Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Anti-Bigfoot Faction
The Anti-Bigfoot crowd has been making a surge in the polls. Now it's tied between those that think a bigfoot could exist an the skeptics out there that are damn sure he/she doesn't. By the way, I take Skeptic magazine, but you might be surprised how I voted. Maybe I'm skeptical of my skepticism sometimes. Although you'd think with all the heat-signature infrared whizbangery we have now, we might be able to detect a ten foot apeman in the rain forests of the Pacific Northwest or the Okeefenokee.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am in the anti-bigfoot camp. If you think about the discovery of new species, it is pretty rare that it's a mammal, let alone one the size of "bigfoot". And in this case, we are talking about something that size remaining undetected in the continental United States. Also, to have a sustainable population, there would have to be lots of bigfoots (dozens? hundreds?) running around in the woods, again, going undetected and not even leaving obvious signs they are there. What you've also seen with populations of large mammals in North America is habitat destruction shrinking their ranges and causing population declines, e.g., the Florida panther, red and gray wolves, grizzly bears, etc. This invariably results in human/animal contact as we move into the historical ranges of the species. Again, there's no evidence this has ever happened with bigfoot.
Just a thought about your Bigfoot poll: Steve, I think you may have more yes votes than people who actually believe Bigfoot exists, because of the way you phrased the question.
The existence of Bigfoot is, by definition, possible, but highly improbable. This probably isn't what you were thinking about when you started the poll, but I tend to over think these things.
Post a Comment