Debunk The Debunking

[Guest Gambit]

...or, they realize that frogs are a lot easier to document than Bigfoot.

But your point is still valid either way.

A scientist who is traveling to New Guinea to look for frogs would be a herpetologist first of all, and not

concerned with any mammal, let alone Bigfoot. To deal with your point in a larger, less nit-picky sense

though, I think it's a question of productivity/funding. We KNOW there's tons of undocumented species in PNG, so

if I'm looking to actually accomplish something, looking to have something to show for the time and

expense, that's where I'm heading. What I'm not doing is walking into the North American wilderness

and trying to document a creature that A, will cause me to be scoffed at, and Bmay or may not be there.

Especially when others are out looking already...not the best way to get results, get into National Geographic, or

further your career. No that would be one hell of a roll of the dice. No surprise it's not happening.

[xspider1]

...I'm unconvinced that there is a physical bigfoot.

In 'scientific terms' is that somehow different from being 'convinced that there is no Bigfoot'? Believe it or not, most people 'know' in their own minds that Bigfoot are just a Big silly joke. I actually commend you, as being a scientist who is at least willing to talk about it and, I almost never tune out when 'real scientists' are talking. thx

[Guest]

Scientists are not trying to protect some monolithic world view that there is no bigfoot, that's just what the evidence suggests.

No, the evidence suggests that there IS a bigfoot, but "scientists" won't accept any evidence short of a slab monkey (aka dispositive proof).

[Guest]

No, the evidence suggests that there IS a bigfoot, but "scientists" won't accept any evidence short of a slab monkey (aka dispositive proof).

Yep

[Guest]

I think if you started to compile a list of people who really have dedicated themselves to finding a bigfoot/yeti/yeren/Russian wildman, etc., you might be surprised at how much effort has been invested. Meldrum, Krantz, Bindernagel, Byrne, Dahinden . . .

Those would be the "ridiculed few professionals" referred to...

[xspider1]

Maybe science should approach this, and many other phenomenon, more with an attitude of just trying to find out what in the heck is happening. With all of the sitings, reports, foot-prints, pictures, sounds and various other signs; there is more to this than hoaxing and imagination. Would it not be worthy of 'Science' (some of which is publicly funded), to at least make a better effort to solve this and other enduring mysteries?

[Guest]

With all of the sitings, reports, foot-prints, pictures, sounds and various other signs; there is more to this than hoaxing and imagination.

But that's just it. In terms of what can be demonstrated, nothing in all of those sightings, reports, footprints, etc., suggests that there's a better explanation than hoaxing, misidentification, imagination, etc.

[Sasfooty]

Maybe science should approach this, and many other phenomenon, more with an attitude of just trying to find out what in the heck is happening.

All the "scientists" that I have dealt with on the subject are so busy trying to prove what else it could be, that they can't see what it really is.

I got the impression that they are afraid they will actually have to admit that they are real, if they can't find something else-anything else to explain away what they are seeing & hearing.

[Guest]

All the "scientists" that I have dealt with on the subject are so busy trying to prove what else it could be, that they can't see what it really is.

Isn't that how science works?

[Sasfooty]

Isn't that how science works?

Apparently....

[masterbarber]

Just a thought, but may be they have encountered so many incidents with folks telling them "what it is", and not being able to provide even 1/1000th of an ounce of proof, that they are relegated to looking at all of the verifiable explanations instead?

Edited December 24, 2010 by masterbarber

[Sasfooty]

Just a thought, but may be they have encountered so many incidents with folks telling them "what it is", and not being able to provide even 1/1000th of an ounce of proof, that they are relegated to looking at all of the verifiable explanations instead?

Most of them spend too much time trying to find other "verifiable explanations". Time that they could spend verifying the truth.

[masterbarber]

Or just continue to wait for those who claim to "know" to share just what it is they "know".

Most reasonable folk will explore known causes, and apply them, prior to delving into that which has yet to be proven.

In BFing, we oftentimes see the quantum leap from incident-------To-------Bigfoot, without exploring all of the reasonable possibilities.

[Sasfooty]

In BFing, we oftentimes see the quantum leap from incident-------To-------Bigfoot, without exploring all of the reasonable possibilities.

Sometimes you don't realize how much has happened during that leap from first incident to realizing it's bigfoot, and how many other reasonable possibilities have been explored.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Sasfooty

[masterbarber]

To prevent any further OT discussion, I suggest we continue here:

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/965-bigfoot-makes-house-calls/page__st__450__p__26410#entry26410

edited to correct link

Edited December 24, 2010 by masterbarber