You know, you can’t have it both ways. If you think scientists deliberately turned a blind eye on evidence that *should* have made them all accept Homo rudolfensis as a distinct species, you might just as well accept that scientists have fabricated the Homo rudolfensis in the first place. It’s not like you would know the difference. If scientists are a bunch of lying bastards, their lying bastards when they tell you what you want to hear just as much as when they tell you what you don’t.

But in this story, and in countless others, you see scientists who have rendered their professional opinion, been confronted with strong evidence to the contrary, and actually changed their opinions. They do this all the time. Maybe 97% of biologists today think that there never has been a Bigfoot-like animal on the North American continent, but if you could furnish sufficient evidence to the contrary, the whole history of the discipline shows that they would change their opinions. Now consider: Do cryptozoologists have a similar willingness to admit they were wrong? If another 50 years of wildlife surveys goes by without collecting any definitive evidence for Bigfoot’s existence, would a suspicious absence of evidence become at least somewhat suggestive as evidence of absence?

If you’ve just thought, “But … but … Bigfoot *IS* real!” then it’s not mainstream science that has issues with an unchallengeable dogma.

Not holding my breath though…