Friday, August 16, 2013

Doubtful News on Sasquatch Research Vs. Onlinguito Study

I came across a post referring to my article, Sasquatch Cannot Exist But New Species Can Be Discovered, by Sharon Hill of  In her article, "Why the Olinguito is Bad News for Cryptozoologists", it appears to me that she came away with the wrong intent and served her own needs at this point.

Read her article here: Why the olinguito is bad news for cryptozoologists, and my rebuttal since she truly misunderstood the intent. Essentially she proved the point I made in the article that skeptics and science take what they want out of an issue and refuse to recognize and study the evidence.

Here is my rebuttal in comment on

Hi Sharon,
I noticed that you linked to my blog. My purpose in the post was to point out what I see as a double standard in science and not entirely why Sasquatch could not exist. While the blog was titled for effect it was meant to show more of a double standard in the skeptic community. Your using it seemed to assist in making my point more for the fact that you took away what you wanted out of it and nothing more. This is often a problem that is seen in cryptozoology.
I stated that the onlinguito was known about for years and implied it was treated as a subspecies of olingos in zoos where they attempted mating with olingos. After realizing it was not olingo it was recognized as an unknown species in 2006 which precipitated the study on the species thus the discovery of olinguito and the four subspecies.
I did not miss the fact that there was scientific work involved but did not allude to it as the only proof to get the study going. In effect the study had to start with inconsistencies in the two species, bones in a box, folklore, and eye witness reports which all resulted in a lengthy study. There was some conjecture as to where this species live and in your words, “they went and found it.”
While I am not a zoologist or even a science major I am attempting to get the Bigfoot/Sasquatch community to take a real scientific approach such as diagramming tree structures that are perceived as created by Bigfoot (prove that something extraordinary happened based on real data, e.g. measurements distance, locations etc.) I am also encouraging the standardizing of evidence collection procedures and how to effectively and scientifically measure perceived track ways. How about also identifying vocalizations from other species in the woods as Elk, deer, moose and bear are often mistaken for Bigfoot? Grouse taking off or startling predators is often mistaken for breast beating. I also encourage independent evaluation of perceived evidence by several critical sources. I even went so far as to make a website devoted to evidence review and collection so there can be a safe place to find independent researchers interested in the truth instead of what they believe or want. It seems your take on my blog post mis characterized the point I was truly making.
Science and the skeptic community are often found lacking in reviewing evidence but are very good at finding reasons to not review said evidence overall. I know there will be many who disagree and will try to take me to task for that statement but it cannot be denied based upon the work done by science and skeptics toward finding Bigfoot. Very little has been done by way of work on evidence but more has been done to discredit the self proclaimed researchers instead.
Go back to the blog and read some more posts. You will see that I am sincere and I do not announce myself as a cryptozoologist and prefer not to refer to myself as a researcher overall. I prefer to be called a tracker or woodsman with the experience to know my areas and the subjects to which I refer.
Thanks for your thoughts on the post.