Cryptomundo Incorporated formed

[HarryHenderson]

Is Coleman actually viewed as a Researcher at this point, or just a cryptozoological taking head?

He's a Talking Researching Cryptozowhatever Head. And if he's the true closer I've heard he is, he always goes where the money is. Baybay! What was the worldwide Gross Bigfoot Product (GBP) for 2009? $5k-$6k maybe? Coleman raked in probably only $45-$50 of that, but he has some solid 'huge money' offers coming in from Nigeria, Finland and curiously, the city of Albuquerque, all offering at least a $150 raise. We'll see.

Wait, Coleman is viewed?

 

[baron_army]

I all. I haven't posted here in the forums in probably a dog's age.

Add Coleman to the growing list of loons threatening lawsuits.

I'm one of Coleman's critics out there and I just wanted to let people know that the debate going on at Skepticblog.org over Daniel Loxton's post about Cryptomundo has lost Coleman as a participant. He claims that there have been "near-libelous" "ad hominem" attacks against him so he's going to no longer respond:

http://www.webcitation.org/5nJy0BAWc

Additionally, he asked to have one of his comments removed after I called his claims "specious". Loxton feels Coleman takes exception to my doubting his claim that Cryptomundo is not a revenue generator.

I have just finished reviewing the comments section and I haven't seen anything remotely libelous. Everything is opinion or has supporting evidence. I suspect his comments are directed at Sharon and myself as much of our criticism is directed specifically at him. If he was stupid enough to try and sue me, I'd welcome the opportunity to present my evidence and SLAPP him as both Maine and New York have the appropriate laws in place.

 

[Loxton]

Add Coleman to the growing list of loons threatening lawsuits.

To be clear, I am not aware of Coleman threatening any law suits at Skepticblog. His characterization of unspecified comments as "near-libelous" is not really the same thing.

Coleman did ask me to remove one of his own comments (which was unusual but acceptable to me) and the direct reply to that comment. I said I'd ask baron_army, the author of that now-orphaned and out-of-context reply, if he would consent to my removing it. Baron_army said no, so it's still up.

 

[William Parcher]

I tend to agree with baron army's criticisms of Coleman.

It looks like baron army, Myron Getman and The Mad Skeptic are the same person.

 

[baron_army]

To be clear, I am not aware of Coleman threatening any law suits at Skepticblog. His characterization of unspecified comments as "near-libelous" is not really the same thing.

Coleman isn't stupid so I doubt he'd come out and say it was libelous. As you probably know, implications -- and the like -- carry as much weight as actual evidence with him (how else would one explain all the nonsense that he puts out on the copycateffect blog?). Regardless, his use of the word "libelous" means something to him and I doubt it is any different than what Mark Edward just went through with Bonnie Vent. Tossing that word out there is only to garner sympathy and indirectly threaten those with opposing opinions.

 

[baron_army]

I tend to agree with baron army's criticisms of Coleman.

It looks like baron army, Myron Getman and The Mad Skeptic are the same person.

I am one in the same. I use my real name on occasion and my nom de plume for, predominantly, music-related stuff from when I was in a band. My blog is the Mad Skeptic.

 

[Drewbot]

I tend to agree with baron army's criticisms of Coleman.

It looks like baron army, Myron Getman and The Mad Skeptic are the same person.

You linked 'mad skeptic' to the skepticblog, but there is no mention of The Mad Skeptic there. Who is the mad skeptic? i get that Baron Army and Myron Getman are one and the same, how does The Mad Skeptic fit in?

FYI I just see Baron Army's post.

 

[William Parcher]

Drew, your post seems incoherent. Are you asking me a question?

ETA: I see what happened now. My link didn't lead away from the Skeptiblog.

Here: The Mad Skeptic

If you click on his name in the Skeptiblog it takes you to TMS.

 

[Drewbot]

Drew, your post seems incoherent. Are you asking me a question?

ETA: I see what happened now. My link didn't lead away from the Skeptiblog.

Here: The Mad Skeptic

If you click on his name in the Skeptiblog it takes you to TMS.

I didn't understand why you linked to Skeptiblog when referencing TMS, I thought you had linked to the wrong site, but now I see why you did that. You caught it already. Sorry for sounding incoherent, but you confoosed me.

 

[idoubtit]

Currently, Loren asked Ben Radford to comment on Nick Redfern's movie Island of Blood. I'm not sure what Loren thought Ben would think about it. He didn't think too highly about the investigation.
New_chupacabra_documentary_more_speculation_than_investigation/
However, notice how PLEASANT, gracious and fair many skeptics are in their critique.

I don't understand this game between Loren and skeptics. He engages but then calls us names. He could just ignore us and not give us attention at all. He seems to tolerate or court opinions of those skeptics, like Ben and Dan Loxton, who have larger audiences. Does this make things look fair?

I want an open forum where skeptics and proponents can discuss these issues without being put down or censored.

 

[baron_army]

. I don't understand this game between Loren and skeptics. He engages but then calls us names. He could just ignore us and not give us attention at all. He seems to tolerate or court opinions of those skeptics, like Ben and Dan Loxton, who have larger audiences. Does this make things look fair?

I believe it has to do with "good" or "approved" skeptics and those Coleman finds objectionable. One of my biggest gripes is over the treatment of Coleman. Too many acquiesce to his wishes. I am of the belief he needs to be called out for the science-eroding hack he is.

Also, Radford's use of the word "chupacabra" is getting to Coleman. Every single time he mentions Radford's new book, he seems to bring up how the spelling is supposed to be "chupacabras". Now, Ben has explained, in plain English, why he uses the spelling and how both are acceptable as both are in local usage (I'm paraphrasing). Yet, Coleman's word-sickness won't let it go. He also tried to use it in his rebuttal to Loxton's post. Weird. Just plain weird but I suspect he feels it somehow diminishes the arguments made against him.

 

[Drewbot]

Doesn't Loren control the inbox at Cryptomundo? Would any of the regulars at Cryptomundo accept anything negative about L.C. anyway?

Does Ben Radford ever post here?

 

[HarryHenderson]

...I am of the belief he needs to be called out for the science-eroding hack he is...

Loren Coleman is a science-eroding hack. Loren Coleman is a science-eroding hack? I mean, LOREN COLEMAN IS A SCIENCE-ERODING HACK!

 

[William Parcher]

Oh boy, this should be fun...

Breaking: Living Ivory-Billed Woodpecker Photographed!

Be prepared for a let down.

Rainsong filed a "formal ethical/financial misconduct complaint" because the professional birdguys won't go with him to Texas so he can get his $50K. I guess they didn't think much of his photos or maybe it was because they knew they were being scammed.

Meanwhile, experts are dealing with protests by Daniel Rainsong, a landscaper based in Ames, Iowa, who says he recently photographed an ivory-billed woodpecker near the Sabine River in east Texas. Rainsong filed a formal complaint earlier this month alleging ethical and financial misconduct, because biologists he approached would not come with him to the Sabine region to confirm the sighting so that he could collect a $50,000 reward.

Rohrbaugh says the Cornell team will release an analysis of Rainsong's photo in about a week.

More from the article in Nature...

Nearly five years after biologists thrilled the conservation world by saying that they had videotaped the elusive ivory-billed woodpecker, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is on the verge of approving a final recovery plan to manage the species. The plan will lay out a conservation strategy, including what habitat should be preserved — all for a bird that many prominent ornithologists have given up on...

But after five years of fruitless searching, hopes of saving the species have faded. "We don't believe a recoverable population of ivory-billed woodpeckers exists," says Ron Rohrbaugh, a conservation biologist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, who headed the original search team.

 

[EHocking]

Rainsong filed a "formal ethical/financial misconduct complaint" because the professional birdguys won't go with him to Texas so he can get his $50K. I guess they didn't think much of his photos or maybe it was because they knew they were being scammed.

More from the article in Nature...

thanks for the follow up William, especially the conclusion from Cornell. Frankly, I was sceptical of the initial evidence and was swayed to sitting on the fence by the "appeal to authority" nature of validating the provenance of the initial sightings. The search results in the years subsequent to the initial "sightings" made me more and more dubious about the "safety" of accepting the evidence at hand.

 

[Bitter Monk]

Brinkley, AR still has a billboard on I-40 proclaiming them the home of the rediscovered ivory-bill. I meant to snap a photo on the way home last month but I was taking a nap while the wife drove. I know, typical lame cryptozoologist excuse.

 

[William Parcher]

Coleman is whining again. This time it's about the Discovery Institute selling a t-shirt showing crypto creatures.

Sorry, I just wish they’d leave cryptozoology out of all of this.

Careful Loren, there a lots of Bigfoot believers who are creationists. It seems to be one of the primary reasons why the BFF forbids discussion of religion. Yes, you can sometimes come across (mostly) older posts where an evolutionist is having a flame war with a creationist in a Bigfoot thread. The managers move to stop it right away.

Anyway, the Teach the Controversy t-shirts are interesting. Take a look.

Let sarcasm be your weapon in the great evolution vs. creationism debate! You don't have to be an atheist to want to keep science in science class, and sporting one of these graphic tees sarcastically urging schools to teach other pseudosciences, myths and discredited theories is a fine way to show your pro-science stance. Darwin would be proud! Humorous geek friendly apparel intelligently designed by Jeremy Kalgreen.

"Because we know that Yetis, Sea Monsters and Jackalopes are lurking"

"Because we know that the Bible proves The Flintstones was a documentary"

"Because we know that dinosaur bones were really planted by beelzebub"

 

[idoubtit]

Coleman is whining again. This time it's about the Discovery Institute selling a t-shirt showing crypto creatures.





Careful Loren, there a lots of Bigfoot believers who are creationists. It seems to be one of the primary reasons why the BFF forbids discussion of religion. Yes, you can sometimes come across (mostly) older posts where an evolutionist is having a flame war with a creationist in a Bigfoot thread. The managers move to stop it right away.

Anyway, the Teach the Controversy t-shirts are interesting. Take a look.

WHAAAA? I have the blue shirt with the cryptids! These shirts are supposed to be joke to make fun of the idea of "teach the controversy". They are satirical and Loren didn't get it. Who would have thunk it?

Edit: I see the t-shirt creator commented that he is not affliated with DI. LC looks stupid and back-peddles. Oh, and when is LC not whining about something?

 

[William Parcher]

thanks for the follow up William,

Ames man faces charges of stealing from mother

Daniel D. Rainsong, 53, of 1916 Ferndale Ave., reportedly told police that his mother was investing in his lawn care company, "New Lawns," and used her savings to pay for his own expenses rather than for her care.

Police said Rainsong's mother is a dependent adult and legally unable to make the decision to invest in her son's lawncare business.

According to court documents, Rainsong took power of attorney from his mother on Nov. 21, 2008, and within weeks drained her financial resources. The amount was stated at more than $10,000.

 

[EHocking]

Ames man faces charges of stealing from mother

Again thanks. Googling further and I found a very good example of someone rediscovering an animal regarded as extinct - the Forest Owlet (PDF).

Here's the background on the bird,
"The Forest Owlet Athene (Heteroglaux) blewitti is known from just seven specimens, collected from four sites in central India from 1872 to 1884. For the next 113 years there were no genuine records of the species. Several unsuccessful searches for the bird were made in recent years, including by Sálim Ali, S. Dillon Ripley and colleagues. A number of ornithologists considered the species possibly extinct (see Rasmussen and Collar 1998 for historical review)."

So we have an animal known only by 7 specimens collected 113 years ago and never seen since.​

You will notice the clarity of the photographic evidence presented in the rediscovery announcement as compared to most "evidence" for cryptid "discoveries".