SCIENTIFIC Bigfoot investigation

[mike4ty4]

Hi.

How come nobody wants to do an actual, *scientific*, serious,
*thorough* investigation of the "Bigfoot" phenomenon a lot of
people claim to see? This means looking at whatever evidence
exists, looking for new evidence for all theories, carefully
and critically examining it all, with an open mind too, etc.
etc. etc. Then the "mystery" could finally be laid to rest.
Why do you claim, oh, "it has to be proven first before it can
be investigated"? But the whole POINT of investigation is to
prove whether or not it exists! To me it just seems like
laziness. Let's put this to bed, folks! If there is something
to it, then that would be great. If not, oh well. But at least
the mystery would no longer be a mystery anymore.

Has anyone ever looked at all the supposed footprints starting
from an unbiased, neutral point of view?

Has anyone ever set up a big, serious, long-term
monitoring program to see if actual video/film footage can
be obtained (with *steady*, TRIPODED cameras WATCHING 24/7
including thermovision, and not shaky as all get out crap
footage, etc.)?

[Jois]

There was one serious academic type who studied Bigfoot in a
serious way but I believe he has died within the past 3 years.
I can't think of his name right now but this probably isn't a
paleo topic anyway.

Jois

<mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152828645.879289.315890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Hi.
>
> How come nobody wants to do an actual, *scientific*,
> serious, *thorough* investigation of the "Bigfoot"
> phenomenon a lot of people claim to see? This means looking
> at whatever evidence exists, looking for new evidence for
> all theories, carefully and critically examining it all,
> with an open mind too, etc. etc. etc. Then the "mystery"
> could finally be laid to rest. Why do you claim, oh, "it has
> to be proven first before it can be investigated"? But the
> whole POINT of investigation is to prove whether or not it
> exists! To me it just seems like laziness. Let's put this to
> bed, folks! If there is something to it, then that would be
> great. If not, oh well. But at least the mystery would no
> longer be a mystery anymore.
>
> Has anyone ever looked at all the supposed footprints
> starting from an unbiased, neutral point of view?
>
> Has anyone ever set up a big, serious, long-term
> monitoring program to see if actual video/film footage can
> be obtained (with *steady*, TRIPODED cameras WATCHING 24/7
> including thermovision, and not shaky as all get out crap
> footage, etc.)?

[Spiznet]

Yeah, its not paleo!: didn't they prove that all them AATers
turn into Bigfoot after 10 years of "believing in water".

So Bigfoot is really a mutated degenerate human, not a
pre-human.

Jois wrote:
> There was one serious academic type who studied Bigfoot in a
> serious way but I believe he has died within the past 3
> years. I can't think of his name right now but this probably
> isn't a paleo topic anyway.
>
> Jois
>
>
> <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1152828645.87928-
> 9.315890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi.
> >
> > How come nobody wants to do an actual, *scientific*,
> > serious, *thorough* investigation of the "Bigfoot"
> > phenomenon a lot of people claim to see? This means
> > looking at whatever evidence exists, looking for new
> > evidence for all theories, carefully and critically
> > examining it all, with an open mind too, etc. etc. etc.
> > Then the "mystery" could finally be laid to rest. Why do
> > you claim, oh, "it has to be proven first before it can be
> > investigated"? But the whole POINT of investigation is to
> > prove whether or not it exists! To me it just seems like
> > laziness. Let's put this to bed, folks! If there is
> > something to it, then that would be great. If not, oh
> > well. But at least the mystery would no longer be a
> > mystery anymore.
> >
> > Has anyone ever looked at all the supposed footprints
> > starting from an unbiased, neutral point of view?
> >
> > Has anyone ever set up a big, serious, long-term
> > monitoring program to see if actual video/film footage can
> > be obtained (with *steady*, TRIPODED cameras WATCHING 24/7
> > including thermovision, and not shaky as all get out crap
> > footage, etc.)?

[Rmacfarl]

spiznet wrote:
> Yeah, its not paleo!: didn't they prove that all them AATers
> turn into Bigfoot after 10 years of "believing in water".
>
> So Bigfoot is really a mutated degenerate human, not a
> pre-human.

Mutated degenerate humans - yes... So... What size shoes do
you wear Spiz?
>
> Jois wrote:
> > There was one serious academic type who studied Bigfoot in
> > a serious way but I believe he has died within the past 3
> > years. I can't think of his name right now but this
> > probably isn't a paleo topic anyway.
> >
> > Jois

(Running for cover... :-)

Ross Macfarlane

[El Rajo]

I've read several articles that have suggested that Bigfoot,
Yeti and all the other "giant primate" stories are probably
true and represent the last few individuals of an old species
named Giganthropicus or something like that. Sort of like the
descendents of an Asian Gorilla that managed to migrate to the
New World. The trouble is that no solid evidence has ever been
found so it's unlikely that any university or other funding
organization is going to supply the money to conduct such a
study. It's also possible that a few remaining Neanderthals
migrated east from Europe and the Middle East and survived in
wilderness areas. Perhaps one day someone will discover
something. After all, our closest genetic relative, the bonobo
was the last large primate to be discovered.

El mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi.
>
> How come nobody wants to do an actual, *scientific*,
> serious, *thorough* investigation of the "Bigfoot"
> phenomenon a lot of people claim to see? This means looking
> at whatever evidence exists, looking for new evidence for
> all theories, carefully and critically examining it all,
> with an open mind too, etc. etc. etc. Then the "mystery"
> could finally be laid to rest. Why do you claim, oh, "it has
> to be proven first before it can be investigated"? But the
> whole POINT of investigation is to prove whether or not it
> exists! To me it just seems like laziness. Let's put this to
> bed, folks! If there is something to it, then that would be
> great. If not, oh well. But at least the mystery would no
> longer be a mystery anymore.
>
> Has anyone ever looked at all the supposed footprints
> starting from an unbiased, neutral point of view?
>
> Has anyone ever set up a big, serious, long-term
> monitoring program to see if actual video/film footage can
> be obtained (with *steady*, TRIPODED cameras WATCHING 24/7
> including thermovision, and not shaky as all get out crap
> footage, etc.)?

[El Rajo]

I've read several articles that have suggested that Bigfoot,
Yeti and all the other "giant primate" stories are probably
true and represent the last few individuals of an old species
named Giganthropicus or something like that. Sort of like the
descendents of an Asian Gorilla that managed to migrate to the
New World. The trouble is that no solid evidence has ever been
found so it's unlikely that any university or other funding
organization is going to supply the money to conduct such a
study. It's also possible that a few remaining Neanderthals
migrated east from Europe and the Middle East and survived in
wilderness areas. Perhaps one day someone will discover
something. After all, our closest genetic relative, the bonobo
was the last large primate to be discovered.

El mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi.
>
> How come nobody wants to do an actual, *scientific*,
> serious, *thorough* investigation of the "Bigfoot"
> phenomenon a lot of people claim to see? This means looking
> at whatever evidence exists, looking for new evidence for
> all theories, carefully and critically examining it all,
> with an open mind too, etc. etc. etc. Then the "mystery"
> could finally be laid to rest. Why do you claim, oh, "it has
> to be proven first before it can be investigated"? But the
> whole POINT of investigation is to prove whether or not it
> exists! To me it just seems like laziness. Let's put this to
> bed, folks! If there is something to it, then that would be
> great. If not, oh well. But at least the mystery would no
> longer be a mystery anymore.
>
> Has anyone ever looked at all the supposed footprints
> starting from an unbiased, neutral point of view?
>
> Has anyone ever set up a big, serious, long-term
> monitoring program to see if actual video/film footage can
> be obtained (with *steady*, TRIPODED cameras WATCHING 24/7
> including thermovision, and not shaky as all get out crap
> footage, etc.)?

[mike4ty4]

El Rajo wrote:
> I've read several articles that have suggested that Bigfoot,
> Yeti and all the other "giant primate" stories are probably
> true and represent the last few individuals of an old
> species named Giganthropicus or something like that. Sort of
> like the descendents of an Asian Gorilla that managed to
> migrate to the New World. The trouble is that no solid
> evidence has ever been found so it's unlikely that any
> university or other funding organization is going to supply
> the money to conduct such a study. It's also possible that a
> few remaining Neanderthals migrated east from Europe and the
> Middle East and survived in wilderness areas. Perhaps one
> day someone will discover something. After all, our closest
> genetic relative, the bonobo was the last large primate to
> be discovered.
>

But the whole point of investigation is to look for evidence!
So, you say that because none has been found then you can't go
and look? In order to conclude that there's no good evidence
you have to do an exhaustive examination! Why do the
universities/institutions/etc. do this?

People see this thing, so there has to be *something* going
on? What that actually is, is the million-dollar question. It
could be something simple and ordinary, or it could be
something extraordinary. But if nobody actually does a
rigorous investigation, then we'll never know. One cannot say
it *is* a new animal, one cannot say it *isn't*, until
something is discovered.

> El mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > How come nobody wants to do an actual, *scientific*,
> > serious, *thorough* investigation of the "Bigfoot"
> > phenomenon a lot of people claim to see? This means
> > looking at whatever evidence exists, looking for new
> > evidence for all theories, carefully and critically
> > examining it all, with an open mind too, etc. etc. etc.
> > Then the "mystery" could finally be laid to rest. Why do
> > you claim, oh, "it has to be proven first before it can be
> > investigated"? But the whole POINT of investigation is to
> > prove whether or not it exists! To me it just seems like
> > laziness. Let's put this to bed, folks! If there is
> > something to it, then that would be great. If not, oh
> > well. But at least the mystery would no longer be a
> > mystery anymore.
> >
> > Has anyone ever looked at all the supposed footprints
> > starting from an unbiased, neutral point of view?
> >
> > Has anyone ever set up a big, serious, long-term
> > monitoring program to see if actual video/film footage can
> > be obtained (with *steady*, TRIPODED cameras WATCHING 24/7
> > including thermovision, and not shaky as all get out crap
> > footage, etc.)?

[El Rajo]

Oh I'm not disagreeing with you. It's just that there are only
so many research dollars around and there have been a number
of individuals who have done private searches and not found
anything credible. I suppose a big part of the issue is "where
does on look". There have never been any bones or campsites or
anything like that found so far.

EL

mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> El Rajo wrote:
> > I've read several articles that have suggested that
> > Bigfoot, Yeti and all the other "giant primate" stories
> > are probably true and represent the last few individuals
> > of an old species named Giganthropicus or something like
> > that. Sort of like the descendents of an Asian Gorilla
> > that managed to migrate to the New World. The trouble is
> > that no solid evidence has ever been found so it's
> > unlikely that any university or other funding organization
> > is going to supply the money to conduct such a study. It's
> > also possible that a few remaining Neanderthals migrated
> > east from Europe and the Middle East and survived in
> > wilderness areas. Perhaps one day someone will discover
> > something. After all, our closest genetic relative, the
> > bonobo was the last large primate to be discovered.
> >
>
> But the whole point of investigation is to look for
> evidence! So, you say that because none has been found then
> you can't go and look? In order to conclude that there's no
> good evidence you have to do an exhaustive examination! Why
> do the universities/institutions/etc. do this?
>
> People see this thing, so there has to be *something* going
> on? What that actually is, is the million-dollar question.
> It could be something simple and ordinary, or it could be
> something extraordinary. But if nobody actually does a
> rigorous investigation, then we'll never know. One cannot
> say it *is* a new animal, one cannot say it *isn't*, until
> something is discovered.
>
> > El mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > How come nobody wants to do an actual, *scientific*,
> > > serious, *thorough* investigation of the "Bigfoot"
> > > phenomenon a lot of people claim to see? This means
> > > looking at whatever evidence exists, looking for new
> > > evidence for all theories, carefully and critically
> > > examining it all, with an open mind too, etc. etc. etc.
> > > Then the "mystery" could finally be laid to rest. Why do
> > > you claim, oh, "it has to be proven first before it can
> > > be investigated"? But the whole POINT of investigation
> > > is to prove whether or not it exists! To me it just
> > > seems like laziness. Let's put this to bed, folks! If
> > > there is something to it, then that would be great. If
> > > not, oh well. But at least the mystery would no longer
> > > be a mystery anymore.
> > >
> > > Has anyone ever looked at all the supposed footprints
> > > starting from an unbiased, neutral point of view?
> > >
> > > Has anyone ever set up a big, serious, long-term
> > > monitoring program to see if actual video/film footage
> > > can be obtained (with *steady*, TRIPODED cameras
> > > WATCHING 24/7 including thermovision, and not shaky as
> > > all get out crap footage, etc.)?

[El Rajo]

Oh I'm not disagreeing with you. It's just that there are only
so many research dollars around and there have been a number
of individuals who have done private searches and not found
anything credible. I suppose a big part of the issue is "where
does on look". There have never been any bones or campsites or
anything like that found so far.

EL

mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> El Rajo wrote:
> > I've read several articles that have suggested that
> > Bigfoot, Yeti and all the other "giant primate" stories
> > are probably true and represent the last few individuals
> > of an old species named Giganthropicus or something like
> > that. Sort of like the descendents of an Asian Gorilla
> > that managed to migrate to the New World. The trouble is
> > that no solid evidence has ever been found so it's
> > unlikely that any university or other funding organization
> > is going to supply the money to conduct such a study. It's
> > also possible that a few remaining Neanderthals migrated
> > east from Europe and the Middle East and survived in
> > wilderness areas. Perhaps one day someone will discover
> > something. After all, our closest genetic relative, the
> > bonobo was the last large primate to be discovered.
> >
>
> But the whole point of investigation is to look for
> evidence! So, you say that because none has been found then
> you can't go and look? In order to conclude that there's no
> good evidence you have to do an exhaustive examination! Why
> do the universities/institutions/etc. do this?
>
> People see this thing, so there has to be *something* going
> on? What that actually is, is the million-dollar question.
> It could be something simple and ordinary, or it could be
> something extraordinary. But if nobody actually does a
> rigorous investigation, then we'll never know. One cannot
> say it *is* a new animal, one cannot say it *isn't*, until
> something is discovered.
>
> > El mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > How come nobody wants to do an actual, *scientific*,
> > > serious, *thorough* investigation of the "Bigfoot"
> > > phenomenon a lot of people claim to see? This means
> > > looking at whatever evidence exists, looking for new
> > > evidence for all theories, carefully and critically
> > > examining it all, with an open mind too, etc. etc. etc.
> > > Then the "mystery" could finally be laid to rest. Why do
> > > you claim, oh, "it has to be proven first before it can
> > > be investigated"? But the whole POINT of investigation
> > > is to prove whether or not it exists! To me it just
> > > seems like laziness. Let's put this to bed, folks! If
> > > there is something to it, then that would be great. If
> > > not, oh well. But at least the mystery would no longer
> > > be a mystery anymore.
> > >
> > > Has anyone ever looked at all the supposed footprints
> > > starting from an unbiased, neutral point of view?
> > >
> > > Has anyone ever set up a big, serious, long-term
> > > monitoring program to see if actual video/film footage
> > > can be obtained (with *steady*, TRIPODED cameras
> > > WATCHING 24/7 including thermovision, and not shaky as
> > > all get out crap footage, etc.)?

[Rick Wagle]

<mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152828645.879289.315890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Hi.
>
> How come nobody wants to do an actual, *scientific*,
> serious, *thorough* investigation of the "Bigfoot"
> phenomenon a lot of people claim to see?

What amkes you think that people don't, in fact, do this? The
'evidence' for Bigfoot has to stand on its own merit.

This means looking at whatever evidence exists, looking
> for new evidence for all theories, carefully and critically
> examining it all, with an open mind too, etc. etc. etc. Then
> the "mystery" could finally be laid to rest.

Unfortunately this is not the case. In pseudoscience
nothing is ever laid to rest by a sound refutation. Just
doesn't happen

Why do you claim, oh, "it has to be proven
> first before it can be investigated"?

Don't be an ass. No one says this

But the whole POINT of
> investigation is to prove whether or not it exists! To me it
> just seems like laziness. Let's put this to bed, folks! If
> there is something to it, then that would be great. If not,
> oh well. But at least the mystery would no longer be a
> mystery anymore.
>
I agree. It would be great if sasquatches were real,

> Has anyone ever looked at all the supposed footprints
> starting from an unbiased, neutral point of view?
>
Yes. See Daegling, David J (2004) Bigfoot exposed : an
anthropologist examines America's enduring legend Walnut
Creek, Calif. : AltaMira Press .
> Has anyone ever set up a big, serious, long-term
> monitoring program to see if actual video/film footage can
> be obtained (with *steady*, TRIPODED cameras WATCHING 24/7
> including thermovision, and not shaky as all get out crap
> footage, etc.)?
>
I believe this has been tried specifically for sasquatches.
This type of photography - animal triggers camera set up in
particualar areas - is commonly practised.

Get ahold of Daegling's book. He's a real live working
physical anthropologist who, incidentally, has some trenchant
criticisms of Grover Krantz -also a bona fide physical
anthropologist - who championed Bigfoot later in his career.

Rick Wagler

[Rick Wagle]

"Jois" <firstjois@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QJCdnTuBT4o8aivZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com...
> There was one serious academic type who studied Bigfoot in a
> serious way but I believe he has died within the past 3
> years. I can't think of his name right now but this probably
> isn't a paleo topic anyway.
>
> Jois
>
Grover Krantz who was at a university in the northwest US

Rick Wagler

[mike4ty4]

Rick Wagler wrote:
> <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1152828645.87928-
> 9.315890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi.
> >
> > How come nobody wants to do an actual, *scientific*,
> > serious, *thorough* investigation of the "Bigfoot"
> > phenomenon a lot of people claim to see?
>
> What amkes you think that people don't, in fact, do this?
> The 'evidence' for Bigfoot has to stand on its own merit.
>
> This means looking at whatever evidence exists, looking
> > for new evidence for all theories, carefully and
> > critically examining it all, with an open mind too,
> > etc. etc. etc. Then the "mystery" could finally be laid
> > to rest.
>
> Unfortunately this is not the case. In pseudoscience
> nothing is ever laid to rest by a sound refutation. Just
> doesn't happen
>

I don't care whether or not some "pseudoscientist" is
convinced. Evidence stands on it's own, regardless of what
anyone believes about it. People can believe 1+1=3 but that
doesn't make it so. What I want is an investigation that would
provide a LOGICAL answer formulated as objectively as
possible. Whether some joe wants to take it or not is not my
problem. When that is given, I say the mystery is "laid to
rest". I want to know with as great a degree of certainty as
possible: does this thing exist or not?

> Why do you claim, oh, "it has to be proven
> > first before it can be investigated"?
>
> Don't be an ass. No one says this
>

They might not say it, but they sure act like it. You can't
get funding for research unless you manage to get your
evidence BEFOREHAND (which is pretty damn hard even if the
thing DOES exist!)...

>
> But the whole POINT of
> > investigation is to prove whether or not it exists! To me
> > it just seems like laziness. Let's put this to bed, folks!
> > If there is something to it, then that would be great. If
> > not, oh well. But at least the mystery would no longer be
> > a mystery anymore.
> >
> I agree. It would be great if sasquatches were real,
>
> > Has anyone ever looked at all the supposed footprints
> > starting from an unbiased, neutral point of view?
> >
> Yes. See Daegling, David J (2004) Bigfoot exposed : an
> anthropologist examines America's enduring legend Walnut
> Creek, Calif. : AltaMira Press .
> > Has anyone ever set up a big, serious, long-term
> > monitoring program to see if actual video/film footage can
> > be obtained (with *steady*, TRIPODED cameras WATCHING 24/7
> > including thermovision, and not shaky as all get out crap
> > footage, etc.)?
> >
> I believe this has been tried specifically for sasquatches.
> This type of photography - animal triggers camera set up in
> particualar areas - is commonly practised.
>
> Get ahold of Daegling's book. He's a real live working
> physical anthropologist who, incidentally, has some
> trenchant criticisms of Grover Krantz -also a bona fide
> physical anthropologist - who championed Bigfoot later in
> his career.
>

Well, I guess I could give it a try. But I'm more interested
in why it's such a big "career risk" to try and
scientifically, seriously investigate it.

> Rick Wagler

[mike4ty4]

Day Brown wrote:
> mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Well, I guess I could give it a try. But I'm more
> > interested in why it's such a big "career risk" to try and
> > scientifically, seriously investigate it.
>
> I can understand. when I was in school, plate tectonics was
> a crank theory. When I began posting here about ancient
> matriarchies, I was classed as a kook; the premise was that
> none ever exists. The Amazons were entirely mythic. But
> then the Russians began finding Scythian & Sarmatian women
> buried with their weapons, one even with a spear point in
> her pelvis.
>

Really? Plate tectonics as a crank theory? How long ago was
that?

> Not that there are not kooks, or that people have
> exaggerated what they found. Or even lied and created
> hoaxes.
>

Yep. But the fact is, there are also *honest* people out there
that really believe they have seen *something*, and science
should investigate to find out what that is. It seems,
unfortunately, that the scientific community is opposed to
change, even though scientific methodology abhors this and
requires change should it be necessary.

> Regarding Bigfoot; show me some shit. He hasta eat dont he?
> I live in the Ozark woods; I've seen bear shit, coon shit,
> cat shit, deer & rabbit shit, but if I saw a turd like what
> would come out of a Yeti, I'd bring it along to show
> someone.

Hee hee. People have found lots of "interesting" poop, see
www.bfro.com. Tell me what you think.

[Day Brown]

mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Well, I guess I could give it a try. But I'm more interested
> in why it's such a big "career risk" to try and
> scientifically, seriously investigate it.

I can understand. when I was in school, plate tectonics was a
crank theory. When I began posting here about ancient
matriarchies, I was classed as a kook; the premise was that
none ever exists. The Amazons were entirely mythic. But then
the Russians began finding Scythian & Sarmatian women buried
with their weapons, one even with a spear point in her pelvis.

Not that there are not kooks, or that people have exaggerated
what they found. Or even lied and created hoaxes.

Regarding Bigfoot; show me some shit. He hasta eat dont he? I
live in the Ozark woods; I've seen bear shit, coon shit, cat
shit, deer & rabbit shit, but if I saw a turd like what would
come out of a Yeti, I'd bring it along to show someone.

[George]

mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Day Brown wrote:
> > mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Well, I guess I could give it a try. But I'm more
> > > interested in why it's such a big "career risk" to try
> > > and scientifically, seriously investigate it.
> >
> > I can understand. when I was in school, plate tectonics
> > was a crank theory. When I began posting here about
> > ancient matriarchies, I was classed as a kook; the premise
> > was that none ever exists. The Amazons were entirely
> > mythic. But then the Russians began finding Scythian &
> > Sarmatian women buried with their weapons, one even with a
> > spear point in her pelvis.
> >
>
> Really? Plate tectonics as a crank theory? How long ago
> was that?
>
> > Not that there are not kooks, or that people have
> > exaggerated what they found. Or even lied and created
> > hoaxes.
> >
>
> Yep. But the fact is, there are also *honest* people out
> there that really believe they have seen *something*, and
> science should investigate to find out what that is. It
> seems, unfortunately, that the scientific community is
> opposed to change, even though scientific methodology abhors
> this and requires change should it be necessary.

Not at all. I'd remind you of the 'extinct' fish and the
'extinct' tree rediscovered by science . Science is always
rechecking itself. Show me where, even one example, where the
bible or Koran have been revised to accept modern scientific
discoveries !!

>
> > Regarding Bigfoot; show me some shit. He hasta eat dont
> > he? I live in the Ozark woods; I've seen bear shit, coon
> > shit, cat shit, deer & rabbit shit, but if I saw a turd
> > like what would come out of a Yeti, I'd bring it along to
> > show someone.
>
> Hee hee. People have found lots of "interesting" poop, see
> www.bfro.com. Tell me what you think.

So. Finally indigestable shit comes prepacked.

:-)

[El Rajo]

mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Day Brown wrote:
> > mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Well, I guess I could give it a try. But I'm more
> > > interested in why it's such a big "career risk" to try
> > > and scientifically, seriously investigate it.
> >
> > I can understand. when I was in school, plate tectonics
> > was a crank theory. When I began posting here about
> > ancient matriarchies, I was classed as a kook; the premise
> > was that none ever exists. The Amazons were entirely
> > mythic. But then the Russians began finding Scythian &
> > Sarmatian women buried with their weapons, one even with a
> > spear point in her pelvis.
> >
>
> Really? Plate tectonics as a crank theory? How long ago
> was that?
>
> > Not that there are not kooks, or that people have
> > exaggerated what they found. Or even lied and created
> > hoaxes.
> >
>
> Yep. But the fact is, there are also *honest* people out
> there that really believe they have seen *something*, and
> science should investigate to find out what that is.

But here is a problem. You say that "science" should
investigate as if "science" were a person or a corporate
entity. All that the term "science" refers to is a method of
obtaining a proving knowledge. There is no entity called
science. You are also making a normative statement there by
saying that this imaginary corporate entity "should"
investigate. Not only is there no entity called "science" but
to say that this thing should investigate suggests some moral
imperitive to solve a riddle that nobody is apparently very
concerned about other than you. Why should any person or
corporate body expend time, energy and money to investigate
something that they have no concern about. If you are
convinced that these creatures exist and feel that "something
should be done" or that "somebody should do something about
this" then obviously you are the person who "should" do it.
You are the source of the concern so you "should" be the
source of the expenditure. Why "should" it be anybody else's
responsibility??

It seems, unfortunately, that the scientific
> community is opposed to change,

This is not true. The "scientific community" as you call it
(yet another unidentified corporate body) is not "opposed" to
change at all. However it does resist radical changes of all
kinds unless there is concrete proof that change is
necessary. Peer review and other such mechanisms ensure that
new ideas have a place to be heard and at the same time are
reviewed critically to ensure that such ideas are well
thought out and not easily disproven. If you have proof,
there are any number of periodicals that you could write to
and present with your arguments and evidence. It's a great
system that has ensured that scientific truths are based on
facts and postive evidence.

even though scientific methodology abhors this and
> requires change should it be necessary.

Scientific methodology doesn't abhor anything. Methodologies
do not have emotoions since they are not biological organisms.
You are anthropomorphizing to an amazing degree here.

>
> > Regarding Bigfoot; show me some shit. He hasta eat dont
> > he? I live in the Ozark woods; I've seen bear shit, coon
> > shit, cat shit, deer & rabbit shit, but if I saw a turd
> > like what would come out of a Yeti, I'd bring it along to
> > show someone.
>
> Hee hee. People have found lots of "interesting" poop, see
> www.bfro.com. Tell me what you think.

[Rick Wagle]

<mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153195638.981383.139940@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rick Wagler wrote:

>> Unfortunately this is not the case. In pseudoscience
>> nothing is ever laid to rest by a sound refutation. Just
>> doesn't happen
>>
>
> I don't care whether or not some "pseudoscientist" is
> convinced. Evidence stands on it's own, regardless of what
> anyone believes about it. People can believe 1+1=3 but that
> doesn't make it so. What I want is an investigation that
> would provide a LOGICAL answer formulated as objectively as
> possible. Whether some joe wants to take it or not is not my
> problem. When that is given, I say the mystery is "laid to
> rest". I want to know with as great a degree of certainty as
> possible: does this thing exist or not?
>
We can, IMHO, say with a great deal of certainty that this
thing does not exist. The problem with bigfoot 'evidence' is
that it goes absolutely nowhere. We still have the same
problematic footprints which, suspiciously, are always found
in and around roads, construction sites and other easily
accessible areas. We simply do not hear of someone coming out
of the back country with tales of large hominoid apes.
Secondly the evidence coming out of areas that could
conceivably support a gigantic unknown animal - BC and the
mountain states is no better than tales coming out of New
Jersey etc etc. Thirdly absolutely thousands of people who are
committed to knowing what is happening out in the woods -
biologists, park and forest rangers - have come up with no
evidence to support Bigfoot. If these tracks were genuine this
animal would be tracked down and confirmed. Its very big and
lives in close proximity to humans.

>> Why do you claim, oh, "it has to be proven
>> > first before it can be investigated"?
>>
>> Don't be an ass. No one says this
>>
>
> They might not say it, but they sure act like it. You can't
> get funding for research unless you manage to get your
> evidence BEFOREHAND (which is pretty damn hard even if the
> thing DOES exist!)...
>
Excuse me but why do you think Bigfoot is an issue which
demands a major investigation? Because you think the evidence
is compelling. Serious scientists, if they agreed with your
assessment, would undertake the investigation you seek. But
they haven't. Draw your own conclusion.

> Well, I guess I could give it a try. But I'm more interested
> in why it's such a big "career risk" to try and
> scientifically, seriously investigate it.
>
It's not. Grover Krantz did not lose his position.His
reputation certainly took a hit but that's fair. And contrary
to what you seem to think a wildlife biologist studying
nuthatches who came across compelling evidence of a large
hominoid ape would move heaven and earth to confirm it and, as
a professional biologist, would have the means to do it. But
no one has.

As I said before it would be great if sasquatches were
real. I got into this stuff reasonably seriously back in
the '70s, but, at some point things have to go somewhere
whcih they never do.

Rick Wagler

[Day Brown]

mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Day Brown wrote:
>
>>mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>Well, I guess I could give it a try. But I'm more
>>>interested in why it's such a big "career risk" to try and
>>>scientifically, seriously investigate it.
>>
>>I can understand. when I was in school, plate tectonics was
>>a crank theory. When I began posting here about ancient
>>matriarchies, I was classed as a kook; the premise was that
>>none ever exists. The Amazons were entirely mythic. But
>>then the Russians began finding Scythian & Sarmatian women
>>buried with their weapons, one even with a spear point in
>>her pelvis.

> Really? Plate tectonics as a crank theory? How long ago
> was that?
1950's. Its a damn moot point when the "scientific community"
should look at the trees and conclude there is a forest.

Without reliance on morality, I guess what works is what wins.

[Spiznet]

So this guy looked his whole life and couldn't find any
Bigfeet! I think I will take that as a big "nope", just like
this AAT nonsense about the flipper feet and the backfins and
the elephantine Neandertal noses, hey... do you think they
will find these noses in the DNA???

Jois wrote:
> "Rick Wagler" <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:aC_tg.191878$IK3.162949@pd7tw1no...
> >
> > "Jois" <firstjois@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:QJCdnTuBT4o8aivZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > > There was one serious academic type who studied Bigfoot
> > > in a serious way but I believe he has died within the
> > > past 3 years. I can't think of his
> name
> > > right now but this probably isn't a paleo topic anyway.
> > >
> > > Jois
> > >
> > Grover Krantz who was at a university in the northwest US
> >
> > Rick Wagler
> >
> Thank you! I looked but couldn't find his name.
>
> Jois

[Jois]

"Rick Wagler" <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:aC_tg.191878$IK3.162949@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Jois" <firstjois@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:QJCdnTuBT4o8aivZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > There was one serious academic type who studied Bigfoot in
> > a serious way but I believe he has died within the past 3
> > years. I can't think of his
name
> > right now but this probably isn't a paleo topic anyway.
> >
> > Jois
> >
> Grover Krantz who was at a university in the northwest US
>
> Rick Wagler
>
Thank you! I looked but couldn't find his name.

Jois

[Jois]

"spiznet" <mark@spiznet.com> wrote in message
news:1153712331.004948.319660@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> So this guy looked his whole life and couldn't find any
> Bigfeet! I think I will take that as a big "nope", just like
> this AAT nonsense about the flipper feet and the backfins
> and the elephantine Neandertal noses, hey... do you think
> they will find these noses in the DNA???
>
One can only hope!

Jois