 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: An open letter |
| From: | |
Raynman
|
posted
Mon, Jun 1 2009, 8:58pm
|
PJ, why is this turned to the "debunkers" as being the bad guys? It has been my scientific experience that good empirical data will not only hold up under methodical scrutiny, but that it is repeatable. While I understand the appeal and calling of fantasy, folklore and legend, they are usually based at least in part upon fact but are also usually a result of embellishment, whether or not intentional.
I would truly be amazed to see a true bigfoot, an unknow hominid, a simian hybrid or new species walk out of the woods or be discovered. It would be such a scientific experience to determine how it fit within the zoological record, but sadly, that is not going to be the case. Cryptids and animals previously believed extinct will continually appear, but they are supported with irrefutable scientific evidence.
If there is such a critter, why is there no irrefutable evidence? Why are all of them obscure, indeterminate, inconclusive? Why, with all of the supposed repetitive encounters with humans, has no conclusive physical evidence been gathered? Why has not one of these people taken a clear, close shot? I can even get a good picture of a friend standing in front of me with a cell phone camera. In a shot like that, they are clearly recognizable. I could show it to anyone who knew that person and 100% of those people would identify the person.
Why is there no fossil record? We have compiled an amazing array of species and evolutionary processes from the fossil record we have discovered, yet not one points to bigfoot. (Gigantopithicus does not count, the carbon date is too old)
Especially with the increase attention in the last twenty years, the hordes of folks out in the wild looking, camera traps, encroaching development, even aerial expeditions, why do we not have one bit of confirmable evidence? Not one clear photo. Not one bit of conclusive evidence, not one captured specimen, not one verifiable fossil? It is because all of the bigfoot sightings have an explanation based in fact, which is not bigfoot but some other plausible, reasonable explanation. This does not mean the people that think they have seen one are crazy or hoaxers or manipulative or deliberately deceitful, it just means their perception was incorrect. Perception is a process of human thought and processing of input data and fallible. That is why eyewitnesses are unreliable in court.
I agree the tone of this site is terrible at times. Teens will be teens, people will be vindictive and mean and a lot of folk that live online don't have the best social skills. However, I don't frequent this site because of bigfoot, rather for the other cryptids. Some extremely insightful input, posting and discussion occurs on this site, but I have pretty much stopped posting over the last year or so because of the tone of many of the discussions.
All that said, we all have our place on this site. While you may not like the "debunkers" arguments as they attack your beliefs, facts are facts. I will be the first to publicly eat unsalted crow and applaud the long-time believers if a true bigfoot is discovered and scientifically supported and presented. Until then, I continue my stance, "show me the evidence". |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
