Twins Separated at Birth?
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on July 23rd, 2006
When Benjamin Radford, managing editor of the Skeptical Inquirer was in San Antonio to speak at the Institute of Texan Cultures on June 3rd, I mentioned to him that he looked very similar to Matt Crowley.
I even joked that maybe they were twins, separated at birth. I also joked that since they had not been seen in the same place at the same time, maybe they were in fact one and the same.
Two weeks later, at the Bigfoot Rendezvous in Pocatello Idaho, I was proven wrong, at least on the second count.
Click image for full-size version
I had them pose together for a photo after espousing my theory to Ben again and Matt for the first time.
So while the evidence is here to prove that they are not, in fact, one and the same, there is still that nagging feeling that they could be twins separated at birth…Is it juat the clean-shaven pate? Or is there more to this lingering mystery?
I imagine that Ben, and even Matt, will be skeptical of this, however…
Or perhaps we could ask, Quien es mas macho?
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
These guys at skeptical magazines are a bunch of idiots. I’ve seen these guys on alot of crypto documentaries on tv. They always try to prove that nothing in the crypto world exists. They always try to prove that dinosaurs and sea serpents dont exist . They can’t prove a thing. Remember Lakes and Oceans hold alot of mysteries.
——————————————
Moderator’s note:
Calling people idiots here on Cryptomundo just because they don’t espouse your beliefs will not be tolerated. Do not do this again.
I don’t think that being skeptical of anything makes one an “idiot”. Being skeptical of things that are doubtful or suspect keeps us from making poor decisions. On the TV series The X-Files, Agent Mulder is someone whose belief in the supernatural would get him into a lot of trouble if not for his skeptical partner, Agent Scully. Of course, on the TV show Mulder is always right about the weird occurances they are investigating and Scully is almost always proven wrong. If it went the other way around I am sure the show would have been a forgettable flop as there is not much entertainment value in bizarre occurances being proven to be merely ordinary. It is when a person is too skeptical or too convinced that their beliefs become dangerous. That’s when a “skeptic” becomes a “cynic” and a “believer” becomes “gullible”. Why, were it not for a healthy dose of skepticism, we’d all think Tom Biscardi was a legitamate scientist.
While Ben Radford and I differ on the potential “physical” reality of Bigfoot, after having the opportunity to talk with him in San Antonio, I can say that he was nothing but respectful of those who have an opposing opinion and, at least during his talk in San Antonio, he was also spot-on in regards to the “mythological” Bigfoot of the popular conscious (which I think we can all agree will bear little resemblance to a flesh and blood animal when/if it is found, just look at Loren’s post from a couple days back concerning the artistic representations of “snow white” yeti despite the fact that anecdotal evidence generally consist of brown, orange or other dark colored creatures).
While I’m convinced there is more to the physical evidence than Mr. Radford, he does no harm by asking the question “Why do you believe?”, and, in his own way, helps advance the field a little more with intelligent debate.
Thanks Ben. (And thanks Craig for doing your part to facilitate open dialogue.)
I agree with you kamoeba but these guys at this magazine are just out to prove everybody wrong. What if somebody saw a giant dinosaur on a beach that was supposed to be extinct for billion of years and they took a clear photograph of it. I wonder what they would say then?
Personally I don’t see much similarity at all. The clean shaven head is about it. Overall shape of the skull is different, eye spacing, distance from top of skull to eyes, width of skull in proportion to heighth, angularity of jawline, general nose shape, chin shape, shape of ears, thickness of neck, etc etc etc., all different.
Based on the standards you’ve set for being sufficient to be considered a twin, we may as well throw in Bruce Willis, Patrick Stewart and Telly Savalas so that we can contemplate possible quintuplets!
It’s good to have skeptics out there because it keeps people like us who believe in strange things on our toes and always trying to prove the skeptics wrong. The world of mainstream science has put cryptozoology and supernatural occurances down so we would come to think, naw it could not happen, science says so, I say bull, anything can happen.
These two guys are part of an army of clones bred by the C.I.A. and extraterrestrial allies to spread disinformation and keep us in the dark. Ha!!
Skeptics are essential when it comes to issues of the paranormal and fields that exist outside of mainstream science. As James Randi showed with Project Alpha, no matter how smart, analytical, or rigorous one might appear to be, one can always miss things and be outright fooled and hoaxed.
Project Alpha was a famous hoax played on the McDonnell Laboratory for Psychical Research. It involved two fake psychics that were actually magicians, Steve Shaw and Michael Edwards, who enrolled in a program studying paranormal powers. They fooled the researchers with fairly common magic tricks and, in doing so, were able to show the flaws in the research protocols and in the impressionability of the researchers themselves.
Let’s face it, even in cryptozoology, researchers and scientists who are strongly motivated to obtain positive results (either for monetary gains or because of their own beliefs) can lead to poorly designed experiments and inappropriately favorable interpretations of data without critical review.
At the same time, those who are strongly motivated to disprove cryptozoological ideas can lead to bias and blindspots when presented with substantial evidence.
Skeptics and believers both fulfill a balancing function on one another. As such, it is best that we all be skeptical but also open to the possibility of new ideas when the evidence is convincing.
The burden of proof is central to any investigation.
Absolutely right scarfe, anyone can be fooled and people rely on science too much, yeah science is cool and awesome, but what it does is sets up a system which all of us are to go by, therefore anything astonishing or outside of scientifical analyticalization is put down. Talk to a scientist about bigfoot or aliens or anything not “mainstream” they’ll laugh, unless they know, some do know. Like stonelk said disinformation and keeping us in the dark, there’s a whole world of amazing creatures and beings.
But harleyb, regardless of whether or not scientists put down ideas, science as a philosophy and the scientific method makes one strive to prove the existence of amazing creatures and beings. I don’t think it is unfair to say that its a pretty good system to live by inorder to weed out the hoaxes and superstitions from what actually exists.
Agreed Scarfe, the danger (on either the skeptical or open side) is falling into dogma. When you believe scientists, for instance, just because they are scientists and not because they can explain a phenomenon to your satisfaction, “science” becomes as much a faith as any traditional religion.
The common mistake here seems to be in thinking that there is a difference between believers and skeptics, or even belief and skepticism. I don’t just mean in this forum either. It is about prejudice, also refered to in experiments as bias. Only small children are capable of rendering unbiased observation. Bias occurs without mental intrusion in every observation we make. This is an automatic action performed by our brains. Our perception is our world as “fed” to us through our senses, these “sensory feeds” pass through filters that have been built into our brains during our formative years. We all have them, they are intergral to the way our higher brains function and process data. There will never be a moment when you present photographic evidence to a true skeptic and convince him that what he is seeing is something that exists outside of his view of the world. To him it doesn’t exist. The same with true believers, you can not offer an explanation that will suit someone who truly believes, if it is contrary to their point of view. It’s just the way humans work, or fail, depending on your point of view.
Any subject that is approached, in particular if it falls outside the mainstream, must be approached with, not only an open mind, but lacking any pre-conieved outcome. Paranormal research is not given respect by “real” scientisits, for the same reason, “biblical” archaeologists aren’t given the same degree of respect given a typical “non-affliliated” archaeologist. Only a believer would be involved in the field, and therefore the findings must be considered tainted at best.
Short of dragging in a body, the only way Bigfoot, or Nessie, or any other Cryptid will be accepted, is if by some chance, another group of scientists doing completely unrelated work stumble onto one of them. Don’t be too hard on the skeptics or the believers, they’re just wired that way.
True, true I just believe that anything is possible, but science is the best way to analyze things, situations, I just believe there is more to know than science can prove, things we can’t “see”
Craig;
Thanks for posting the photo.
I met Mr. Radford literally seconds before this photo was taken. I confess that I had a previous prejudice that a “professional skeptic” would be dry, uptight, emotionally rigid, and generally socially maladroit. I found Ben to be anything but, and in fact spent some quality time talking with him about the films of William Friedkin!
Sadly, time constraints forbid discussion of more substantive issues like razor blade preference…