Merged Bigfoot follies

[LAL]

Dian Fossey? (Sorry, anthropology is not really my ‘thang.) She did get a PhD (not sure in what, it might have been in Occupational Therapy.)

She started in pre-vet and switched to OT. No advanced degrees that I know of.
Since there are no degrees offered, to my knowlege, in hominidology (there's no such field), where was Green supposed to go to get his training? He was a pioneer, and one of the very few people to invest his time and money in actually checking this out. He also did his best to get credentialled people interested, and still does.

I'm reminded of an IDer claiming Richard Leakey didn't deserve his honorary degrees because he dropped out of high school. His parents were pioneers in paleoanthropology and he learned to excavate at his mother's knee. No school of the time could have given him training like that.

I really do hate this “I studied a phenomena for X many years and that automatically makes me an expert just -cuz.” Getting real credentials doesn’t teach anyone about a subject, it teaches people how to do real research as apposed to crackpot research.

And Krantz had the real degrees, and called in other experts and even consulted Dr. Tim White of Berkeley. He did field research. He had his full duties at Washington State, so this could only be a sideline, as it is with Dr. Meldrum, who also does field research. He wasn't world famous, like Dr. Swindler is, but he was a respected anthropologist.

Fossey and Goodall did real field work, lots of it. They got degrees and wrote papers. I’m much more impressed with these people than someone who just had an interest, wrote a book and now thinks he or she is the end all of the subject. The hoops you have to jump through to get academic standing are there for a purpose and when people short circuit them they don’t do themselves any favors.

Krantz' field work wasn't real? He wrote his book after extensive study and after having at least one paper on this accepted by the American Association of Anthropologists. Do you think he risked his career just to write a book? He was one of the scientists leading the fight for the right to study Kennewick Man. If he was such a crackpot, how come they won? He didn't short circuit anything. If mainstream journals won't publish articles such as this

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/dermal.html

what was he supposed to do. He published in Cryptozoology, was was peer-reviewed, just not by those stodgy grant seeking scientists we discussed earlier.
Dr. David Daegling wrote a book too. Evidently he just had an interest, wrote a book and now thinks he or she is the end all of the subject. Or is that okay since he's a sceptic?

(Big heavy sigh)

(Ditto)

That’s not how it works. You can never completely falsify the hoax hypothesis. Even if Pattie the Bigfoot is interviewed on Larry King -- tells him that she was the one in the film, there will still be some possibility that it was a guy in a suit. It’s almost impossible to prove or disprove anything from a piece of video.

Nor can you absolutely prove anything in science. There's always the possibility of that little piece of new evidence that can topple accepted thinking. That happens a lot in paleoanthropology.

Strange, many people believe Bob Heironimus when he says he's the man in the suit. I don't know if he was on Larry King Live, but he sure made the news. (The fact that he's changed his story several times didn't.) Even arch-sceptic Dennett didn't swallow it all.

Much has been proved and disproved from that film.
Despite the mockery about the computer graphic skeleton, it is clearly not human. The knee shows a rotating motion and the gait may be slightly compromised from the rupture on the thigh.
And then there's the IM index.

(I hate to bring this up again but,) People disbelieve the Apollo landings and they have thousands of feet of high quality movies-- and just about any media available at the time. Plus physical evidence, plus eye witness testimony from tens of thousands of people involved, plus hardware. You can’t tell me that I’m being too skeptical because I reserve judgment over a smidgen of blurry film.

And some people believe in psychic phenomena, O.J.'s innocence, Michael Behe and the Loch Ness monster.
I care about what the evidence shows.
If you can, beg, borrow or steal (or even buy) LMS. The film not only is on the show, it's in the extras. I've seen it on an excellent screen and the movement is as fluid as my cat's. It's really not that blurry.

I remember that BBC piece and I don’t believe they attempted to duplicate the P/G film, they simply used similar equipment and made a known “fake” to be used as a baseline. Besides, that was not a scientific attempt to do anything except get viewers to watch, I never understood why this is dangled out from time to time as evidence to prove the P/G film was real. It doesn’t really prove anything.

I didn't see it, but it sounds like Packham was out to debunk it.

"The production money from the BBC was given to Packham and Appleby based on Packham's script, which confidentally proclaims success in recreating the hoax. The script was written a long time before they actually tried to make a matching costume. Packham and Appleby assured BBC executives they could easily do it. There was no concern about them failing.

The script was approved and locked down by the BBC long before it was obvious that they couldn't make a matching costume. When the show was delivered to the BBC, the matching costume element couldn't be cut out, because it's the crux of the debunking argument. All Packham and Appleby could do at that stage is try to emphasize other lesser important conjecture, and distort peripheral facts to make some kind of circumstantial case for a hoax."

It proves making a convincing Sasquatch suit isn't a piece of cake.

One thing they (I believe) pointed out is how close Patterson actually was to his subject, like about one hundred feet away, almost close enough to spit on it.

Step off 100 feet and see how far you can spit.

That part alone makes me wonder about the veracity of that piece of evidence. Not to mention the strange lack of investigation of basic stuff like how tall was the figure etc.

That was all investigated. It always is. Best estimates are 6'5"-7'. Green did a recreation a year later before the area changed and had a 6'5" friend walk the same route. The overlay can be seen on LMS.
Was that Patterson's estimate or actual measurement?

No; the whole thing is skewed. You really want to prove Bigfoot is a real animal not prove skeptics don’t understand what you are talking about.

I don't have to prove sceptics don't understand what I'm talking about. Most do a good job of that without any help from me.
There are people investing time and money and showing there really is an unidentified species in North America. The evidence is really overwhelming if you consider it all and not just a piece here and there. I'm doing my best to present it.

 

[LAL]

I have never seen a "good" copy of this film. Since the late 60's all I've seen are blurry, grainy, jumpy, out-of-focus versions of this film. If the "good" version is so convincing, why do the Woos insist on hiding it?

My understanding is that the original was lost, but there are several good second generation copies. The film was tied up in copyright problems for years.
The best I've seen is on LMS. It's jumpy because Patterson was running. The horses were spooked and Gimlin was trying to control them. If the camera had been on a tripod and in perfect focus, I'd be suspicious.
Please drop the derogatory term. No one's hiding anything.

"How Not to Plan a Hoaxed Filming
By Roger Knights

There are many obviously objectionable points associated with the Patterson/Gimlin film. Some skeptics have seized on these as handy sticks with which to pummel it. But one could turn their case on its head and argue the opposite: that even rudimentary planning would have eliminated such predictably problematic stuff. To wit:

“Red-flag” behavior by Patterson, Gimlin, or “Patty”;
Bells & whistles—these are costly & troublesome. (Keep It Simple, Stupid.)
Thus, the very fact that so many easy-to-foresee red flags and unnecessary complications were involved implies a lack of foresight, which implies a lack of planning, which implies the absence of a commercially motivated hoax.

Suppose you’re planning how NOT to film a successful Bigfoot hoax. You’d be well advised to incorporate these red-flags and risky/costly bells-and-whistles:

Don’t buy the camera you use. (Although it’ll become a valuable artifact.)
Allow the rental period on the camera to be exceeded, and be jailed for not returning it on time. (That’ll add to your credibility!)
Use a better-than necessary (16 mm) camera that reveals objectionable details, like uniform hair length, too long-foot length, etc. [Thanks to Bigfoot Forums (BFF) member “Toe Toe.”]
Ask along a second witness, greatly complicating things (if he is unwitting), or adding to the expense (if he is “witting”).
Ask along two third witnesses (ditto). (Track Record #35, p. 4, and #97, p. 2.)
Boast that you’re going to film a Bigfoot, making your encounter seem non-accidental.
Use horses. (They complicate the story, could fail to rear, and add expense.) [Thanks to BFF member “HarryHenderson”]
Have the two witnesses disagree on many details, such as the creature’s smell, stride, and height, and whether or not Patterson’s horse fell on him, or he slid off it (according to Gimlin). (See Barbara Wasson’s Sasquatch Apparitions, p. 68.) “Let’s get our stories straight”— someone amongst every group of plotters utters that classic line, both in countless popular thrillers, and in the real world. Virtually all commercially motivated plotters rehearse. But not P or G—so perhaps they plotted nothing. (Note—the differences in P & G’s stories were not forced out of them cross-examined separately, which is the way suspicious contradictions emerge in the tales of conspirators, but popped up the first times they were asked merely to tell their stories by interviewers (e.g., on radio interviews together). Nor were they about minor aspects of the tale they hadn’t anticipated being asked about, but were about its central aspects.)
Estimate the creature’s weight at half of what would be a reasonable guess, and a few years later revise your estimate, causing skeptics to accuse you of unreliability.
Don’t photograph a human or stick to provide scaling. (Doubt is the result.)
Stage the event at a site with the reassuring name of Bluff Creek.
Film in a location near a road, where someone might stumble on the crew.
Film in an awkward, out-of-the-way part of the country, and hang around the site for over two weeks before the shot—a waste of resources and time.
Include characteristics in the suit that scientists are sure to object to, such as:
Features not encountered among female apes, such as a sagittal crest, large hairy breasts, a bulky, heavily muscled torso, and a bold, dominating stride.
A human-like stride, not the “lumbering” gait friendly scientists expected, and not different at first glance from the walk of an actor in an ape-suit.
A foot length that doesn’t agree with the length of stride for a human.
No strong directional grain to the hair and little irregularity in hair-length.
A light-colored foot-sole, wrapping slightly up around the edges of the foot.
A rear-projecting heel.
An unlikely, half-human face, like nothing in art or nature.
Any type of face. (Showing it would only raise objections, and in any event would be difficult to make realistic. [Thanks to BFF member “Cochise” for the last point.])
Fail to contact scientists who believe in hominids, like Boris Porshnev.
Add oddities like a hernia on the thigh and a large skin tag (or tumor) on the breast.
Claim a Friday filming, making it impossible to process the film over the weekend.
Claim to have done so anyway.
Be penny-wise and have the film developed by an unnamable moonlighting camera-shop employee. (Although a “clear chain of custody” is a must.)
Show the film on Sunday, an almost-impossibly short time-line, despite the lack of any need for a speedy showing.
Show the original print repeatedly to visiting BF buffs, so it will get scratched and scuffed, instead of making viewing copies of the film immediately.
Put the priceless film in the mail, instead of hand-carrying it to a developer.
Don’t invite the press to the dramatic first showing, or to the film’s processing.
Forget the filming speed. (Another gold star on your credibility score-sheet.)
Lose the original copy of the first reel, and also all copies of the second reel."

http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/how_not_to_plan.html

 

[Red Siegfried]

My understanding is that the original was lost, but there are several good second generation copies. The film was tied up in copyright problems for years.
The best I've seen is on LMS. It's jumpy because Patterson was running. The horses were spooked and Gimlin was trying to control them. If the camera had been on a tripod and in perfect focus, I'd be suspicious.
Please drop the derogatory term. No one's hiding anything.

Agreed, LAL. Although I think we disagree quite a bit here, I agree that no one is really trying to hide anything. Evidence for that? Don't have any, that's just the impression I get from what I've studied about this.

 

[LAL]

Agreed, LAL. Although I think we disagree quite a bit here, I agree that no one is really trying to hide anything. Evidence for that? Don't have any, that's just the impression I get from what I've studied about this.

Will wonders never cease? I'm glad we agree on something.

There's been another sighting near Norway House, Manitoba, and tracks photographed (they're online). Seems no one is following up besides the Cree.
Can't CSICOP at least send Michael Dennett?

 

[The Odd Emperor]

Krantz' field work wasn't real? He wrote his book after extensive study and after having at least one paper on this accepted by the American Association of Anthropologists. Do you think he risked his career just to write a book? He was one of the scientists leading the fight for the right to study Kennewick Man. If he was such a crackpot, how come they won? He didn't short circuit anything. If mainstream journals won't publish articles such as this
[/B]

I wasn’t really calling anyone in the Bigfoot Biz a crackpot- just lamenting the method in general. If someone got a paper published in the AAA Journal than I’d call it a step in the right direction. Many self styled experts don’t bother to even try.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/dermal.html

what was he supposed to do. He published in Cryptozoology, was was peer-reviewed, just not by those stodgy grant seeking scientists we discussed earlier.
Dr. David Daegling wrote a book too. Evidently he just had an interest, wrote a book and now thinks he or she is the end all of the subject. Or is that okay since he's a sceptic?
[/B]

No it’s not OK, I never suggested that it was.

Nor can you absolutely prove anything in science. There's always the possibility of that little piece of new evidence that can topple accepted thinking. That happens a lot in paleoanthropology.
[/B]

Of course this is true—part of the beauty of science. You can always change your mind based on a preponderance of evidence.

Strange, many people believe Bob Heironimus when he says he's the man in the suit. I don't know if he was on Larry King Live, but he sure made the news. (The fact that he's changed his story several times didn't.) Even arch-sceptic Dennett didn't swallow it all.
[/B]

I don’t necessarily believe or disbelieve Bob Heironimus. It’s an interesting story and inevitable if the P/G film is a hoax. In all probability the fellow is lying for. If the film were of a real BF he’s undoubtedly not one of those. If the film is a hoax it doesn’t necessarily follow that he’s the fellow in the suit. He might have heard the story long ago and appropriated it. He might have just made the whole thing up. Proving the P/G is a hoax is as difficult as proving it real (IMO.) I don’t know what would be compelling to me, the suit itself (complete with water bags etc) in some abandoned storage unit?

BTW, love the term “Arch-Skeptic.” I need to start working on plans for an arch-skeptic convention. They can all sit around with snifters of brandy -- twirl their mustaches.

Much has been proved and disproved from that film.
Despite the mockery about the computer graphic skeleton, it is clearly not human.
[/B]

(snip)

I can’t be so positive. It would take me years of study, a complete re-tool of my expertise set. A boatload of practical experience (animatronics animal design say.) or a real degree in some Bio or Anthro sub strata before I could make such an absolute statement. But than again I’m comfortable with the idea that I can’t know for sure, until Patti the Bigfoot is interviewed on Larry King.

I didn't see it, but it sounds like Packham was out to debunk it.

"The production money from the BBC was given to Packham and Appleby based on Packham's script, which confidentally proclaims success in recreating the hoax. The script was written a long time before they actually tried to make a matching costume. Packham and Appleby assured BBC executives they could easily do it. There was no concern about them failing.

The script was approved and locked down by the BBC long before it was obvious that they couldn't make a matching costume. When the show was delivered to the BBC, the matching costume element couldn't be cut out, because it's the crux of the debunking argument. All Packham and Appleby could do at that stage is try to emphasize other lesser important conjecture, and distort peripheral facts to make some kind of circumstantial case for a hoax."

It proves making a convincing Sasquatch suit isn't a piece of cake.
[/B]

No I don’t agree. Making a successful Sasquatch suit is quite easy. Taking some bogus footage is somewhat more difficult. Getting people to believe it’s genuine? *Very* easy.
Duplicating the P/G film? Almost impossible.

Step off 100 feet and see how far you can spit.

[/B]

If I have a following wind?

That was all investigated. It always is. Best estimates are 6'5"-7'. Green did a recreation a year later before the area changed and had a 6'5" friend walk the same route. The overlay can be seen on LMS.
Was that Patterson's estimate or actual measurement?

Seen it, I can't tell from the photographs where the figure was standing in relation to the fellow with the yard-stick. I see the conclusions but I don’t really see the connection. But 6-5 to SEVEN FEET? That’s the difference between a fairly tall man and a freakishly tall one. If the creature was truly about one hundred feet away they should have (one would think) gotten that estimate down to a few inches.

Didn’t P/G have still camera’s with them (I think I read that somewhere.) They could not even have one of the other stand on the figure’s track, take a photo from where Patterson was filming the creature and draw a baseline from that?

I don't have to prove sceptics don't understand what I'm talking about. Most do a good job of that without any help from me.

Heh! Some of them understand exactly what you are talking about, they simply don’t agree with you--not quite the same thing.

There are people investing time and money and showing there really is an unidentified species in North America. The evidence is really overwhelming if you consider it all and not just a piece here and there. I'm doing my best to present it. [/B]

I appreciate that.
I don’t think the evidence is exactly overwhelming, interesting yes but I still have problems making a judgment based on the enthusiasm of others. I prefer to wait for that really excellent series of videos or photographs, or a specimen. If Bigfoot is a real creature these things are inevitable.

 

[LTC8K6]

LAL, the resort to the personal attack is very revealing....

So left me get this straight:
When legitimate scientists investigate and reach conclusions you don't like, you think they've lost their objectivity. Rather than investigate anything they say you're not going to read anything more by them.

I've offered expert opinion on the authenticity of some of the evidence and you drag in Billy Meier. I hope you're not this close-minded in other areas of your life.

I haven't seen a worthwhile contribution from you yet, so if you're done here, I won't be missing much. Saves me the trouble of putting you on ignore, in fact.

Come back when you can successfully debunk the best evidence, or when you've finished high school, whichever comes soonest.

It's called skepticism. Get used to it if you plan to hang around here long.

I'll still be here waiting patiently when bigfoot believers have something new to show me. Maybe they will finally get some actual evidence next time.....

Maybe bigfoot will trip and fall face first into a mud wallow next time. The Fuquay-Varina cast!!!

 

[LAL]

LAL, the resort to the personal attack is very revealing....



It's called skepticism. Get used to it if you plan to hang around here long.

I'll still be here waiting patiently when bigfoot believers have something new to show me. Maybe they will finally get some actual evidence next time.....

Maybe bigfoot will trip and fall face first into a mud wallow next time. The Fuquay-Varina cast!!!

Suggesting I'm being obtuse was a personal attack, IMO. I'm still wiping off the virtual spitballs.

Sorry, son, but you started it.
I'm very used to it and have yet to see convincing arguments from the sceptics' side, although there are some interesting points made by sceptics which are worthy of discussion.

There's plenty of sophmoric humor, though. Perhaps that's why I took you for a sophmore.

 

[LTC8K6]

There's plenty of sophmoric humor, though. Perhaps that's why I took you for a sophmore.

I learned to spell sophomore long before I graduated from high school.

 

[LAL]

I learned to spell sophomore long before I graduated from high school.

Evidently I didn't.

 

[LAL]

I wasn’t really calling anyone in the Bigfoot Biz a crackpot- just lamenting the method in general. If someone got a paper published in the AAA Journal than I’d call it a step in the right direction. Many self styled experts don’t bother to even try.

Dr. Meldrum has had two abstracts accepted by the American Ass'n of Physical Anthropologists with "very good dialogue". Also the Northwest Anthropological Conference, the Idaho Academy of Science, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Pacific Division). He's working on manuscripts for publication as well.

No it’s not OK, I never suggested that it was.

Daegling's use of Cliff Crook, who is a self-styled "expert" of the worst order, was enough for me.

Of course this is true—part of the beauty of science. You can always change your mind based on a preponderance of evidence.

Yep. Science is self-correcting.

I don’t necessarily believe or disbelieve Bob Heironimus. It’s an interesting story and inevitable if the P/G film is a hoax. In all probability the fellow is lying for. If the film were of a real BF he’s undoubtedly not one of those. If the film is a hoax it doesn’t necessarily follow that he’s the fellow in the suit. He might have heard the story long ago and appropriated it. He might have just made the whole thing up. Proving the P/G is a hoax is as difficult as proving it real (IMO.) I don’t know what would be compelling to me, the suit itself (complete with water bags etc) in some abandoned storage unit?

One of Heirinimus' suggestions was sandbags. He seems to be making it up as he goes along.

BTW, love the term “Arch-Skeptic.” I need to start working on plans for an arch-skeptic convention. They can all sit around with snifters of brandy -- twirl their mustaches.

(snip)

I can’t be so positive. It would take me years of study, a complete re-tool of my expertise set. A boatload of practical experience (animatronics animal design say.) or a real degree in some Bio or Anthro sub strata before I could make such an absolute statement. But than again I’m comfortable with the idea that I can’t know for sure, until Patti the Bigfoot is interviewed on Larry King.

I think she's dead. Estimated lifespan is about forty years and she was obviously mature in 1967.
I'm comfortable with letting the experts do all that work.

I'm familiar enough with human skeletons to spot the obvious differences immediately. I do quibble about the skull - I don't see the sagittal crest. The animator left that out, possibly because some think the peak may be hair.

No I don’t agree. Making a successful Sasquatch suit is quite easy.

I don't agree. The shoulder joints on "Patty" are a foot farther apart than on a man of comparable size, the IM index is between human and ape, and somehow a prosthetic device would have to be used to get the proper arm length and still have the fingers move. And then there are the legs, with muscle movement and visible tendons.

Taking some bogus footage is somewhat more difficult. Getting people to believe it’s genuine? *Very* easy.
Duplicating the P/G film? Almost impossible.

I agree with that last statement.

See the rent-a-suit below:

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, that outfit is not even close to being as good looking as the possible creature in the p/g film.

It could fool a lot of people though. In the distance with a not too clear shot or video.....

 

[Hitch]

I think she's dead. Estimated lifespan is about forty years and she was obviously mature in 1967.

And what, praytell, was that estimate based on? How do you estimate the lifespan of an unknown species?

Am I alone in feeling we are firmly in the realm of Woo?

 

[Cleon]

And what, praytell, was that estimate based on? How do you estimate the lifespan of an unknown species?

Or maturity, for that matter.

I think it's things like this that make it difficult for skeptics to take Bigfoot seriously. You want to provide evidence of an unknown primate, great, but when that evidence is provided along with a bunch of ridiculous suppositions (lifespan, diet, evolutionary heritage, etc), it's difficult to take the evidence seriously--even if the evidence is valid!. It's a bit like publishing an article positing the existence of a new subatomic particle and hypothesizing that it's the basis of psychic powers. With that kind of thing coming out of left field, nobody's going to take your evidence seriously. If you're going to approach something scientifically, you have to be clinical about it, and chalk unknowns up to unknowns.

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

I think she's dead. Estimated lifespan is about forty years and she was obviously mature in 1967.
I'm comfortable with letting the experts do all that work.

LAL, serious question.

Do you believe with the amount of evidence for and against Bigfoot today, that the Sasquatch should be added to the list of known species, incorporating such facts as the approximate 40-year lifespan, etc?

 

[LTC8K6]

A scientist should not believe in bigfoot. That's what I mean.

All of these degree holding folks quoted throughout this thread should not believe in bigfoot, yet they give every appearance of accepting bigfoot as fact, when they haven't got anywhere near enough solid evidence.

They talk as if bigfoot is accepted fact, and they spread this idea to others.

When a supposedly objective scientist all but tells me that bigfoot is real, all I can do is wonder where his objectivity went.

It's perfectly fine for a scientist to write sceptically of bigfoot.

There is no double standard here.

A scientist should be sceptical of bigfoot.

 

[Cleon]

A scientist should not believe in bigfoot. That's what I mean.

All of these degree holding folks quoted throughout this thread should not believe in bigfoot, yet they give every appearance of accepting bigfoot as fact, when they haven't got anywhere near enough solid evidence.

They talk as if bigfoot is accepted fact, and they spread this idea to others.

When a supposedly objective scientist all but tells me that bigfoot is real, all I can do is wonder where his objectivity went.

It's perfectly fine for a scientist to write sceptically of bigfoot.

There is no double standard here.

A scientist should be sceptical of bigfoot.

Double-standard, no. At least not by definition.

But this is circular logic.

If a scientist examines the evidence and comes to the conclusion Bigfoot is real, you conclude he's lost his objectivity and thus his opinion is invalid. You base your opinion of his "objectivity" based on the conclusion, not based on his methodology.

In short, you'll only listen to scientists who share your opinion. Anyone else has "lost their objectivity." It's ok for a scientist to write skeptically of Bigfoot, but not for them to write in support (no matter how cautiouis) of the idea.

To be quite frank, if Randi operated like this, he'd have to go back to doing magic shows. Show the flaws in their methodology if you like, show how they made mistakes or deluded themselves, but don't dismiss them outright because they came to a different conclusion than you did. Arguably, they're in a better position to evaluate the evidence.

(This is why appeals to authority are typically a bad idea.)

 

[LTC8K6]

If a scientist examines the evidence and comes to the conclusion Bigfoot is real

That would be fine with me.

That will certainly happen if some evidence ever shows up.

 

[LAL]

I've given you the names of several well-respected scientists who have reached the conclusion they're a real animal based on the evidence.

The lifespan is a good guess based on the lifespans of other great apes.
Does the Patterson creature look like a juvenile?

 

[LAL]

Double-standard, no. At least not by definition.

But this is circular logic.

If a scientist examines the evidence and comes to the conclusion Bigfoot is real, you conclude he's lost his objectivity and thus his opinion is invalid. You base your opinion of his "objectivity" based on the conclusion, not based on his methodology.

In short, you'll only listen to scientists who share your opinion. Anyone else has "lost their objectivity." It's ok for a scientist to write skeptically of Bigfoot, but not for them to write in support (no matter how cautiouis) of the idea.

To be quite frank, if Randi operated like this, he'd have to go back to doing magic shows. Show the flaws in their methodology if you like, show how they made mistakes or deluded themselves, but don't dismiss them outright because they came to a different conclusion than you did. Arguably, they're in a better position to evaluate the evidence.

(This is why appeals to authority are typically a bad idea.)

(does little Snoopy dance)

 

[LAL]

LAL, serious question.

Do you believe with the amount of evidence for and against Bigfoot today, that the Sasquatch should be added to the list of known species, incorporating such facts as the approximate 40-year lifespan, etc?

Actually, quite a bit of information has been gathered on eating habits from reports and scat. They probably eat what bears eat........... namely, everything.
I've mentioned tracks of the same individual being spotted twenty years apart and the animal was mature the first time.

A new monkey species was recently classified from photos alone, I've read, but there seems to be a bit of balking when the new species is eight feet tall.

I wouldn't want the job of classifying it, or even naming it. Should it be Gigantopithecus krantzii, Australopithecus sandersonii, or even Ardepithecus takethatmichaeldennettii?

I'm willing to wait for a specimen for that, but I think funding ought to be available to help make it a known species with proper observation or even collection. As it is, some fortune hunter's apt to bag one and blow any chance for examination in situ .

What would be evidence against them?