I think that's absolutely true. I think it's the same for any other non-proven supernatural phenomena though, but to be fair photographic evidence has never been used to scientifically prove anything existed before without other forms of evidence - photography is just not reliable as evidence on it's own. So why should it be accepted as gold-standard in paranormal fields?
Well - again, I don't get why Patterson/Gimlin film would be accepted as a gold-standard when no other field of scientific inquiry accepts photographic evidence in this way - frankly this is the kind of thing that hurts all paranormal fields of research from the get go. It's special pleading, because Bigfoot researchers, ghost hunters, UFologists KNOW photos aren't accepted by scientists to prove unknown phenomena, but they keep insisting their photos should be used that way.
I don't remember Dr. Krantz getting confirmation back from the FBI about his prints, but to be fair I'm no expert on this stuff. Wikipedia reports that Dr. Krantz got positive results from Scotland Yard though.
I have been following a bit of stuff on Jimmy Chilcutt - who also studied dermal ridges - by way of Matt Crowley, who is skeptical of Bigfoot, but doesn't rule out the possibility. Crowley's shown through creating casts how artifacts like cracking in the casting process create lines that match the claimed dermal ridges. He's also very interested in Ray Wallace - a famous Bigfoot hoaxer. Again, Crowley not saying one way or the other, he's just pointing to another possibility. Showing Dermal ridges could be faked - despite the claims that they couldn't.
As for Dr. Krantz being ignored for his research - well, peer review IS a major part of the scientific process. It's tough business - but an argument NEEDS to stand up to peer review to be accepted as legitimate theory. That's just how science works.
The thing is, cryptozoology (and ALL other paranormal fields of research) bring to question other established and long tested theories - so to bring those theories into question there needs to be REALLY FANTASTIC physical evidence or AMAZING testable proof. The burden of proof is on them - not the established scientific community. So, frankly, that's where I'd lay the blame.
Why couldn't anyone track the Skunk Ape in the photo? There's nearly 40 years of widespread Bigfoot hunting now - how likely is it that in 40 years not one irrefutable piece of physical evidence has turned up? Why are Bigfoot researchers so susceptible to fraud? None of the answers to these questions make me think Bigfoot is IMPOSSIBLE - but they do make me think Bigfoot is highly unlikely.
Well - again, I don't get why Patterson/Gimlin film would be accepted as a gold-standard when no other field of scientific inquiry accepts photographic evidence in this way - frankly this is the kind of thing that hurts all paranormal fields of research from the get go. It's special pleading, because Bigfoot researchers, ghost hunters, UFologists KNOW photos aren't accepted by scientists to prove unknown phenomena, but they keep insisting their photos should be used that way.
I don't remember Dr. Krantz getting confirmation back from the FBI about his prints, but to be fair I'm no expert on this stuff. Wikipedia reports that Dr. Krantz got positive results from Scotland Yard though.
I have been following a bit of stuff on Jimmy Chilcutt - who also studied dermal ridges - by way of Matt Crowley, who is skeptical of Bigfoot, but doesn't rule out the possibility. Crowley's shown through creating casts how artifacts like cracking in the casting process create lines that match the claimed dermal ridges. He's also very interested in Ray Wallace - a famous Bigfoot hoaxer. Again, Crowley not saying one way or the other, he's just pointing to another possibility. Showing Dermal ridges could be faked - despite the claims that they couldn't.
As for Dr. Krantz being ignored for his research - well, peer review IS a major part of the scientific process. It's tough business - but an argument NEEDS to stand up to peer review to be accepted as legitimate theory. That's just how science works.
The thing is, cryptozoology (and ALL other paranormal fields of research) bring to question other established and long tested theories - so to bring those theories into question there needs to be REALLY FANTASTIC physical evidence or AMAZING testable proof. The burden of proof is on them - not the established scientific community. So, frankly, that's where I'd lay the blame.
Why couldn't anyone track the Skunk Ape in the photo? There's nearly 40 years of widespread Bigfoot hunting now - how likely is it that in 40 years not one irrefutable piece of physical evidence has turned up? Why are Bigfoot researchers so susceptible to fraud? None of the answers to these questions make me think Bigfoot is IMPOSSIBLE - but they do make me think Bigfoot is highly unlikely.
Comment