Leaderboard

Well according to anecdotal reports, Bigfoot do in fact exist. If no proof is demanded of these anecdotal sightings, then I guess we all agree Bigfoot is real. But wait, people still have choice. Choice to either believe or disbelieve. If you want someone to change their position from disbelief to belief, or in turn knowledge, you must convince them to do so, generally by providing proof. If I were to approach a scientist with a casting of a track, and told them it was the track of a Bigfoot, they would more than likely either dismiss me outright or ask me how I knew it was from a Bigfoot. If I were to then tell them because I saw the Bigfoot that made the track, they are then going to ask me where my proof is. Otherwise all of these tracks that have been cast throughout the years would be sufficient evidence to at least look into the possible existence of these creatures. But since these tracks are coming from a yet to be proven subject, they are ignored. For some reason I feel that if Jane Goodall or some other well known and respected scientist were to approach their peers with a first hand sighting account, it would would garner much more interest and investigation than if it came from someone such as myself. Even though in most cases it shouldn't. It's all about the credentials. I respect Dr. Meldrum a great deal. I applaud him for the time and effort he has put into this field as a scientist. I wish there were more like him. But Dr. Meldrum was by no means the first person to notice that some of the tracks are in fact from a living creature, nor was he the first to notice a midtarsal break, or notice the weight displacement aspects found evident in the tracks. One can evaluate and analyze evidence and information without attacking it. What I meant by dissection was not breaking it down and looking at it piece by piece, but dissection as in ripping it apart with assumptions and obvious conclusions. I.E. it is and always will be possible for a track to be the result of a hoax. I don't care how good it is. Therefore I do not feel it is necessary to instantly dismiss it as such based on the possibility that it was. Casting artifacts can cause dermal ridge like features. That does not however mean that dermal ridges should be ignored because of that possibility. Evidence is often times dependent on the anecdotal story that accompanies it to determine its degree of significance. When taken out of that context it is easy to dismiss all of it based on possibilities other than having originated from a Bigfoot. So yes, I do feel at times the only way to reach the truth is by going through doors that have not previously been opened by scientific proof. Sometimes you do just have to go with your instincts. Sometimes you do need to take those anecdotal stories as a possible truth and see where that assumption leads. Sometimes, more often than not, those paths lead to a dead end. But that one time it doesn't makes it all worth it. If we learn from our mistakes, what do we learn by playing it safe and not making any? Some stand in one place waiting for the proof to reveal itself. Others move forward until they find it. Which ones do you suppose will obtain it first? We didn't have to fly into outer space to learn the Earth was not flat.

Give me a break. We have to express total, complete, and undying love for science as if it is an expression of perfection? Are we talking science here, or are we talking religion? We cannot discuss the flaws of science as an industry (or, as in this case, as an ideology) because the scientific method is perfection, yet those who claim to express themselves as scientists can condemn or rule over everything else simply because they are scientists? Humanity now finds itself being increasingly ruled by those who claim scientific superiority in just about every way. People are using their supposed scientific superiority to dictate what we eat, wear, how we transport ourselves, how we heat our homes, how many children we have, how to control how many children we have, and on and on and on. We even find science being used to condemn religious faith. Yet we cannot point out how science as an industry cannot or will not even take action in simple biological questions like whether or not sasquatches exist like people have claimed for eons? How is my acceptance of science, for example, with regard to electricity and electronics (which I'm utilizing to communicate with you right now) somehow to deny me the right to condemn "science" for it's refusal to invest in sasquatchery? Hell, as a military man, do you think I don't often condemn the military sometimes for it's foolishness in so many areas? Why can't you see and admit the flaws of science as an industry? Is science God? Perfection? Beyond question? Foolproof?