UFO's, Ghosts and Monsters

[deadcowaroma]

Try the recently released Fringe-ology by journalist Steve Volk. It may be exactly what you're seeking. I'm reading it now and it's excellent. It doesn't push either a skeptical or a "believer" agenda. In other words, it's interesting, well-researched and the author is perfectly comfortable saying "I don't know". It also covers a wide range of subject matter. I highly recommend it.

I read it when it came out and thought it was lousy but I had Sagan issues at the time. I suppose I still do since I think he often, and irresponsibly, wrote in an authoritative voice about subjects he hadn't really researched at all. The man was an excellent thinker and a powerful advocate for science but when it came to the unexplained, he had trouble getting out of the way of his own biases. Maybe I'll give it another shot one of these days...

I think there are many serious non-fiction books about the unexplained. The problem is nearly all of them come with a bias or an agenda. It's understandable but frustrating. I think the best course of action for anyone interested in the subject is to seek out different points of view, take them all with a grain of salt and draw your own conclusions.

No, you're correct, although that doesn't mean they aren't worth reading. As I said, it's difficult to find books on UFOs and various unexplained phenomena that don't have a bias.

If you want to read more about UFOs in particular, I highly recommend Richard Dolan's UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973. I haven't finished his follow-up to that book (which covers the period from '73-'91) so I can't really comment on it but the first volume is excellent.

Leslie Kean's recent UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record is supposed to be very good too. It's on my shelf but I haven't read it yet.

Regarding Annie Jacobsen: I've heard pretty mixed reviews of her latest. That's all I can tell you. I haven't read that one either.

I hope some of that's helpful!

Jim

I think we might be on opposite sides of the spectrum on nearly every single topic, Jim. I've given you so much shit lately though that I'm just gonna let this stuff slide.    

[JimN]

I think we might be on opposite sides of the spectrum on nearly every single topic, Jim. I've given you so much shit lately though that I'm just gonna let this stuff slide.    

Fair enough! Thanks.

[kinetic]

Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World.

Philip Plait's Bad Astronomy.

Ben Radford's Tracking the Chupacabra.

Kendrick Frazier (ed.) The UFO Invasion.

James Randi's An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural. (also available here).

Karma for recommending these. All great books. All definitely on the skeptical side, but thats a good thing. Too many people believe in BS without really questioning or thinking.

[JimN]

Karma for recommending these. All great books. All definitely on the skeptical side, but thats a good thing. Too many people believe in BS without really questioning or thinking.

Too many people dismiss things as BS without really questioning or thinking too. That's why I think it's important to seek out different points of view, especially on subjects as controversial as most of these unexplained (or explained, depending on your point of view) phenomena.

Jim

[ThePatheticClub]

Too many people dismiss things as BS without really questioning or thinking too. That's why I think it's important to seek out different points of view, especially on subjects as controversial as most of these unexplained (or explained, depending on your point of view) phenomena.

Jim

Agreed. Neutral is the ideal starting position in my opinion. I didn't find the books you guys recommended at the library so I got a few about abductions as it is the most intriguing phenomenon to me.

[JimN]

Agreed. Neutral is the ideal starting position in my opinion. I didn't find the books you guys recommended at the library so I got a few about abductions as it is the most intriguing phenomenon to me.

It may be the biggest minefield too! Which books did you get?

Jim

[ThePatheticClub]

It may be the biggest minefield too! Which books did you get?

Jim

Old ones. Close Encounters of the 4th Kind by CDB Bryan and The Abduction Enigma by a bunch of guys.

I was disappointed in my library's selection of paranormal books.

[JimN]

Old ones. Close Encounters of the 4th Kind by CDB Bryan and The Abduction Enigma by a bunch of guys.

I was disappointed in my library's selection of paranormal books.

Those are both pretty interesting books on the abduction phenomenon. They'll give you some different perspectives and if I remember correctly, Bryan's book is written with the kind of journalistic perspective you were seeking.

Jim

[ThePatheticClub]

I enjoyed this: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/ufos-the-secret-evidence/

A good if somewhat superficial overview of the UFO phenomenon.

[kinetic]

Too many people dismiss things as BS without really questioning or thinking too. That's why I think it's important to seek out different points of view, especially on subjects as controversial as most of these unexplained (or explained, depending on your point of view) phenomena.

Jim

I think there are alot more people (unfortunately) who believe, or take as true, many urban legends, myths and various forms of pseudoscience without really considering the facts or likelihood of them being true or effective. I find most skeptically minded people are interested in facts and scientific evidence rather than heresay and secondhand accounts, blurry photos or blatantly incorrect interpretation.
I find it amusing when people who believe in such things as bigfoot or ufo's or other such things, claim skeptics or scientists don't want to uncover these myths or phenomena as part of some conspiracy or they think it will destroy the legitimacy of the scientific community.

Every scientist I've spoken to, or heard talk about this stuff, would love to find that some of these mythical creatures exist or that ufo's do exist. Unfortunately, there is no strong evidence to support any of these phenomena. In fact many have been proven pretty definitevley that they do not exist (loch-ness, chupacabra, ghosts etc) yet some people choose to still believe in them for some odd reason, even when presented with the extremely strong evidence that they don't exist.  Believers seem to grasp onto any tiny little straw that they think supports their agenda or belief. Their capacity for self-delusion seems immense.

One of my favourite shows at the moment would have to be Finding Bigfoot. 4 members of some Bigfoot research group trouncing around the US looking for evidence of Bigfoot. The leader of the group seems like he is just talking out his ass. Anything they find he considers sure evidence of a bigfoot. A deer carcass in the middle of the forest- must be a sasquatch. They hear a wood knocking sound somewhere in the forest - must be a sasquatch. They find some blood on the porch of a forest cabin - must be a bigfoot. what a load of crap. They take it seriously but I find it hilarious. "This place feels Squatchy" lol
It's interesting that there are more people than ever before, with more sofisticated technology than ever before, searching for this 8-12 foot tall biped primate, yet the best evidence for it is a shaky 60 second film that is over 40 years old. A film that is very likely to be a hoax.

The same argument can be said of the ufos. Don't you think that with all the sets of eyes, binoculars and telescopes etc pointed at the sky each night by astronomers, and more importantly amateur astronomers, like myself (professional astronomers tend to spend their majority of their time looking at computer screens and spectrograph readouts etc than actually looking at the sky with their own eyes), that there wouldn't be a deluge of ufo sightings from the one part of the community that looks at the sky the most?
The fact is that you will find very few sightings from astronomers (professional and amateur) because they know what they are looking at. Members of the general public who are not familiar with the sky or it's natural phenomena can easily mistake what they are seeing as a ufo (alien spacecraft).
As an amateur astronomer I would be thrilled beyond belief if it was proven that alien spacecraft were visiting earth. Unfortunately the evidence suggests this isn't the case.

I have loved mysteries,ufos, cryptozoology since my mum bought me a book on unsolved mysteries when I was maybe 8 years old. Even though I don't believe in 99% of them (the other 1% are doubtful, but possible ) I still find them fascinating to consider. I don't dismiss them out of hand without doing some research or considering the possibilities. Any skeptic worthy of the name should be willing to research these phenomena and find the facts that are supported by the evidence (or lack of evidence.)
Oh well, I've ranted enough. Peace all.

[JimN]

I think there are alot more people (unfortunately) who believe, or take as true, many urban legends, myths and various forms of pseudoscience without really considering the facts or likelihood of them being true or effective. I find most skeptically minded people are interested in facts and scientific evidence rather than heresay and secondhand accounts, blurry photos or blatantly incorrect interpretation.
I find it amusing when people who believe in such things as bigfoot or ufo's or other such things, claim skeptics or scientists don't want to uncover these myths or phenomena as part of some conspiracy or they think it will destroy the legitimacy of the scientific community.

Every scientist I've spoken to, or heard talk about this stuff, would love to find that some of these mythical creatures exist or that ufo's do exist. Unfortunately, there is no strong evidence to support any of these phenomena.

Actually, there's plenty of strong evidence for the existence of UFOs. In fact, there's no doubt at at all that unidentified flying objects and unidentified aerial phenomena exist. It's identification that's problematic. In some cases it's possible, in others nobody has definitive answers.

Sorry, I knew what you meant and I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just like to remind people that the acronym UFO stands for "unidentified flying object" not "alien spacecraft".

In fact many have been proven pretty definitevley that they do not exist (loch-ness, chupacabra, ghosts etc) yet some people choose to still believe in them for some odd reason, even when presented with the extremely strong evidence that they don't exist.  Believers seem to grasp onto any tiny little straw that they think supports their agenda or belief. Their capacity for self-delusion seems immense.

I've found the same to be true of many so-called skeptics. There's a general tendency among all human beings to seek information that confirms or supports their existing beliefs and, as belief systems are established, to resist information that conflicts with those belief systems.

One of my favourite shows at the moment would have to be Finding Bigfoot. 4 members of some Bigfoot research group trouncing around the US looking for evidence of Bigfoot. The leader of the group seems like he is just talking out his ass. Anything they find he considers sure evidence of a bigfoot. A deer carcass in the middle of the forest- must be a sasquatch. They hear a wood knocking sound somewhere in the forest - must be a sasquatch. They find some blood on the porch of a forest cabin - must be a bigfoot. what a load of crap. They take it seriously but I find it hilarious. "This place feels Squatchy" lol

I watched a little bit of one episode and bailed on it because it looked like nothing but silliness to me.

It's interesting that there are more people than ever before, with more sofisticated technology than ever before, searching for this 8-12 foot tall biped primate, yet the best evidence for it is a shaky 60 second film that is over 40 years old. A film that is very likely to be a hoax.

It's a big world and despite the size of the world's population, the wilderness is big too. There may be more people searching for Bigfoot than ever before but that actual number of people is still pretty low and I doubt most of them are using very sophisticated equipment and techniques at all. They may be looking for a needle in a haystack or they may just be chasing a myth.

The same argument can be said of the ufos. Don't you think that with all the sets of eyes, binoculars and telescopes etc pointed at the sky each night by astronomers, and more importantly amateur astronomers, like myself (professional astronomers tend to spend their majority of their time looking at computer screens and spectrograph readouts etc than actually looking at the sky with their own eyes), that there wouldn't be a deluge of ufo sightings from the one part of the community that looks at the sky the most?

I've seen this argument before and no, I don't think there would be a "deluge" of ufo sightings from the amateur astronomy community because that group of people isn't scanning the skies looking for UFOs and it's a big, big sky. Furthermore, as you said, that community is probably capable of identifying what's behind much of the 90-95% of UFO sightings that are explainable and it's not as if the sky is peppered with the small, thus far unexplainable percentage of UFOs. However, astronomers have sighted UFOs and pilots, another community you would expect to see UFOS if they're present to be seen, have been reporting sightings for decades.

As an amateur astronomer I would be thrilled beyond belief if it was proven that alien spacecraft were visiting earth. Unfortunately the evidence suggests this isn't the case.

Actually, I think the evidence is simply and clearly inconclusive.

I have loved mysteries,ufos, cryptozoology since my mum bought me a book on unsolved mysteries when I was maybe 8 years old. Even though I don't believe in 99% of them (the other 1% are doubtful, but possible ) I still find them fascinating to consider. I don't dismiss them out of hand without doing some research or considering the possibilities. Any skeptic worthy of the name should be willing to research these phenomena and find the facts that are supported by the evidence (or lack of evidence.)

I certainly agree with that. I believe that holds true for anybody interested in these subjects.

Jim

[ThePatheticClub]

Despite popular belief. Skeptic ≠ Neutral. Believer ≠ Gullible.

My opinion so far is that mathematically speaking it is highly unlikely that we have been visited by extra-terrestrial craft. The more probable answer is that sightings of Unidentified Aircraft are very likely of human design. But those are not the only two possible explanations for sightings. Hallucinations are also a statistically sound explanation for some sightings. The same can be said of outright lies, frauds and hoaxes. I do not ascribe to an either/or type of thinking. I prefer to cautiously avoid absolutes, blanket conclusions and confirmation bias.

As for bigfoot and ilk: From a purely mathematical point of view, it is highly unlikely that Bigfoot currently exists and can be found. This does not mean that bigfoot has never existed or has not been sighted in the past. I point this out because this is the mistake many skeptics make in my opinion. Because a certain thing is true currently they make the assumption that thing has always been and always will be true. I do not agree with this type of thinking.

Can bigfoot, loch ness and ilk have existed? From a purely genetic and biological point of view is it possible for those creatures to have come about? Yes, it is. The likelihood of it hapenning can not be refuted. So why dismiss it completely? I am comfortable with not having all the answers. I don't need to make an assumption in the face of lack of evidence. I'm ok with not knowing. And that in my opinion is what is generally lacking in both the believer and skeptic camps. An ability to say: "I don't know". Also, expressions such as "probably, likely, seems to" need to be embraced in my opinion. (not to mention "in my opinion".)

Ultimately, my interest in the UFO phenomenon, ghosts and monsters is casual and passing. I'm more curious than anything. I feel I'm being fairly neutral in my approach of the subject.

[NiceAndBlue]

Despite popular belief. Skeptic ≠ Neutral. Believer ≠ Gullible.

Skeptic ≠ Cynic (modern usage)

As for bigfoot and ilk: From a purely mathematical point of view, it is highly unlikely that Bigfoot currently exists and can be found. This does not mean that bigfoot has never existed or has not been sighted in the past. I point this out because this is the mistake many skeptics make in my opinion. Because a certain thing is true currently they make the assumption that thing has always been and always will be true. I do not agree with this type of thinking.

You're just erecting a strawman of skeptics to knock down. Who thinks this, specifically? Did other bipedal primates exist? Yes, of course. Can a species survive a population bottleneck of one....hell no. If you want to argue that 3 million years ago there was another species of bipedal primates, and the species eventually died out and at one point there was exactly one left, sure, but that is a completely different than believing, based on no good evidence, that there is still such an animal in existence.

Can bigfoot, loch ness and ilk have existed? From a purely genetic and biological point of view is it possible for those creatures to have come about? Yes, it is. The likelihood of it hapenning can not be refuted. So why dismiss it completely? I am comfortable with not having all the answers. I don't need to make an assumption in the face of lack of evidence. I'm ok with not knowing. And that in my opinion is what is generally lacking in both the believer and skeptic camps. An ability to say: "I don't know". Also, expressions such as "probably, likely, seems to" need to be embraced in my opinion. (not to mention "in my opinion".)

Unless you want to completely dismiss our whole body of knowledge on evolutionary biology, no, a singular creature (or even a population less than a thousand) cannot survive and perpetuate. There is not enough genetic diversity to sustain the species. If you want to talk about the past, of course there were dinosaurs, of course there were ancient mammals, of course there were other bipedal primates. How else did we get here? Modern animals evolved from such creatures. Who are these skeptics that are arguing that there were not?

Also you can't confuse "I don't know" with "It's equally plausible until you prove me wrong". That is the argument from ignorance. The burden of proof lies on the person making the extraordinary claim.


This is just anecdotal, but has anyone else noticed that people that are super into crypto-zoology have absolutely no interest in real biology? There are so many amazing and beautiful animals that actually do exist, and the process by which they came to be is fascinating; yet they spend their time believing in and hunting for something that couldn't.

[JimN]

Unless you want to completely dismiss our whole body of knowledge on evolutionary biology, no, a singular creature (or even a population less than a thousand) cannot survive and perpetuate.

Perhaps not but while that's an effective argument against the existence of supposed lake monsters like Nessie or Champ it's far less effective against the existence of a Bigfoot-like creature because a population can dwindle to 1000 or less and still exist. Extinctions tend to happen gradually, not suddenly.

This is just anecdotal, but has anyone else noticed that people that are super into crypto-zoology have absolutely no interest in real biology?

No, I haven't. In fact, my personal experience has been that people who are interested in cryptozoology tend to be interested in biology as well.

There are so many amazing and beautiful animals that actually do exist, and the process by which they came to be is fascinating; yet they spend their time believing in and hunting for something that couldn't.

"Couldn't"? "'Real' biology"? I mean no offense but your language betrays your bias. Some "cryptids" are extremely improbable but some could exist, as popular examples like the coelocanth and the once-believed-to-be-mythical mountain gorilla illustrate. We know that other bipedal primates have existed in the past so it's certainly not impossible for something like Bigfoot or the Orang-Pendek to exist. Both creatures are rumored to live in areas where there is both sufficient food and habitat to support a population.

Jim

[kinetic]

Perhaps not but while that's an effective argument against the existence of supposed lake monsters like Nessie or Champ it's far less effective against the existence of a Bigfoot-like creature because a population can dwindle to 1000 or less and still exist. Extinctions tend to happen gradually, not suddenly.

No, I haven't. In fact, my personal experience has been that people who are interested in cryptozoology tend to be interested in biology as well.

"Couldn't"? "'Real' biology"? I mean no offense but your language betrays your bias. Some "cryptids" are extremely improbable but some could exist, as popular examples like the coelocanth and the once-believed-to-be-mythical mountain gorilla illustrate. We know that other bipedal primates have existed in the past so it's certainly not impossible for something like Bigfoot or the Orang-Pendek to exist. Both creatures are rumored to live in areas where there is both sufficient food and habitat to support a population.

Jim

I find it hard to believe, given what we know about population viability, the fact that there are so many people actively looking for bigfoot and relatively limited areas within which these creatures are thought to live, we haven't found one iota of credible evidence that they exist.
It's true that extinction is gradual, but there would still be evidence of the remaining individuals. I wonder why we don't find carcasses or bedding areas or other evidence of there presence. A 10 foot tall primate would leave some fairly obvious evidence that they are inhabiting a certain area. Yet we don't find it.

As to the question of cryptozoologists having an interest or not having an interest in biology. I think the more important question is, Do they have a proper understanding of biology, evolution etc.

To claim the Coelacanth as a cryptid is a stretching the term a tad. A major difference between the discovery of the Coelacanth and the supposed finding/existence of bigfoot, is that until the Coelacanth was found(by pure chance) no one had any clue it still existed. It wasn't being actively searched for.
A species of fish was found by chance in a big ocean, yet we cant find a 10 foot tall bipedal primate in a relatively small area of North America that is being actively and continually searched for. Really?
Even the Mountain Gorilla wasn't being actually searched for. There was local legends of great apes in the mountains but until a hunter shot one not really knowing that it was a gorilla, no one knew of their existence.
That suggests to me the likelyhood of bigfoot existing is extremely unlikely if not nigh impossible.

I find the Orang Pendek really interesting. That is one cryptid that I think could be possible. Still unlikely but hey there isn't any strong evidence either way. It would be great if they discovered the Orang pendek.

[ThePatheticClub]

Skeptic ≠ Cynic (modern usage)

You're just erecting a strawman of skeptics to knock down. Who thinks this, specifically? Did other bipedal primates exist? Yes, of course. Can a species survive a population bottleneck of one....hell no. If you want to argue that 3 million years ago there was another species of bipedal primates, and the species eventually died out and at one point there was exactly one left, sure, but that is a completely different than believing, based on no good evidence, that there is still such an animal in existence.

Unless you want to completely dismiss our whole body of knowledge on evolutionary biology, no, a singular creature (or even a population less than a thousand) cannot survive and perpetuate. There is not enough genetic diversity to sustain the species. If you want to talk about the past, of course there were dinosaurs, of course there were ancient mammals, of course there were other bipedal primates. How else did we get here? Modern animals evolved from such creatures. Who are these skeptics that are arguing that there were not?

Also you can't confuse "I don't know" with "It's equally plausible until you prove me wrong". That is the argument from ignorance. The burden of proof lies on the person making the extraordinary claim.

I seem to not have expressed myself clearly.

[JimN]

I find it hard to believe, given what we know about population viability, the fact that there are so many people actively looking for bigfoot and relatively limited areas within which these creatures are thought to live, we haven't found one iota of credible evidence that they exist.

Actually, considering the footprint research and analysis of Idaho State University Professor Jeff Meldrum, I don't think that's true. We obviously don't have conclusive evidence but I don't believe it's accurate to say we don't have one iota of credible evidence.

By the way, Bigfoot sightings cover a vast area, sizable portions of the U.S. and Canada, not relatively limited areas.

It's true that extinction is gradual, but there would still be evidence of the remaining individuals. I wonder why we don't find carcasses or bedding areas or other evidence of there presence. A 10 foot tall primate would leave some fairly obvious evidence that they are inhabiting a certain area. Yet we don't find it.

They find footprints and some researchers believe they've found scat. If I remember correctly, they've found a few supposed bedding areas too but I may be wrong about that. Even if they did, that wouldn't necessarily provide convincing evidence unless DNA could be recovered.

It's not terribly mysterious that carcasses haven't been found. They don't last long in the wild, animals often seek refuge when sick or dying and if Bigfoot is a real species, it's clearly a reclusive one.

As to the question of cryptozoologists having an interest or not having an interest in biology. I think the more important question is, Do they have a proper understanding of biology, evolution etc.

That's obviously going to vary from one individual to another but I agree such an understanding is important.

To claim the Coelacanth as a cryptid is a stretching the term a tad. A major difference between the discovery of the Coelacanth and the supposed finding/existence of bigfoot, is that until the Coelacanth was found(by pure chance) no one had any clue it still existed. It wasn't being actively searched for.
A species of fish was found by chance in a big ocean, yet we cant find a 10 foot tall bipedal primate in a relatively small area of North America that is being actively and continually searched for. Really?

Again, it's a vast area, encompassing significant portions of two of the bigger countries in the world, not a  relatively small area. It's not as if large teams of well-funded and well-equipped biologists are out there searching either. There are a few scientists, some grassroots organizations, a bunch of amateurs and almost no funding.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the coelacanth or the mountain gorilla were cryptids. I mentioned them because they are often brought up by cryptozoologists as examples of species that were either thought to be extinct (the fish) or mythical (the gorilla) until their discovery put those views to rest.

I find the Orang Pendek really interesting. That is one cryptid that I think could be possible. Still unlikely but hey there isn't any strong evidence either way. It would be great if they discovered the Orang pendek.

I agree. Maybe it will happen one of these days.

Jim

[kinetic]

Hey Jim,
I get the impression you are taking a pretty much on the fence approach to alot of this sort of thing. What out of all the mysteries are you most fond of? UFOs, Cryptids, ghosts?

What are some of the best docos you have found on this sort of stuff? I have watched series like MonsterQuest, Is it Real, Unsolved Mysteries etc but am always interested in more docos.

Cheers

[JimN]

Hey Jim,
I get the impression you are taking a pretty much on the fence approach to alot of this sort of thing.

You're correct.

What out of all the mysteries are you most fond of? UFOs, Cryptids, ghosts?

Oh, definitely UFOs. That subject fascinates me. What about you?

What are some of the best docos you have found on this sort of stuff? I have watched series like MonsterQuest, Is it Real, Unsolved Mysteries etc but am always interested in more docos.

Of course, now that you've asked, I'm drawing a bit of a blank. I'd say James Fox's 2 documentaries, Out of the Blue and I Know What I Saw are definitely two of the better UFO films I've seen. I prefer Out of the Blue but as I recall, they're both well done and far less sensationalistic than a lot of docs about UFOs.

There have been some good one-hour TV docs too but their names escape me. I'll see if I can dig them up. History Channel did a series of documentaries  years ago that I think were called UFO FIles and I remember some of them being pretty good. I'll see if I can get some more names for you.

I've watched a lot of programming about UFOs over the years but books have been my main focus when it comes to that subject.

Is there one of these mystery subjects that interests you more than others?

Jim

[ThePatheticClub]

I'm very surprised you mention Out of the Blue as being unsensationalistic. I was very unimpressed by that documentary's gathering of data and very biased slant. It struck me as a very clear attempt at cashing in on the UFO craze.

Personally I can't say I think it was a smart documentary. It has a few interesting moments but I reject it altogether.