Scientific Discovery

Scientific Discovery

Much has been said about the 'discovery' of our big hairy interest. There is competition among some
who are genuinely interested in seeing this discovery finally come to fruition. Competition is a good
thing, however, as with most everything, there is a dark side to competition. We are seeing the dark
side all over the various blogs, forums, websites and facebook pages and it has proliferated a great
deal over the last few years.

We no longer live in the age of Galileo, but believe it or not there is approximately 30% of the
population that still think that the sun revolves around the earth. I haven't looked up what the
percentage is for those who still think that the earth is flat, but they are also out there.

Bringing things into the modern era it is easy to find that there is good evidence that the earth does
not revolve around the sun, at least not the way we were taught. Here is a reference,
seeing it illustrated makes more sense than trying to explain it. Link 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6jBK1ZV-qs
And if you would like to see more you can simply go to ted.com and watch a few videos on new and
breaking ideas and discoveries.

You gotta ask yourself, are any of these people concerned about their ideas or discoveries being
stolen? Are they more excited about sharing their ideas with others and less concerned about making
a ton of money? Are they willing to answer any questions about their work? If there are any proprietary
rights to what they have discovered or have been working on haven't they already taken care of that
before releasing their information or making any presentations? They no longer have to worry about
these things because they have already taken care of these things. 

Science doesn't work in a vacuum. When someone tries harder to control their information or discovery than to share it with others it sends up a big red flag for me.

So what does it take to become a published scientist? Here is a good article that goes into that
discussion. It is more than just a new discovery and good science to support that discovery. Link
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2007_04_06/caredit.a0700045

I keep hearing the same things repeated over and over and I think that they should be painfully obvious by now. "A picture will not be good enough." Or how about this one, "It will take a body to prove the existence of Bigfoot." I have known for a long time now that a picture, not even a movie will be good enough for science. I'm not so sure about requiring a body though. Some of the more respected scientists who are interested in Bigfoot have said that good documentation combined with good DNA evidence could do it, even though it would be the first time it has been known to be done.

We are faced with a unique scenario in many ways. We have a creature that is very elusive yet at the
same time We have countless eye witnesses who have seen this creature. We have some DNA evidence but without crystal clear documentation of how, when and where that evidence was collected it remains 'unidentifiable'.

Would a blood sample being collected with several good eye witnesses provide the DNA
evidence needed and therefore proof of Bigfoot's existence be sufficient? And what if it were all
recorded on video? Of course the nay sayers will still say that it would not be enough, but it is not
the nay sayers that I'm concerned with. Remember that 30% who still believe that the sun revolves around the earth? At some point it will take more 'belief' to maintain that Bigfoot does not exist if we are not there already.