50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True

by Harrison, Guy P.

  Two very basic problems I have long held with claims of large famous beasts such as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster are that almost no one considers the population sizes necessary for these creatures to survive. Unless we are talking about a magical immortal animal, there would have to be a large enough population of their kind for them to reproduce and perpetuate their species. So this would not be a case of just one or two individual creatures eluding capture and confirmation; it would have to mean a population of hundreds, maybe thousands hiding in the shadows. And yet no one has ever found a body or skeletal remains of even one. No hunter has ever shot one and showed off the body. The same holds true for other legendary animals. If the Loch Ness monster really is a holdover from the Cretaceous period, as many believers claim, then there can't just be one of them. There would have to be a significant number of them. This makes it even more unlikely that we would not have been able to positively identify one by now.

  The second problem is the increasing number of people and cameras. Why aren't we seeing a flood of high-quality photos and video of Bigfoot animals these days? It doesn't make sense when we consider that the population of North America continues to grow and the number of people with still cameras, video cameras, and cell phone cameras has risen sharply in recent years. Outdoor recreation has risen in popularity as well. Opportunities for recorded sightings have never been greater, but for some reason we have virtually nothing to show for it.

  Cryptozoology fans should not misperceive skepticism and the demand for proof as an outright denial of any possibility that weird unknown creatures are out there. Unlikely as it may be, nothing about the claim of some giant apelike creature living around humans contradicts the laws of the universe. In fact, we know that something like Bigfoot once existed. Gigantopithecus was a monstrous nine-foot tall primate that lived a few hundred thousand years ago in Asia. By the way, isn't it interesting that scientists can find convincing evidence of a giant primate that lived so long ago, but no one can find any proof for a giant primate population that is supposed to be living in North America right now? Half a million years ago Homo erectus clans may have encountered the massive Gigantiopithecus and then shared their own Bigfoot tales around the campfire. One does not have to believe in magic or miracles to imagine that some kind of ape species could still be out there on the fringes of civilization avoiding detection. I'll even go so far as to declare that Bigfoot has a much better chance of turning out to be true than most of the other popular beliefs addressed in this book. But that doesn't mean it's not an empty claim unworthy of acceptance. Yes, there are the plaster casts of footprints. But we know that Bigfoot prints can and have been faked, so they are not proof. There are also numerous eyewitnesses. But we know that eyewitnesses are not reliable. People have been wrongly imprisoned by eyewitnesses. Elvis is alive and extraterrestrials invaded Earth years ago, according to eyewitnesses. Given what modern science has revealed about the human brain—particularly how vision and memory work—there is no need to question or disparage the honesty, character, intelligence, or eyesight of people who say they saw Bigfoot. The fact that they are human beings is reason enough to withhold jumping to any extraordinary conclusions based on their accounts. And then there is the famous Patterson Bigfoot film.

  THE PATTERSON BIGFOOT FILM

  I don't get it. Why do so many people see the famous 1967 Patterson Bigfoot film as powerful evidence if not absolute proof? I was just a young kid when I first saw it (it was shown on a television show called “In Search Of,” if I recall correctly). Even then my first reaction was that it was obviously some guy in a hairy suit. Nothing about it convinced me that Bigfoot was real. I hadn't even kissed a girl yet but I had been around the block enough times to know a fake ape when I saw one.

  The brief footage, shot by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin in northern California in 1967, shows a husky, pear-shaped, hairy figure walking through a clearing in the woods. During the walkthrough, as if on cue, the figure turns toward the camera midway to heighten the dramatic scene. Just like in childhood, I still see a guy in a gorilla suit. Admittedly, nothing jumps out to conclusively disprove the claim that this is really Bigfoot, but there are many problems, as we shall see, that demand extreme skepticism if not outright rejection. (You can also search “Patterson Bigfoot film” on YouTube and judge for yourself.)

  It's a subjective call, but the gait of this Bigfoot seems all wrong to me. It just doesn't move or look like a wild nonhuman primate would, in my opinion. Many believers dispute this, of course, and claim that the film is rock-solid proof. They say it shows anatomically correct flexing of the back and quadriceps muscles while walking, which means it must be real. I feel like I know how bodies move and how muscles flex pretty well. I have been a lifelong fitness enthusiast and I have photographed literally thousands of athletes in a variety of sports over many years, including at the Olympic Games. I see nothing in the Patterson film that leads me to think it couldn't have been a guy in a cheezy ape suit.

  Some believers claim that the figure in the Patterson film could not be a man because no ape suits of that quality could be made back in the 1960s. This is just plain wrong. First of all, it's not that great of an ape suit. Second, ape suits were produced to that standard and better in the late 1960s. Both the original Planet of the Apes film and 2001: A Space Odyssey were released in the 1960s and featured very impressive ape makeup—far better than we see in the Patterson film, in my opinion. The sequel to The Planet of the Apes (Beneath the Planet of the Apes, released in 1970 and probably shot in 1969) includes a scene with ape characters Dr. Zaius and General Ursus in a steam room with no clothes on discussing an invasion of the Forbidden Zone. The face makeup and chest area are different. But other than that, Ursus looks like he could have been wearing the same suit that might have been used in the Patterson Bigfoot film. The “Magatu,” a horned gorillalike beast with white fur, was featured in the Star Trek episode “A Private Little War” that aired in February 1968. The Magatu's fur is the wrong color, of course, but the quality of the suit is as good or better than what we see in the Patterson film. Many forgotten B movies such as Gorilla at Large (1954) and Konga (1961) show men in ape suits that match or surpass the Bigfoot film's standard. Far more compelling than any of that, however, is the claim by Phillip Morris that he made and sold the suit seen in the Patterson film. The former magician and owner of Morris Costumes told Bigfoot researcher Greg Long that he sold one of his gorilla suits to Patterson in 1967. Back then, Morris sold the suits primarily to carnival acts and magicians who used them for stage tricks like turning a woman into a gorilla. Morris told Long that he asked Patterson what he was going to do with it and Patterson's reply was, “We're just going to have some fun.”10

  I suppose it's possible that a modern-day cousin of Gigantopithecus really did conveniently parade by two guys who told people in advance that they were going out to film Bigfoot that day. But the alternative possibility, that it was a hoax, seems much more likely to be true. The biggest blow to the film's credibility, however, is nothing less than a credible confession from a man who says he wore the suit! Bob Heironimus, an acquaintance of Patterson and Gimlin, says the two men agreed to pay him to wear a gorilla suit for the staged filming. Greg Long's investigative book, The Making of Bigfoot, presents the story behind the film in great detail and includes this confession from Heironimus: “I'm here to tell you that I was the man in the Bigfoot suit.”11

  WHY DON'T SCIENTISTS CARE ABOUT BIGFOOT?

  Jeff Meldrum's book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science makes the best case for Bigfoot I have encountered to date, but it's still far from convincing. Meldrum, an associate professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University, has better credentials than most Bigfoot believers but, just like them, he relies on questionable footprints, unreliable eyewitness accounts, and that Patterson film. No skulls, teeth, or bones, no conclusive DNA evidence and, of course, no body. Meldrum makes some good points about keeping an open mind, and
he is right that many confirmed hoaxes do not prove that all Big-foot evidence is faked. However, I feel that his obvious irritation with mainstream scientists goes too far: “It seems the majority of scientists are content to remain aloof, trivialize the probability of new discovery, or presume to discredit the witnesses and the evidence, leaving to others the search for proof, the definitive type specimen. They passively challenge: ‘Show me the body.’”12

  There are a few problems with Meldrum's statements. First, even if we were to allow that the majority of scientists are “aloof” and “trivialize the probability of new discovery” (which is not accurate, based on my experiences with many scientists), I am certain it would not be because they are a bunch of hopeless jerks who are too arrogant, stubborn, and entrenched to look beyond their own noses. The reason most of them have no interest in taking up the quest is because no compelling evidence exists that would make it seem worth their time to investigate. There is nothing to get their attention and inspire them to care. Plaster casts of footprints can be intriguing at first, but when one learns about all the footprint hoaxes that have been perpetrated over the years, they become a lot less interesting. It's like crop circles in England. They were somewhat intriguing right up to the point when the hoaxers came forward to confess and explain how they did it. Then, not so much. Eyewitness accounts are always worth listening to and considering, but what makes Bigfoot stories so special? There are many witnesses who say they have seen ghosts too. Should the world's elite scientists drop what they are doing and focus on haunted houses, based only on ghost stories? What about stories of TV preachers who routinely cure AIDS and cancer? Should the medical science field redirect the bulk of its time and money to research Benny Hinn crusades?

  It's all about evidence, not aloofness or a lack of interest in discovery. I am confident that hundreds if not thousands of scientists would catch the first flight to the Pacific Northwest if solid evidence of Bigfoot were produced. What scientist wouldn't want to be in on the discovery of a new primate species, especially one with such an enduring hold on the public's interest? The payoff in terms of fame, money, and career advancement would be huge. Have no doubts, scientists would vigorously investigate Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, or any other fringe claim if something convinced them that there is at least a reasonable chance of success. In the meantime, most scientists are just not willing to waste their time on what has all the look and feel of a dead-end myth and nothing more.

  Doubting the overreaching claims of cryptozoology is not a blanket rejection of everything it stands for. To be clear, I would love for Bigfoot, Yeti, the Loch Ness monster, and a thousand other mythical creatures to turn out to be real. Their existence would make our fascinating world even more interesting and exciting. Such discoveries would thrill me and every other fan of science. But I refuse to surrender my skepticism and common sense for such thin possibilities. I won't confuse hope for knowledge and I won't forget that emotional desire and scientific inquiry are two very different things.

  Should people actively search for Bigfoot and other such mythical creatures? That's up to them. If they have the time and the motivation, go for it. I suspect that it's a waste of time, but if cryptozoologists do manage to find a genuine specimen that shocks the world, I will be first in line to buy their books, watch their documentaries, and shake their hands. In the meantime, however, I choose to spend my life chasing after ideas and discoveries that offer better odds for success.

  GO DEEPER…

  Buckman, Robert. Human Wildlife: The Life That Lives on Us. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.

  Buh, Joshua Blu. Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.

  Dunn, Rob. The Wild Life of Our Bodies: Predators, Parasites, and Partners That Shape Who We Are Today. New York: HarperCollins, 2011.

  Ellis, Richard. Monsters of the Sea. Guilford, CT: Lyon Press, 2006.

  Jack, Albert. Loch Ness Monsters and Raining Frogs: The World's Most Puzzling Mysteries Solved. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2009.

  Jayawardhana, Ray. Strange New Worlds: The Search for Alien Planets and Life beyond Our Solar System. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011.

  Long, Greg. The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004.

  Nickell, Joe. Tracking the Man-Beasts: Sasquatch, Vampires, Zombies, and More. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2011.

  Nouvian, Claire. The Deep: The Extraordinary Creatures of the Abyss. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.

  Regal, Brian. Searching for Sasquatch: Crackpots, Eggheads, and Cryptozoology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

  Zimmer, Carl. Parasite Rex: Inside the Bizarre World of Nature's Most Dangerous Creatures. New York: Free Press, 2001.

  Zimmer, Carl. A Planet of Viruses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.

  More than half of Americans (53 percent) believe they have personally been saved from harm by a guardian angel.

  —Christopher Bader, Carson Mencken,

  and Joseph Baker, Paranormal America

  Several years ago, an elderly woman described for me her husband's dramatic final moments in a hospital room. Understandably, she recalled the event with great emotion. “As he was passing away, he said to me, ‘Do you see? Do you see the angel here in the room?’ It was something else, really something else.”

  Then she asked me: “Do you believe in angels?”

  I can't remember how I answered. Most likely I squirmed out of it by saying something kind and then changing the subject. Being asked about your position on angels can be awkward when you are unconvinced that they exist. Sure, you can explain that you are open-minded but don't know of any good evidence for angels, but that comes across to many people as just plain odd. I lived in the Caribbean for twenty years and would estimate that at least 80 to 90 percent of the population there believes in angels. But while this belief may be common, it's still quite extraordinary and should be backed up with evidence.

  A typical believer thinks that angels, defined as some sort of spiritual beings with magical powers, are constantly traveling back and forth between heaven and Earth in order to deliver messages from God and save people from harm or perhaps nudge them into making the right choices in life. “I have an angel that is with me all the time,” a middle-aged woman once told me. “The angel watches over me and guides me. I know it.” She spoke with the sort of certainty she might have expressed if talking about the existence of her car or pet cat. Angels can also take the form of humans and blend in with us, at least that's what the Bible seems to suggest where it describes people who “entertain angels unaware.”1 One of the Bible's most interesting and dramatic angel descriptions is found in Daniel 10:

  I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. His body was like topaz, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.

  Angel belief is flying high in the United States these days. According to a Gallup report, 75 percent of Americans believe angels are real and 11 percent say they aren't sure. Only 14 percent of Americans do not believe in angels.2 A Barna Group study found that 83 percent of American teenagers think angels are real.3 Belief is high in Canada, too, where 56 percent of adults say angels exist, with 19 percent not sure. In Great Britain, 36 percent believe in angels, with 18 percent unsure.4

  It's easy to see why belief in angels is appealing. They are much more than human, yet not quite gods. They are best known today as messengers and servants of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god. But angels, or similar beings, are also a part of many other belief systems today and in the past. The gods, it seems, have always had a need for middle management. While the image of what an angel is supposed to look like has become fairly standard in popular culture—winged and wearing white robes—this description is not found in the Tora
h, the Bible, or the Koran. The common concept of an angel, as it is widely depicted in art and imagination today, can be traced back to the Middle Ages, where it apparently was just made up out of thin air by artists of the day.5 Some people believe that angels are spirits (another term that is not clearly or consistently defined) and as such have no physical form that can be seen by humans. Others believe they can assume human form and mingle with us in order to carry out missions for God.

  Probably the primary reason so many people believe in angels is because they come standard issue with the package of religious belief. If one is a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew, then believing in angels is just assumed to come with the territory for most. I was surprised to learn that angel belief is not just common but also carries with it intimate, hands-on relevance for millions of people. For example, the Baylor Religion Survey states that 53 percent of American adults believe they have been “saved from harm by a guardian angel.”6 This is not a vague belief in some invisible being that is out there somewhere; this is belief in direct involvement—physical intervention—by angels in the affairs of people on Earth.

  Baylor researchers suggest that guardian angels are a “gateway belief” between religion and paranormal claims outside of religion. Guardian angel believers, it seems, are much more likely to believe in ghosts, psychics, Atlantis, and other such paranormal phenomenon. For example, people who claim to have had a guardian angel experience are twice as likely to believe in ghosts than people who do not claim to have had such an experience.7

  A survey of Americans who claim to have had a guardian angel experience reveals significant differences between religious groups. Black Protestants lead with 81 percent claiming to have been saved by an angel. Evangelical Protestants are second (66 percent), followed by Catholics (57 percent), mainline Protestants (55 percent), and other religions combined (49 percent). Only 10 percent of Jews claim to have had such an experience or encounter. This is ironic, since the Jewish Torah is the oldest and perhaps most important source of the angel concept believed in by Jews and Christians. Interestingly, 20 percent of those who have no religion claim to have had a guardian angel experience as well.8 This latter figure should not surprise anyone who has ever browsed the New Age section of contemporary bookstores. Angel belief clearly has expanded beyond the confines of traditional, mainstream religion.