occupied by anyone and was eventually given up as a white elephant by Lowrey himself. Why the ghost of Lowrey or his wife would haunt it, I wouldn't know. Lowrey, after his wife's death, didn't show any of the overly-romantic opining that the ghost story suggests. Lowrey's wife, evidentially, had "grown tired" of the building at some point and why she would haunt some place she disliked is also beyond me. Finally and based upon my mother's input, there never was a haunting story associated with the location while she was a kid and through her college years.

Based upon the historical and anecdotal evidence, I have concluded that the story of the supposedly haunted Lowrey Castle is a relatively recent phenomenon. Based upon the verbal information I've received, the myth of the haunting started, at the earliest, sometime in the 1970's. Construction on the building began in 1926 and, by 1941 stories about the building being an abandoned shell appear in the Utica press. One would think that if a ghost really existed at this popular location (stories appear in the press up to 1998), there would be at least one story on the phenomenon. Alas, nothing exists in the press which leads me to believe the ghost story might be one created on and for the Internet. The story's true vintage is probably sometime in the late 1990's when the web became much more widely accessible.

It is therefore, my conclusion that the Lowrey Castle, while a fascinating building, never was haunted. It is a shame the fascinating and historical story about its creation was dismissed by whoever made up the ghost story in the first place.

Is Skepticism Falling Down the Gothic Rabbit Hole?

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:51:00 +0000

I think I've seen this before.

It wasn't with the Skeptics. It was with another distinct minority subculture and I'm becoming more and more convinced the "Skeptic Movement™" is falling down the same rabbit hole the "Goth Movement™" tumbled into. Perhaps this is a warning call for people to reassess what is really important.

Back in the day, I was up to my eyeballs in Goth rock. I played in bands, I DJ'd club nights, and participated in online conversations, forums, irc, and chatrooms (we're talking pre-MySpace here people -- as in Bitnet). I had an extensive knowledge of the different bands and their relationships to one another. I never really looked the part as I refused the usual trapping of goth "culture" -- shitty clothes and ugly makeup. Instead, I was all about the roots of the whole thing. I was a goth because I liked the music. Like I said, I liked it enough to write it and play in bands (just to set the record straight, the bands I was in were not any of the mopy, weepy stuff people usually associate with goth music -- certainly not the moronic thumpa thumpa of EBM and what passes for industrial these days).

I'm all about post-punk meets Big Black but I digress. Fuck Emo. I digress again!

One of the perpetual undercurrents of goth "culture" was what I like to call the "we'll be popular someday" dream where "normals" and vampires danced with fratboys and goths and drank absinthe from silver challises. Er, maybe that's a little too much. The fratboys were never a part of the dream. Hand in hand with this wish was the observation that there are goths of all walks of life -- corporate goths, goths who liked Hello Kitty, and goths who never dressed up. We were creative! We were smart! We were awesome! The popular dream went like this: if society as a whole could see what we are really like, they would accept us for who we are, and, if they accept us for who we are, they will see just how great our subculture is and we'll become popular. This line of thinking failed to recognize the obvious fact the different people see things in different ways and assumed that everyone somehow shares a similar set of aesthetics.

I don't know where the goth wave crested but my mind takes me back to a time when what was important and what really unified the scene (music) was overlooked and other aspects came to the fore. First, the conventions started in the late 1990's. I went to them. There was Gothcon. There was Convergence. There were conventions little and enormous. Goths from all over the world would come to commiserate, drink heavily, have one night stands, buy shit, and maybe listen to some bands. There is nothing wrong with having conventions but these events started to be THE thing to go to if you were a real goth™. People started bragging about what the first Convergence they went to was and cliques formed around certain personalities and so rose the pseudo-celebrities.

I'm grossly over-generalizing here but it will do. Pseudo-celebrities were/are not members of bands or anything like that (people who, in my opinion, would deserve some attention). Instead, they were usually people who heavily networked with other people, got on convention organizing committees, and tried to be as flamboyant and noticeable as possible. In a scene largely composed of histrionic narcissists, that was quite a feat. What I noticed is that these pseudo-celebrities, as a whole, lacked certain expertises when they were required and often fought amongst themselves over personal matters. These personal fights often became public and good goths were almost expected to be on one side or an other.

Then there were what I call the "professional goths". Professional goths were only part of the scene to make money from the scene. There were the usual craftspeople who one often sees at conventions selling their clothing and so on and I'm not referring to these people. They were actually making something (which the country, as a whole, seems to have forgotten how to do). I'm thinking more along the lines of people who tried to write and market books or how-to guides to the non-goth audience, the "concert promoters" who lacked any discernible business sense yet were willing to take your money all the same, and the talentless or lazy bands that just chose to imitate what was popular. These people saw a market and wanted to exploit it. Once the goth scene was a market, and bullshit like goth lunch boxes and socks were being sold at Hot Topic, the cancer had metastasized and the prognosis was terminal.

Goth isn't much of a musical force any longer. Some of the conventions linger like a sad fart in the whirlwind of reality. Some bands putter along playing to smaller and smaller clubs. Never earning enough to replace their old drum machine. Fortunately, some of the bands really paid attention to their craft and continue on as local and regional successes. However, the great wish of popularity never developed as people recognized the whole thing was a bit of a fad. Sad really. There are a lot of talented people who wasted a portion of their lives on a passing fancy.

What's this got to do with Skepticism? A lot. I've been sitting back and watching the whole process repeat itself in the Skeptic scene. I really couldn't put my finger on what was bothering me until recently. As anyone on Twitter knows, The Amazing Meeting and Dragon*con were big deals. Too big if you ask me. You see. The vast majority of people with a skeptical bent can't go to these kind of events and are, therefore, excluded. This happened with the goth conventions. Again, conventions are not bad. However, if they are to be THE place to be if you're a Skeptic™, Skepticism is fucked. The increasing emphasis on conventions upsets me.

Skeptic pseudo-celebrities have arisen. While it was easier to see that the goth pseudo-celebrities were incompetitant on one area or another (as they weren't musicians, DJs, and so on), it isn't as easy with the Skeptic pseudo-celebrities. Whether we're being presented with Libertarian misinformation about DDT on Brian Dunning's Skeptoid podcast or the Skeptics Guide to the Universe butchering geology just due to innocent ignorance, people are accepting these people as experts. They are not authorities in almost all of the fields they discuss and what they say needs to be examined and appreciated from where it came. Oh yeah. Elevator-gate? That would almost certainly fall into the category of a personal fight being taken to the scene. Are you on Rebecca's side or Dawkins'. Frankly, the drama is bullshit and distracting from the real issues.

I haven't seen the professionals in the same way I saw them with the goth scene. Having said that, however, it is going on. I've noted people who are effectively "professional Skeptics". They make money talking about Skeptical topics even though they may not be an actual authority on those topics. This fact is conveniently overlooked. If you took some time, you could easily construct a list of Skeptic experts talking outside their fields. Then there is the book circuit. Someone will write a book and that person will be on all the major Skeptic podcasts saying the same thing over and over and over again. Honestly, when this happens, I don't listen to my Skeptic podcasts or I fast forward through the offending sales pitch. It gets old real fast but that is a personal preference.

Yes, the "I wish we were popular" dream is here too. It makes sense that a minority would seek acceptance from the majority -- especially when that minority is Reason and Science-based. Test tubes and logic vanquish woo-woo and fantasy as an appreciative society applauds its Skeptical heroes! As much as I would like to think otherwise, I am highly doubtful will ever see a Skeptologists on television. Why? In a day and age where computer engineers and other equally educated people seek out homeopathy instead of medicine and ghost hunting shows appear on the History Channel, we are reminded that the majority does not want to accept reality when it is inconvenient, confusing, or non-entertaining. Perhaps the Skeptics should indulge in some introspection to see if they aren't accepting an aspect of reality.

But wait! Skeptics have done a lot of good! Let's not waste what momentum we do have. Powerband got the shit knocked out of them in Australia due to the work of Richard Saunders and others. James Randi was just recently on national television embarrassing the charlatains who call themselves psychics by actually testing them (they failed). The 10²³ campaign is educating people about the steaming pile of stupid that is homeopathy. Genie Scott is fighting to keep brain-destroying creationism out of our schools and countless local groups and individuals are doing their part to educate. Unlike the goth scene, Skeptics are doing something other than entertaining themselves.

I'd really be pissed if this fizzled.

What would I recommend? Beware the cult of personality! Find out what the actual expertise is for the prominent Skeptics out there. Steven Novella is a smart guy. He's a neurologist and host of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. Does that make him an expert on Physics? No and he'd probably be the first to tell you that but, when they are discussing physics on the show, remind yourself that it isn't his specialty. Taking myself as an example, I'm a Geologist. More specifically, I specialize in studying asbestos and fibrous minerals. Does this make me an expert on earthquakes? No. There are a number of "experts" in the Skeptic scene who have no actual expert background in an area they are discussing. Remind yourself that people are imperfect and mistakes WILL be made and egos will refuse to admit errors.

It isn't hard for a Skeptic to say to be skeptical but I think a lot of skeptically-inclined people don't apply skepticism when it comes to Skeptic experts. Yeah. I did that. Five "skeptic" words.

As for the conventions: they are really about entertainment. Nerdy, scientific and wicked fun but entertainment all the same. I've presented and attended a number of scientific conferences and while there are similarities, conventions are a whole different animal. For example, to present at a conference, you (usually) have to go through some sort of a peer review of your bona fides as well as your material. Attendees can reasonably expect an expert is presenting material. Conventions may not be as stringent. It is also important to remember, conference or convention, that the actual, real, work IS NOT being done there. Work is done in the field.

I have no real words of wisdom. Hopefully the Skeptic community will avoid the cults of personalities, and vanity that plagued the goth scene. Perhaps this ill-formed essay will set someone to thinking and get them on the right track. I don't know. After all, I'm only a Geologist and we're comfortable with uncertainties. All I know is I'll keep researching and getting my feet dirty.

Do I still call myself a goth? No. If forced, I'll refer to myself as a goth DJ. I'm more old-school anyway. I always was more into Joy Division than the Crüxshadows.

The Olsen Champ Video Investigation

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 04:11:00 +0000

On May 21, 2009, someone calling themselves "Mookiebone" uploaded a video to YouTube which purported to show a "strange sighting" on Lake Champlain. What resulted was typical in the cryptozoological scene when something grabs hold -- a whole lot of armchair analysis and outright fabrication. Things were not helped by "Mookiebone" -- who was identified as Eric Olsen -- in that he did not provide the entire video and almost certainly saw the animal he filmed get out of the water.

However, this did not prevent the likes of Loren Coleman and others to promote the video on their sites and it even got Regional, if not National, attention. I, myself, took a look at the video and proposed the hypothesis that what was filmed was a partially submerged log.

Recently, I was in Burlington, VT for a conference and I decided to take advantage of some free time between sessions to investigate the site of the the Olsen video to see if I could get any useful information. My intention was to, hopefully, get scalar measurements in the hope I might be able to determine the size of the animal in the video. What I found, while not as accurate as I intended, is just as damning to the belief the Olsen video shows Champ.

My first challenge was to find the location of the original video. Armed with the local media reports stating Olsen was in Oakledge Park, I knew the general area in which to look. The park, itself, is a wonderful little place which includes a lot of swimming areas and a very large tree house. Throughout the woods, there are old stairways and chimneys -- their cottages long gone. As for the shoreline, I found out that the majority of it is steep rocky crags. Essentially, I walked along the shore until I found the location.

The Olsen video was shot along Blanchard Beach (phone camera video) which is a public swimming area for the people of Burlington. On one side of the beach is Oakledge Park, on the other side are private properties. A public bike route runs along side. A nice sandy beach is available for kids to swim. Important for my investigation is the fact the swimming area has a very, very gradual slope. The day I was there was a rather hot one for Burlington and many people had decided to come out to swim and cool off. Photos of the beach can be seen here.

In the Olsen video, buoys are observed. Having no reference points, it is impossible to determine the depth of the water. However, when I was at Blanchard Beach I did have reference points. A lot of them! Based upon my direct observation of swimmers walking to the buoys and the fact they were congregating around them, I made a visual estimate that the depth at the buoys is approximately 4 feet. This direct observation is contrary to some of the conjecture on the Internet that the buoys were in 8 or more feet. This simply is not the case.

The Olsen video abruptly ends right before the animal videoed gets out of the water. This has been a problem for many who have seen it and some have suggested that the animal submerged. I was curious if that was possible. Fortunately, there were swimmers in that area and, based upon the swimmers and one dog (more on that soon), the depth in this region was visually estimated to be around 2 feet.

As I was sitting and taking note, a wonderful coincidence occurred! A woman brought her dog out for a swim...in the area where Olsen mysteriously stopped filming. As I watched and filmed, the dog went out with its owner and then turned around and swam! Wouldn't you know it, the profile of the swimming dog was identical to that of the animal in the Olsen video!

My observations are pretty straight forward. First, Olsen was filming in a very shallow public swimming area with a maximum depth portrayed in the video of approximately 4 feet. This would eliminate the possibility of a "brontosaurus-type" creature. Second, the area where Olsen stopped filming is very shallow (2 feet) and it is impossible any large creature could have submerged there. Third, my direct observation of the dog swimming in the same location as that of the animal in the Olsen video indicates a swimming dog has the same profile as that of the Olsen animal.

Contrary to my previous position that a partially submerged log could explain the Olsen video, it is now my opinion that the animal Olsen filmed was, most likely, a dog. If it was not a dog, it would have to be around the size of a dog which would rule out animals such as adult moose or otters. Furthermore, the high prevalence of dogs in the area and the ease of access to this location would make it highly likely that someone, possibly Olsen himself, brought their dog out for a swim and Olsen simply videoed it. This contention is further supported by when Olsen stopped filming (or edited the ending). In my video of the dog swimming, it can clearly be seen it shakes its head when it stops swimming. I believe Olsen knew what he was filming and did not want floppy ears giving away the true identity of the animal.

Finally, why not a baby moose? I am unfamiliar with the swimming abilities of young moose. However, they are rather long-legged so I am doubtful a baby moose would have been able to swim in 2 feet of water. Semi-aquatic, moose are accustomed to standing in water and I believe a young moose would have been walking in such shallow water. A dog, however, can doggy-paddle in 2 feet of water. Based upon my observation of the woman and her dog, I believe a swimming dog is the best explanation for the Olsen video.

Champ or other cryptid? Definitely not. Dog? Most likely.

Woo in the Gym

noreply@blogger.com (Myron Getman) — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:16:00 +0000

One of my favorite activities is weightlifting. As one might suspect, this means I spend a fair amount of time in the gym training. I do it to relax and improve my health and all that. Most importantly, I do it to get as freaking strong as I possibly can AND to read and contemplate various things. Yes, I am an animal of the 21st Century but I still view the gym in a fashion similar to that of the ancient Greeks (minus the nudity). As a result, many of the topics I write about here and elsewhere are on my mind as I train.

Imagine my surprise when someone approached me today to convince me to go to a chiropractor!

It wasn't completely out of the blue. As any athlete knows, you can train with an injury. It is no different for a strength athlete such as myself. Currently, I am suffering from a trifecta of hurt. In my left foot, I have a heel spur and I woke up with gout this morning. I'm also getting over a superficial thromophlebitis in my left calf. Needless to say, I was limping a bit.

In case you are wondering, yes, I am heavy. That is 315lb heavy and there are consequences to that -- even if I am not fat and have a healthy body fat percentage. I'm a big guy. Genetics made gave me this frame and I choose to augment it though weight-training.

I had just finished a set of squats and had turned around to take the elastic wraps we use on our knees to help minimize injury when this man came up to me and simply asked "Do you go to a chiropractor." Like I said earlier, I'm often contemplating Skeptical issues as I'm working out. This wasn't one of those days. I was being, ahem, a male and was distracted by the beauty of a woman working out. It could have been dancing as far as I'm concerned. I have a bad habit of digressing.

At any rate, I was a bit startled.

Well, this man said he had noticed I was "off center" and "favoring one side" and asked me again about going to a chiropractor. He regaled me of this "one time" he has a problem with his hip and how a chiropractor had put him back into alignment and that the pain had gone away. It was at this point I informed him of my infirmities and that I'm taking care of them with my doctor. I also mentioned that I don't accept chiropracy as a meaningful treatment. You see, I've been through the beginning stages of the cult of chiropractic at one point on the behest of a friend. I know what's done to convince you that you have a problem.

Apparently somewhat stunned by my response, he then immediately countered with a rapid "Use natural cures, man. They're the best." I informed him that I was drinking lots of water (natural) for the gout and superficial thromboplebitis, orthotics (un-natural and very effective) for the heel spur, and colcrys (un-natural drug) for the gout. I don't take pain medication unless I'm really messed up and I suppose I could have thrown that in too but it didn't matter as the gentleman started walking away (quickly, I might add) when I mentioned my "un-natural" treatments worked rather well.

This got me thinking. Chiropractors make a habit of hitting up gyms for clients. The general public is unaware of the woo-woo some chiropractors try to pass off as medicine. My gym even has had a chiropractor in as part of a "member appreciation" event. If you are a gym member somewhere, stop and take a moment and look around. Are there advertisements from chiropractors in the common areas? If so, you may want to address the issue with the gym's management. There are many resources available online which can provide you with very good information. I'm also playing around with making a little flyer or booklet that could be handed out at gyms. If I ever get around to making it (I'm a single dad and time is something I have in limited quantity) I'll put it up here for people to download and use.

Well, this event has gotten me thinking about the woo-woo and pseudoscience that is marketed to athletes and gym-goers. We are well aware of the Power Balance scam but I'm thinking more along the line of false "truisms" along the lines of spot reduction (your butt gets fitter if you only train your butt) and the 800 gorilla in the room -- supplements. Supplements are marketed to weightlifters and gym-goers like few outside the gym can appreciate. Yes, the marketing is bad for the general public. Just imagine that marketing intensified and specifically targeted towards people's athletic goals. Steroids are illegal so a lot of bullshit is being marketed that claims to do what steroids can. Empty promises in the form of very, very expensive pills.

With any luck and some time, I'll write more about woo-woo in the gym. Until then: exercise for goodness sake! Want to extend your lifetime and improve your quality of life? You can do it without drugs or the newest gadget.