Reflections...

You know, I'll never get any blog to the point where people consistently read it; and that's okay with me. Why? Because it's really too much work. Unless you're already a notable person or someone with no life, most people don't have the time to put into blogging, or the pimping of it on other related sites. I dislike reading skeptical forums, for example, because I get very little out of them and I can usually contribute even less. Read other blogs is okay but I often don't comment so who is gonna know about this? Not enough that it will matter, but here I can express myself in an open way and not care too much because not enough people know about it to make a difference; and I'm fine with that...

So, with school out there's nothing really to talk about on that end and honestly, there's not been much on the religious end either. I've listen to the latest "Reasonable Doubts" but haven't heard much to blog about. So what about skepticism? Well, what is there to say? For all that it is a marked improvement from Christianity, of which I partook my reality for most of my life, sometimes I wanna bang my head against a wall. When I listen to the skeptical angle, most of the time I agree with it, and when I listen to the believe end, I usually end up scratching my head. Still, there are times where I think the believe makes a good point while I wanna slap the crap outta the skeptic. I know nothing is perfect or always puts its best foot forward but sometimes I wonder where one draws the line.

For example: Sasquatch. While I am a "Bigfoot Hopeful", as Brian Dunning put it, the likelihood of its existence thus was is slim to none in my book. When you listen to enough of the believer's side, you begin to question things; which is good. Still, I have yet to be persuaded to believe anything more than whatever people are experiencing or think they are experiencing is something worth investigating, even if it is all in the mind. It's not that Sasquatch does not exist per say, it is that when one starts with a null hypothesis, the end conclusion for the creature is dubious at best with an inconclusive or negative. Yet, ask a random skeptic and their likely answer will be laughter or a very confident no. Granted, I, too, am confident in my stance but the stance refereed to above is one of total confidence, like the type you give to gravity. They don't even give it a second thought; and perhaps not without understandable reasons.

Is this proper skepticism? No, and I'm not the first skeptic to discuss this. My angle on the topic is this: the arrogance I get from how certain topics are handled by certain skeptics, skeptics in general, or groups of skeptics, reeks of the same B.S. that got me to despise church and Christianity in general. Yep, I went there. Now, I fully understand the human limitations in play here and I don't expect perfection from no one, but it bugs me when I try for something different and it's seems less than a 180 and more like a mirror: reversed views, same stank subject. While I enjoy listening to the skeptical and believer podcasts, sometimes I just wanna slap 'em both. While I try to be interactive in the MABRC forum, the discussions I've come across on the JREF forums and others lead me to the conclusion that I will just get upset if I interact with those sites and likely cannot contribute anything worthwhile to them. Pessimistic? Maybe, be I think more realistic.

I'm not that well verses in any particular subject, I just know enough to keep pace in most conversations. I'm opinionated and can speak my mind but little that will do with people who are very superior debaters. That is another factors that tweaks me. It seems most things in life have NOTHING to no with right & wrong, truth & fiction, etc. but rather how one present an argument. Thus, you can be completely wrong yet win an argument and thus be "right". Facts appearently mean little in this world of believers and skeptics. Even if Sasquatch is real, for example, because of the lack of evidence and such one can successfully argue against a unknown truth. Conversely, those who peddle woo and other BS can win over their case with sly wording or better debate skills. What is the point then of someone like me in all this? I can mark the odd comment about what works and what doesn't or cast doubt or insight onto a random topic but sowing seeds is not my cup of tea. Most of my seeds die anyway...

So I liken to shows like "No Agenda" and see a lot of what I learned in my communication classes about the bs that appears to dictate and govern this planet. Monsanto might be evil, but it's certainly not unique. I listened to the "Skeptoid" episode about Monsanto and all the type around it, as I have the one about Wal-Mart, and while Dunning brings up good points every conspiracy theorist should take heed, he does seem to miss out on the real negative impacts these places are having. While I agree mostly with his arguments presented during the episodes, he seems to miss the point about black listed farmers and government manipulation of health standards. Unique? No, but just as dangerous as ever. Is the danger over-hyped by these people who see Monsanto as the "Great Satan"? Perhaps, but these same conspiracy theorists often bring up great points that are all too often overshadowed by more ludicrous claims.

Even if they feel it true, it might behoove them to keep out the more fringe elements of their beliefs to focus on topics of concern that they can get the most people to back, thereby bolstering their desires to overturn the evil empires of the planet by getting more people to be proactive in their governments. "No Agenda", for example, time and again does a lot of good informing the podcasting public about a lot of bs in North America, Europe, and other places that needs to be addressed. However, its host Adam Curry likes to go off the deep end with some extreme world government fears. While I agree with John C. Dvorak more often than not, he does not seem to provide a larger balance to Curry's agenda. While I have no problem with what Curry thinks, I fear his holistic world view scares off too many listeners. He needs to focus more on what can be done rather than lamenting most episodes how he and his listeners will only live longer but cannot escape our impending doom.

While most skeptics might balk about supporting such a show as "No Agenda", again it proves as a good example of good information being present along with a lot of bs anti-vaccination rhetoric and NWO scare-tactics. Yet, when one looks into things like the Lisbon Treaty, the current rushed trials for Swine Flu/Mexican Flu vaccines, the proposed US health care reform bill, etc. and how all of these are being handled and their contents, it should give anyone cause for pause. I would write Adam and John about these concerns but I'd likely be labeled a government shill and at best just ignored. It was a remains a good show with good information but as of now and for a while now "No Agenda" has been a lacking in a lot of way towards content, objective analysis, and believability. This said, it has a record of observations that cannot be ignored.

What is a skeptic to do? What is a communication student to do? "Skepticality" and "Skeptics' Guide to the Universe" are great escapes back to sanity and science yet sometimes I wonder whether all this critical thinking, skepticism, and the like is really being put to good use. Fuck the conspiracy nutters, there is a shit-ton of negative stuff going on that anyone with half a brain and realize and understand. While I support the school focus and anti-woo and pro-science focus that skepticism had currently I think it needs to refocus its efforts on reforming government. Why? Because just like with humanity destroying this planet in various ways, we need to clean up things locally and then move up to larger projects, as such will make the bigger things no so challenging. Corruption needs to be addressed, as does a lot of political overburden and bs. Adding to these efforts will help expose the lack of evil empire plus do something even the believers can get behind. The same efforts to get homeopathy loopholes fix also helps towards cleaning up the government in general (this statement and some others are more US-centric but they can also apply internationally).

Skeptics need to listen to "Rage Against the Machine" more and realize that there are things that need to be addressed that have multiple positive outcomes, including the often more narrow focuses taken by a majority of skeptics. Skeptics should be going over government documents, like the Lisbon Treaty, Patriot Act, etc. and helping to expose the bs and helping their fellow countrymen/women understand what is going on. It is not enough just to go after 9-11 truthers. In fact, I would go as far as to say most skeptics should ignore them, for there are enough who will address them, and focus instead on holding the government to account over the inconsistencies and sidestepping that the US government has done about the topic and help expose the real truth that is being hidden by political double-speak and legislative wording. Such can be applied to other areas that skeptics love or loath to tread. How do you make skepticism sexy, marketable, and truly successful? You make its output practical, progressive, and productive to the wider world.

"Nebraska Loess Man" Original Research

So a while back I did some real investigative work. Yes, it was online but I was able to search out primary sources to resolve (in my opinion) a question about certain skull finds back in 1906. Not to be confused with the Nebraska Man, which is a fabrication that used pig's teeth to suggest early humans or proto-humans or ancestors to humans lived in North America (and certainly before the arrival of Clover people or traditional Native Americans). You can find my original postings on the MABRC forum (though I am unsure with the current politics if non-members can even read them): Primitive Man in the U.S. [MABRC forums down due to hacking issues. Will post links once forums are properly restored.].

Some cryptozoologists have cited this page -Some Fossils- for interesting clues to possible homo ancestors in North America. A drawing of one skull found on the site is labeled as "A Kow Swamp skull" (seen at the top of the page). The site relays information an article in the journal Science (yes, THAT magazine) back in 1906 about skull discoveries in Nebraska ["Discovery of an early type of man in Nebraska" Barbour, E.H., and Ward, H.B.; Science, 24:628, 1906]. After emphasizing sever key passages, the page author give this commentary: "Comments : the two obviously different populations were burried in the same structure, most probably by the same people (presumably the higher, "modern" one) at, roughly, the same period. The "lower people" could be slaves or any kind of associates of the "higher people"." The original source the page cites by Barbour, E.H., and Ward, H.B. I found though my online scholarly access of UWT. Sadly, that bars me from making the content accessible to the public but my point was merely to verify the cited source, which I did and the text is "word for word" with the magazine article. Another relating article I did find through public means is NEBRASKA "LOESS MAN" by B. Shimek (Geological Society of America). It give a more updated and detail account of the skull finds than the Science article and photos of the skull(s) in question to boot!

Now, originally, at this point I got confused with the "Nebraska Man" mentioned above and after LSurf (MABRC Organizational Field Researcher, Project Marker Team Member) pointed out to me the (now) obvious error is my original conclusion, I furthered my investigation. (Praise be to Google Book!) This is when I made the distinction between the 1917 "Nebraska Man" (pig's teeth hoax) and the 1906 "Nebraska Loess Man" skulls. Another article I could only access via my UWT account was ON THE TRACK of PRIMITIVE MAN AND HIS ANCESTOR; Prehistoric Skulls Found in Nebraska Prove Antiquity of Race in America Berlin Academy of Science Sends Expedition to Java to Search for Missing Link [New York Times December 23, 1906, Sunday]. More article citing the 1906 article can be found here: Google Book Search. The following are my finding relating to the 1906 skulls:

"I have concluded that the Nebraska "Loess Man" was indeed a real find and the only thing truly hampering an age range was the lack of stratification feature of the loess mounts (loess by its very definition and nature is un-stratified). To find more information, just type into a Google search "loess man" (include the quotations while searching for the best results). However, in addition to the age of the burial being questioned, which if further hampered by the possibility of a reburial many many decades or more later, there was a growing notion that the bones were very much human:

The bones of the "loess" man discovered two years ago in the mounds of Nebraska offer "no insurmountable obstacle" to the assumption that all are comparatively recent. Most of these American skeletons resemble closely the bones of the modern Indian. The higher primates (gorillas and chimpanzees) which are considered to have differentiated from the ancestors of man are, or at least have not been found among us, but have existed only in Asia Africa and Europe. Here should be a source of pride to the native American, that his primitive ancestry was indigenously human and not at all Simian.
"The Earliest Man", Medical Times. January-December 1909

This is further supported by another article in 1915:

In cooperation with the University of Nebraska, Poynter studied the remains of over one hundred skulls taken from graves on the bluffs overlooking the Missouri River near Omaha. Poynter’s interests lie in studying the entire group of a "lower ordered" ancient type of man. Specifically, Poynter calls this group the Nebraska Loess Man...

...Poynter suggests, there is no need to consider these as separate races or to assign them to any great civilization of the past. He does suggest, however, that the entire cranium collects are from different tribes. Using ‘craniometric’ standards Poynter draws the conclusion that these groups have a close relationship with other peoples of America.
Poynter, C. W. M. A Study of Nebraska Crania. American Anthropologist 1915 Vol. 17:509-524. @ publicanthropology.org
ROBERT WASYLYK York University (Naomi Adelson)

You can read the full texts (via the links) to get a fuller picture of how these conclusions were made. From what I have read, it seems the conclusions of the "loess man" was modern human. Taking a look at the photos of the skill(s) in the "Preliminary Report on the Primitive Man of Nebraska" report, I can see how both conclusions could have been reached. I find these two (quoted) articles above as persuasive. Thus, I would reasonably conclude that the Nebraska "Loess Man" finds are indeed that of modern humans."

LSurf still thought there was room for doubt, citing a drawn overlay of the skull with a human skull photo. In response, I posted this:

"True; that's why I said "Thus, I would reasonably conclude that the Nebraska "Loess Man" finds are indeed that of modern humans." Even the 1909 article uses the phrase "no insurmountable obstacle". This said, I take more stock in the photos provided of the skulls in the follow-up article than the drawings at the website, which I have not found a source for. It would have been much easier to argue the case if the photos had the complete skull face rather than just the cranial dome. Still, the photos do not show anything too abnormal. However, the 1915 article seems to account for this abnormal skull dimensions when taken into context with other North American skulls,

"In cooperation with the University of Nebraska, Poynter studied the remains of over one hundred skulls taken from graves on the bluffs overlooking the Missouri River near Omaha. Poynter’s interests lie in studying the entire group of a "lower ordered" ancient type of man. Specifically, Poynter calls this group the Nebraska Loess Man. Careful analysis of the skulls allows Poynter to draw conclusions about these ancient human beings. However, blatant disregard for the cultural and social significance of the descendants of these borrowed bones is not an issue. [...] The first group is the Wallace Mound Group; Poynter notes the artificial deformation in the form of occipital flattening. This deformation is similar in most of the skulls in the study. Of the twenty-six skulls studied, all of them had accentuated "brachycephaly" relating to the length of the head. [...] Forty-two members of the [second] group were measured and compared. Poynter notes that the ‘sutures’ are complex, but not as intricate as in whites. Further analysis of this group shows they have an inter-nasal articulation that is arched as in the Roman-type nose, summarizing that this group of crania is distinctly Indian in character. [...] The third group is the Fort Lisa group. The most characteristic feature of the group is their long narrow shape, indicating that this group might have had premature synotosis (the formation of the skull bones). Poynter also notes that this group resembles the Australian aborigines. [...] This [fourth] group was badly preserved and was difficult to remove. Poynter notes that this group of skulls exhibited crania that was characterized by an inferior frontal development and, therefore, "may be considered as belonging to a low order racially". All the groups studied showed similar features. Therefore, Poynter suggests, there is no need to consider these as separate races or to assign them to any great civilization of the past. He does suggest, however, that the entire cranium collects are from different tribes. Using ‘craniometric’ standards Poynter draws the conclusion that these groups have a close relationship with other peoples of America."

Frankly, while I still admit room for "doubt", it seems more 'grasping for straws' trying to keep this example open to the Bigfoot angle."

LSurf did not respond.

There was another post that confused the two Nebraska finds and I quickly pounced on with the same (more concise) argument: nebraskaman skull depiction [MABRC forums down due to hacking issues. Will post links once forums are properly restored.]. Again, the discussion stopped there once I was able to link to the list forum thread. So that is one of my contribution to skepticism, science, the MABRC, and cryptozoology. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Why Skeptics Should NOT Hoax

So I was listening to SasquatchWatch Radio on my iPod and the 25 May 2009 edition talked about hoaxing and who people do it. It is a mildly informative episode certainly worth taking a listen to. (Yes, I am a fan of the show. What!? A skeptic can't enjoy a Bigfoot radio show!?) Anyway, the topic of skeptics (or others) preforming hoaxes, usually for the purposes of proving that humans, or specifically believers, can easily be fooled. One of the more well known and recent examples if the Pen and Teller stunt for their HBO show Bullshit!. (I believe it was highlighted on the first episode of season 4 entitled "Cryptozoology".) The discussion of the topic in general and of this example in particular gave me cause to pause.

Why do skeptics hoax?

If it was back in the day (whenever that is) before such stunts were preformed and the goal was demonstrating that people can be fooled, it might make sense. However, most sensible people already realize the limitations of human perception and if anyone says they cannot be fooled, skeptic or believer, then they are primary target for just chuck a fooling. Still, we are in the here and now and unless you are trying to provide a point that a certain event can be reproduced though trickery, that is one thing and certainly NOT hoaxing. Hoaxing, remember, is (often) a deliberate act to deceive, usually with personal benefits to the hoaxer. (Doesn't sound too dissimilar to lying, does it?) We could argue specifics but let us keep to a base straightforward scenario for this definition.

Should skeptic hoax?

What hoaxing (by anyone) does is expose the limitations on a given piece of evidence, whether that is eye-witness testimony, photo or video images, or even physical signs, items, or features. Beyond that, it does little to reveal anything that most honest believers and skeptics alike don't already know. Most believer in Bigfoot should/do admit the limits of their evidence, but they insist that there is nonetheless evidence. More skeptics should be aware of this and not offhandedly dismiss the topic entirely. If the common skeptical logic is correct and there is (likely) no Bigfoot, then how does one expect to persuade believers if all you do is insult and isolate them from your cause? If the believer is right and there are Bigfoot, then acknowledging the limitations of the current evidence, even if it is more compelling than mainstream science is willing to admit, is key to focusing on new and better lines of evidence.

Answer?

Bottom line here is that skeptics should NOT hoax because there is no point and if anything it further isolates your potential audience of believers and only degrading your stance by insulting those who truly believe something is out there. This, of course, applies to all areas of pseudo-science and cryptozoology. If anything, Bullshit! should have attempted to take up the challenge of a specific person or group that claimed immunity to being duped or could (easily) discern a hoax. Here, a point can easily be made. In its current incarnation, the Bullshit! Bigfoot video is unproductive at best and counterproductive at worse because of its redundant nature and undefined criteria for new net results. This negative effect can also extend into those on the fence or the general public, who will view such repetitive antics as silly or even vindictive, if not dumb and pointless.

Rebirth! Or, Phoenix Down & Skill Change

For those of you who care... all none of you... I finally figured out what I wanted to do with this blog. While my livejournal will be left more for random stuff, which you can sill check out to your immediate right in the RSS section, this blog I will try to make into a skeptical/critical thinking/non-theist based endeavor that allows me to take on the skeptical world from my own sad lacking little world. As you might have noted from many of the previous posts, there was more skepticism and other religious (or lack thereof)-based items anyway. So hopefully once school is let out, I will be able to focus on this thing a little more and help gain a name for myself beside an avid podcast listener to such topics. So no more "Writer's Banter". Sorry but I have other places to write the little I have to say on my most enduring and centric hobby of mine. I write stuff, not writing about writing stuff. Once I have time, Back 2 Square 1 will also be getting an overhaul with a lot of stuff so wish me luck as I finish off this Spring Quarter and welcome in the summer (in two/three or so weeks)!

So, why don't I just do things the easy way and use forums to interact with other skeptics? 'Cause I don't need to plunge myself into an ego war. Srsly, like any pseudo-science BBS, many of the same problems I've come to loath across the interwebs is found in both the good guys and bad guys little chunk of the intertubes. While I will likely have to starting being proactive in these cesspools of hate and discontent to start getting any type of readership, I try to avoid them when I can. In fact, about the only forum I am a member of with any regularity is for the MABRC; yep, a Bigfoot forum. It also happens to be the only group I am officially associated with (as their official skeptic, no less!). Maybe it would behoove me to find either a local or regional or national group to join but again I just don't feel the need to join another support group (like church). I've always been a bit of a loaner in this respect (more by necessity than anything) and I have yet to find a skeptical group that I really felt like it was worth taking the time to figure them out and maybe join; and yes, that implies that the MABRC did meet said criteria. It did help that they asked me TWICE to join their organization after I joined their forum (which is right now not publicly accessible due to some spamming and pissing-contect bullshit).

Again, the reasons for (re)starting this blog as simple: when I go to said forum, whether believe or skeptic, I feel rather useless (a topic I have discussed in previous posts). I feel there is no point in me being there as I have (appearently) NOTHING to contribute in any way, shape, or form. While most skeptics would laugh at my sorry attempts to debate Bigfoot proponents over at the forums, I do my best and have done some good work exposing some misconceptions (like the Nebraska-Loess Man v. the Nebraska Man - a topic which I'll highlight in a upcoming post). I need to get back into the swing of things this summer with some rebuttals from some lacking debate with people who appearently think that science is deliberately trying to hide Bigfoot from the rest of the world. Same old story, right? Well, I have some things that will hopefully get a better debate going, though with only member of the MABRC on the forum it will be interesting to see what becomes of my usefulness. I still want to do a Bigfoot expedition. Why? Well, it's not to prove I am a worthy skeptics who is willing to get out into the friend; that argument is just ignorant. No, I want an excuse to camp and satisfy my curiosity as I lament my realization that there is little likelihood of the hairy one out there. Sux!

Oh well, I just want to see what really goes on during these trips and since it is "unreasonable" for me to go half-way cross the country for such a deal and since I do (literally) live on Big Hairy's front doorstep, I might as well see if anyone wants to make a few days of it. I'll keep you all posted on this crazy scheme. Is Bigfoot a sacred calf, as the skeptics say? No, as I continually go after the topic and its faults and do not conclude the current stack of evidence, which is surprisingly more than most skeptics are willing to acknowledge yet still so lacking, is enough. As the great UFO photo says, "I want to believe." However, I think there needs to be another part to that quote, "...but I can't." Why? Lack of solid evidence. Perhaps enough to warrant some minor inquiry but nothing that I would bet the barn on. Still, I think there is something more to this whole deal and I think whatever it is it behooves us skeptics to take the subject from a new angle. Since most other skeptics just brush the subject aside, and usually rightfully so, and it is of great interest to me, why the Hell not? I will stick with what I know and let those who know other things do their stuff.

I would try to join the JREF but they seem as egotistical as the BFF... crikey, I need a bloodly drink before deciding which Hell-mouth to descend into. Until then, I need some sleep; and something to fast-forward time to the summer!