The Centre for Fortean Zoology was founded in the UK in 1992 - nearly 20 years ago. Over the past two decades it has expanded to become a truly global organisation. We opened our American office in 2001, our Australian office in 2009, and now - in our 19th year - we are proud to welcome CFZ Canada to the CFZ global family.

Wednesday, 7 August 2013

Give Us Some Real Evidence

Oh Sasquatch Ontario (aka Mike Patterson) disappoint us.

I'll give you that the audio is interesting.  Even entertaining. But proof?  Hardly.

First, no location is given.  Now, I live in Ontario and I know when it starts getting light enough to see on August 2.  I'm not buying that you could see nothing at all.  Tell us your approximate location and we'll verify your dawn time and the weather on that day.

Second, the recording is pretty darned clear.  Unless the animal was right on the mike, there should be much more ambient sound and a bit of measurable echo.  Could we hear it raw please?  And certainly without the set up commentary that is very leading.

Third, a name?  Really?  From this piece, you're proposing that this particular Bigfoot has graced your recording with its name.  You suggest this has happened because you have become so friendly with the phenomena that there is a dialogue.  You have been asking for a name, and the Sasquatch was not only comfortable with your audible presence but also understands English and is capable of responding to your request.

I won't go so far as to accuse these folks of hoaxing.  I would suggest, however, that is not the best place to release a "discovery of biblical proportions."  Further, this "evidence" fails to meet the most basic standards--qualify, quantify and qualityassure.

Tim Ervick, among many others, is going out of his way to distance himself from Patterson, saying,
First off he has no connection to Ontario Wildlife Field Research run by myself and no connection to Ontario Bigfoot or Ontario Sasquatch groups. These are well established groups that would never endorse or knowingly participate in such an obvious hoax. 
Mike P has a burden of proof that some have mentioned to him only to be answered with his arrogant and condescending attitude. Serious red flags to anyone serious on the subject.

And from Tim Fasano,
I suspected from the beginning these guys were running scam. They were finding Bigfoot evidence on EVERY trip into the woods. HINT: when finding Bigfoot seems as easy as finding animals at a zoo, that should raise a red flag.
Mike--you seem to be a great wildlife photographer.  Don't quit your day job.

Decisions, Decisions...

Is it crypto?  I find myself asking that quite a lot these days.  I work with both hauntings phenomena and cryptozoology and sometimes it is very hard to figure out which is which.

One of my current cases involves a First Nations community in Ontario.  Several things have been reported, some of which are clearly ghostly in nature.  There are a couple, however, that test my theories from the very beginning.  One is a report of “little people”.  We’re not talking about just one or two small-ish folks.  The report is a virtual colony of small humanoids that behave in very human fashion.  They aren’t gnomes, or fairies, or any of the other typical “wee folk”, just pint sized humans.  The reports of this colony go back over 75 years!  Clearly crypto?  Not so fast.  How would we know?  It would seem that the litmus test for cryptozoology would be physical evidence.  If we could find a body, or some other sorts of artifacts, then perhaps this would put this solidly in the crypto category.  Sasquatch, however, has left us no such definitive proof and we still place him in this realm.

Another report in this area is that of a man with hooved feet.  He walks upright and looks into windows.  He also reportedly leaves tracks.  Does his ability to alter the ground in this way make him a cryptid?  And what about “shape shifters”?

Generally, for most cryptozoologists, it comes down to a belief system.  Many think that the idea of ghosts is ridiculous, yet firmly believe in Bessie or the Loch Ness Monster.  Since cryptozoology is generally more of a science based endeavor, skeptics are more likely to lean toward acceptance.  As the research into hauntings continues to blossom, however, more and more scientific method and results are being reported by investigators.

I struggle with this classification system quite a lot with the reports of Mothman specifically.  In this case, there are not only elements of cryptozoology and hauntings, but also strong evidence of UFO involvement.  Should we pick a path and stick to it or would the subject be better served by a team (or a person) of all three specialties?

I’m greatly interested in your feedback on this.  What makes a cryptid a cryptid?