Leaderboard

What does this nature discovery mean? Here are my completely uninformed thoughts: First, I applaud the logic. I will admit when we see something unusual, I am more prone to think it is in fact not unusual. It is just not as well understood. Well, maybe just not well understood by me. Once we understand it the real reason turns out to be pretty boring. I would like to offer 2 examples: 1- Plaster cast "fingerprints". I heard on TV shows how these plaster footprints of Bigfoot had dermal ridges. There was even claimed evidence of healed skin in the footprint's dermal ridge lines which "couldn't be faked". Jimmy Chilcutte became a household name in the Bigfoot world as the FBI fingerprint expert who pointed these things out. He concluded this could only be explained by an undiscovered primate making the prints. This may be the case, but his analysis was flawed it seems. The effect he noticed was able to be explained and reproduced by others giving the same ridges as an experimental result. This meant there could be other explanations for the same lines he based his conclusions on. 2- The Skookum casts were thought to be a bigfoot siting in the mud. It seems its more likely this was just a deer/elk type animal. Of the two which is more likely. We attribute things to unusual findings which can be significant. Sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. In the end we need to go wherever the facts take us. Are the findings explained by some other natural process or typical process?