Terence Hines - Pseudoscience and the Paranormal

The evidence for the reality of the yeti in the Himalayas and bigfoot in the Pacific Northwest is little better than that for the Loch Ness monster. Napier (1972) and Wylie (1980) have reviewed the evidence for these two creatures. Regarding the yeti, several large mammals are found in the Himalayas that are mistaken for yeti. These include the woolly wolf and brown and black bears. Bears occasionally stand on their hind feet, and in that posture can present a most frightening and unbearlike apparition. So-called yeti tracks are often actually the tracks of one of these animals, sometimes strangely enlarged by melting of the surrounding snow. The Yeti skins that are reported from time to time turn out to be skins of the various mammals that inhabit the Himalayas.

Eyewitness reports, reports of strange large tracks, and even a film help to convince many that bigfoot, or sasquatch, is an actual creature. Initially confined to the Pacific Northwest, bigfoot sightings have become a nationwide phenomenon in the past decade or so. Eyewitness reports, with their notable lack of reliability, can be attributed to misidentification of local species (bears again) and the constructive nature of memory and perception. For example, the Los Angeles Herald Examiner reported on May 13, 1982, that a bigfoot-type creature had been spotted in the Los Angeles area. According to eyewitnesses it was between seven and nine feet tall and was “too hairy and smelled too bad to be human” (quoted in Dobson 1982–83, p. 10). The “creature” turned out to be a bum, of normal height but unwashed and unshaven an no doubt quite odiferous. Bigfoot footprints have been reported since the 1930s in the Pacific Northwest. Many of these are apparently the work of hoaxers. Dennett (1982–83) reported that Rent Mullens, a retired logger, had confessed to carving eight sets of “bigfeet,” one of which he used to produce fake bigfoot footprints. Most of his carved bigfeet ended up in California.

The most famous photographic evidence for bigfoot is a film taken by Roger Patterson on October 20, 1967, which shows a creature walking through brush in front of the camera. Grieve’s (1972) analysis of the film shows it to be inconclusive as support for bigfoot, as it could have been the result of a hoax. Occasionally, bits and pieces of alleged bigfoot remains appear. The number of these reported far exceeds the number submitted for scientific testing, perhaps because when the testing is performed it shows the remains to be those of some known species. Kurtz (1980–81) reported that the partly decomposed remains of a bear found in northern New York near the Ontario border caused much excitement as “real proof” of bigfoot in the area until analysis revealed their real origin.

The creatures in Loch Ness, the Himalayas, and the deep woods of the Pacific Northwest are not the only mysterious creatures to intrigue the monster hunters of the world. The International Society of Cryptozoology has been involved in expeditions to the Congo to hunt for living dinosaurs and to New Guinea to try to find mermaids, called ri by the natives, according to the society. These are described as “an air breathing mammal, with the trunk, genitalia, arms and head of a human being, and a legless lower trunk terminating in a pair of lateral fins, or flippers” according to Dr. Roy Wagner of the University of Virginia Anthropology Department (quoted in Sheaffer 1983–84, p. 117). Why should one believe that such creatures exist? Wagner points to eyewitness reports and says, “I don’t think the credibility of some of my informants can be lightly dismissed” (quoted in Sheaffer 1983–84, p. 117).

Dowsers claim to be able to find underground water—and sometimes other substances such as oil or gold—by walking over the ground holding a forked stick, known as a dowsing rod. When the rod is felt to make sudden movements, seemingly on its own, that is an indication that the dowser is above a source of water. Dowsing is an old and venerated folk tradition, especially in northern New England. In addition to predicting where water is, the dowser frequently also predicts the depth at which it will be found. The actions of the rod are vaguely ascribed to some sort of magnetic influence of the water, the psychic abilities of the dowser, or some combination of these. Some more modern dowsers have dispensed altogether with the need to actually walk over the land being dowsed and, instead, dowse over a map of the land in question.

A major factor in convincing people that dowsing works is the seemingly autonomous movements of the rod. As Vogt and Hyman (1979) point out, dowsing requires considerable physical effort: “The muscles and body of the diviner are under considerable tension. The rod is compressed with great force and this compression is maintained over a considerable period of time” (p. 130). Even under normal conditions of muscle tension, the feedback from the muscles that tells the brain about the degree of muscular movement is far from perfect (Matthews 1982).

The tension placed on the muscles during dowsing aggravates this situation, so the dowser is unable to feel the small muscle twitches that are responsible for the sudden movements of the rod. It is thus natural, although incorrect, to attribute these sudden movements to the rod itself and to feel that they occur without any intention on the part of the dowser.

Anecdotal eyewitness reports of the success of dowsers are also a major source of evidence for those convinced that dowsing really works. Such reports should be viewed with considerable skepticism because, as has been pointed out previously, they are frequently extremely unreliable. There is an additional factor working to enhance dowsers’ “successes” in anecdotal reports: selective memory. To quote Vogt and Hyman (1979) once again:

We know a well-driller in Massachusetts who divines all the wells that he drills. This diviner, in an interview, recounted one success after another in his water witching career; he had not one failure to report. The driller’s assistant, however, was skeptical about the value of water witching. He explained it away as “just imagination.” In a separate interview, he told one story after another of failures that followed upon a diviner’s advice. We had no reason to doubt the honesty or sincerity of either of these men. One was a believer, and, if we accepted his testimony at face value, water witching was invariably successful. From the skeptic’s accounts, however, we would gather that water witching was very unreliable, and successes with it were matters of luck. Both these men were illustrating the tendency to recall only those incidents that are in accord with what we believe or would like to believe. (p. 41)

In addition, there is a large element of the multiple out in dowsers predictions. A dowser may predict that water will be found at several locations. When water is found at any one of these, dowsing seems to have been successful. Since well drilling is likely to stop with the first successful well, later predictions that might well have turned out to be wrong won’t be tested. In addition, multiple depths may be predicted or the predicted depth may be very vague, as in “water will be found at a medium depth.” In some areas of the country, one will almost invariably find water if one drills deep enough. In these areas, the dowser will almost always be right if the well is drilled deep enough. And, of course, vague depth predictions may be forgotten or “adjusted” to become more accurate after the fact. Finally, geological clues in the land help indicate where underground water may be found. Trained geologists can use these clues to increase their accuracy at predicting where to drill to a level above chance. The dowser may often have picked up these same clues and may use them while dowsing, consciously or unconsciously.