Why don’t we have better and recent photo or video evidence for UFOs, Bigfoot, yeti, demons, and ghosts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I first got serious about photography and bought a single-lens reflex camera (Minolta XG-M) 45 years ago in 1981. Back then to take a still photo my camera first needed to be loaded with a roll of film. Then I had to manually focus it. The camera had auto exposure, so once I set the aperture it would select the correct exposure time. After taking each picture I had to advance the film. And for video your camera needed film (or tape) and a battery.

 

The iPhone appeared on January 9, 2007 – almost two decades ago. Now many of us (~93% of the global population) are carrying around smartphones which only take a few seconds to prepare for recording either still images or video. There should be zillions of high-resolution still images and video of UFOs and other paranormal subjects. If not, then they just are tall tales.

 

An article by Heslley Machado Silva in Skeptic magazine on February 26, 2026 asks Where Have All the UFOs, Yeti, Demons, and Ghosts Gone? She says that:

 

“Over the past decades, we have witnessed a quiet yet decisive transformation in the history of human beliefs: the apparent disappearance of major paranormal phenomena that for millennia fueled mythologies, religions, folklore, and countless reports of supposed extraordinary manifestations. UFOs hovered over mountains and deserts; colossal creatures such as Bigfoot, the Yeti, or the Sasquatch roamed remote forests; spirits, apparitions, and ectoplasmic entities materialized in abandoned mansions; miracles occurred before the eyes of the devout; demonic possessions defied rational explanation. Today, all these phenomena seem to have taken permanent leave, an intriguing coincidence emerging precisely at the moment humanity begins to carry in its pockets (or better yet, in its hands) ultra-high-definition cameras capable of recording every detail of daily life, or any anomaly, with unprecedented precision.

 

…. beliefs persist and remain widespread, but the supposed phenomena that should generate clear and reproducible evidence seem increasingly absent precisely at a moment when we possess technology capable of recording them with great clarity. This shift invites a skeptical exercise: Why have paranormal and supernatural apparitions disappeared exactly when it became possible to document them unequivocally? For centuries, human testimony was the primary source of such accounts. However, scientific literature consistently demonstrates that testimony, even when sincere, constitutes extremely weak evidence: It is susceptible to perceptual illusions, cognitive biases, cultural expectations, and reconstructed (and often false) memories.

 

…. From a methodological standpoint, this persistent absence of records is consistent with analyses in the philosophy of science applied to paranormal claims: If a phenomenon supposedly interacts with the physical world, it should be detectable by physical instruments; if it never is, despite the exponential growth in instrument sensitivity, then its existence becomes an increasingly implausible hypothesis.”

 

Look at Bigfoot as an example. An Instragram post by Adam Thorn on October 20, 2022 says that:

 

“On this day 55 years ago, the famous Patterson-Gimlin film was made. This was, and still is the best video footage ever taken of a Bigfoot (nicknamed Patty).”

 

The Wikipedia page on Bigfoot refers to it as a one-minute film. Why don’t we instead have something from the past two decades – both longer and clearer?  

 

A cartoon of a UFO was adapted from one at OpenClipArt.

 

 

Why did a keynote speaker overestimate his research skills?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

`

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is an article by John Eades at Learnloft on June 25, 2026 titled Why Most Leaders Overestimate Their Presentation Skills which opens by stating a startling ‘statistic’ that: 

“Fear is real, and there are a couple of common things people fear.

A survey revealed that people’s two biggest fears are public speaking and death.

Comedian Jerry Seinfeld landed a joke about the survey when he said, ‘Most people would rather be in the casket than giving the eulogy.’

It’s funny because it’s true. Most people despise the idea of public speaking.”

John did such superficial research that he confused a joke with a 1973 survey where death actually was seventh. Both are shown above. And that misquote is a paraphrase of what Jerry said in 1993. Back on April 8, 2018 I blogged about Misquoting Jerry Seinfeld and inflating fear five times.

 

He also has a 9-minute YouTube video at The Leadership Lens on June 25, 2026 titled Most Leaders Think They’re Good Presenters. They’re Not. Both the article and video have some useful content:

 

“The Three Types of Presenters

 

Since leadership is more art than science, leaders can be introverted or extroverted. They are women and men. They are quiet and loud. However, after watching leaders across industries, most fall into one of three categories when presenting.

 

The Informer

The Informer knows their content cold. Their slides are detailed, their data is accurate, and their presentation is thorough. However, they confuse information transfer with communication. That doesn’t mean it’s bad, but it can be boring. The audience might even learn something. Their presentations are forgettable, not because they couldn’t be better or because their content is weak, but nothing makes it stick.  

 

The Rambler

The Rambler has real experience and genuine passion. When it lands, it’s magnetic. But without structure, the audience works too hard to follow. They leave inspired by the energy but unclear on the point. The Rambler’s biggest blind spot is thinking passion is enough. While it’s better than someone who doesn’t care, passion without structure is just noise with enthusiasm.

 

The Inspirer

The Inspirer knows their content and their audience. They don’t present at people, they present for them. They use story, tension, and intentional moments to connect ideas to emotions. They take chances by using authenticity to show their true self. The audience doesn’t just remember a few of the things they said – they remember how it made them feel.”

 

 

Who is a pseudoexpert?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a useful article by Joffrey Fuhrer et al. in Frontiers in Psychology on November 11, 2021 titled Pseudoexpertise: A Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis. Their abstract says:

 

“Some people publicly pretend to be experts while not being ones. They are pseudoexperts, and their presence seems to be ubiquitous in the current cultural landscape. This manuscript explores the nature and mechanisms of pseudoexpertise.

 

We first provide a conceptual analysis of pseudoexperts based on prototypical cases of pseudoexpertise and recent philosophical work on the concept of expertise. This allows us to propose a definition that captures real-world cases of pseudoexpertise, distinguishes it from related but different concepts such as pseudoscience, and highlights what is wrong with pseudoexpertise.

 

Next, based on this conceptual analysis, we propose a framework for further research on pseudoexpertise, built on relevant empirical and theoretical approaches to cultural cognition. We provide exploratory answers to three questions: why is there pseudoexpertise at all; how can pseudoexperts be successful despite not being experts; and what becomes of pseudoexperts in the long run. Together, these conceptual and theoretical approaches to pseudoexpertise draw a preliminary framework from which to approach the very troubling problem posed by persons usurping the capacities and reputations of genuine experts.”

 

I have discussed one well-known pseudoexpert in a post on October 7, 2025 titled Surrounded by bad books from Thomas Erikson. In that post I mentioned that:

 

“An article edited by Lotten Kalenius from the Swedish Skeptics Association (VoF) on April 15, 2024 is titled One of Sweden’s biggest scientific bluffs which discusses the book and Thomas Erikson. It has a section titled Is Erikson an authority in behavioural science? When he was looked up: 

 

‘So, we used Ladok, the register of everyone who has studied at Swedish colleges and university, to see if we could find the courses taken by Erikson. There was no-one with his name and birthdate registered. In fact, Erikson’s professional background is in sales, first for the bank Nordea and then running his own business training salespeople. It is most likely that his only educational background is, at best, the Swedish equivalent of a high school diploma.’ 

 

Lotten noted that Erikson was named Fraudster of the Year in 2018 by VoF and also added:

 

“He has as much right as my poodle to call himself a behavioural scientist.”

 

Guests on the Coast to Coast AM late-night radio show often are pseudoexperts who discuss their poorly researched books or videos.

 

The cartoon was adapted from the March 17, 1897 issue of Puck magazine at the Library of Congress.

 

 

How long have the political insults of calling Democrats either Dumocrats or Dumbocrats been around?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Donald J. Trump is not very original. An article by Patrick Reilly in the New York Post on May 15, 2026 titled Trump delights in savage new nickname for Democrats while revealing who inspired it described his supposedly originating Dumocrat.

 

But an article by Alyssa Ray at The Wrap on May 26, 2026 said Jimmy Kimmel Mocks Trump for Thinking He Came Up with ‘Dumocrats’ Line: ‘It was on The Simpsons in 1994’ | Video. That 13-minute video at Jimmy Kimmel Live on May 26. 2026 is titled Trump Skips Don Jr’s Wedding, Attacks DUMOCRATS on Memorial Day & Claims His Physical Went PERFECTLY. A 1:08 YouTube video clip by Luke Baker on May 27, 2026 is titled The Simpsons: Dumbocrats. The episode was in Simpsons Season 6, titled Sideshow Bob Roberts, and first aired back on October 9, 1994.

 

Is that the first use for Dumocrats? No! I searched at Google Books and found it in a Fortune magazine (Volume 58, 1958 - page 154) that refers to a monthly magazine called the Milner Dumocrat.

 

What about the similar term Dumbocrats? It turned up in an article by William Tucker in the American Spectator for May 1998 on page 26 titled Byting the hand that feeds us which said:

“The group heading up this opposition are known as Democrats, but let's call them by a more appropriate name, Dumbocrats.”

But my Google Books searches found that Dumbocrat also showed up way earlier. It was in the United States Review (Volume 199, 1927) on page 24 and then in The New Republic on September 12, 1928 in page 93. That insult is almost a century old! (And the Disney cartoon movie Dumbo only came out in 1941).

 

 

Superficial research in an article about fear of mass shootings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is an article with superficial research by James Alan Fox at USA Today on January 14, 2026 titled There’s no mass shooting epidemic, but fear epidemic is real | Opinion. He says (as shown above) that:

 

“Although the frequent claims of a ‘mass shooting epidemic’ are more hyperbole than reality, there truly is an epidemic of fear fueled by the extensive media coverage afforded deadly attacks in schools, churches, restaurants and other public settings.

 

Indeed, the percentage of Americans indicating that public mass shootings are a significant source of worry has nearly tripled, from 16% in 2015 to 44% in 2025, based on the Chapman University Survey of American Fears." 

 

The first data point for fear of a random or mass shooting really should be from 2014 rather than 2015, and be 24.7% - which is 51 percent larger than the 16.4% that Prof. Fox uses. So his comparison would just be an increase of 79% rather than a near tripling.

 

 

  

 

 

And those are only two of eleven data points in those Chapman surveys, as is shown above. When you only use ~18% of the available data, you will get a grossly misleading picture of what really is going on.

 

There also is another article by James Alan Fox in the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice for July 31, 2023 (Volume 40, number 1) titled Trends in U. S. Mass Shootings: Facts, Fears, and Fatalities. Figure 2 in it is a vertical bar chart showing seven Chapman Survey data points from 2015 to 2022, but it also omits the 2014 data point and instead of listing 47.4% for 2019 (the very highest point!) it repeats the 41.5% from 2018. Also, he reports 28.1% for 2017 when the correct number in the detailed results instead is 30.8%. I discussed this problem in a blog post on October 4, 2017 titled What do the most Americans fear? The fourth Chapman Survey on American Fears, and being innumerate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is fear of a random or mass shooting the greatest fear in the Chapman surveys? No – corrupt government officials are. As shown above in a bar chart, fear of a random or mass shooting ranked from a low of #56 to a high of #22.   

 

 

Not everyone fears public speaking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There occasionally is a silly claim that everyone fears public speaking. It assumes that everyone has the same fear as you do. That shows up on page 195 of a 2020 book by Ahmed Adamu titled You Are a Leader:

 

“Everyone has a fear of public speaking: think of good public speakers, they all have fear of public speaking, but they still make good public speeches.”

 

It is in an article by Dana Wilson at TroyMEDIA on May 24, 2022 titled Overcoming the fear of public speaking:

 

“Everyone has a fear of public speaking. No matter how famous, we all have been uncomfortable speaking at times.”

 

It also can be found in another September 19, 2022 article at Tony Yuile Coaching titled Public speaking anxiety:

 

“It’s said that everyone has a fear of public speaking (aka stage fright).”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But when you look at detailed results from surveys, like the Chapman Survey on American Fears, you will find that less than 70% fear speaking. Two bar charts shown above are from my June 1, 2025 blog post titled An article on stage fright by David Pennington claimed public speaking was the #1 fear in a Chapman Survey, but ignored their nine other surveys where it was ranked from #26 to #59.

 

 

Kidney beans just are the seeds from green beans

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We can be surprised by something that we didn’t ever think about. I grew up in a city (Pittsburgh) and never considered if green beans and kidney beans were related. On the new books shelf at the Cole and Ustick branch of the Boise Public Library I found a 2024 book by Wendy Hutton titled Asian Vegetables: A Cook’s Bible. It contains the following description for green beans and kidney beans:

 

Green Beans [page 17]:

 

“Green Beans are probably the most widely eaten fresh beans in the world. Also known as haricot beans, French beans or in the U.S. as string beans, they are native to Mexico and Guatemala. Green beans are now eaten throughout Asia, although in some countries they are less popular than long beans. If left to mature, the almost negligible seeds inside the young green pods will swell to form legumes. When these are dried, they turn red and are known as kidney beans (see page 20).”

 

Kidney Beans [page 20]

 

“Kidney Beans are the mature seeds of the common green bean (see page 17). In India, where several types of kidney beans are grown, they are known as rajmah. Usually available dry, the beans are dark red in color when fully matured. Fresh kidney beans are sold already shelled in India and Indonesia.”

 

I have made Three Bean Salad from canned green beans, wax beans, and kidney beans.

 

Images of green beans and kidney beans (rajma) came from Wikimedia Commons.

 

 

A bogus car story from the 2025 book Speak, Memorably

 

 

 

 

 

There are lots of recent books about public speaking.  Currently I am reading one from 2025 by Bill McGowan and Juliana Silva titled Speak, Memorably: the art of captivating an audience. It is not awful, but it is not great either. At the bottom of page 87 and top of page 88, in a section mistitled The Cadillac of Analogies, they tell the following bogus story about the Cadillac Cimmaron (shown above) and the similar Chevrolet Cavalier (also shown):

 

“In 1982 Cadillac wanted to capture the middle-class car buyer who aspired to own a Cadillac. The model they built was called the Cadillac Cimmaron. On paper it sounded like a good idea, but it turned into a debacle that damaged one of Detroit’s most iconic luxury brands. What they should have done was build a new car from scratch. But they thought they could take a shortcut and merely add some quasi-luxury touches to the down-market Chevy Nova and pass it off as a Cadillac. It was a colossal failure. The consumer, whom they clearly underestimated, saw right through it. The historic blunder, however, did lead to something spectacular. Acknowledging the value of creating something genuinely new, GM created not just a new model, but a whole new category: luxury SUVs. The Cadillac Escalade was the phoenix that rose out of the ashes of the Cimmaron. It was a mega success, undoing the damage done by the Cimmaron and then some.”

 

Their story was superficially researched and wrong in two different ways.They referred to the Chevy version as the Nova. But Chevy built a Nova from 1962 to 1979 and then revived that name from 1985 to 1988 for a NUMMI version of a Toyota Corolla.

 

The real reason that the Cimmaron failed is that there was a series of five very similar looking J-Cars, one from each GM division: the Chevrolet Cavalier, Pontiac J2000, Oldsmobile Firenza, second generation Buick Skyhawk, and Cadillac Cimmaron.

 

Second, GM and the Cadillac Escalade (first produced in August 1998) did not create the luxury SUV category – it was preceded by Ford’s Lincoln Navigator (first produced in May 1997).

 

I know about the J-Cars because in 1985 I looked at the Chevy, Pontiac, and Buick versions. Instead I bought a 1984 Toyota Corolla from Avis used car sales, and drove it till I got a 1993 Saturn SL2 sedan.   

 

Images of a 1983 Cimmaron and a 1984 Cavalier were adapted from Wikimedia Commons.  

  

Two useful library jargon phrases: Reader’s Advisory and Reference Interview

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sometimes it helps to know insider jargon in order to find useful information, like for asking a librarian about a possible speech topic.

 

I found an accessible free downladable book by Reed Hepler and David Horalek titled Introduction to Library and Information Science. Both are at the College of Southern Idaho in Twin Falls. That book also can be downloaded here.

 Chapter 16 on Reader’s Advisory (pages 136 to 139) begins by describing how: 

“Reader's Advisory is a service that helps readers find appropriate recommendations based on their interests, reading level, and other factors. Each library has a unique method of managing Reader’s Advisory requests. Some systems incorporate Lexile ratings, which indicate the difficulty of understanding a particular book. These ratings are typically associated with age levels for a particular work. However, age should not be a determining factor when conducting Reader’s Advisory.”

There also is a long, excellent Wikipedia article on Reader’s Advisory. And Chapter 9 on Reference Librarianship (pages 84 to 91) describes a Reference Interview as follows on page 86: 

“The five parts of a reference interview are:

Initial question: User asks the question to reference librarian/technician.

Clarification of question: Librarian starts a dialog in an effort to clarify the real needs of the user and to try to obtain more information.

Translating the question into potential library sources: Librarian takes the lead by suggesting potential sources and determining what has already been consulted, and then they devise a search strategy.

The search: The reference librarian or technician leads the user through the search of appropriate sources. At the same time, they implement point-of-use instruction with each resource consulted so that the user gains some knowledge for future independent searching.

Follow-up: As the search progresses, the librarian should ask the patron, ‘Is this what you are looking for?’ to be sure that the search is on the right track. When leaving the patron, the librarian should always add, ‘Let me know if you need more help.’ This lets the user know that they can come back for more help.”

There is another Wikipedia article on the Reference Interview. And there is a 7-page pdf article at the National Archive at Boston titled Guidelines of the Successful Reference Interview from American Library Association.

 

Also, the American Library Association has a store web page describing the third edition of a book from 2019 (with 344-pages) titled Conducting the Reference Interview.

 

On February 23, 2020 I blogged about Finding speech topics and doing research. In that post I suggested that:

 

“…the best way to learn is to make an appointment with a reference librarian at your public library. Tell him or her your topic, and you can learn where to look, and get suggestions for better search terms.”

 

An image of a librarian came from Wikimedia Commons.

 

Do you suffer from the heartbreak of library anxiety?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recently I found some articles about university students being anxious when using a library. There is a Wikipedia page on that subject. Such anxiety obviously could interfere with speechwriting and other research.

 

I never had that problem. Perhaps it was because as a child of five I already had been introduced to the children’s room at the main Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh. I blogged about it in a post on April 7, 2021 titled This is National Library Week and today is National Bookmobile Day.

 

There is an article by Constance A. Mellon at College & Research Libraries for 1986 (Volume 47, Number 2 pages 160 to 165) titled Library Anxiety: A Grounded Theory and Its Development. When she asked six thousand U. S. students, between 75% and 85% described their initial response to the library in terms of fear or anxiety. A more recent article by Gabriel X. D. Tan et al. in the Journal of Affective Disorders Reports for 2023 titled Prevalence of anxiety in college and university students: An umbrella review found a range from 7.4% to 55% with a median of 32%.

 

Some university libraries have web pages about overcoming anxiety. For example, Jennifer Lau-Bond at Harper College has one titled Library Anxiety Overview. And Erica Nicol at Washington State University has a second titled Library Anxiety – How to Beat It. And St. Catherine University – Library and Archives has a third titled Don’t Panic! Using the Library for Academic Success: Home.

 

Another recent article by Anthony Aycock in Information Today on May 7, 2024 is titled Mental Health Awareness Month: What is Library Anxiety?

 

The cartoon of a stern librarian was adapted from one at OpenClipArt.

 

 

Did Benjamin Franklin say you will find the key to success under your alarm clock? No, he did not!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quotes often are attributed to Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain, or Ralph Waldo Emerson. An article by Garson O’Toole at Quote Investigator on February 17, 2025 titled Quote Origin: You Will Find the Key to Success Under Your Alarm Clock? analyzed whether Benjamin Franklin said that. Franklin lived from 1706 to 1790. But the alarm clock was invented over fifty years after he died - patented over in France in 1847.

 

O’Toole found the earliest reference for that saying appeared more than a century ago in November 1922 at The Nebraska Ironmonger from Lincoln, Nebraska. And that is 132 years after Ben Franklin died! The earliest reference attributed to Franklin is from 1946 by Ezra L. Marler in a compilation titled Golden Nuggets of Thought. In 1952 it appeared in a horoscope column published in several newspapers.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There even is a fake Benjamin Franklin quotation meme generator. An example from it is shown above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And there also is another generator for real quotes with images, one of which is shown above.

 

Images of an alarm clock and key were adapted from those found at OpenClipArt.

 

 

A flawed White House document regarding President Trump’s accomplishments in his first hundred days

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first hundred days of a presidency often is used as a benchmark for what to expect. There is a White House document titled President Trump’s 100 Days of Historic Accomplishments. It has a mixture of arrogance and ignorance we would expect. This document contains a list of his executive orders compared with predecessors (as shown above in a bar chart). But that list is missing results for both his immediate predecessor Joe Biden (42) and his first term (24). Worse yet the claim of only 30 executive orders is obviously wrong:  the Wikipedia page titled List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump shows 26 signed on the very first day, 36 in the first week and 130 total.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another bar chart (shown above) from the March 27, 2025 Ballotpedia article titled President Donald Trump issues most executive orders in the first 100 days since 1933 says Trump instead had 103, versus 33 in his first term.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump’s document also has a list of number of laws enacted (shown above in a third bar chart). Again, it is missing both his immediate predecessor Joe Biden (with 11) and his first term (again with 28), but it also left off Franklin Roosevelt with 77, who was included in the list of executive orders.