Leaderboard

Respectfully, I think this line of thinking is at best marginally relevant. And let me offer a broad "apology" upfront to those who might take offense at some of what follows. Not trying to "troll" or mock. Truly. Looking for rare animals is not like conducting experiments in a laboratory. That is... if I claimed to make a breakthrough in cold fusion, you could expect me to publish information on how I did it - using what methods, materials and procedures, and so forth - that you could (with the right resources) use to duplicate my experiment. If you COULDN'T duplicate what I had done, well, you would have good reason to question my claims. Or, if I claimed to have come up with a new drug to treat Condition X, you would expect me to publish information, again, on my methods, the trials I had run, and so forth. Again, you could verify what I claimed, or refute it. Or, if I proposed a hypothesis - I assert that this is how gravity works, or the like - I would hopefully be specific enough that when additional observations are made, they would either fit my hypothesis (bolstering it) or contradict it (refuting it or causing it to be modified). So what does this have to do with the search for Bigfoot? I think it is relevant only to those who postulate that Bigfoot is s shapeshifting, dimenion hopping "supernatural" creature of limitless ability, to whom the normal physical laws don't apply. In that case, Sagan's "dragon" analogy is, IMHO, relevant. If BF was such a creature, there is no piece of evidence, or lack of same, that could "knock down" the theory. Lack of footprints? No problem. No image on a camera aimed right at it? No problem. And so forth. But there is nothing "unscientific" about those who think that BF MIGHT be out there, and if so, that it is a living, breathing "animal" of some kind. Those folks fully expect BF to leave footprints, to leave scat, to have foodsources, to be photographable, and such. Most of the folks interested in BF, that I have dealt with, don't shy away from having science examine any piece of evidence that is available - to the contrary, they HUNGER for it, they are EAGER for it. They wish there was MORE scientific curiosity about BF, that MORE scientists were willing to devote time to examining what evidence there is, with an OPEN mind, and that more scientists would get into the hunt. We can - and do, often and at great length - discuss and debate why that isn't the case... what motivates scientists to research X versus Y. To BF skeptics, that is easy - there isn't enough evidence to suggest there is even a remote but reasonable possibility that BF is "out there". To those who think BF MIGHT be out there, they chalk it up more to scientists falling prey to the general cultural perception of BF as a silly and unserious topic, and thus not examining what evidence there IS, and to the sheer practical fact that scientists DO have to eat, do desire careers, and thus, have to pick and choose what they research, to some extent, based on practical concerns - and funding. SO...longwinded way of saying that I think the "dragon" analogy might apply to the "BF is a supernatural superbeing" folks, but I don't see its application to the vast majority of BFers, who think that if BF is out there, it is a living, breathing, "normal" animal, subject to the same basic rules and laws, and leaving the same kind of trace evidence, as any other creature. Shadow

I am not particularly worried about this. The sad nature of Bigfootery is that is chock full of hoaxers, frauds, liars, sociopaths, narcissists, nuts and scumbags. That's just the nature of the field. There's no getting away from it. All Erickson can do is keep tossing the nuts and hoaxers out of his project. It's a bit like bailing out a slow leaking boat, but it can be done. Even if the Kentucky footage comes out and DNA gets released, the skeptics won't be satisfied. They will tear the footage to pieces, no matter how great it is, and they will massacre Ketchum and her DNA stuff. Not only that, but the hoaxing, lying, fakery and fraud of BF evidence will continue along at the same explosive pace as ever. Some things about this field never change: Skeptics never accept any evidence, no matter how good. Hoaxers keep on hoaxing away with no end in sight.

Top Ten Reasons Bigfoot don't kill Humans: 10: Because their fingers are too thick to fit in the trigger guard. 9: Because we are harder to field dress than the average deer. 8: Old Bigfoot-wives tale they believe: If you don't kill any humans, ZZ Top will keep touring. 7: They'd love to, but have you tried to get a tag for humans lately? You get strange looks, and ordered to leave. 6: Bigfoots are scared of ghosts, and human ghosts appear in the mid-900 nanometer range. 5: Because we taste like chicken McNuggets. 4: Bigfoot would rather be "knocking", if you know what I mean. 3: Because we smell worse on the inside than we do on the outside. 2: Look at 'em! You can tell they are just a bunch of long-haired pacifist hippies! And the number one reason Bigfoot don't kill Humans: 1: They have gone to the woods to chew bubblegum & kick ass. And they aren't out of bubblegum yet.