There are teams of professional and amateur scientists who have reported such encounters (including the Texas Bigfoot Research Center, a network of amateur and professional scientists dedicated to investigating the sasquatch mystery in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana), and there are individuals who happen to be anthropologists, wildlife biologists, psychologists, law enforcement and forest service professionals who have reported sightings, but apparently Mr. Radford and others like him simply choose to sweep such reports aside, citing wishful-thinking, misidentification and hallucination as the cause of such reports.There is a large amount of detailed Bigfoot information here at the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization site. In the "Frequently Asked Questions" section, the site specifically addresses skeptical arguments such as the lack of physical evidence and lack of clear photos. A "comprehensive database of credible sightings and related reports" is here.
...
The Texas Bigfoot Research Center is not a group made up of individuals who, on a whim or dream, choose to waste a huge amount of time and finances, risking personal and professional reputations, to validate an animal that can’t possibly exist. The Texas Bigfoot Research Center continues to maintain that the body of contemporary sighting reports, ecological patterns and relationships arising from the study of those reports, the physical evidence that has accumulated during the last fifty years, and our own personal observations while in the field, all serve to indicate the existence of a living species that has yet to be documented.
A Real Hockey Stick
1 hour ago
Posts
5 comments:
I'm sure "true believers" find the Bigfoot/Ivory-Bill analogy very annoying, and I can understand that.
The analogy is, however, appropriate. Lots of poor evidence combined with conviction is not proof. Excuses for the lack of good evidence (photos for example) for Bigfoot or Ivory-bills should not make weak evidence more convincing.
Jackson believes Ivory-Bills may exist. As a scientist, he doesn't know they exist. "Seriously, I'm almost certain I saw one" does not constitute scientific proof for Bigfoot OR Ivory-bills.
If either of those two creatures exist, it is possible to obtain proof, and believers in either camp must produce it. Real proof does not require faith.
I understand the point you are making here, and it is valid. But comparing the IBWO researchers to bigfoot hunters seems unnecessarily mean spirited. Surely there's enough material out there to support a skeptical viewpoint without resorting to this. Why not stick to the high ground?
I'm not trying to be mean-spirited.
I think the Bigfoot/Ivory-bill parallels are so strong that they will almost inevitably be mentioned often in the coming year, whether I "refrain" or not.
Note that Cornell themselves made the Bigfoot/Ivory-bill comparison
here ; and the late Eirik Blom did so
here .
So, a Mexican standoff: USFWS, Interior and Agriculture against DoD and the Army Corps of Engineers (CoE). Interior & Agriculture are supposedly for "the good guys" but have no evidence. Wow.
Gallagher, et.al., have good reason to feign disinterest in the lawsuit. It's not just a matter of being accused of using IBWOs for political advocacy. The discovery phases of the case will compel all parties involved to produce what evidence they have regarding the local IBWOs. There might even be subpoenas to testify as to what they saw. Evidence gets placed on the table. Expert witnesses go to bat over the tape.
A court may also have to decide, to a "preponderance of the evidence" - level of legal proof, whether there is any likelihood that the IBWO still exists. NWF can't ask for another assessment if it can't convince a judge that the "preponderance of the evidence" supports the assertion that IBWOs are there in the first place.
Boy, what this thing calls for are some well-placed Freedom of Information Act requests.
But you also get "greatest harm" issues: Irreparable harm in ruling against the project if the birds are not there versus irreparable harm in ruling for the project if the birds are there. An argument could be made in that case for using a lower standard of proof.
Post a Comment