Leaderboard

No I don't think they are hoaxing Dopey, myself and the TBRC have a past, they are just getting clued in to some of the same experiences that other groups have had. Number 1 being that there are places where they don't seem to leave. The TBRC had numerous things happen when they would camp at X throughout the five year operation forest vigil, but chose to just run camera traps. They could have done extended camp outs there all along and payed more attention to the more subtle things. Most of their experiences I've heard about so far don't sound like they were that far from camp. I don't know about the rest here, but it doesn't sound to me like you need a military operation to find bigfoot, they tend to come to you if you are going to find them at all. One can paint your own efforts how you want, but it still boils down to audio/ video documentation and taking note of just about everything.

Par for the course on cameras, the TBRC has squatches surrounding their camp in X but after five years of it, zero pics. That's not just on Texla to sort out. Oh, and sure, with no pics the same could be said about all the claims at X. Did they see bigfoot throw the rocks, do the woodknocks, make the vocalizations? Looking forward to the audio the TBRC collected, hopefully not just spooky sounds in the dark.

Perhaps a better way to put it is: Sasquatch evidence is like bubbles...easily popped. One can build a house made of bricks of good circumstantial evidence but since almost nothing in sasquatch "evidence" meets the criterion of good circumstantial evidence one has nothing substantial at all. Good circumstantial evidence requires a FACT to be presented that when considered by itself or with other evidence (circumstantial or direct) points to a likely conclusion. For example a fingerprint proven to be that of the defendent at the scene is good circumstantial evidence that the defendent was at the scence at some time. A fingerprint that may or may not belong to the defendent that is found at the scene is NOT circumstantial evidence that puts the defendent at the scene because a proven FACT is not available to ascertain anything about where the defendent was. Since it is impossible to ascertain whether any footprints, hair, smell, sounds, tree-breaks, stick formations, rock piles, are, in fact and without a doubt, from a unrecognized by science legendary creature called sasquatch or Bigfoot; it is then erroneous to offer any of it as good circumstantial evidence.

Looking for "matching behaviours" in reports is a very poor way of assessing veracity in this day and age of instant and available communication. Story tellers will most often see what you are buying and then give it to you. Not understanding this is a huge flaw in how one ascertains the veracity of a second hand report. The only way of truly assessing the veracity of a report is a background check of the person who made the report along with at least a couple of in-person interviews on-site to check the actual story. Full documentation of the investigation must be made public with only enough with-held to not identify the witness (if necessary). Anything less than this is just pretending to investigate a report. I know that there are valid reasons why proper investigations are not done (time, money, travel, lack of knowledge and/or training/and/or experience are all valid reasons) but that doesn't negate the need for proper investigations. That is like an aircraft mechanic saying that he doesn't have the time or knowledge or training to properly check over the aircraft but it's OK because he gave it the good-old-college-try. It just doesn't fly.