Well, the long-awaited day has come: Tomorrow at 10pm on
Spike is the premiere of 10 Million
Dollar Bigfoot Bounty. As some of
you know, I was alternately intrigued and embarrassed about being intrigued
last year by the way paranormal claims have evolved recently under new media
pressure.
I’ve considered all that stuff nonsense for thirty years
(admiring science-based debunking magazines like Skeptic and Skeptical
Inquirer, which you should read).
And I would contend no new evidence of value for any paranormal claims
(including God) has come forth in the era of social media and sensationalist
cable TV -- on the other hand, I was tempted to write an article last year
about how new media, especially YouTube, had changed belief in such things in
ways one might not have predicted.
For instance, you’d think the ease of posting video might
simply kill off all such claims, since everyone now (basically) has to put up
or shut up in an era of ready cellphone videos.
On the other hand, believers have now become adept at reading evidence
of Bigfoot into even the blurriest of videos.
But the epistemological tango does not end there, since even
the believers have become prone to making sarcastic jokes online about their
weariness at looking at so many inconclusive “blobsquatches.” Call me irresponsible, but on balance, I
think the newfound ease with which people can drift back and forth between the
believer and skeptic communities is probably a good thing, limbering up some
minds on both sides. The believers
definitely need to learn the basics of skepticism, but we skeptics could do
with a lot more education about why some things have more persuasive power
(yes, even to smart people) than other things.
A climax of sorts was reached last spring when the Bigfoot
people released a much-touted documentary that was supposed to unveil a Bigfoot
carcass once and for all -- and of course failed, with one of the documentary’s
stars ending up derided as a two-time hoaxer (one who is still at it, since he
will appear on Bigfoot Bounty, as
this article explains). He all but
says -- and you almost can’t blame him -- that he’ll keep doing this if people
are dumb enough to keep letting him. A
bit like Lucy with the football in Peanuts.
I predict Spike will end up not having to give away their
$10 million bounty to anyone, and their blog about the show has barely been
updated since it was launched over a year ago with a promise of Bigfoot
updates. Just as the unclaimed $1
million-plus prize from the James Randi Educational Foundation for any proof of
psychics inclines me to believe there are no psychic powers, the likely
unclaimed Spike bounty should by rights put an end to Bigfoot claims -- though
the skeptic should never allow himself to move so far from agnosticism as to be
blindsided if something really weird happens.
•••
Around the same time last year’s Bigfoot documentary came
out, coincidentally, the UFO believers gave it arguably their best shot by
releasing a documentary called Sirius
based on the so-called Disclosure Project, which encourages military veterans
in particular to come forward in whistleblower-type hearings and video
interviews to tell what they (think they) know.
Ultimately, no smoking gun (and an apparent tiny alien corpse shown in
the film and admirably subjected to scientific scrutiny at a Stanford genetics
lab may just be an aborted human fetus) but an A for organizational
effort.
(On the other side of the debate, sort of, I am also
intrigued by the documentary Mirage Men,
due on DVD in April, which alleges that far from covering up aliens, government
has been subtly encouraging belief in them to distract the public from stealth
technology tests.)
I spent three decades (yes, even back in high school)
discouraging Disclosure-type efforts as largely a waste of time, but I can’t
help thinking, just tactically, that the next step for the Disclosure Project
probably ought to be putting pressure on new-minted Obama advisor John Podesta,
an ardent advocate of UFO information disclosure by the government and chairman
of the influential left-wing thinktank the Center for American Progress. (He also dislikes the Sequester budget cuts,
but I doubt any left-wing comedians will be doing jokes likening resistance to
budget cuts to belief in aliens. If I
had to pick, I would call advocacy of UFO disclosure the wisest of his
positions. I wish I were joking.)
As for me, conscious of the fact that government workers are
wrong with great frequency, I cannot put too much stock in even the most
riveting tales told by Disclosure Project interviewees (and I readily admit
some of them sound very convincing, intelligent, and above all
martially-efficient in their accounts, chock full of radar jargon and
everything). However, in my admittedly
far sloppier way, I have come up with two favorite accounts (in the sense of
almost giving a skeptic doubts) amidst all the paranormal claims (I know of)
made online. Both are UFO-related, and I
have not seen a scrap of persuasive evidence for any Bigfoot, ghost, psychic,
God, demon, or for that matter UFO abduction story:
1. As I’ve mentioned before, the 1994 sighting at the Ariel
School in rural Zimbabwe is intriguing because even if we assume no
extraterrestrials were involved, we are left with a bizarre glimpse of just how
strange and psychologically-affecting an incident can befall a very large and intelligent-seeming group of
children.
This
hokey three-minute video account isn’t such a bad summary, though it only
scratches the surface of the hours and
hours of footage of sixty-plus children of varying ages swearing they saw a
saucer and a tiny man land near their school at recess -- and still swear it
sixteen years later when re-interviewed in 2010 in several cases. (The TV producer in me knows this could easily
be turned into a good documentary if someone competent -- and skeptical --
edited all the raw footage, though at the same time as a skeptic I feel guilty
and exploitative even being slightly tempted to do so.)
Even a couple skeptics who’ve written about the case have
been left with the unsettling conclusion that the best terrestrial explanation
might be that someone went to elaborate lengths to hoax kids in rural Zimbabwe
-- which is itself rather odd, you have to admit.
Then again, the man interviewing the kids a few days after
the incident (seen in that linked clip) was the late psychiatrist John Mack, an
inadvertently pushy believer in UFO phenomena who likely irresponsibly led many
patients under “hypnotic regression” to believe they’d been abducted (and now
it sounds like fodder for a swell, character-driven, ambiguous dramatic film). Still, just knowing you can turn kids into
such convincing witnesses, even if there was nothing (much) there, is
intriguing in itself -- though perhaps not surprising given things like
innocent people still being released from jail two decades after the
“Satanic abuse” preschool trials.
2. This
TV account gets a little complicated, but basically numerous credible
witnesses not only saw something like a black, lighted, silent, hovering
triangle making its way low across Ohio in 1994 and Illinois in 2000 (with
brief interstitial material between those accounts about similar cases in 1966
and 1957), multiple independent police precincts responded to calls about the
phenomena.
To the delight of TV producers everywhere, we still have the
recorded and logged calls people put in to 911, complete with jokes about how
bizarre the thing looked and subsequent on-the-scene cop claims that something
the size of a house was rotating in the air above them. And one person got a video of it, albeit
showing only tiny points of light.
We are probably not
being visited by probes sent from other planets. Then again, fourteen year-old skeptic Todd would
not have believed from reading dry newspaper accounts (instead of seeing video)
just how credible some of the purported witnesses are and just how odd (even
under the most skeptical interpretation) some of those lights in the sky
are.
Of course, we have also recently confirmed that glowing gas-orbs
can be produced in the days prior to an earthquake, so admitting there is some
weird stuff in the world does not necessarily oblige us to prepare for membership
in the United Federation of Planets. But
again, one wouldn’t want to be taken completely by surprise, either.
1 comment:
You're my kind of skeptic, Seavey. Ain't no point in being so sensible you can't talk about possibilities, or feel the occasional neck shiver at a more convincing than average video. No fun in that. None at all.
Post a Comment