Originally Posted by
William Parcher
Her "unusual stance" may possibly be attributed to her new skeptical consulting business. She may feel that projecting denialism would hinder her marketability. If her position on all Bigfoot claims is known in advance then people might not hire her to consult on specific "new evidence".
I'm just speculating and could be totally wrong.
This seems to be the consensus here, and I agree with it.
I found the following half-remembered quote, attributed to Upton Sinclair:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
It has various corollaries.
Being skeptical isn't a profitable vocation else I think there would be a lot more skeptics. And what exactly is "skeptical consulting" anyway?