Why?

It’s fake. And irrelevant.

Attention becoming a scientist – or any open-minded curious person – to the evidence for the sasquatch quickly dismisses the ‘evidence against’ as the significant factor the incurious perceive it to be.

Let’s move on. You could start arguing with Meldrum and Bindernagel. Why do I think I’m not going to see that?

Know what you can do with all sasquatch videos except one or two?

Throw them out.

You know why?

They don’t comport with what people report seeing. They look, in short, either like blobs, which people aren’t reporting, or people in suits…which, wait for it, people aren’t reporting.

But you’d have to be acquainted with the evidence to know that.

The “head in the sand” approach tends to characterize not seeing what you don’t want to.

And that’s what’s happening here.

People do frequently describe themselves when deploring what they don’t like in others, so I guess no surprise there.

Here’s what I’d ask:

Could anyone who knows the volume and consistency of the evidence for the sasquatch consider any evidence submitted against the film to warrant dismissing it without review; presuming it’s a guy in a suit; paying no attention to the evidence for it, and the scientific expertise behind that reasoning; laughing at the very notion that it could be real; and ridiculing anyone who claimed to have seen anything similar?

Anyone who knows what I, Meldrum, Bindernagel, and a small number of other people who are paying attention know, knows what a truly open-minded jury would rule on that.

Since I was 11 years old, it’s been obvious to me that the evidence is broad, deep and points to a critter, nothing more. It’s been equally obvious that scientists who seem to know what they’re talking about within their broad areas of specialty simply forsake their scientific objectivity, and say things they should know they shouldn’t, when this is the topic.

Unlike most who come to this from a passion for the paranormal – and let that passion influence what they think about this in a very unfortunate manner – I come to it with a lifelong interest in animals and the outdoors. Being more acquainted than most with both, I know when evidence supports a critter. This evidence does.

Since this would simply be a cool thing to know, and the evidence supports that, and it might be neat to know what’s causing this evidence to happen before I, you know, die, it just appalls me to see the attitude of the mainstream toward it.

At the frontiers of science there is never a majority. So I guess we’ll just have to wait for a few more of Max Planck’s funerals to take place to get to the bottom of this.

You’d think science would be open-minded and curious about things it seems simple enough to prove. This example is a very discouraging one in that regard.

And that’s my only dog in the hunt. Other than a couple pieces of evidence I’ve seen in the field that comport with others I’ve read about, and make me go, hmmmmmm, an open-minded person might want to know what caused this.

With a few exceptions: guess not.

If the P-G film were at the center of a trial, are there items and testemonies that the prosecution could bring against it that would be allowed by the judge? You know there are. You may feel confident that you could persuade any reasonable person that those items and testemonies are flawed and worthless for impeaching the authenticity of the P-G film, but the evidence would be permitted and you would have to argue against it. You could make all the arguments you have just made, and maybe you would persuade the jury, and maybe not.

That’s all I mean by evidence. At times you are very aware of the distinction between evidence and proof, but you seem to have lost sight of it here. Evidence can be flimsy and still warrant an hypothesis. Proof has to be much stronger but can justify a mature theory. There are very few thoughts a human being has ever had that can be said to have “No evidence. Period. As in: Zero.”

If I seem to be belaboring the point, it’s because I noticed as a young adult how the administration at the time refused to investigate credible charges of wrongdoing against senior members of the administration, using the excuse that there was “no evidence”. Yes, there certainly was, evidence that was a good deal better than the evidence that a later administration would use to claim Sadam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. The evidence was sufficient to open an investigation, not sufficient to close an investigation. The administration did not want to open the investigation because they knew what they would find.

By the way, I notice you seem to have a particular passion for the reality of Bigfoot. Have you witnessed Bigfoot first-hand?

Having said all this, I won’t pursue it any further.

“you seem to have an attitude that there are no sophisticated or minimal impact associated with fakery regarding this subject …”

There haven’t been.

The things you cite are cute but they were readily dismissed when somebody finally got somebody to pay attention. And those are the only examples you cited (and pretty much the only ones there are).

My point is – and shall remain – that to consider fakes a serious issue in this discussion is simply wrong. It’s the lack of scientific attention to the copious legitimate evidence that is the serious failing.

Once again: why are you guys arguing with me? Take it up with the scientists who agree with me.

Read up.

—————————-

Both of Bindernagel’s books, and Meldrum’s, and J.Robert Alley’s “Raincoast Sasquatch,” and Meldrum’s ichnotaxonomy paper, and every report on both bfro.net and texasbigfoot.com, at a minimum, are Sasquatch 101. You should read some Krantz, too. And John Green’s database (although many reports from that are written up by Bindernagel).

Anyone who thinks this is too much, well, shouldn’t be opining here. I mean, they can; it’s just an uninformed opinion. At least I only offer opinions on things I know something about. Isn’t that reasonable? I think so.

———————

Relativity is crap. It’s obvious. So are quarks. That’s equally obvious.

No?

Prove it. Right here.

You won’t. Know what you’ll do? Refer me to everything else that’s been written.

Me too.