Actually, that’s not how it goes.

Here’s how it goes:

‘SKEPTIC’: HE’S A SCIENTIST. How could you get somebody more qualified to judge on this topic than that? If he tosses off a kneejerk judgment that it ain’t so, he’s right!

PROPONENT: Meldrum and Krantz and Bindernagel are scientists, in directly relevant fields. Your “scientist” is a physicist, about as well-qualified on this topic as an auto mechanic.

‘SKEPTIC’: Oh, they’re quacks.

Been down the road, too many times.

I have also been as specific as anyone can be about where to go to get read-up on this. Leave excuses at the door and read up! I managed; my curiosity was the only engine. Don’t tell me you’re underqualified there.

(The Park Service is run by people who have forgotten how to be rangers, and only want to avoid any kind of perceived trouble. That’s the problem, although I’d love to see them get a chance to prove me wrong, and take it.)

This is an interesting statistic, but I’m not really sure there is any real application for this information. It is really just a diversion.

I guess I’m just not really interested in what people “believe” on this topic. I’m interested in evidence, ideas or inquiries based on some form of evidence, hopefully some answers, and getting as close as possible to an understanding of what the truth could be (whatever that may be), not what people “think” or “believe” to be the truth.

I suppose public opinion polls like this have their place, but I think that what this poll basically amounts to is how many people “believe” in Bigfoot. Ugh.

I would also be interested in learning more about the thought process that leads the 23% to conclude that it is *Definitely* not real. The word ‘definitely’ is a strong word. One expects that its usage would be reserved when there is indisputable evidence for the existence or non-existence of something. Since the non-existence of Bigfoot is not supported by indisputable evidence, and is not a premise, then the conclusion that they are “Definitely not real” is irrational and probably reached as a result of an emotion such as fear or a mental state such as intolerance.

Can it be argued that someone who is not open to the possibility in the existence of Bigfoot is also not open to possibilities in general and is probably not tolerant about many other things too? Should it be illegal to not believe in Bigfoot?

And yet, whenever a park ranger says he has seen Bigfoot, or has seen so many strange things in the woods that he finds Bigfoot sightings believable, the fact that he is a park ranger is always listed as a reason for why he is a credible, down-to-earth, experienced witness/commenter.

But you must admit that cuts a bit your statements about evidence.

I keep waiting for the evidence that God did it in six and rested on seven. So far, one report. Shoot, I bet more have seen centaurs.

You can keep your cracks about the Catholic Church to yourself.

Can’t find Germany on a map? That’s only 30%?

I agree.

But of course, this is yet another illustration of how little we can trust the news media to get their science right. So maybe that’s useful.

Asking the people to put their money where their mouths are is always instructive.

Of course, this raises the question whether this should be entrusted to the Park Service. But that’s a different discussion. Land managers can always grant research permits; there’s more than one way to skin this cat.

And the way we find out which ways get used? At least indirectly it’s: votes.