When it comes to BF, and evidence, the scientific community reminds me of David Spade on the Capital One television commercial. In it he plays the part of someone who decides whether a credit card gets issued to an applicant. David Spade has his feet propped up on his desk and on every application he stamps "Declined". It doesn't matter who the applicant is; they are simply declined every time.

So it seems with evidence and BF. No matter what people bring to the table, whether it be a face-to-face encounter by a reputable person - "Declined", or a footprint - "Declined", or a hair sample - "Declined", or a video clip - "Declined", or an audio clip - "Declined", or a photograph - "Declined. Everything is dismissed by the scientific community.

Frankly, it is my belief that NO evidence will ever convince the scientific community of the existence of BG short of an actual body being brought to a lab and examined.

Ok members of the scientific community, prove me wrong. What evidence, short of an actual body, would convince you that BF exists?


p.s. edited for grammar

"Worms, you may now leave your can."


Lots to chew on in your post, wiiawiwb.

First, there is no "scientific community", per se. There is just the practice of science and that which is supported by it, and that which is not.

If you're looking for the evidenciary standard through which acceptance of a flesh and blood bigfoot is irrefutable, and the creature is catalogued and described, then yes, a body or significant part thereof is needed.

Individual scientists, however, could be swayed with somewhat less than that. For example, let's say somebody turns up a few fossils in the New World and from them describe a new species from the late Pleistocene, Gigantopithecus americanus. In this case, the evidence is enough to describe a new species. We might then surmise that our reconstruction of what this creature may have looked life in life may have inspired "bigfoot" folklore among native peoples. So we'd have good evidence of a bigfoot-like creature in North America, but still dubious evidence that such a creature might be tromping the woods around Lake George in 2008.

Some would say that no photographic evidence could ever convince them, but I could be pretty seriously swayed by the right kind of photographic evidence. Crystal clear images of such a creature actually doing something like eating, spitting, etc. would be very difficult to fake effectively without CGI. So while photography alone couldn't get me to 100%, the right kind of photography could get me most of the way there.

The claims made for DNA and hair analysis might be intriguing, but it sure would be nice to see one of these world reknowned DNA experts publish their amazing new results in Science or Nature . . .

No amount of eyewitness accounts, sound recordings, native folklore, or plaster casts would do it for me, though.

So, to the extent that "mainstream science" accepts the existence of such thing then, yes, a body is needed. Individual scientists, however, probably have their own thresholds of acceptance.

It's an interesting point of view wiiawiwb.

Saskeptic brings in a good example.

In scientific thinking, a mountain of half-evidence does not add up to true evidence. As such, you mention much of the different "evidence" that is currently discussed, but it all (to the best of my knowledge) lacks key components that would make it "quality evidence".

Unfortunately, with footprints, audio, hair and DNA, it all is lacking the key ingredient...what animal left it behind. Any scientist can dismiss those by simply stating that the creature responsible for the footprint, audio, hair or DNA was not observed leaving that evidence behind. Current photographic and videographic "evidence" is still disputed by people all over this forum because it lacks sufficient quality and/or definition.

What it will take is an effort similar to what Jeff Meldrum has tried to do with the PG film and the footprint casts in trying to match the video evidence with the footprint casts. Unfortunately, he's working with materials that are 40 years old. However, he is very much on the right track.

In my opinion, good evidence would include clear photographic or videographic evidence of a creature supported by audio, hair, DNA and footprints for that same creature. Presenting all of that would go a long ways towards convincing the scientific community. If one could get multiple camera angles, multiple hair and DNA samples and multiple footprints from multiple animals in different locations, that would virtually seal the deal.

wiiawiwb, you probably shouldn't hold it against the scientific community. It is rather hard to accept from a common sense perspective that a huge bipedal primate may have managed to escape their perception. In the scientific world today it can be proven to a very large number of scientists if only there were one single sample of good DNA. They may want to dismiss a sample of DNA as a reflex to what seems reasonable to them but the results would speak for themselves. They can see all the other evidence as likely indicating another hominid but without DNA or other proof, how could they do more than say that perhaps it is possible.

Two well known bigfoot researchers, who also happened to be scientists, have written about what's required to establish the scientific reality of bigfoot.

"I should reiterate my acknowledgment that the conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species." -- Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, page 273

"Science requires solid evidence for the existence of a new species -- footprints and sightings by local people are never enough. A "type specimen" must be obtained, which is then described in a scientific journal and continues to be available for other experts to examine." -- Dr. Grover Krantz, Big Footprints, page 3

Krantz identified the stages involved in getting an unknown animal accepted by science:

"Stage 1 : Local residents describe the animal, occasionally outsiders do so too; sometimes other evidence is found, like footprints, feces, or nests. At this stage it may be described as "cryptozoological."

Stage 2: Skeletal material is brought to the attention of scientists, usually a skull and sometimes more; other material like a skin might also be recovered. At this point the animal is studied, classified, and becomes a scientific reality.

Stage 3: A complete body is recovered, maybe several, for more detailed anatomical studies and comparisons.

Stage 4: The first live specimen is captured.

Stage 5: The species is studied in its native habitat to learn (among other things) if it is endangered and, if so, what might be done to assist its survival.

...Sasquatch is presently at Stage 1 of this sequence, thus it is cryptozoological and not a scientific reality." -- Dr. Grover Krantz, Big Footprints, page 8.

Whether we like it or not, science isn't about to cut corners, and unless the evidence progresses beyond Stage 1, bigfoot will never make that leap from a cryptozoological mystery to a scientific reality.

RayG

So lets say someone finds a body. Where would you take it to make sure it was documented and not covered up by parties unknown?

Theres this new stellar,state-of-the-art group headed by military and LE experts near Atlanta Ga. They will fly in experts, have huge cryogenic facilities and...........,

I try to be careful about using absolute words such as everything or never, etc.

It's not true that EVERYTHING is dismissed. RayG's response is excellent in that it provides examples of two scientists who do not dismiss everything yet also acknowledge that there are scientific methods and protocols that must be adhered to.

I do understand that it can seem frustrating that more scientists do not place a greater emphasis on evidence collected by BF researchers or make funding BF research a priority. But I'll bet the BF research community has piqued the curiosity of more scientists than might be willing to admit it publicly.

Fair question- deserves a detailed answer. By your standards ( excluding a body or physical parts of said body) and in layman's English ( no scientific gobbeldygook)

First, lets define evidence- evidence is nothing more than something that gives an indication of something. ( global definition there) so its not as much the "type" of evidence ( altho there are some exceptions) as much as the quality/quantity and REPEATIBILITY of the same results.

Heres the main part that often people who dont work in the sciences or LE fail to recognize and thats the levels of "evidence" are gauged by the desired objective in relation to the value of said evidence. ( evidence and proof are NOT the same thing unless and until every relation from A-Z can be validated- whatever A-Z is in relation to the desired result is)

For example ( pay attention to the subtle words that change)

1) "proof" that BF exists- a specimen, living or dead- nothing short of this will ever be "proof" ( note that in this case, "proof" isnt just the body but it meets all the requirements from A-Z in relation to the desired result of the actual existence of BF. Thats WHY its "proof" and not merely "evidence")

So, using the above applied definitions, NO amount of "evidence" ( defined as anything short of physical remains excluded as per your qualifier) will EVER "prove" the factual existence of BF because no single piece of "evidence" will meet the A-Z requirements.

This is where I see some people here make the mistake and get very frustrated as a result. The bar for "PROOF" ( makes no difference what the question on the table is) is 100% ( 99.99999999 simply will NEVER be 100% and theres no way to stretch it)

2) Evidence that BF exists- Lets set the parameter and state the OBJECTIVE of what "evidence" can do and the highest level attainable. Since "proof" is defined as 100% ( that slot is taken)- "evidence" can NEVER attain a rank higher than 99% in relation to "proof"

Thats fine because science accepts that in various ways. ( in my world, the energy transfer from a transformer is ACCEPTED to be 100% even tho its known to be 99.999999. People are sentenced to death for 90% and so forth)

So, now the BAR must be changed. "Evidence" can ONLY support the premise that BF MORE LIKELY THAN NOT exists. ( any rung of the ladder of proof below 100% falls under this category- now its a matter of how high up the ladder one climbs)

So, "evidence" becomes STRENGTH based as to its value up said ladder. ( understanding that the QUALIFICATION to scientific standard MUST be met of the "evidence" isnt accepted as legitimate)

Using BZ's DNA example. a DNA . If you have a DNA strain that actually shows the series of an unknown primate different than man and other known species- you are at about 25%. ( one sample does NOT a test case make) This is assuming the lab/people making this test are legitimate and results published and results verified by blind testing.

Now, using the above example- you have 10 samples taken from all over that REPEAT the same series ( all meeting the same criteria)- then your "evidence" bumps up to about a 90% probability. Still aint "proof" but that would get everyones attention.

Using the above model- put footprints,hair,scat and everything else in the same category. Thats how the process works.

Just remember that NOTHING "anecdotal" ( defined as anything that is only shored up by human senses and cannot be examined in a lab) will ever get a ticket to the evidence dance. ( people often incorrectly argue about witnesses and testimony but even in court[ standards MUCH lower than science] witness testimony is not "proof" or "evidence"[ cant be tested in a lab] is is simply accepted on believability and is the LOWEST possible bar and is ALWAYS trumped by HARD evidence)

I liked that 5 stage protocol for species identification. However, presented in that way, it almost seems eternal, orthodoxilogical and immutable, handed right down from Audubon to Akley to Krantz, but I have a feeling that in today's techical world it would not be impossible to go legitimately from stage 1 to stage 5 without having to visit the old "Frank Buck 's "bring 'em back alive"" days of biological field work in stages 2, 3 and 4. I confess that I don't know anyone who has been successfull at doing that, but I also don't know of any research being done in which a full expression of today's most sophisticated remote-sensing technology has been applied. One can find amazing tech stuff out there, miraculous really, but when actually put to use, it doesn't really deliver and getting it and the researcher close enough on a predictable and repeatable basis has never been shown to be practical...so far.
Unless visited by the right kind of luck in the shape of a logging truck/BF encounter, or something similar in result (which I confess is a tantalizing, if perpetually elusive, prospect), I don't see getting to stage 4 very soon. Super-nifty computer-coupled telescopes or some futuristic remote-controlled flying camera-platform, and even the camera on a trained raven concept, however are the kind of technological advantages that I think could have great potential for remotely surveying places where humans are absent for the most part (and conspicuous when around), and where particularly stealthy and shy creatures might be discernable when viewed from beyond their already highly-tuned, pre-sensitized and focus-able sensory envelope.

What's being said here is right.

But it's worth remembering that science is simply the activity of trying to find things out. It's a process which people have developed to make sense of the world. There really is no 'scientific community' and scientists don't get together to decide what to believe (or mock) or where to set the bar regarding evidence of things.

Scientists who say they believe in bigfoot are merely stating a personal opinion. So are scientists who say they don't.

Sorry for the interruption--I'm a new member and I want to discuss serious concerns I have about what happened to me thirty years ago and how it has opened my mind about undetected species

Welcome, Proofman.

I take from your statement that you had some sort of an encounter many years ago, and are looking to discuss it. There is a "sightings and encounters" section here where you can describe your experience. You should be aware, however, that the BFF is an open community in which "true believers", dyed-in-the-wool skeptics, and every point of view in between take part. Don't expect 100% affirmation. Folks here will likely grill you for as much detail as you can remember. Just don't take it personally, and have fun.

Great advice. Proofman, also be sure to read this.

You got that right: science isn't about to "cut corners".

They won't go looking for squat. They're sitting on their pompous asses waiting for "skeletal material to be brought to their attention".

Huntster, if your opinion of scientists is so low, why do you cling to this mantra of wanting to get them involved in the research? Honestly, who do you think would be more likely to return with proof of sasquatch following a 30-day expedition in the Alaskan bush: me with a $100k research budget or you with your wits and your rifle?


( . . . and "plenty of bullets", for you wiseguys out there . . . )

Given the history of squatch discovery I wouldn't put my money on either of you.

RayG

this is a very informative new thread about sasquatch evidence but i have big feeling this will continue. thanks bill

Seriously Hunster, did you ever stop to wonder why?

Any research takes resources. ( time,effort,people,equipment and MONEY)

Its not that scientists are sitting on their "pompous asses"- its the LACK of enough CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to support the quest to obtain the resources necessary. In order to secure resources for anything-one must do a business/justification case and that case must be built on factual data ( that will survive EDUCATED scrutiny),present a logical workable plan and have a reasonable chance of success.

Look at what the BF "field" shows to the public- all this "DNA" that never seems to have the data attached to be examined, the claims of all this "evidence" hid for "revelation at a later date", the obvious frauds such as the Biscardis,Coys,Greens and so forth ( and that Georgia thing) and to top it off- the few "legitimate" ( I use that term loosely) scientists with such performances as on MQ and their "research" that borders on scientific heresy and makes them look like fools to their peers.

Honestly, what do you think the end result of all these things would be?

Try this to test what I just said. With all the known evidence out there- try to attempt to build a justification to secure resources ( like any other funding proposal) and see how far you get.

Haha. It's hard to get resources to look for an unknown (to science) population giant hairy apes in the United States with guys in Georgia running around on youtube claiming they have one in a freezer.

Who's going to throw money at that fiasco?

The idea of going out into Alaskan bush the way its' stated, for 30 days to hunt for BF, is not a very realistic project whether it's with field biologists or hunting guides...30 days? I would presume you'd be hunting from a boat or a helicopter or more likely both (there are next to zero hiking trails in Alaska), and even then the luck factor would seem to override both approaches equally when all is said and done. But I do like the idea of comparing and contrasting the pros and cons of a qualified seasoned wildlife field biologist and an experienced hunter under more optimal conditions.

I think Saskeptic, who is a experienced seasoned and motivated field biologist, with a small band of experienced, patient field naturalists or bio-techs/opto-electronic techs/engineers, comfortable with low impact field study, with $500K could have a great chance of getting scientifically significant evidence provided that the research was conducted in a research area that offered great viewing opportunities (like mountainous western high country: Southern Colorado, Eastern California, Basin and Range or Eastern Cascades having higher percentage of good viewing weather and low humidity for distance viewing (You specified Alaska and even if BF were present or even common in Alaska, the weather and viewing conditions would not make it a very good place), in a research area with a history of creditable witness reports even if sparse in frequency, considering that the area being observed should be undeveloped and relatively unvisited, and that observation is taken over a long enough baseline (a year), documenting from a distance (miles to tens of miles), a multitude of observable sites (water sources, narrow passages, likely stream crossing sites) checked and documented at regular intervals, with the observers' location positioned so as not to be conspicuous or arouse suspicion, with an eye towards recording the behavior patterns of the predator/prey relationships (are elk disappearing without evidence of dogs or lions?) and interactions among the larger animals.
If newer technology (automatic image processing combined with gigapixel resolution (google gigapan) or very powerfull telescopes equiped with computer positioning system) were employed to collect new data at a higher resolution than what is typically being collected, that could be statistically used as data for more comprehensive understanding of predator/prey relationships, A researcher(s) could keep an eye open for anomalies and devote some attention to investigating further and collect evidence while keeping aware for patterns that would allow for prediction...and bingo!
I think a good concept to keep in mind would be that instead of making oneself conspicuous and alluring to draw a BF out from seclusion, it would be better if they had no idea they even could be being watched themelves. Even if no BF is detected, the results would be very interesting. Novel examples of animal interactions and previously un-documented behaviors are always interesting to naturalists from many perspectives. Oh, and one of the good things about science is that when conducted properly the negative result is equally valuable in understanding the whole enchilada.
Of course, that's why hunting is not such a bad idea either if the hunter likewise would be supported with the same kind of comprehensive support and investing a long enough time waiting, learning about the prey's patterns, and observing in a promising habitat where the hunter could stay relatively undetected, in ambush, and with a view of likely places the prey might congregate in a conspicuous way.
I have no opinion on Hunster's views regarding the "academic/federal government research environment", but from his many posts I have little doubt he'd be a good candidate to conduct a hunt like that.

Absolutely true ludo about the "scientific community"-- but said scientists are human... And humans (no matter what their profession) tend to "get together to decide what to believe (or mock) or where to set the bar regarding ______________(insert any word you like)."

also known as group think...

but since we have nothing better to use than science and its methods, we are stuck with its imperfections...

kinda like democracy...

Good post.


Note: I will occasionally be posting things like "good post", "I agree", and "What he said" until such time as I have regained the lead in total post count.

Hi

Actually it is good to see you posting so much, Your knowledge and wisdom is a welcome site

Only a few hundred more to go and you can catch up to Jaylee, That is of course until she catches wind of what your trying to do

Peace
Tim

While I agree that scientists can fall prey to group think like any other humans, science as a pursuit is unusual in that it actually welcomes and fosters disagreements among its practitioners. In the end, the data must speak for themselves, and to the extent that scientists agree on certain things, you can bet it's because that's the direction in which the data point.

Thanks, but as soon as I catch Jaylee, I'm outta here!


I agree, but as with all professions, not all those practicing it are of the same caliber.

Emoticons are much easier!

Yes, but I need to set an example for the other members.

I don't even think a body would be good enough. Too many people would still say fake, plus one body would not be physically accessible to the public. A specimen would have to be captured live then caged and exhibited in a public zoo before most people would believe, then there will still be doubters.

I have come to the realization that if I am ever fortunate enough to get a good, long, quality video of one, MOST people will still say I faked it, or used CGI, or whatever. It would almost be more of a curse than a blessing, but at least I would know the truth.

I've never considered that a body wouldn't end the mystery. But it's an interesting, rather depressing thought. I suppose it does depend on who has it and what they say. If the government, plus the examining scientists issued a major statement, with pictures and film surely that would be enough?

Maybe not. We live in an age where institutions and organisations just aren't as trusted. Even if the poor thing was exhibited in a zoo-type environment I think some people would still say it's animatronic, or a guy in a suit.

The "scientific community" and "scientific consensus" are nothing more than publicly acceptable code words for the logical fallacy of agument from majority. The "community" has been proven wrong again and again and again. Spontaneous generation of flies by rancid meat. Man cannot go faster than (x) and survive. The Heavens revolve around the Earth.

All "accepted by consensus". All WRONG. And all fiercely defended by the "community" from challenge in their time.

Science is supposed to be blindly objective...unfortunately scienTISTS rarely are. Ask anyone attempting to get peer review for a paper on Intelligent Design.

As for the "weak tea" dismissal of evidence. It entirely misses the point. Even one drop of weak tea conclusively establishes the existence OF tea's presence, weak OR strong. People are seeing SOMETHING, and have been for centuries or longer. SOMETHING is leaving footprints, hairs, etc. REAL scientists would be asking "what could this something be"? "Community scientists" sit in their labs and sneer "bring us a body THEN we'll look into it".

As for my current favorite piece of evidence (aside from the hair expert identifications), I have to go with the recent paper showing a natural "bell curve" distribution of traits in examining a large body of track measurements. The presence of the NATURAL curve in statistics indicates an organic or "real" source for the measurements as opposed to an artificial curve which would indicate artificial origins. Falsifying this data would be virtaully impossible, given that it was collected over many years and from many areas. Such a "hoax" would have to be perpetrated by individuals with highly specialized knowlege of distribution traits and the ability to transmit them to their patsys over many many miles and years. (that is, no random group of ameture hoaxers could replicate it, nor would it result from a random collection of "misidentifications")

Not exactly

>>>The "scientific community" and "scientific consensus" are nothing more than publicly acceptable code words for the logical fallacy of agument from majority.

Maybe in the soft sciences but rare in the hard sciences

>>>As for the "weak tea" dismissal of evidence. It entirely misses the point. Even one drop of weak tea conclusively establishes the existence OF tea's presence, weak OR strong.

Not a good analogy because weak tea is still tea- in the case of BF, its not a case of weak BF evidence, its a complete absence of evidence. ( face it- if there was even 1 shred of hard evidence that established the presence of BF- the question of existence wouldnt still be on the table)

>>>REAL scientists would be asking "what could this something be"?

They did and after reviewing all available evidence- the case is pretty weak

>>>(aside from the hair expert identifications),

What expert identified a BF hair?

>>>I have to go with the recent paper showing a natural "bell curve" distribution of traits in examining a large body of track measurements.

That paper is scientifically worthless

>>>Falsifying this data would be virtaully impossible, given that it was collected over many years and from many areas.

The data is false from the start. None of it can be authenticated or verified. Its junk data that build a junk statistical case

You've got to be kidding me. Don't go down this road.

You just proved my point...you're being dismissive out of hand, without examining the evidence and arguements, just like the so-called "scientific community".

What about the ones who have examined the evidence and arguments and found them wanting?

1) We've been over the hair time and again, I've listed the citations time and again.

2) The data and results of the statistical analysis are "junk" only if you don't understand how such analysis is used to VERIFY the reliability of a data-set in the first place. The reliability of bell-curve distribution across ANY naural data-set is an excellent way to test a body of data whose reliability is in question. It's a classic hypothesis and test situation:

Hypothesis: the track data-set is that of a natural (ie real) population of physical creatures

Science fact and test: trait distribution among all real natural phenomina when statistically analyzed will yeild a distribution patern of a natural bell curve. The test is to analyze the distribution of the subject data-set and compare the resulting pattern to the bell curve.

Result predicted: either a natural bell curve representing a natural (ie real) data-set, on an UNnatural curve representing an artificial data set.

Actual result: a natural bell curve distribution

Logical conclusion: the data set represents the distribution of traits in tracks of a real population of creatures.

Simple basic science, all the more impressive because it is the sort of subtle detail that the average Joe Hoaxer would never even stop to think about or even be aware of.




I've seen precious few of those, and then only in forum where the people they are decrying have little or no opportunity to respond to their counterpoints.

ScienTISTS are no more immune to having orthodoxy than any other human being, their pretentions not withstanding.

>>>1) We've been over the hair time and again, I've listed the citations time and again.

Yes and when subjected to scrutiny- they have all fallen apart. At best the results were inconclusive- at worst the "expert" wasnt qualified or either the test was improper

>>>The data and results of the statistical analysis are "junk" only if you don't understand how such analysis is used to VERIFY the reliability of a data-set in the first place. The reliability of bell-curve distribution across ANY naural data-set is an excellent way to test a body of data whose reliability is in question. It's a classic hypothesis and test situation:

I understand them quite well and use SPC almost every day of my professional career ( thats what having six sigma and CRE certification from ASQ does for us engineers)

The statistical analysis doesnt "verify" anything- the fatal flaw is that the data used for the analysis cannot and has not been authenticated. I can plug any kind of junk data into NWA or Mini Tab and give you any kind of distribution I want.Its meaningless unless the data has been qualified and quantified.

>>>Hypothesis: the track data-set is that of a natural (ie real) population of physical creatures

The hypothesis is built on "evidence" that cannot be tested and determined to be valid. All anecdotal.

>>>Logical conclusion: the data set represents the distribution of traits in tracks of a real population of creatures.

To quote Spock "even logic must give way to physics"- the FACT is the data is unable to be validated so any analysis of the data cannot be considered valid either. ( the whole cannot be greater than the sum of the parts)

>>>Simple basic science, all the more impressive because it is the sort of subtle detail that the average Joe Hoaxer would never even stop to think about or even be aware of.

The only "hoax" there is trying to use legitimate tools to attempt to turn junk data into something it never was and never will be

We don't ask for much here - God knows we don't. But - if you can't post within the guidelines, you won't be posting at all.

See you in 7 days.

Bravo!

Just curious ...... what did Mulder do that violated the rules and deserved a 7-day suspension?

For the general public, no, and the 'Hellbeast Washes Up on New York Shore' thread illustrates why. Even though there are pictures of a body, the general public doesn't have the necessary tools to do a forensic type of examination, complete with DNA analysis and other tests. If a squatch body were presented to scientists for close examination, I'm betting your 'body isn't good enough' argument would be quickly deflated. Of course that wouldn't faze conspiracy theorists, who assume lots based on very little.



No, it doesn't miss the point. No one is arguing against the presence of weak tea/evidence, only against the idea that gathering additional weak tea/evidence somehow increases the quality of the tea/evidence. It does not. It only increases the quantity of weak tea/evidence.



And no one has conclusively determined what that something is. (keep in mind people have been storytelling for centuries too, but that doesn't make their stories true)



Something or someone is leaving footprints, but without the foot to match with the footprint, we can only speculate on how the footprint was made.



Some real scientists HAVE asked, unfortunately they haven't found any definitive answers. Real scientists HAVE examined the available evidence and haven't come to a definitive conclusion. Are there some particular scientists you had in mind?



I'm guessing it's because he started wandering down the religion trail and then continued with comments when told not to.

RayG

The problem is the world has been wiating for the find of the century to emerge from deep in Georgia. We're still waiting.

Bingo.

Money. The search needs money, and the money won't come as long as the scientific community pooh-poohs the subject and ridicules those in their ranks who are looking at the subject with interest.

If the scientific community would invest just a fraction of what they've invested in looking for little green men, we might have a carcass by now.



In either case, it takes money to launch a 30 day expedition in the Alaskan Bush, whether it's to shoot a bear or take his photo.

Yup:

Money. There's no money in it.

Looking for little green men? BIG MONEY there.



I don't believe that. I believe it's fear. The subject is simply taboo. Look what BS Meldrum and Krantz have had to endure.



I think there's enough evidence to justify an organized effort to obtain proof. But "reasonable chance of success"? Maybe not.

Just like SETI...............



The field has been left to the hucksters by science. What should we expect?

And ironically:



Some things never change.................




The folks who who considered these expenditures defensible:

Well, Meldrum's and Krantz's BS they endured is largely self inflicted due to their piss poor half assed methods,science and conduct moreso than the subject matter. In this case, its the front line "scientists" who are behaving like hucksters.

On the bolded part- thats a major part of a business proposal- without that, its the kiss of death in most cases

What about an attempt to fullfill the "wanting" with a "granting"?




Is that a violation of the rules?

I take it you have never done a grant proposal. Try to get one for a fishing expedition with zero physical evidence and build that feasibility study. Then, I believe you will see what I'm talking about.

And what were their "piss poor half assed methods, science and conduct"?

Thats a long list but in short, almost everything they have done on the subject. Review the MQ threads for a start.