06-19-2008, 10:43 PM
[quote line_dangler][#000000][/#000000]...If this line of logic is continued not even a body or carcass will convince the "skeptical" scientific community, as the late Dr. Grover S. Krantz has said before.
[/quote]
I was thinking about this just last night.. So if they do get some very compelling evidence like some plain as day, not shaking, zoomed in video.. would this be enough to relieve skeptics? Probably not.. "You made a suit" or "Its fake" something like that.. it would seem that there is nothing that can convince, even if they got some tissue dna and it came back confirming "Ok, this is a new species of Ape".... but why is this??
I would think that if someone was visiting the rainforest and they discovered a new, previously undiscovered bird.. you would think that they would get a lot of support from the scientific bird research societies around the globe or even the country.. to research it more and see what it is.
But, when it comes to bigfoot.. if you are a scientist and you believe, or even photograph the species to support the data.. "You're a cook".
I personally think that it is because it is a "legend". Then, all of a sudden if there is proof to backup the legend.. the proof must be wrong because, after all, this is only a legend, it's imaginary...So there is no way there can be proof of a fake imaginary being....
So, I am trying to say that I see both sides of the story.. I can understand why someone wouldn't want to read the evidence because of pre-disposed thinking. "Kooks believe in bigfoot, if I read the evidence and then I start believing in the proof they have provided.. then I'll be a kook too..
side note here:
I am impressed with this thread.. Who would have thought that bigfoot would proceed to a well mannered debate on our beloved fishing forum? It seems like once topics get this involved.. they end up slandering or what not.. No real jabs here.. just teasing pokes.
So, if line_dangler or even fishhound finds a bigfoot.. we'll have to make sure and thank the big, hairy, stinky guy
]
[signature]
[/quote]
I was thinking about this just last night.. So if they do get some very compelling evidence like some plain as day, not shaking, zoomed in video.. would this be enough to relieve skeptics? Probably not.. "You made a suit" or "Its fake" something like that.. it would seem that there is nothing that can convince, even if they got some tissue dna and it came back confirming "Ok, this is a new species of Ape".... but why is this??
I would think that if someone was visiting the rainforest and they discovered a new, previously undiscovered bird.. you would think that they would get a lot of support from the scientific bird research societies around the globe or even the country.. to research it more and see what it is.
But, when it comes to bigfoot.. if you are a scientist and you believe, or even photograph the species to support the data.. "You're a cook".
I personally think that it is because it is a "legend". Then, all of a sudden if there is proof to backup the legend.. the proof must be wrong because, after all, this is only a legend, it's imaginary...So there is no way there can be proof of a fake imaginary being....
So, I am trying to say that I see both sides of the story.. I can understand why someone wouldn't want to read the evidence because of pre-disposed thinking. "Kooks believe in bigfoot, if I read the evidence and then I start believing in the proof they have provided.. then I'll be a kook too..
side note here:
I am impressed with this thread.. Who would have thought that bigfoot would proceed to a well mannered debate on our beloved fishing forum? It seems like once topics get this involved.. they end up slandering or what not.. No real jabs here.. just teasing pokes.
So, if line_dangler or even fishhound finds a bigfoot.. we'll have to make sure and thank the big, hairy, stinky guy![
] [signature]