posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 01:07 PM
What are the scientific chances of Bigfoot?
Hell, that beats me. I would not even hazard a guess at the numerical probabilities of such. I do not feel bad in saying such.
Because within the scientific community, there are mulitudes of reputable biologists, cryptozoologists, etc. who would not touch such a notion of
Bigfoot being probability.
Simple. They risk their careers and their standings within the scientific community when attempting to study these phantom, mysterious, and mythical
animals, etc. The vast majority individuals that do study them are basically amateur scientists and the like, who are not bound by the rigorous
scinetific methods employed by biologists, cryptozoologists, etc. The difference here is method(s) used to prove exisitence.
If for most here, as with those amateur scientists and cryptozoologists, etc, methods and evidences is solely based upon hearsay evidences and fuzzy
photographs to prove the existence of Bigfoot, Yeti, the Lochness monster, and/or any other like type mysterious and mythical animals, beings, etc,
then by all means, keep believing in such as having high probabilities of existence.
Personally, there is a dividing line, and that dividing line is credible science and scientific method versus psuedoscience and whatever method deemed
necessary to work for their own ends. I love to believe in such, but until the day that the real scientific community comes out and gives irrefutable
evidences as to their existences, all that is left to prove existence are those hearsay evidences and fuzzy photos, along with faith.
[edit on 4-12-2005 by Seekerof]