Monday, November 16, 2009
Bigfoot, Nessie, & Scifi
An article I just read about Loren Coleman's new Cryptozoology museum has got me thinking. Often in articles about Cryptozoology, including this one, the authors use both Bigfoot & The Loch Ness Monster(Nessie) to help explain what Cryptozoology is to those who don't already know. Since Nessie has been all but debunked due to a thorough sonar scan of the lake that found nothing and then a study of the amount of aquatic life in the lake that concluded there isn't enough aquatic life in the lake to support a viable breeding population of Nessie type creatures, I'm not at all sure it's good for Bigfoot research to have Bigfoot and Nessie mentioned together. A skeptic might know of the lake scans I mentioned above and conclude that Nessie doesn't exist & assume the same thing about Bigfoot if it's mentioned in the same breath in an article or documentary. Maybe it's time we all start referring to Bigfoot research as Crypto-Anthropology like I've heard Robert W. Morgan do. Another thing that the article about Loren Coleman's museum has reminded me about that really bothers me is how Bigfoot is often classed as "Scifi" Technically it may still fit that category, but I can't help thinking some people form biases against the possibility of Bigfoot, based solely on the "Scifi" classification. It seems Mr. Coleman's museum shares space with a book store featuring Scifi books. While this may be good for the town the museum & book store are in, it may not be good for getting people to take the subject of Bigfoot seriously
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I appreciate the underlying message supporting the new International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine, I think this blog posting steps into some potholes along the way to its call for Bigfoot to be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Steven's posting is a reflection of discussing something beyond the understanding of the blogger, apparently. Just as Bigfooters often ask folks outside the field to do a bit more study before they go criticizing Bigfoot, I think the same critical thinking should be applied here.
Let's take the assumption behind this sentence: "Since Nessie has been all but debunked due to a thorough sonar scan of the lake that found nothing and then a study of the amount of aquatic life in the lake that concluded there isn't enough aquatic life in the lake to support a viable breeding population of Nessie type creatures, I'm not at all sure it's good for Bigfoot research to have Bigfoot and Nessie mentioned together."
First off, Operation Deepscan, for all the media hype, did not fully cover the contents of Loch Ness and did not "prove" there are no cryptids in the Loch. Actually, just the opposite is true. Only 60% of the loch was surveyed, and some of the more significant inlets, bays, coves, and underwater caves were left unscanned. Furthermore, three large sonar contacts were recorded of animate objects too large to be any known species that lives in Loch Ness. Some feel that the Loch Ness Monsters question was, indeed, left more open versus being closed by this scan of the lake.
As to the bookstore, technically the Green Hand Bookshop, I am quite appreciative of the owner, Michelle Souliere's invitation to share the rent and establish a public presence for the cryptozoology museum. Her book store carries nonfiction books, including cryptozoology, Fortean, paranormal, parapsychological, anomalist, and historical archival works, as well as cryptofiction, pulp fiction, science fantasy, scifi, and supernatural fictional narratives. For those that do not understand the inspirations and influences from reality-based Fortean, cryptozoological, and anomalistic events that turn up in fiction, I challenge you to do your homework.
Writers, of all stripes, take their writings seriously, do their research, and I would recommend that "Bigfooters" who wish to be taken seriously should likewise broaden their awareness horizons when writing a blog like this one.
Loren
All I know is every documentary I've ever seen(and that's quite a few, since I became interested in the subject in the early 70's) about the Loch Ness Monster, describes the sonar scan as thorough. That may very well mean only a thorough scan of the main body of the lake. However, I believe that's where most, if not all, of the alleged sightings have come from. I mean it would make no sense whatsoever to go to the trouble & expense of such an operation and not scan the areas where a substantial amount of sighting reports come from. The three large targets the sonar hit on, are widely believed by most scientists to have been floaing pieces of trees or other debris. This all according to the numerous documentaries I've watched on the subject. If there is indeed something unusual in the lake, I find it very curious that, according to an episode of "Monsterquest", the sighting reports have dropped off dramatically since the sonar scan & the study of the aquatic life in the lake. But enough about my opinions on Nessie. The point isn't whether or not Bigfooters realize that the inspiration for many works of fiction is actual sighting reports of various cryptids. The point is that the average person doesn't realize that and simply assumes when they see something categorized as fiction, it has been proven to be just that. Fiction. I despise most Bigfoot fiction that I've seen or read. The only exceptions are "Harry & The Hendersons" and the Jack's Links commercials, because they are humorous and at least portray Bigfoot as a gentle creature of the forest unless provoked. Just as the vast majority of the sighting reports do.
ReplyDelete