Leaderboard

Sounds like a lot of trouble to go to just to prove that somebody isn't an expert, when they already said they aren't an expert. JMO, but it almost borders on trolling.

Anyone who steps up to the public opinion home plate to bat is exposing themselves to a multitude of opinions, some that are informed, some not informed and some who really don't want to be distracted with facts and will believe what they want to believe. My hats off to Melba Ketchum for taking a swing at this thing knowing that serious science might not even take a serious look at her work. This has been going on for centuries when you study a new thing. Other science pioneers have also endured this before their work was accepted. Her life and business would have been much simpler if she had never taken this route. Anyone who thinks this is a very positive swing on her life is extremely ignorant of what has happened to her during this time. I feel time other endeavors will coroborate her work in time.

I've been ruminating on the willful denial of not only the probability of a Sasquatch existing, but also the no-holds barred reaction to even the possibility of such. I'm not addressing my thoughts to anyone in particular, just airing them in an attempt to promote a better understanding of this position. In my discussions with BF theory opponents, one characteristic comes to the fore, always. I generalize, but the overwhelming personality trait I encounter is the one of Supreme Rationalist. Believe me, as a practicing lawyer for almost thirty years, I know the type. Hell, I probably am one on some subjects, so it takes one to know one. One requirement of the SR is the need to control circumstances and outcomes. The SR is not comfortable with uncertainty, or mystery. The SR hugs tight to the status quo when paradigm shifting theories hove into view. I recall those days when I was a young lawyer who would show up for trial with a 10 page Motion to serve on my opponent. It essentially would object to any possible evidence that might hurt my well rationalized view of the evidence, or could possibly be against my client's interest. These Motions were, appropriately and summarily, overruled. I still see young wannabe trial lawyers approach trial evidence in this way. What the seasoned trial lawyer comes to know is that a trial is essentially chaos with a pastiche of the illusion of control by the participants. Isn't life and the universe the same? You either learn to surf that chaos, or expend futile energy to try to maintain control at all costs. It will kill you young if you make that as a habit. Well, at least your professional life will not be long, if not your actual life. What else do I see? (Gross Generalization alert again) Most BF opponents do not spend much time in natural habitats, vulnerable to what might be lurking there. Oh, you'll see some who allow they like to spend "time outdoors, etc." In contemplating the natural order of things and unknown possibilities though, nothing substitutes for, well, spending time directly observing the natural order of things while thinking about unknown possibilities. I'm talking about the "deep" understanding that only comes from immersing yourself in an extremely wild situation. An extended solo backcountry trip somewhere on the N.A. continent? Ever slept on the ground, alone, miles from another human? Ever gone even ONE day without hearing another human voice? Ever spent large amounts of time in an environment where something can possibly maim and kill you and nobody would ever even know where to look for your body? If you haven't done something like that at least once, I don't have any assurances you will be open to appreciating what is at the root of a greater understanding. It is no coincidence that many BF proponents are hikers, backpackers, wilderness dwellers and hunters, and why there are very few opponents who are. (Dr. Jeff Meldrum is typical of people who opened up to the possibility while "out there." There are many, many others.) Think about that if you are disinclined to consider the very idea of BF. Let your Supremely Rational self get some humility and defer to those who have spent that time there. Get some of that for yourself, it will do you a world of good, and not just on this subject. Lastly, sorry, we have to talk about fear. There is a truth in this world and it is: Show me your anger and I'll tell you your fear. I've been really mystified at times by the indignation some people exhibit when asked to consider this possibility. It is sometimes way beyond what I would have thought...almost personal. Srike the "almost." And on further contemplation, it is not mysterious at all. It is very emotionally upsetting to consider this possibility, is it not? It should be, if it isn't. To admit to this chance is to challenge every fundamental assumption we hold about our "humaness", and it touches on what a lot of us consider to be settled theological and evolutionary facts. Whoa. Hell, now I’m scaring myself… J

I would remind you that as a skeptic no credible witness has ever said Anything you would believe that includes military, police, and just plain good and honest folks. Yet we are just supposed to believe dyer et all based on their history (or lack there of in musky's case)?