The Bigfoot Research Project

Henry James Franzoni CAVEMAN at
Wed Aug 17 04:10:13 EST 1994

From: Clemens Suter-Crazzolara <un691cs at>
Subject: Re: THe Bigfoot Research Project
Date: 15 Aug 1994 18:10:44 +0100

> go away. Debating it for days only extends its life.
> Looking for a safety for my rhetoric button
> peter
> Clemens Suter-Crazzolara said:

: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.

	The B.R.P. has learned a lot about this from your conference's feedback.

:2. bigfoot science costs time and money, which could be used to fight
:cancer ! (slight exaggeration here). or to save an ecosystem.

	My dream outcome is this, 1) that an unknown creature can be 
satisfactorily demonstrated to not be a fabrication. 2) that armed with this
information, one can raise the money to purchase large areas of old growth
habitat where the creature resides. (Saving the ecosystem in a small way) It 
may not be fair, but my experience with investors on Wall Street is that they 
love investments that capture the imagination... fighting cancer is certainly 
a noble cause, and will always attract investment, but there appears to be 
many investors for opportunities that capture the imagination, that's show biz!

	Also, it may sound ridiculous, but it should not be assumed that finding 
and studying Bigfoot would NOT yield help in the fight against cancer, or help 
in saving the 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.

	Yes, thank you,... I appreciate your comments in this regard very much.

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 !

	The criticism that you provide is useful to us.  We too, 
would like to be taken "seriously" and have our research taken "seriously",
even though most of you may think we are wasting time and money, we seem to 
define the epitomy of "unserious science" for most of you. We do want to go 
about our research in the best "I.E. most scientifically palatable" way 
possible, so we can produce useful data for qualified scientists to examine, 
if by some miracle we come up with any.  For Example, I know that fabrication 
is the most likely explanation for the footprints, so the data we obtain 
needs to include things like people in the area who could have made them, 
natural phenomenon that could have made them, etc. Even though some of you 
think it's a waste of time, those of you who don't have helped us be a little 
more "scientific" in our pursuit.  Thank you

      _         __
 /_/ /_  /\  / / / \ /
/ /  \_ /  \/ /~~\  /

More information about the Bioforum mailing list