Thanks. Words like that are gratifying to read. As a guy just having fun on the Internet, I want to add to that as much as I can for everyone I’m sharing it with.

Hapa:

Speaking of fun. You’d think science would be fun. But a lot of scientists don’t seem to think so. And the rejoinder “it’s fun enough without this crap” doesn’t cut it. Scientists are supposed to follow evidence where it leads; and their profound lack of curiosity about a not-at-all implausible Topic That Keeps Coming Up, And A Truly Curious Scientist Might Wonder Why, and Bulletin! A Few In Fact Do And One Might Pay Attention To That…

Um, anyway. Profound lack of curiosity in scientists – to the point of jeering at stuff – makes me wonder, and worry, about the myriad ways scientists work to blunt the effectiveness of science, an otherwise near-perfect tool for discovering the vast mysteries of the universe.

On which we haven’t gotten rightly started yet, most particularly right here at home.

“But then again, paleoanthropologists would be the last people i’d expect to see sourpussing hairy hominids. What is up with that?”

Just doesn’t make sense, does it? Considering that such scientists know very well similar creatures have been found in the Fossil Record (Australopiths, Paranthropines).

The reason I think they poo-poo evidence of Sasquatch is the fact that, so far, no hominin/Hominid fossils, other than those of homo sapiens, has been found in North America, and the hominids most like sasquatch (such as, once again, Australopiths and the Paranthropines, in almost all but size and location) are all found in Africa.

However, if the above is the major reasoning for dismissal of Sasquatch (and many, many other hairy unknown bipedal primates of the world), then why have most scientists not ever considered the connection between the early hominid apes and the African Agogwe, a “little-foot”, if you will, that is sighted in Africa? between 4-5 feet in height, covered in red hair, sounds like an extra from the documentary “Walking with Cavemen”. One of the countries where they have been sighted is Tanzania, where primitive hominid remains have indeed been found. (See “Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology: a global guide, by Michael Newton, page 14).

So far, the only major scientist that comes to mind who made this connection was the late Zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans! Why don’t most scientists stop to think outside the box?

Wow! Great stuff here; both the article and your follow-up.

As a longtime reader and sometime commenter, I can only sit in admiration of someone willing to submit an article to a widely-read blog knowing that it will be picked-apart, criticized and then generate responses requiring numerous arguments, defenses and counterarguments.

Seeing Loren’s and Craig’s names heading the various blogs, here, on a day-to-day basis lulls one into a sense that its a mundane – even easy – process. But, when a regular commenter appears as an author, it shakes things up and makes one – or, at least “this one” – consider the behind-the-scenes steps a little more closely.

To be clear, I am not a DWA “booster” – we’ve had our differences of opinion in the past – but I gotta respect someone who’s willing to lay it all on the line, take a shot at this thing from the other side, and deal successfully with the repercussions.

Well done, sir!

“with that I will just say that I don’t believe that academics would knowingly suppress the truth, but that their complacency, arrogant assumptions, or any of a number of basic human flaws that give us those “go away kid, you’re bothering me” impulses could lead to a tragic overlook of physical proof of something outside the accepted norm. and to me that is a more plausible situation than a concerted cover up.”

Right. Exactly. And the stuff below it I can’t argue with either.

I HATE conspiracy theory. Which is precisely what this and stories like it aren’t.

Read that link up there below the video. Some of what is said there reflects the “complacency, arrogant assumptions, or any of a number of basic human flaws” you are talking about.

I sense quite a bit of “I am A Scientist, you are The Unwashed” in the attitudes of individuals toward individuals when it comes to anomalous evidence. It’s simply not warranted.

There are scientists who think – know, as far as evidence can give one to know it – that the sasquatch is real. (Read Bindernagel and Meldrum, stop arguing with me!) And many who suspect it just might be, but can’t talk about it because of the above attitudes.

And I know that no scientist who believes the sasquatch doesn’t exist can last long in an argument with me. And I’m not even a scientist. I’m just in command of the evidence. And they are not.

When ignorance masquerades as arrogance it can set the quest for knowledge back decades. It’s happened many times.

THAT is the take-away here, whatever one thinks of this one – and that’s all it is – story.

and i quote you thus: “Do you think… you could have proposed that 15 years ago? Even as a hypothesis? NO.” (referring to the multiple migrations theory of the peopling of North America).

well… actually YES… 15 years ago… 1997ish… yeah I was an anthropology student at that time, and that theory was covered in great detail then. in university… not in some closed-door meeting of ill intentioned professors wishing to continue the status quo. sorry bud.

there is a cautionary tale here though from that time: “Kennewick Man” from Oregon- remains that could drastically alter the pre-Columbian history of North America, did garner decent media attention, and became a huge political hot potato, only to slip off the radar somewhat ignominiously. This was not a cover up, but it was awkward and left the stage rather abruptly. and for that you can thank not the academics that fought to keep examining the specimen, but political special interest groups that lobbied for its removal from discussion.

with that I will just say that I don’t believe that academics would knowingly suppress the truth, but that their complacency, arrogant assumptions, or any of a number of basic human flaws that give us those “go away kid, you’re bothering me” impulses could lead to a tragic overlook of physical proof of something outside the accepted norm.
and to me that is a more plausible situation than a concerted cover up.

that said, people can argue about the alleged UCLA determinations till they are blue in the face. making sweeping statements about the veracity and meaning of testimonies and stories and anecdotes (some 40 to 50 years old) does not amount to much at this point.

there are only a couple of reasonable avenues to pursue if one wants to get to the bottom of this:

1) investigate the original location the calvarium was located at, and
2) investigate the books and specimens at UCLA to find the object in question, and then flesh out the tangible details from there (hopefully if the specimen can be found, then some paper trail on who examined it and what was said can also be found (or better still, found to be alive and interviewable)).

I might rephrase mandors’ last sentence: In fact, the only discoveries made anywhere in science that mean much are made by courageous men and women rejecting the dogma of their fields.

Most scientists do indeed make their money “perpetuating theories, not making discoveries.” This is the discussion I wanted to get started here. If indeed the Minaret skull just disappeared from the conversation – if not the UCLA collection – what does that say about what you want most from a scientist, which is curiosity? There were clear curiosity tags in this story, then poof. I understand that they have work they’re getting paid to do, like rigging climate studies and turning forest destruction into “ecosystem management.” But must it appear, so very often, as if their main occupation is jamming their imaginations into the smallest possible box? Imagination has been the big driver of science. Meldrum and Bindernagel aren’t eating off of bigfoot. So where are they finding the time? Their curiosity, is where they are finding it. Not to mention their inability to ignore evidence hiding in plain sight.

Do the skeptics ever argue with them? NO. You wonder why. That they have no argument themselves, I get. But the lack of curiosity flat scares me sometimes.

In some small pockets of science – paleontology (and by extension paleoanthropology) and astronomy – there seems to be leeway for cool stuff like new theories, artistic license in the service of dialogue, and amateur discovery. Maybe they need to hold seminars.

But then again, paleoanthropologists would be the last people I’d expect to see sourpussing hairy hominoids. What is up with that?

“In fact, the weight of archaeological opinion is now swinging towards a few migrations at different times, and there’s even some distinguished professors with good arguments for some European visitations by the Solutrean culture.”

Thank you for kindly proving my point.

Do you think Mr. “Archaeologist” you could have proposed that 15 years ago? Even as a hypothesis? NO. In fact, some of the evidence of these multiple migrations comes from materials COVERED UP BY YOUR ILK for thirty years! So please, do not pull the high and mighty academic voice of reason BS here.

Your Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) argument is beyond disingenuous. NAGPRA doesn’t apply if the “scientist” says it’s a BEAR skull. Something I would not put past many of the tenured self perpetuating “scholars” of your field. Please.

The list of cognitive dissonance and nihilism in archaeology is long. Viking habitations in North America? Cannibalism in Chaco Canyon? 9,000 year old human remains in South America? You, your colleagues and predecessors make your money perpetuating theories, NOT making discoveries. In fact, the ONLY discoveries made in archaeology in the last thirty years have been by courageous men and women rejecting the dogma of your field.

“why would a scientist state something so grossly incorrect?….”

Um…only for the reasons that many other people in positions of trust have abused that trust. Only for the reasons people lie under oath. Only for the reasons scientists “find” what the money wants them to “find.” Right, global warming deniers? Only for the reasons SCIENTISTS have published FRAUDULENT FINDINGS. And been caught at it.

Only for the most obvious reason of all: I’m busy. Who the heck cares about this? It’s human because, well, it IS. Got too many irons in the fire. Let’s make this go away. Let’s see if he ever checks back.

Gee. You tell me. I would hope we’re not that naive. They were pretty sure that what they thought wouldn’t get challenged, and that this would Go Away. Look, they were right! If this happened, that is, they were right. And if it did, why do you think we don’t have proof?

If they “made an assumption that was explicitly their own opinion and not based on physical evidence,” as you say is “more believable,” they made an “outrageously” COMMON error among scientists, which is: a comfortable assumption that just might be Flat Wrong. (Iguanodon? That’s not a thumb, it’s a horn. Piltdown? The Missing Link, for over 50 years. The earth? EVERYTHING revolves around the earth. The coelacanth? EXTINCT. And every hominid fossil is a direct homo sapiens ancestor. No brainer, right?)

You don’t “make an assumption” like that in science. Not if you are wearing your scientist hat, which if anyone must wear their professional hat all the time, a scientist must. You review the physical evidence, and make the best judgment you can, hopefully calling on more experience than yours if you aren’t sure. You don’t just assume, and toss. Making “an assumption that was explicitly their own opinion and not based on physical evidence” is not an innocent mistake for a scientist; it’s dereliction of duty. You review and pronounce upon the physical evidence, because that, not Assuming Stuff, is your job.

Scientists do that every time, right? Sure they do. If what seems to have happened here happened: no they don’t. And who can prove it? Nobody. And who would be so unscrupulous? Certainly not a scientist.

Convenient, eh?