Ketchum DNA Project Shaping Up to Be A Hoax?

It's been said a couple time (including on this blog) that 2012 is supposed to be the year of Bigfoot. One of the main reasons some “Bigfooters” are saying this is that the results of Veterinarian Dr. Melba Ketchum's DNA project are supposed to be published this year. Once that occurs, the Bigfooters say, the “scientific establishment” will be overturned and all kinds of unsupportable hyperbole will be vindicated.

I'm starting to think, shudder, that this whole Ketchum DNA study might not be the scientific venture it's being presented as.

I'll tell you why. First, there is the unwashable taint of Tom Biscardi's involvement with the project. The man is a recognized fraudster and I'm surprised he isn't in jail – his greatest stunt, probably, being the recent “Georgia Gorilla” which turned out to be nothing be an expensive costume stuffed with animal viscera.

Then, there were the unsubstantiated rumblings that the Ketchum paper was rejected outright as being garbage (the blog post on which this claim was made has since been deleted). If this was to be the case, as I've highlighted before, the journals the paper was submitted to would not announce they had rejected the paper. The only place such an announcement could possibly come from would be from someone actually involved with the project – most likely Ketchum herself as she's an author. However, if she's only interested in attention, there is no motivation for her to let the world know her paper was rejected. Furthermore, it is unlikely she would want anyone to know that what was submitted did not survive peer review. Consequently, I believe she would not say anything about rejection and then continue to string the Bigfoot community along with announcements about when the paper will be published but never say when the paper would be published or where it would be published.

Lately, there seems to have been a lot of the “when the paper is published” talk. As a published author and coauthor, I do find this pre-publication promotion atypical to my experience and that of my coworkers but that does not really prove anything. It does make me a little more suspicious, however. I'm starting to wonder if this paper will ever be published or if it even exists.

Now for the biggie. In reading the Bigfoot Evidence blog lately, it is hard to avoid something that really stinks. Apparently, Ketchum has copyrighted a documentary on her search for Bigfoot DNA.  Examination of the copyright filing will show something that Ketchum has tried to downplay -- her bias.  Despite some special pleading to the contrary, Ketchum is not an unbiased researcher.  Unsurprisingly, she is a believer out to prove her position.  As you can read from the above link, her position is that Bigfoot is a "New Tribe of Living Humans".  Evidentially, she's ignorant to the meaning of or is misapplying the term "tribe".  This by itself really isn't damning proof of anything beyond a true believer putting all their eggs in one basket but it does raise suspicion and certainly explains the purported non-disclosure agreement (NDA) everyone involved with the project has been forced to sign. In my experience, NDAs are not routine in real scientific research where sharing of information and knowledge is the goal. There are even instances where unpublished results are freely given and even referenced in other author's papers! It appears to me as though Ketchum is withholding information but why? I think it all has to do with money.

Color me suspicious but I think Ketchum and crew are possibly participating in a fraud. Maybe it's pious fraud but I do not believe a real scientific paper is going to be published this – or any – year proving the existence of Bigfoot. Why? Let's look at the situation. Biscardi once claimed to have had a live Bigfoot and, if you were willing to pay, he said he would let you look at it like some cryptozoological peepshow. Despite having gone on shows like Coast to Coast AM to promote his captive and raise money, there never was a Bigfoot. Biscardi further demonstrated his method of withholding information when he leaked pictures of the Georgia Bigfoot hoax. This tactic proved very effective and Biscardi managed to get the national news outlets worked up enough that Fox News and their ilk covered his news conference at which he announced having a Bigfoot carcass. Despite only being shown crappy pictures, the media ate it up – along with lots of credulous Bigfooters. How do you top that? Well, I think you'd say you're going to publish definitive proof of Bigfoot's existence in a reputable scientific journal all the while never showing any of that so-called “proof”.

Modus operandi: 1) make unsupported claim, 2) string people along with hints of something, 3) provide a picture or other unsupportable "evidence", 4) repeat steps 2-3, 5) profit!

But why have the documentary? This is where the money comes in! If you go to Biscardi's site (I won't link to it but you can find it by doing a quick Internet search) you'll notice he's selling a documentary he's made that claims to “prove” the existence of Bigfoot. Combine that with his previous history of teasing people with “secret” information concerning Bigfoot and his media-centric proclivities, I think the documentary can be seen for what it really is – the actual goal behind this whole thing – the money generator. Biscardi, Ketchum, and probably others are expecting to make money off of this little venture. Generate interest by saying you've got DNA. Film the “research” to be presented in the form of a credulous documentary, and then sell the documentary to either a credulous outlet like the History Channel (Hello home of “Ancient Aliens”!) or well meaning folks with little understanding of scientific research. In the event the paper is never published, the documentary will still make money from the true-believers who will buy the line Ketchum would undoubtedly put out – that the scientific establishment suppressed her research.

Sure all of this is conjecture and I can't prove a damn thing. We'll see if I'm right and I'm already on the record stating I believe 2012 will be the year of the “Bigfoot cover-up conspiracy” (should I copyright that?). Regardless, nothing in the way this project is being handled now leads me to believe it is being done legitimately. It seems to me as though this is nothing more than a different media outlet for a Biscardi-related (if not inspired) hoax.  He's done radio, the internet, network news, and now it seems academic journals are the targeted vector.  Every single time, there has been a claim to having proof of the existence of Bigfoot.  Although I think it would be awesome if there was a large bipedal ape lurking around, I believe the documentary is the keystone that shows the whole project is either being bungled by well-meaning but naive researchers looking for money or being promoted by deliberate fraudsters looking for money.

Misperceptions at Boy Scout Camp

It's interesting how things can coalesce in your brain.  Earlier this week, I was correcting someone on Facebook about the Mormans' influence over the Boy Scouts (for the record, the Mormons do not own the Scouts.  They do use the Scouts as their official boys youth program, however, and that means there are a lot of Mormon boys in the group and a lot of Mormon money flowing into it).  A day or so later, I was listening to Brian Dunning's Skeptoid episode on the Grey Man of Ben MacDhui when, suddenly, I remembered a couple of instances I could relate that occurred during my tenure as a summer camp staff member which illustrate how unreliable our perceptions can be.  Initially, Dunning talking about the sound of the steps of the Grey Man helped me remember the last incident I'll relate.  The first two quickly fell in line once I was on that train of thought.  So here we go, the Grey Man and the Boy Scouts present some incidents where human senses lied:

The Case of the Menacing Black Mamba of Seriously Deathly Doom

Both of the summer camps I worked in hosted troops from urban and suburban communities.  Consequently, the kids only experience with living in nature often was their 1 or 2 weeks at summer camp.  As part of our orientation to living in nature, among the plants and animals, was each troop would be brought through my area for a mandatory orientation.  I was the Ecology/Conservation Director and ran the Nature Lodge.  As well as instructing the kids on how to correctly identify poison ivy and not to eat this plant or that plant, I would eventually get to talking about snakes.  Kids love snakes and, somehow, where there are snakes they automatically believe there are poisonous snakes.  In some parts of the country, this belief is mostly true.  However, at my summer camp, the only poisonous snake that might be present was the extremely rare Timber Rattlesnake.  These snakes are very timid and small so it was unlikely they would see them if they were in the area.  I would instruct them about Garter Snakes and Eastern Ringnecks -- which they had a much better chance of finding.  However, I would usually wrap up with an experience I had with the fabled Black Racer.

Black Racers are a relatively large constrictor that is rarely seen.  They are extremely fast and when people do see them, they often appear smaller than they really are due to how fast they are moving.  Rarely caught out in the open, all that is seen is a portion of the body and when something blows past you wickedly fast, it looks shorter.  Another interesting aspect of these snakes is they will lift up their heads cobra-style to look over low-laying vegetation.  One day while walking down the trail right next to the Nature Lodge, I got to see one of these elusive snakes.  It came up to the side of the trail and did the cobra-style look around.  I came upon it at this moment.  The wind must have been in my favor because it looked around briefly, must have suspected something was there (snakes aren't the best at seeing things but they can smell and feel vibrations like they have supernatural abilities) and off it went.  The snake dashed across the trail and extended from one end to the other (a distance of about 8 feet).  In a blur, it was gone and I believe the whole experience lasted, at most, about 10 seconds.  Naturally, this story excited the kids and the idea of a elusive 8 foot long black snake living nearby was pretty cool to many of them.  Some, though, were a little less receptive to the story.

One of our troops that summer came from Jamaica, Queens, NY.  To those who are unfamiliar with Jamaica, it is an inner-city neighborhood and, unsurprisingly, there are no snakes there which aren't pets living in a terrarium.  This troop had been through the Nature Lodge earlier than the rest of the troops and I had related the Black Racer story to them.  They finished their orientation and tour of the camp before most of the other troops and, with some free time on their hands, they returned to their campsite to wait for dinner and the evening's program.

News quickly came to me that they had found and attempted to kill a cobra in their campsite!  Remembering my story of the Black Racer, they thought they located an even larger snake!  Apparently, they noticed this vile serpent lurking in the weeds off to the side of their site and ran, got their camp-issued axe, and chopped it -- not doubt in fear for their lives!  The thing is, it was the water supply line for their campsite!  Soon water was spurting all over the place, water pressure all but disappeared in the other sites, and the camp Ranger was called out.  He wasn't as amused by the story of this misidentification as I was.

The Case of the Bellicose Bears

Most summer camps have something of a little store where kids can buy candies and souvenirs.  Boy Scout camps, traditionally, call this store the Trading Post.  Apart from the Waterfront or possibly the Rifle Range, the Trading Post is the favorite place for most campers -- probably because parents aren't involved and they can't tell the kids not to buy that fizzy snooker sugar tooth-rot bomb.  It is pretty common for kids to buy their candies or snacks and then take some back to their site to eat later.  Because of this practice, many camps provide each troop site with a "bear box" -- a metal container which is meant to store food items to help prevent them from being eaten by menacing natural rovers like bears and....chipmunks (which are called "mini-bears" by some due to their tendency to rip into packages and get into food).

One summer, I started getting stories about marauding bears coming into campsites and fighting with each other!  During my time at the camp, bears were becoming more populous in the area so I made it my business to keep track of whether they were making it into the camp.  Fortunately, we scared them off when we set camp up for the season and I never saw any other signs (tracks, scat, scratches, etc.) after that first week.  When the kids came to tell me about the attacks upon their campsites, I assured them that I hadn't seen any signs of bears but that they should continue to put their food in the bear boxes whenever they weren't in the site.  They said they would follow my advice but the stories kept coming in.  Finally, one day a camper assured me he had evidence of the bear attack and that I should come and look at it.

After lunch that day, I went to the campsite.  The scene of the crime had been preserved for my examination.  It was directly behind the camper's tent and, sure enough, something had been there.  The grass and some of the soil had been significantly disturbed and pieces of a candy wrapper were scattered about.  I recognized the scene as soon as I saw it because I had the exact same experience when I was a boy.  Raccoons were fighting over the candy the camper had, despite my advice to the contrary, stored in his tent!

Was the evidence there?  You bet.  I showed the boy the some raccoon prints and some raccoon scat that even had pieces of candy wrapper in it!  You see, raccoons can be very, very noisy when they fight and, when they fight, they are furry balls of hate.  The end result is a noisy battle royale and when it happens right outside your tent, you can get scared shitless.  What happened was the kids were interpreting the loud noise as coming from a big animal -- hence their insistence their campsite interlopers were bears.  I am confident this exact same phenomenon is responsible for many, if not all, of the "bigfoot vocalizations" being promoted by many Bigfooters as authentic.  They are authentic....authentic fox, coyote, and raccoon noises!

The Case of the Stalking Bigfoot

I've already written about my personal Bigfoot experience which was, in all reality, a case of mass hysteria.  That summer, there were also reports of "something big" stalking the campers at night as they walked back to their campsites from the Trading Post.  Brian Dunning's Skeptoid episode talks about how the natural sounds of erosion -- large rocks falling -- were misinterpreted as foot steps of a giant creature.  When I heard him relating these stories, I immediately recognized the similarities with mine -- poor visibility and sounds that seemed to be nearby footsteps.

In the Ben MacDhui case, the sounds were the result of the mechanical breakdown of the mountain as rocks are weathered away.  In my case, the source was biological.  Kids always reported walking back to their sites on the main trail (which really was a dirt road) after leaving the Trading Post.  Almost all reported they were eating their candies and talking while carrying their flashlights.  As they walked, they would start hearing a "crunch, crunch, crunch" as though something was walking alongside them but in the woods and out of range of the flashlights.  Occasionally terrified, the kids would then run back to their sites scared out of their wits.

When I investigated this phenomenon, I noticed one interesting thing -- it always occurred in the same stretch of the trail which, incidentally, was in the center of camp and nearest to some of the most human activity at night.  As the prevalent story at the time was that Bigfoot was stalking the campers, I found it unlikely because someone would be almost certain to see it if it was choosing to engage in this activity in this area -- activity contrary to the supposedly ultra-shy and sneaky cryptid.  The limited area where this phenomenon took place led me to believe the culprit was a smaller animal going about its routine in its territory.  My investigation bore this hunch out.

First, I found a porcupine was living in the middle of this area.  Porcupines are mostly arboreal -- where they eat leaves, shoots, and bark.  However, they do come down, sloth-like, to move from one tree to another, to snack on berries and so on and they do so, mostly, under the cover of darkness (they do some more wanderings in the winter when they go looking for salt sources -- which leads to them destroying latrines).  One source of the noise was identified but I didn't stop looking around.  I also found plenty signs of our friends the raccoons as well.  Raccoons are really smart and they knew the kids walked through there and littered as they went.  The raccoons would forage through the brush looking for the tasty discards of careless campers.  There were also much smaller animals in the area that are also active at night which can, surprisingly to some, make a good deal of noise -- mice.  Mice can be, relatively, noisy at night as they scurry about both on top of and under the leaf litter.

No, Bigfoot wasn't stalking.  Lots of naturally occurring sounds were being created by known animals.  The only difference was that the campers couldn't see the animals and so their imaginations ran wild.  The end result?  A mythical monster stalking campers in a summer camp.  Sure it's a more exciting story to tell around a campfire but that doesn't mean it's reality.  Just like the previous two stories, the stalking Bigfoot was nothing but a case of our human senses being deceived either by rationalizations, wishful thinking, or ignorance.

I Won an Award!

I hope the title's joke becomes self evident.  Here's a clue: listen to the end.

The guys over at Strange Frequencies Radio did their third annual Listener Awards and I finally got around to listening to it today (more on that later).  Imagine my surprise when I heard I was among the recipients of the award for owning Loren Coleman's keyword and link-farming ass!  Other recipients included Sharon Hill as well as the cast of Strange Frequencies Radio!  Yes, the award is a self-congratulatory tautological exercise in self congratulation.

Having said that, I've been waiting the 10 or so years I've been blogging about Skeptical topics for some real recognition and I'll be putting my statuette up on my mantle to proudly display.   So Bobby and Jason, when can expect my award in the mail?   If it has to be sent psychically, let me know so I can arrange to hire out a sensitive to craft it out of alligator dung.

So, why did I only get to listening to it today?  Here comes the criticism: Y U NO USE BETTER COMPRESSION?!  I use Google Listen on my phone and Google Reader to aggregate my feeds and, guess what, your fat-ass files caused my Google Listen to time out at least three times!  Also, could you please post your regular shows as one file instead of two?  Google Listen will only download the first half of your show.  I have to go back and manually download the other file to the phone before I can listen to it and I am too lazy for that kind of a thing.  Cater to my whims and I will not send some bad juju your way! Don't try to get me back. I've got serious grisgris.

Seriously though, thanks for the mentions guys!

The Mad Skeptic's Primer to Weight Training

The new year has past and countless numbers of people have made resolutions to get into shape all the while suspecting they will never achieve their goals.  Sometimes, it's because they really are lazy and are simply self-deceived about their commitment towards their physical health.  Sometimes, life manages to stick it's ugly nose into things and mess everything up and, sometimes, people with the best intentions and real enthusiasm get intimidated and discouraged by the gym and its inhabitants.

I'm here to provide some advice to that last group.

First, a little of my background.  I've been weight training off and on (mostly "on") ever since my parents bought me a basic weight bench set when I was 15.  I was a heavy kid and my parents thought I would take to the sport.  At first, I didn't but, somewhere around the time I was in high school, I came to the realization I was fairly well suited to the sport and I actually liked lifting weights.  Since that day, I have been lifting weights and have incorporated it into my lifestyle.  Sure, there were long periods not lifting when the "simple" process of living interfered but the following tips helped me to get back on my feet quickly and as easily as possible.

1. First things first.  Remember why you are at the gym in the first place.  Is it to worry about being stared at by strangers?  Is it to stare at strangers?  Is it to talk for an hour with a friend while going through the motions?  No.  You are there because you want to improve some aspect of your health.  To that end you need to learn this rather difficult lesson: stop giving a shit about what other people might be seeing or thinking and stay focused on your objectives.
2. Have goals.  Some people would like to loose so many pounds.  Others would like to be able to lift X number of pounds on a certain exercise.  Regardless of your goals, be aware of them.  Some people write them down and keep track of their progress as they get closer and closer to achieving them.
3. Record your progress!  I don't think I can thoroughly emphasis the importance of this step to my progress in the gym.  Not only will it allow you to see how well you're doing, it can satisfy the inner nerd.  Whether you use a paper notebook or an app on your smartphone, recording your performance really is a "secret weapon" with many benefits.  It really improves motivation.  For example, I plot and then perform various regressions on my progress to see how well I might be doing in the future.  A spread sheet is a weightlifter and scientist's friend!
4. Never skip doing your cardiovascular workout.  All the talk about weightlifters having a higher resting metabolism is well and good for party conversation but it does nothing for your over all health if you are not exercising your heart and lungs.  Personally, I do my cardio BEFORE I hit the weights.  Since doing so, I've found that my delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS for short) has all but disappeared.  I suspect this has to do with my getting warmed up and having the liver and kidneys ready for the lactic acid onslaught.  I'm a Geologist though so this could be total crap.  It works for me and you might want to try it.  While on the topic of cardio, I would like to point out that stationary bike -- especially the recombinant ones -- are a great place to multi-task.  You can read a book and work out!  I just finished reading Randi's Flim-Flam! and I'm currently reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense.
5. Before you can be strong, you have to learn how to be weak.  Yes, it sounds all new-agey and Yoga-ish but it is true in the world of weightlifting.  You can not walk into a gym and expect to play with the big boys or girls right out of the gate.  You have to start slow and take your time.  Otherwise, you will fall victim to the great workout resolution killer -- injuries.  Trust me, weightlifting injuries can be unbelievably painful and debilitating.  If you remain focused and take your time, you will avoid this serious problem.  I'm 40 now and I've been at this for 25 years.  I've seen 20-somethings come in, throw weights around and then rupture discs in their lower back.  They came in all gung-ho and macho and left with a life-altering injury.  Take your time!
6. Push yourself.  I know I just told you to take your time but that doesn't do much good if you keep doing the same weight every single time.  Your body will become accustomed to the weight and any gains you initially make will quickly evaporate.  My personal rule is to try to do one extra rep (rep=1 repetition of the exercise, i.e. 1 more bench press) or 5lbs more on each set.  Which one of those two mini-goals I choose is dependent upon how I'm performing that day and how the exercise is progressing.  You'll know what you want to do once you've been lifting for about a month or so.
7. Mix up your routine.  One mistake I started with and one I see repeated today is the tendency for people to do the same workout every time they go to the gym.  If you're looking for the fastest way to become discouraged and bored, this is the way to go about it.  You need to split your routine up -- not only for your body but for your mind and motivation.  There are many websites out there which illustrate different "splits" and routines and I would encourage you to investigate them.  The general rule is not to work a muscle group more than once a week but people's bodies behave differently so your mileage may vary.  This guideline would translate into you doing an arm routine (arm curls, etc) once a week.  However, many "power" movements (bench press, dead lift, squat) involve more than one muscle group.  When planning your workout routine, take this into consideration.
8. Leave the ego at the door.  I'm talking mostly to the men here but I've seen some women behave poorly as well.  If you come in with a hot head and looking to prove how awesome you are to everyone, you're a dick and deserve the pain you will eventually inflict upon yourself.  Throwing weights around is not a sign of a macho man, it's a sure sign of an asshole.  The only person you really are in competition with is yourself.  If you hate yourself so much that you feel compelled to throw a temper tantrum on the floor, you need to seek professional psychiatric or psychological help.  When I lift, I deliberately relax my body right before performing a set (set= a number of planned reps -- ex. 10 reps = 1 set).  Zen Buddhism?  Taoism?  Fuck no!  I've found it significantly helps me focus and visualize the lift I'm about to do.  If I fail...I fail.
9. Never, work outside the natural range of motion for your body.  I've seen people come into the gym and attempt to perform some, honestly, ridiculous things because they saw it in a magazine.  If your body is not meant to move in a certain way, don't force it.  You want to do your exercises in the natural "plain of motion" (it's not really a plain but I like the term anyway).  The most common culprit that I observe is people attempting to do an exercise called the "behind the neck shoulder press".  It involves lowering a barbell to your shoulders behind your neck and then pressing it upwards.  While this exercise can be accomplished with very light weights, once you put something heavy on, you have a great recipe for a torn rotator cuff.
10. Enjoy yourself.  Yes, it's cliché but it's true.  If you aren't enjoying what your doing or how your body is changing, you are only going to succeed in making yourself miserable.  Weightlifting isn't for everybody.  If you are just starting out, I would recommend you try a little bit of everything.  Some people use machines.  Some people only use free weights.  Some like to use kettle bells and some people decide weightlifting isn't for them at all.

Personally, I've found weightlifting to be a very rewarding sport.  Although I've been approached, I do not compete in power lifting or strong man competitions.  I see weightlifting as an avenue for self improvement.  Plus, I like being strong so it kind of works itself out. 

In closing, I would like to emphasize that weightlifting really is gender neutral.  Women often tell me they are either intimidated by being around male weightlifters or that they are afraid of becoming too "muscle-y".  To the first point, I would suggest women do not judge the book by its "muscle-bound" cover.  Many male weightlifters are very friendly and more than willing to help out one another regardless of someone's sex.  I routinely spot (spot=a person who watches another person doing an exercise. Should the exerciser fail, the spotter then assists them to put the weight back.) men and women I don't know only because they asked for some help.  We all aren't thick headed lugs only there to mock or gawk.  Some might actually be weightlifitng Skeptics!  You could also bring along a female friend to be a training partner if you aren't the kind to talk to strangers (I'm in that category myself).  As for getting "muscle-y", there are limitations to what weight training can do to your body.  Chances are, the people who have this fear have seen photos of bodybuilders or fitness competitors.  Your body will not turn into something bulging with muscles and popping veins unless you train like a fiend (as in 4 hours a day 6 or 7 days a week) OR you take steroids.  Weight training will improve your muscle tone and help to reduce your body fat but there are limitations to the natural biological response to the exercise.  Weightlifting can be as much a women's sport as a men's sport if you want it to be.

The Top Ten Mad Skeptic Posts of 2011

In a fit of "Wow, that's obvious!" I realized I can compile a list of the most read Mad Skeptic posts of 2011.  With that in mind, I'll now torture you with yet another "top ten" list!

10)  I Can Marry You:  I announce my drinking problem and my receiving Credentials of Ministry with the Universal Life Church.  I took this action during the stressful days where it was uncertain as to whether New York would legalize same sex marriage.  I wanted to be able to offer a secular or Atheist alternative to the religious celebrants and to allow anyone who wanted to get married the opportunity.

9)  Why Do Transhumanism and Singularitianism Get a Pass?:  Really?  Why do Skeptics seem more than willilng to look the other way with what, in many ways, looks like a cult.  Is it because they are adequately "sciency" or can be rationalized as reasonable due to some nerdtastic Star Trek fetish?  If so, I suggest interested Skeptics look into Scientology -- it's full of sciency garbage as well.

8)  Poopie Head Post of the Day:  Loren Coleman get's called out for going on one of his ad hominem attacks on Skeptic Sharon Hill.  Much hilarity ensues and Coleman ends up with an ostrich egg on his face.

7)  Bin Laden's Been Dead for Ten Years?!:  Far-right kook Alex Jone's conspiracy that Osama bin Laden had been dead ten years prior to his killing this year is examined.  Where the lizard people or Illuminatii involved?  Read and find out yourself!

6)  Is Cryptomundo Stealing Discovery News' Content?:  Cryptomundo rears it's ugly head again as evidence clearly shows Craig Woolheater stealing content from yet another website.  Should SOPA be passed, Cryptomundo will be seriously fucked -- seeing how they can't follow copyright law now.

5)  Analysis of the BIGFOOT SIGHTING!!! Video:  A popular YouTube blobsquatch is examined and shown to probably be, in technical terms now, dumbassery.

4)  So What is Sexism Anyway?:  2011 was the year of idiotic mysogeny on many levels in the Skeptic crowd and a lot of intelligent and plain out stupid conversation developed.  In response to the claim that only women can be vicitms of sexism, I was compelled to write.

3)  Finding Bigfoot.  Not Worth Your Time:  After watching the entire first season of Animal Planet's "Finding Bigfoot" television show, I came the conclusion you'd learn more real science by watching either the Thundercats or Voltron.

2)  Loren Coleman Gets Caught Again. Lashes Out.:  Loren Coleman is caught using the aniversary of the attacks on 9-11 in a disgusting attempt to generate traffic to Cryptomundo.  His arguments are systematically lined up and knocked down.  Shameful!

1)  Finding Bigfoot. A Delayed Initial Review.:  The post that launched a thousand clicks.  My initial feedback was that I  had seriously pissed off the whack-a-loon true believers.  Now, I suspect a lot of people agree with this initial review of the show -- it's garbage.

2011 Wraps Up with Bigfoot Baffoonery

As the year ends, one shouldn't be blamed for missing some of the foolishness in the realm of the Bigfoot.  After all, really important things have happened.  I wouldn't blame you if you failed to notice some of the brain-rotting stupidity coming from the Bigfoot camp as events like the Arab Spring, the Occupy Movement, the circus called the "Republican primary campaign", and the assault on First Amendment Rights called SOPA really should be foremost in your thoughts.

Don't worry though.  I'm here to ruin that for you.

First, let's just get this out of the way.  I'm not going to address whatever bullshit blobsquatch has popped its fraudulent head up on YouTube.  I've addressed those in the past.  I'm not even going to include the attack on rational thinking called "Finding Bigfoot".  I've already done that as well.  I want to specifically address 3 very recent events which have developed within spitting distance of New Year's Eve.

Bigfooters Take a Swing at Real Science and....MISS (again)

Much yapping and carrying on has gone on the Internet about how the existence of Bigfoot would be proven this year because of DNA analysis being performed on various samples of supposed Bigfoot material.  Of these, only two really warrant addressing here.  First, there was the analysis of a "Yeti" artifact (I understand the difference between a Yeti and a Bigfoot by the way but Yeti and Bigfoot mythologies have been so interwoven since the late 1950's, I'm going to take the liberty and deal with them as the exact same phenomenom -- just located in different parts of the world).  Many of us who are familiar with Bigfoot and the Yeti are bound to recall the famous story of Yeti artifacts being stolen by Peter Byrne and then smuggled out of Tibet by Tom Slick -- a wealthy American with money to burn on foolishness like stealing Tibetian artifacts.  This story has remained wedged in my head alongside the famous picture of supposed Yeti footprints taken by Sir Edmund Hillary but I, and a lot of the world, had put the story on the back burners of our minds -- until 2 days ago.  They "Yeti" finger made a triumphant return!  You see, someone decided to test the finger's DNA.  The results:  HUMAN.  Sorry folks, no Yeti here.  Move along.

The other much ballyhooed DNA story of the year is the so-called Ketchum DNA samples.  For the uninitiated, a series of samples were supposedly tested for DNA.  Some of us have been waiting to hear the results of these supposed tests.  It doesn't bode well when recognized fraudster, Tom Biscardi, is involved with these samples but many of us (yes, Bigfoot skeptics are interested in this stuff and, yes, many of us -- myself included -- would love there to be such a thing as Bigfoot) have been waiting for the paper with the results to be published.  Something, though, doesn't seem to be right.  Despite some making claims that 2012 will be the year of Bigfoot (although, I thought it was supposed to be the end of the world -- again), trouble seems to be bubbling up.  There are now rumors that the paper submitted by Ketchum has been rejected outright.  Now, here's the deal, if the paper has been rejected, there will not be a statement from the journal that rejected it.  What we will be gifted with is a series of excuses and post-hoc rationalizations from this segment of the Bigfoot world.  So, although I'm not in the business of making predictions, I'm going to make one now.  My prediction is that 2012 will be the year of the Bigfoot-DNA cover-up conspiracy.  There will be claims made about how the information was so "damaging" or some other such nonsense to the "Scientific establishment" that the men in black (or other secretive agents -- perhaps the Illuminati?) prevented the paper from being published.  None of this mindless drivel will be challenged by the journal(s) that rejected the paper.  Why?  That's not their job.  They had the paper reviewed and, if the rumors are true, it was rejected because it was unscientific garbage.  Science journals do not waste their time explaining why they didn't publish unscientific garbage.  The end result will be the true-believers saying all manner of craziness.

The Laughable Return of Jacko

Embedded in Bigfoot lore is the story of Jacko -- the wayward ape-creature supposedly captured by a railroad company and then which mysteriously disappeared on his way to appearing in sideshows.  There is, of course, no evidence of Jacko ever existing with the exception of one newspaper story.  Regardless, when I think of Jacko, I think of the great Minnesota Iceman -- a hoax shown in sideshows and perpetrated for years and proclaimed as a real Bigfoot by some "experts".  When I think of hoaxes, I think of people trying to get attention and that leads me to...Russia!

Many people are aware of the recent nonsense where some Russians proclaimed they had irrefutable proof of the existence of Bigfoot.  Later, the "evidence" proved to be a fraud perpetrated in an attempt to generate tourism in a region of the country.  Not to be outdone, some other Russians have upped the ante in their game of hoaxes with a modern day version of Jacko!  Yesterday, word came out of good ole Russia that someone in the town of Narzan had gone and captured themselves a Bigfoot!  No joke.  Well, actually, it is.  You see the whole damn thing was a fraud (even if it was supposed, somehow, to benefit orphans)!

Honestly, if the denizens of the world of Bigfoot really want to be taken seriously, they need to start acting seriously.  All these crazy shenanigans with stealing ancient relics and then waffling about the testing of supposed samples needs to stop!  Instead of trying to fit the facts to your predisposed hypothesis, why not let the facts actually lead you to reality?  Why not grow up and actually use the Scientific Method.  Not willing to do that?  At the very least, you can stop paying any attention to the mindless fraudsters looking for attention -- or is that a part of the Bigfooter's "scientific" method?

The Great Pious Santa Fraud

Well, here I am in the second year of attempting to teach my daughter some critical thinking skills.  How am I doing this?  Simple.  I'm lying to her.

Many of my readers will recall my previous post on my thoughts about Santa Claus and how I plan on using this myth to teach my daughter some critical thinking skills, to question authority, and to have a little fun at the same time.  Initially, I was slightly conflicted about whether I was going to propagate the Santa myth in my household but then I recalled how much I liked it as a child and how little it really effected me when I found out Santa wasn't real.  To this end, I decided to play the part of Santa for my secular celebration of the pagan traditions claimed by the Christians as their own.  I won't go into the foolishness of Christians claiming the tree, the Yule log, and the various accoutrements of the season as their own.  I may at a later date but I reason the arrogant stupidity of many Christians doesn't need any further elaboration today.

I started this experiment of pious fraud as an avenue to rational thinking last year when my daughter was 3 years old.  I didn't do much apart from ask her questions about what she Santa did to get all the presents to all the kids in the world.  I didn't bother to go into how Santa somehow forces gifts upon unbelieving Jews, Muslims, Buddhists... and somehow fails to provide food and resources to starving children if he really brought presents to every child in the world.  Fat lot of good a La La Loopsie will do when what you really need rice and the drought to end!  I just wanted to hear her thoughts and question them a little bit - as far as you can with the 3 year old.

As a random aside, how do Christians get away with Santa in the first place?  Sounds like the jolly old elf is a supernatural fellow and isn't that against one of those ten rules they're supposed to be following?

This year, the Kiddo is 4 years old and she is much more aware of the world around her.  Kids in her class at school tell her things and she gets more information from the seasonal specials on television.  My approach altered a bit this year.  I still asked her about what she thought of Santa ("a very nice man" - I, ahem, can't argue there) and how he managed to get presents to everyone in one night ("magic" - I like this answer. It'll be easy for her to tear apart later) but I added another element -- clues.

As a single father, I only have my daughter on alternating holidays dependent upon the year.  Many single parents will know exactly what I'm talking about.  For those of you who aren't single parents, it is a relatively common practice for the kids to spend alternate holidays at one or the other parent's house.  I had my daughter for Christmas last year which means she was with her mother this year.  However, this weekend would normally be my weekend with her as per our custody agreement (we have a 50/50 arrangement).  The end result was I was celebrating Christmas with my daughter on Saturday instead of Sunday which means I had an opportunity to present my first clue.  Santa, somehow, managed to make it to my place on Friday night!  I really don't expect her to pick up on this hint but when she looks back, she will.  If Santa delivers presents to all the good boys and girls on Christmas eve, what the hell was he doing making a special trip to our house?

The second clue was much more obvious -- at least to someone who's not an excited 4 year old.  I keep a roll of wrapping paper to use exclusively as Santa's wrapping paper.  Doesn't it stand to reason that Santa's paper would be different from most of the homes he's delivering presents to?  I think so and each year I wrap some presents with "my" wrapping paper and wrap some in "Santa's" wrapping paper to reinforce the appearance of Santa delivering alien presents.  The presents in her stocking are wrapped in this paper.  The presents under the tree are wrapped in this paper.  This year's second hint was in her stocking.  One present in her stocking was wrapped in "my" wrapping paper.  I was hoping she would notice and then ask me about it.

So, how did this Christmas go?  She didn't pick up either clue but I'm not in the least bit disappointed.  I'm just happy she's having fun and now I've added another element to the holiday I rather enjoy.  What will be my clue next year?  I don't know quite yet and coming up with something will be fun.  I'll be keeping the mis-wrapped present from here on out but it will be fun giving my daughter new clues to a puzzle she isn't really aware of yet.  When she figures it out, it won't be because I told her that Santa wasn't real.  Hopefully, it won't be because some kid in school blabs.  I hope it will be because she figured it out on her own by using her own critical thinking skills.

Finding Bigfoot. Not Worth Your Time.

I've completed my viewing of the entire first season of Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot. Before I go any further, I would just like to say that I think calling 6 shows a “season” is pathetic. Seriously, how do the networks get away with it?! Is our collective memory so ruined that we forget what we've seen after only 6 shows. Don't answer that. The truth might be painful. I digress. Well, seeing how my initial review got a lot of people all upset, I'm certain this one isn't going to assuage many of them. Even though there were only a paltry 6 shows in the first season, Finding Bigfoot still isn't worth wasting your time on.

The Show's problems start with its introduction. Matt Moneymaker clearly states that he founded the BFRO to prove the existence of Bigfoot. To most people, this might be nothing worth paying attention to. Scientists and Skeptics, however, will quickly pick up that Moneymaker is working from a bias and, as such, he is setting out to prove his belief. Consequently, he will be resistant and dismissive of information which contradicts his preconceptions and this tendency is borne out through the season. This behavior is observed several times during the season and I will discuss a couple of these occasions later.

Season 1 of Finding Bigfoot consists of 6 episodes wherein Matt Moneymaker and his BFRO team travel to different localities and “investigate” Bigfoot sightings. I deliberately put investigate in quotes because what they are doing is not investigation by any real standard. First and foremost, the show heavily relies upon witness accounts of unknown vintages. These accounts are then “investigated” where the Moneymaker crew provides the witness with numerous leading questions. It has been established that eyewitness testimony is not as reliable as people would like to believe. Not only are eyewitness accounts not always factual, the investigator can alter the memories of the witness by providing (surprise, surprise) leading questions. These questions are then woven into the witnesses' story line. This is not to say the witness did not see something! There is a good chance they had a genuine experience but that experience may not be what they thought it was. Time and time again on Finding Bigfoot I observed the BFRO team asking leading questions (ex. “did it do this” or “was it this tall”) and then followed up the questioning with a definitive “I'm certain what you saw was a Sasquatch” -- thereby solidifying the idea in the person's memory.

These witness accounts and their corresponding recreations make up a good portion of the show. The bulk, however, is the supposed field investigations. These are nothing more than a repackaging of the Ghost Hunters formula wherein people walk around in the dark with night vision cameras and infrared imaging all the while scaring each other with “what was that noise” and “did you hear that" sprinkled in to lend some semblance of credibility. If they were actually looking for an animal that is nocturnal and avoids people, they shouldn't be going out in the woods at night! Instead, remote traps would be called for – especially those which can get tissue samples. Hair traps and other forms of tissue traps would be good for those who would be squeamish about shooting one of these animals should they exist (personally, if I was going to find Bigfoot and knew there was a chance I'd get it, I'd be bringing my .30-06 and putting this whole nonsense to rest once and for all). This does not make good television. Instead, we are supposed to accept that tying a rabbit in a cage in a tree with glow sticks dangled around is somehow an acceptable way to perform any sort of research -- a technique actually used in the show. Perhaps it is, but only if you're researching the gullibility of the Animal Planet viewing public or the ignorance of the BFRO team.

Another big portion of the show has either Matt, Cliff, or Bobo yelling into the woods. They claim to get calls back from Sasquatch while on these nocturnal stomping forays into ineptitude. While the post-production of the audio makes these calls the more suspect (compression and echo can really change a sound and its relative significance in a given situation), I recall one particular instance when they call and claim to hear back from Sasquatch in multiple locations. What I heard reminds me of going out on my parent's land and faking a coyote howl and then being answered by animals from two different packs. I have actually done this on several occasions.  The sounds were almost identical to what they claimed to be from a Sasquatch on the show. I should also point out that it is extremely difficult to impossible to judge anything like distance from howls at night in the woods. Furthermore, the tonality of the sounds alter as the sound waves travel through the landscape and trees -- potentially significantly altering the sound when it arrives at the listener.

Character wise, my opinion hasn't changed much about Cliff. However, I do believe Cliff to be well intentioned. My opinion of Bobo is about the same from my first write up. Even though he is a true believer, he doesn't seem to be as unwilling to accept contrary evidence as Moneymaker. Moneymaker appears to be a closed-minded true believer who is, frankly, an asshole based upon the show's portrayal of his leadership skills.

This brings me to Ranae. While I still think she doesn't do as good of a job of critically examining the evidence as she could, she hit Moneymaker in the, well, moneymaker on a number of occasions. I wouldn't be surprised if most people missed them as they were downplayed in the shows. There were three instances where she successfully applied Occam's Razor and spoke truth to the lie. The first is in episode 3 “Caught on Tape”. The Finding Bigfoot team, essentially, demonstrates that supposedly “unfake-able” thermal camera footage of a Bigfoot was, well, fake-able. Ranae rightfully points out that the image of Bobo was identical to that of one claimed to be a Bigfoot. Moneymaker rejects her observation outright and at the end of the show they keep repeating over and over again that they know the person who shot the video and that he's a good guy. Apparently, Moneymaker's never heard of pious fraud, appeal to personality, or positive confirmation bias. The second shot Ranae gets is in the next episode, “Fishing for Bigfoot” where, again she correctly points out that a Bigfoot in a video is not only the size of a person, it looks like one too. This footage is addressed in the wrap-up special and, surprisingly, Cliff agrees with Ranae. Moneymaker? Not so much. Another good example of skepticism from Ranae occurs in the next episode, “Frozen Bigfoot” where she points out that a famous photo of Bigfoot looks like that of a hiker with a backpack. In all instances (I believe) she asks for proof that the photos couldn't be what she thought them to be stating that she needed to see they couldn't be faked. Every time, Moneymaker dismisses her. Ranae has potential for being the rational and reasonable member of this cast. Hopefully, they will use this to the show's advantage.

Unless you really want to see this show, don't waste your time. My opinion remains unchanged from my initial review – Finding Bigfoot is the worst show I've ever seen on the topic. If I were running things, I would have Ranae and another skeptic examining the actual wildlife in the area being examined. Their signs, calls and markings could then be examined. I would also get rid of the self-selected “town meetings” and have people interviewed on the street – without identifying the show. Finally, Ranae could interview some wildlife managers, biologists, or other experts in the field for each area. Then, the differing lines of evidence could be critically examined at the end of the show.

I'm afraid that would never happen (apart from my not being the producer of the show). The producers want you to believe that they are actually doing research and that there is a possibility that Bigfoot exists. This formula, potentially, keeps you coming back for more. With a few exceptions, credulous, escapist television reigns supreme but something tells me that watching Matt Moneymaker get angry as his theories get demolished by rational explanations week after week might help create the tension producers and viewers are often looking for. Until that happens, I don't expect this show to be anything worth wasting your time watching.

Finding Bigfoot. A Delayed Initial Review

I started this blog three years ago with a review of History Channel's show Monsterquest.  Ever since watching In Search Of as a kid, I've had a soft spot for these kinds of shows that purport to "critically" examine the "unexplained".  With that in mind, I decided to sit down and watch Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot.

I realize I'm a little behind the game because I've only seen the first two episodes of the first season but, hey, I'm a single dad and I have more important things to do than watch television.  Regardless, I've utilized modern time-shifting technology to enable me to watch back episodes and, I must say, I'm very disappointed.

I don't know why television producers feel they have to make, and I mean this honestly and literally, stupid television.  The first two episodes have some of the most credulous and useless "investigation" I've ever seen.  I routinely work with evidence and the standards of evidence BFRO is shown using to make conclusions is not only laughable, it is damaging to the understanding of the Scientific Method.  I've previously addressed this topic when I appeared on Skeptically Speaking a couple of years ago and I suspect many may have disregarded my opinion at the time.  I ask those individuals to watch Finding Bigfoot and tell me where any Science is being portrayed being done!  I would then ask these people how do they think critical thinking or the public's understanding of Science is being benefited.

I really do hope the series matures and improves.  I'll be watching more episodes tonight and I really want it to be entertaining but, right now, the ignorance and credulity being portrayed is so distracting I can't enjoy the show.  So far, the only character I like is Bobo -- who is the 6'6" guy who often stands in as a Bigfoot surrogate.  Perhaps, I identify with him because I'm 6'7" and one of my nicknames in college was "Sasquatch".  My least favorite characters are Cliff and Ranae.  Cliff, despite his Animal Planet profile, is the most ignorant of the rules of evidence.  Ranae does a shitty job of being the "token skeptic" and, honestly, I question whether she really is a Field Biologist based upon her portrayal on television.  Her profile indicates she works with salmon -- which may explain why she doesn't understand mammalian and terrestrial wildlife.

As for the first two episodes, the first involves nothing more than witness anecdotes and a supposed set of footprints.  Much is made of the footprints when they are found but I noticed that they didn't track the set further and only two prints were found.  Anyone who spends any amount of time in the woods tracking wildlife knows you can still track animals in and through the woods.  Their prints can still be left behind underneath the leaf litter -- you just have to peel back the leaves.  Sure, those prints may not be distinct but they will still be there.  Whether they bothered to do this is unknown as the show only has Cliff and Ranae making casts of the prints they "coincidentally" find.  Frankly, the circumstances under which the tracks were found are suspicious.  A witness takes them to a site he claims to have seen a bigfoot and, low and behold, two perfect prints are right there!  I smell something suspicious.  If you want to watch a really good example of how not to find any sort of wildlife, watch the scene where they drive 5 or 6 cars caravan-sytle through the woods!  It's so bad it isn't even laughable.  At the end of this episode the group's leader, Matt Moneymaker (yes, that's his real name if you've never encountered it before), "determines" that bigfoot is in the area based upon eyewitness reports and a terrible police dashcam video -- not evidence by any substantial measure.  Remember the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence.

In the second episode, the BFRO team examines reports of the skunk ape in Florida.  Again, the episode is nothing more than anecdots and Ghost Hunters-styled moments of "did you hear that?!"  I'm surprised these experienced bigfoot "researchers" aren't aware that the woods are not quiet at night.  Regardless, they use infrared cameras to get blobs to look at on television and they get spooked by deer grunts at least once.  They examine what appears to be a curious bear's interactions with a family home and walk around in the Everglades at sites witnesses claim to have seen bigfoot.  I also noticed at least one time when they attempt to call a bigfoot with what they consider one of its "vocalizations".  I immediately recognized it as a poor imitation of a fox call (some examples here).  If you haven't heard one before, they are creepy.  Finally, the high point of the episode was when Animal Planet put up a factoid quiz that asked why the skunk ape supposedly smells as bad as it does.  The answer?  Apparently, they live underneath alligator dens and methane collects in the sasquatch's hair!  The stupid, it burns!  In case you were wondering, alligators, when they have dens, have them at or just above water level.  I guess the skunk ape is also aquatic.  Oh wait, nevermind.  That's just bullshit special pleading being made up by people who really don't know anything about this creature -- should it exist.

Based upon these first two episodes, I'd have to say Finding Bigfoot may be one of the worst shows on the subject I've ever seen.  It is little more than a promotional instrument for Matt Moneymaker and the BFRO and there isn't even the most basic attempt at even portraying an analytical examination of what little evidence they have.  Instead, we are presented with a version of a ghost hunter show and unconvincing anecdotes.  If you really want to be educated on this subject I would recommend you read David Daegling's book on the hunt for bigfoot.  While I'm going to continue to watch the first season and my opinion may change, I am not confident the show will improve.  Currently, I think that if you want to be entertained, hell, watch reruns of the Smurfs.  It's as accurate to reality as Finding Bigfoot.

---

12/17/11 Edit: corrected typo and underlined "any"

When the Bad Economy and Asbestos Intersect

Most readers of the Mad Skeptic are aware that I research asbestos.  Personally, I find it to be a rewarding career where I get to combine my Mineralogy skills with Forensics while helping people at the same time.  I spend a lot of time on various forms of microscopes examining all manners of fibers and microscopic goodies.  In the future, I'm fairly confident that the analytical skills I and those who work in my field possess will prove extremely valuable as nanoparticles become more wide spread.  I'm not saying they will be dangerous.  I'm saying we already know how to look for them.  You see, the most common type of asbestos, chrysotile (a fibrous serpentine for the non-Igneous/Metamorphic Mineralogists playing at home) is a nanotube!  And humans have the hubris to suggest they invented them!

I'm going to briefly address two issues in this post.  While one is somewhat humorous, the other isn't but both demonstrate where asbestos has intersected with the Great Recession (I believe it is quite fair to refer to this recession as the Great Recession.  It has spread across the World and damaged the lives of untold people).  Fibrous minerals and economics?  Yup, two scary things mixing it up.

The Great Recession and the Asbestos Lab

I work for New York State.  Recently, New York's Governor, Andrew Cuomo, and the second largest public employees Union, the Public Employees Federation (PEF), entered into contract negotiations -- but not before Cuomo initiated the layoff process of approximately 500 PEF represented employees.  As a Shop Steward, it was a tough time but the negotiations produced a tentative contract.  The layoffs were rescinded for a vote -- which failed.  After the contract wasn't ratified, Cuomo laid off 3496 PEF members.  I was one of them.  Let me tell you, getting laid off in such a stressful and public fashion is horrible and trying to help your fellow workers --without answers or real encouragement -- at the same time is something I hope to never repeat. It was an extremely difficult time for me and my fellow co-workers.

At almost the 11^th hour, Cuomo and PEF came to an agreement and a second tentative contract was sent out and, thankfully, ratified.  My fellow co-workers and I get to keep our jobs but this post really isn't about my sob story, it's about what would have happened to my lab had I been laid off.  My laboratory runs on a skeleton crew.  It really isn't a problem for me because I enjoy my work but, had I been forced to leave, the lab would not have been able to function properly.  Due to analytical procedures we're required to undertake to produce proficiency samples (test samples which are sent out to laboratories certified by New York), we have to maintain a "blinding" process to ensure each of us performs analysis without any prior knowledge to the makeup of the sample we are examining.  Had I been removed from the equation, the New York State asbestos program would have, if not functionally shut down, been severely damaged.

Now, many people would say "So what?  Asbestos is banned anyway."  I've found it is easy for people to be ignorant of the situation in the United States and it is understandable that they might think asbestos has been banned.  Well, it hasn't.  Asbestos can be legally used and manufactured in the United States.  It is still used in many friction products like brake shoes and still can be found in new building products like floor tiles and roofing material.  There are no operating asbestos producers in the United States because of the massive liability associated with its production but that doesn't stop the importation of the material from overseas and Canada.  Regardless of the new material being shipped in, the existing material is massive.  The contamination of buildings in the form of spray-applied fireproofing, floor tiles, insulation, and so on is untold and nearly beyond measure.  Plus, a new issue was revealed with the vermiculite mined by W.R. Grace.  There is attic insulation in, literally, hundreds of thousands of homes which contains a particularly dangerous asbestiform mineral.  This problem is not going away and it may get worse before it gets better.  Tired of those mesothelioma advertisements?  They ain't going anywhere.

Cuomo's laying me off (which was rescinded but I was laid off) was an arbitrary decision made with no consideration to what my laboratory does.  This decision was predicated upon the economic situation of New York and Cuomo's anti-union proclivities.  In an effort to save money, Cuomo took out those of us who he could most easily and some of us just happen to work in the Department of Health laboratories.  Had the layoffs proceeded, the Science that is done daily in these laboratories to benefit people's health would have been seriously damaged.  I'm sorry to all those fiscal conservatives who may read this blog but I feel as though people's lives are far more important than money.  In my case, if my lab was no longer able to produce those proficiency samples, it is quite possible a commercial lab would not remain competent to analyze samples and, therefore, innocent people could have been unknowingly exposed to asbestos.  Here's the scary part -- schools have a lot of asbestos in them and asbestos abatement projects are done during the summer months when school is out so parents may not even know there could be a contamination problem.  I don't know about you but I don't want my daughter dying from mesothelioma when she's 30.

The economy is damaging Science and Research as we speak and much of it is due to the short-sighted politics of a few.  My case is only one example.  It is going on across the country and around the world.  Think about it next time you hear or read about budgetary cutbacks on T.V. or the paper.  Scientists tend not to speak up about these issues -- viewing the work as the most important part.  Yes, the work is critically important and that is why I'll say something.

Enough about how a myopic Governor nearly exposed people to asbestos!  Here's the humorous story.  Well, it is kind of sad too.

The Great Recession and the Asbestos Barn

Here in the Northeastern United States, there has been a marked increase in people scrap-metaling as a means to earn some income in these difficult financial times.  To those unfamiliar with the process, scrap-metalers go around looking for discarded metal.  It doesn't matter if they find aluminum, steel, iron, or what have you.   Almost all metal has a resale value and there are places to sell the metal you find.  These recyclers then take the metal, weigh it and then pay the scrap-metalers by the pound for what they've recovered.  First, I believe scrap-metaling can perform a very real benefit by recycling materials that might have ruined the environment or been wasted in a landfill.  Under these circumstances, scrap-metalers are doing society and the planet a good service.  However, looking for scrap metal can prove a rather difficult task and some people choose to get their metal illegally.

Many people are aware of the recent case in Pennsylvania where an entire bridge was dismantled and then sold for scrap.  Well, the case I'll now relate is similar.  In Scotland, one particular scrap metal thief thought he had a sure thing when he found what he thought was an abandoned steel-framed barn.  He recruited some buddies and they set about dismantling the structure to sell as scrap.  Unfortunately for these miscreants, the barn really wasn't abandoned and the farmer's neighbor saw them taking the barn apart.  Yup, he called the police and the scrap metal thieves were arrested.

Where's the asbestos?  Turns out the barn had is all over the roof!  As these scrap metal thieves were disassembling the barn, they were covering themselves in, exposing themselves to, and breathing in asbestos as they cut into the barn!  One is left to wonder how dire a financial situation one would have to be in to consider disassembling a bridge or a barn but I'm certain those circumstances are increased because of the current economy.  As people become more and more desperate for money, they are going to do things like take buildings or machines (or parts of them) apart.  Asbestos (remember the spray applied fireproofing I mentioned earlier?) will often be a part of those buildings and machinery and being exposed to it without the proper breathing apparatus and suits will significantly increase your chances of dying a horrible, lingering death.  In the case of the asbestos barn, during the trial, the judge referred to the case as "not exactly the crime of the century".