TD-40 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 (edited) If someone can get some real video, blood sample, bone fragment, or some other physical evidence, I would expect mainstream science to look at it seriously. But until then all we have are hopeful people with piecemeal and scant evidence. Stories, legends, lore, eyewitness accounts, and things like that are interesting and they do convince me, but I would never expect mainstream science to research bigfoot. How would they do that? Where would they start? Where would they go? When? None of us have concrete answers to those questions. Studying bigfoot is not like studying deer, elk, or bears. We need someone to capture some undeniable video evidence that will really get the discussion going. Until then, don't expect any interest from the scientific community. Scientists need to replicate experiments, which is why cold fusion never went anywhere. The researchers thought they made cold fusion work and even had a public announcement about it, but even they could not replicate it, and nobody else could, either, so it died. But on the other hand, I am reminded of Eugene Shoemaker, the geologist who told everyone that Earth had a history of being bombarded by meteorites, but everyone scoffed at him. So he set out to prove his theory and he did it. He was right by showing areas in our planet that had been hit. His idea was accepted, but not after years of scorn from his peers about it. Same story with Harlan Bretz, another geologist who theorized that the scablands in Washington were created by a glacial lake that drained and formed all the small holes in the ground that are now small ponds and lakes. Everyone thought his idea was nuts and it was vehemently opposed, until he had conducted enough research to win people to his side, several decades later. It's just the process you have to go through, especially if your idea challenges the current orthodoxy. Edited July 5, 2013 by TD-40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts