15 Credibility Street #30: Bear with us, yeti again

This episode has two cryptozoologically-themed topics. We have a follow-up on the Bigfoot-naming show from last episode and there is a new paper about Yeti DNA just out that is not making cryptozoologists too happy.

See the comments on this post about the new proposed name for Bigfoot and why it’s bad science and not good for zoology’s image either.

New Yeti DNA tests are bear. This isn’t really new news but the media can’t get this kind of stuff right.

Artists version of the “yeti” as a hybrid polar bear

Sykes Yeti paper results and just one of the challenges to it.

The Disneyfied Yeti

Check out all Doubtful News about Bigfoot, and the Yeti.

Mad Mike Hughes’ rocket launch is delayed. Rocket science is hard, eh?

Why doesn’t he just visit Dubai? Because it’s not about testing the flat earth idea. It’s about this guy showing off and getting attention. A visit to his website is a stellar example of self-promotion, exaggeration, and money-grubbing from sponsors.

Science-ing the heck out of everything will not solve the world’s problems – my discussion on why science is just a first step and not the panacea. Blind faith in a monolithic “SCIENCE” is a terrible idea. Please read for details about why it’s best to temper science fandom with a broader view.

Is Trump’s strategy to bury us in drama and trash talking so we give up on determining the truth? Washington Post on Trumpian manipulation of press.

Featured on the CryptoKid radio show and Adventures in Poor Taste

Sharon’s new book, Scientifical Americans, is out in hardcopy soon.
Preorder the paperbound at Amazon.
The Kindle version is already available.

  8 comments for “15 Credibility Street #30: Bear with us, yeti again

  1. Russ
    December 3, 2017 at 9:17 PM

    With regard to Hunter’s Bigfoot name, I think I’m with the scientists who think this is laughable (rather than irritating) because Hunter has now saddled himself with the honor of having his name forever more associated with a fictional species which entirely invalidates his credibility as a scientist. It’s equivalent to him registering a scientific name for the Tooth Fairy so if he wants such an honor then he’s welcome to it along with the associated ridicule.

  2. lagaya
    December 3, 2017 at 11:19 PM

    Tracing the roots of the first white abominable snowman- the 1964 Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer show had him as white. Not sure that’s the same as a Yeti, and it’s definitely not Himalayan, but….

  3. ja
    December 4, 2017 at 3:42 AM

    I’ve never been a big Yeti believer (really did enjoy the ending to the Hammer film, the rest was rather dull), a man-like creature willingly living high in the perpetually snowy mountains didn’t make much sense. A bear? no problem. As far as Bigfoot, skeptics can only poke little holes in the PG film. As a ‘believer’ I will say the Bob H. hoax solution I think *is* relevant – I believe Patterson bought a costume as a back-up plan and ripped off Bob, which he got mad about. But as weird luck would have it, he actually did film something that was non-Bob. If there was no back-up plan and no Bob, the PG film is almost a slam dunk. I think all these weird quirks (a probable costume as a back-up, the filmed subject not being definitively beyond human size, Patterson’s shady past) are not random coincidences, but bringing up ‘paranormal’ (I prefer ‘supra reality’) makes an already strange topic far stranger.

  4. December 4, 2017 at 8:24 AM

    Regarding the Mike Hughes flat earth/rocket project, I see that one of the leading Flat Earth proponents, Mark Sargent, has disavowed the Hughes project as a foolish piece of grandstanding. Sargent, who, bizarrely, sounds completely rational and aggressively logical in his insane bubble of flat earthism, was recently interviewed on the Oh No Ross and Carrie (ONRAC) podcast — an amazing piece of interviewing where they let Sargent propound his domed-flat earth conspiracy theories to his heart’s content.

    What struck me was how Sargent, in full-loony mode, dismisses Mike Hughes’ project as lunacy (my term). I was reminded of a 9/11 conspiracy meeting set up by students at Arizona State University a few years ago. I dropped by to see what sort of madness would be prevailing and found that the lead speaker — a high school physics teacher who called himself a physicist — was appalled that one of the audience members could even mention the ridiculous “no planes” theory of 9/11. Clearly it was a government conspiracy to bring the towers down, he insisted, but it was madness to think that no planes were involved.

    Madness disavowing madness.

  5. Bob Jase
    December 4, 2017 at 4:29 PM

    Lagaya beat me to it. But that show does call him the Abominable Snow Monster and that’s close enough in my book. I’d bet there are even earlier white versions in comics though.

    Have to disagree about the movie though, Peter Cushing is his usual self but The Abominable Snow Man isn’t that great a movie, too much playing peek-a-boo over amonster that isn’t monstrous.

    linky http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050095/?ref_=nv_sr_7

  6. Eric E Keller
    December 4, 2017 at 5:18 PM

    Hello, I was listening to the most recent episode and you had been speaking on the origins of the “white yeti” in pop culture. I couldn’t help but think of “Bumble” the abominable snow monster form way back in 1964. I’m sure this had a strong impact on the collective to model for the yeti. Newer film examples of the trope include The Mummy 3 and Monsters Inc.

  7. idoubtit
    December 4, 2017 at 5:56 PM

    I actually did mention the Bumble as the first white “snowman” that I remember. That and Scooby Doo’s That Snow Ghost.

  8. Graham
    December 13, 2017 at 3:45 AM

    With regards the segment on science not being the answer to everything, I happen to agree, like anything it is tool that can help guide decisions, but it should never be considered the ultimate arbiter. As to your comments about the current state of science in the US, well it’s under assault from all sides. On the one side you have Trump and his supporters who ignore it because it contradicts their beliefs. On the other you have the academic left who hold that science is just “another way of knowing” and like reason, logic, rigour is just another tool of white supremacy that will have to be gotten rid of in the name of ensuring all people are treated equally.

Comments are closed.