THe Bigfoot Research Project

Clemens Suter-Crazzolara un691cs at
Mon Aug 15 12:10:44 EST 1994

> Henry Franzoni wrote :
> > 	Many of you regarded this post as a waste of time and money... a
> > 	stupid pile of mumbo-jumbo...a conjecture that didn't allow for
> > 	falsification, the aim to "proving the existence" of bigfoot was
> > 	stupid.
> > 
> > 	Well, I've dutifully fowarded all of your comments to the Bigfoot
> > 	Research Project, and am going to help them onto the Internet
> > 	so they can respond for themselves.  For the large group of you
> > 	that gave constructive criticism, Thanks.  It has been illuminating.
> (rest cut for brevity - Well said Henry)
> Well, I think we've all shown what a nasty bunch we can all be when we really
> put our mind to it. I think my "flame war" comment a week ago is now a little
> justified. No, I don't believe in bigfoot or Nessie or visiting aliens, but I
> really can't see the justification for wasting so much time on debating it all
> on the net. Who really cares if these folks don't follow Popperian theory. If
> they were to use their "flawed" procedures and still came up with a corpse, 
> should we reject that evidence just because they didn't do it right ? If folks
> want to expend time and effort pursuing a cause which is essentially harmless
> then they're quite welcome to it. Yes, fight the creationists, who want to 
> bring in their own political agenda. Expose faith healers and shams like Geller
> who prey on the weak. But the bigfoot folk, and others like them, do no real
> harm, and it wouldn't really cause such a paradigm shift if they did find some
> more odd beasties. What I'm really mystified about is why this posting caused
> such a negative reaction (I was expecting a similar one to the Zodiac Signs
> and Cancer posting, which never really eventuated). If you don't like a posting
> ignore it and it will go away. Debating it for days only extends its life.
> Looking for a safety for my rhetoric button
> peter
1. why shouldn't we discuss the bigfoot ? it is a nice example of how
observation / experiment / outcome can be planned and discussed in science.
2. bigfoot science costs time and money, which could be used to fight
cancer ! (slight exaggeration here). or to save an ecosystem.
3. naturally they do no harm. but they should be warned to be very 
careful how they plan their experiments, and the laymen out there should
be able to make a distinction between science and pseudoscience.
4. only a few months ago i watched a special on dutch television about
the loch ness monster: it was very one sided: the monster does 
exists. not one tone of criticism ! if only some other scientists had opened
there mouth sooner !

More information about the Bioforum mailing list