I haven’t followed through on this category of posts for a while, and now is as good a time as any, so let’s delve into why science doesn’t take Bigfoot/Yeti/Skunk Ape et al seriously. And while I focused on the giant humanoid accounts here, a lot of this will be equally applicable to other cryptids such as the Loch Ness Monster and Chupacabra and so on. So let’s
I’m not in favor of generalizations, and especially not ‘little tricks’ that supposedly tell you so much about someone, like, “If she isn’t wearing her engagement ring she’s not serious about her engagement.” Or, you know, she works someplace where it’d be dangerous to wear, or it needs to be refitted, or she’s not the kind to show off, or she’s
It’s funny – I started this post out with entirely different intentions, but as I was researching the details, it had to change, yet I could still keep the same title. Bear with me a second.
This post topic came up when I was reading an article in Skeptical Inquirer that dealt with the curious progression of the ‘Bigfoot’ legend, from the badly-mangled interpretations