Leaderboard

Apehuman, it would be a huge mess to turn laymen loose to discuss very technical scientific findings without those findings being scientificly verified and published. It would be a great dis-service to the people who funded the work and the scientists who did the work.People want the provenance , the chain of custody, circumstances, pics of assocotiated evidence, the science with conclusions all at once, with no concievable question unanswered. Without that it would be messy and meaningless hype with nothing but anecdote to support any claims. People would be waving red flags everywhere, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria...............

The topic is "Sitting on Good Evidence". Not "Sitting on blurry photos that the owner is "sure" is bigfoot." Lord knows, we get plenty of those unasked for. I think this topic is geared more towards those who claim to have clear and fairly unambiguous evidence of 'foot. So it is just a little disingenuous for those who have made such claims to hide behind the understandable arguments given by those with poor evidence. And it is downright "ridiculous" to then say that because poor evidence was treated with healthy skepticism and yes, even the occasional derisive comment by some, that everyone has lost the chance to see the good evidence. With this argument, you turn what should be a scientific inquiry onto its head. It turns the whole process into a circus side-show. Which brings me back to my general position on the whole topic: I doubt the existence of bigfoot far less than I do most of those who claim concrete proof of 'foot.

Can you imagine what a mess this would all be in by now if those NDA's weren't in force?