Leaderboard

Exactly! Science in its purest form is unrestrained by agendas, or by those who control resources. It is collaborative, and all hypotheses are explored without prejudice. In real terms, however, science costs money. As a result, scientists must demonstrate the value of their research in order to continue it, and usually must convince funding sources of the value of their proposed research before they can gain funding to pursue it. This skews the scientific process, and promotes corrupt science. A scientist has to eat, so he has the following choices: 1. Find someone, somewhere who will fund their research without condition or constraint (very rare today - only those with the highest status may achieve this, and usually only if they have a demonstrated track record of producing results of value). 2. Find someone who perceives value in their proposed research and convince them that if they fund the research, the results will provide some form of return, either economic, social, or political. 3. Find someone who has an economic, social, or political agenda and perform research that supports their agenda at their direction. So, he who controls funding, controls what research is performed and scientist quickly learn that if they want to enjoy continued funding, they need to provide results that the funding entity considers valuable. So if I tell you I am looking for proof that field mice are turning green because butterflies are sneezing more often and offer to fund you while you prove this, most will attempt to gain as much funding as possible, for as long as possible, by demonstrating results that a) do not result in a loss of funding, and encourage further funding. Today when you read a study you have to also look at who funded the study and what that organization's agenda is. How does the funder benefit from the results of the study and how might this relationship have skewed the study? Powell, as a case in point, was in a position of influence and clearly had a prejudicial position, if not an agenda, and he used his influence in a corrupt manner to skew the course of research in the field over which he had influence. At the very least, for any who have been demanding proof that the Smithsonian has ever acted with prejudice, to suppress certain findings, they now have it.

Supporting the null hypothesis is not "trying to prove a negative".

Or the control of information for an agenda

Thank you, Norseman. Yes, physical evidence is the only way and should never be any other. Would you believe a photo if you saw it is not the issue. We do not have good photo evidence of Sasquatch. We can not take a film with zero provenance, said by its creator to be secretly developed, with an impossible timeline and hijack that into something the rational world outside of Bigfoot subculture accepts or thinks to be good. You can take a single frame and say oh that's the elbow, it can't be human, and the real world will rightfully meet you with no kind of acceptance. You want Bigfoot to be considered a reality, you don't come with scheister film. I won't derail into PGF discussion, but the simple fact is that however good you think that might be, the opinion is subjective and the source is like some kind of Rodney Dangerfield bit. For your FX artist supporting it, there are many more that denounce it. For your PhD supporting it, there are many more unconvinced. Only Bigfoot enthusiasts amongst themselves can nod and agree and think that their maverick thinkers are anywhere near being right. If you want Bigfoot to be an accepted reality, you come with the same evidence as we have for every other large mammal in North America. If you come with less, you get shut out, and it should not be any other way. You don't put up an absurd map slathering North America in Bigfoot then have your hands in your pockets for reliable evidence and expect to be taken seriously.

In reading about the Powell Doctrine on pages 5 - 12, the dismissal of American archeological finds seems pretty overt. For those who don't yet have the book, Major John Wesley Powell was a geologist and explorer. After the Civil War, he occupied himself by exploring, most notably the Colorado River from Wyoming to the end of the Grand Canyon. His expedition, as the first to officially explore the Grand Canyon, complete with a photographic record, was famous. In 1879, Powell was appointed as head of the Smithsonian's new Bureau of Ethnology, and held that position until his death in 1902. Powell's first report to the Secretary of the Smithsonian was titled "On Limitations to the Use of Some Anthropologic Data". In it he commented that "the uses to which the material has been put have not always been wise". Up until then such material had been shared freely without restriction, to include the conclusions of those researching the material, who frequently theorized, based on the artifacts they were finding, that there had been contact between ancient cultures from Europe and the Mediterranean, and the Americas. Powell specifically objected to the use of the information to connect Native American culture to "...so-called races of antiquity in other portions of the world". I don't want to stray into political or religious ground here, but I will point out for purely historical context that at that time there was a rapidly growing religion based in the American West founded upon the belief that there had been contact between Native Americans and a person of antiquity from another portion of the world. Also, the concept of manifest destiny was in full bloom, which was, in part, predicated on the right to displace "primitive" native cultures. The author suggests that Powell did not want to elevate the status of Native Americans by promoting contact with, or descent from "lost tribes". Powell himself states that "...there is no need to search for extra-limital origin through lost tribes...". He then singles out artifacts that he considers primitive from the American Southwest and states that it is improbable that anything found anywhere else in America would be any more valuable. One of Powell's statements that I find most damning is "A brief review of some conclusions that must be accepted in the present status of the science will exhibit the futility of these attempts.", (connecting Native American culture to contact with "so-called races of antiquity"). Note that his statement is heavily qualified by a "brief" review of "some" conclusions that "must be accepted" in the "present" status of the science to pronounce such study "futile". This subjective position is not in consonance with the Smithsonian's original objective purpose to "increase the diffusion of knowledge among men". The statement is also self-contradicting because it refers to the "present status of the science", but hampers its advancement by subjectively limiting further study in certain areas. If what he believed to be futile is futile, then it would prove itself futile on its own. The "Powell Doctrine" remains in force today even as contact with some of those races of antiquity becomes increasingly evident. To me, there is sufficient cause to hypothesize the past existence of an extinct race of very tall people with its own culture in North America. I will also note that recent DNA findings in Europe show that a genetically different race of humans (non-Neanderthal) once occupied Europe and have since disappeared (died out?) prior to the inward migration of the current human inhabitants (just read the article before coming to this site, and find that the link is now gone from the news site where I found it. I'll have to dig up the source article later). It makes me wonder. Did a race of people of large stature with their own culture once exist? Did they exist in both Europe and the Americas? If so, what caused them to die off? When ancient lore refers to "giants in the earth" in those days, or asserts that a given structure was built by giants, are they simply referring to this putative extinct race of people?

Hi JDL, I have read the 411 books. I don't think Paulides made the case that BF were the culprits. Paulides made a lot of errors and faulty assumptions about human behaviors that have been pointed out by SAR experts. I do grant you that the Dennis Martin case was ambiguous but the sighting of the ragged man carrying "something" did not rule out a human. I question the assumption that BF or certain populations of them prey on humans. . I cannot imagine a behavior more likely to reveal their existence (if indeed they do exist) than to snack on humans.

Tenacious D, The Pick of Destiny.