Leaderboard

Ok HM, I'll bite. a) No, no visuals, but very close audio, clear wood knocks, power howls, etc. Visually I have seen eye shine looking in my tent from a distance of 6 feet. I will use the illustration that Mayo mentioned from the TBRC website: http://www.texasbigf...oot-description 1. What other pongid has a hooded nose as is pictured? 2. What other pongid has fleshy lips as is pictured? 3. What other pongid has visible schlera? In addition based upon the audio that was lined earlier in the thread: 1. What other pongid can produce the 'b' sound that was in your audio? 2. What other pongid can produce the 'g' sound that was in your audio? 3. What other pongid can produce the 'k' sound that was in your audio? c) My definition of what makes a human is: 1. Genetics of course and 2. http://en.wikipedia..../Theory_of_mind I believe humans have this and pongids do not. They are self aware, but don't have a theory of mind. For instance: if a chimp knows a pair of sunglasses have been blacked out so that when it puts them on it cannot see, it will not make the leap to realize that if a human with which it wants to interact puts the same sunglasses on they cannot see either. d) I would like them to be recognized as an existing species and if determined to be a relict hominid protected against physical harm.

Has it occured to you that that's because some reports are unreal?

I wrote this for another thread but I think it applies here to, as motivation is included. Thomas Steenburg I had met to write this on the resent Washington track find thread but it has been locked for now so I will just state my 2 cents worth here. As researchers part of the job is to expose hoaxes and the people who perpetrate them. That is part of what being a researcher is all about. It is also one of the things which separates a true researcher from an Advocate. One simple fact that I have learned since I first got involved with this subject in 1978 was the fact that you will encounter fake sighting reports, footprint finds, and all kinds of other weird and wonderful stuff which so many advocates insist must be caused by Sasquatch in one way or the other. The late Paul freeman who I knew well comes to mind and I now fully admit that back in the early to mid 1980s he had me fooled. Meldrum still has me scratching my head on some of his footprint claims. But the man was hoaxing at least part of the time and could very well have been all of the time. Ivan Marx syndrome as I call it still infects a good many people who are in a hurry for what ever reason to draw attention to them selves. Or hoaxers who wish to chuckle at the fact they succeeded in fooling the researchers. The main problem in these cases are researchers whom feel they must not in any way reveal that they may have been taken in. To that I say do not worry about it. Its a learning experience, it will happen. A certain fellow recently up here in British Columbia at Golden Ears Park had taken in quite a few people for a short period of time, myself at first took a great interest in what he was claiming to come across, the first red flags for me was his extraordinary luck with out any real convincing back up. Finally I caught him red handed and exposed his antics, much of which was debated right here on this forum. I guess it is now against forum rules to mention his name but many of you know who I am talking about. The real crime, (for lack of a better word} as far as I am concerned would be if a exposed hoaxer were later on to be taken seriously. That just makes the whole field look foolish and all researchers appear as simple advocates. After all the goal here is to find a answer to a great mystery not push some religious type faith. Researchers have to except the real possibility that the Sasquatch question may very well turn out in the end to nothing more than a fantastic peace of North American folklore. I personally at this point do not be leave that, but as a researcher in search of an answer I have to accept that in the end this may turn out to be the case. If it does end up this way in my life time the howling skeptics who will cry. "I told you so" will not bother me in the slightest. Why? Because I was a researcher in search of the answer, not an advocate pushing a faith. Big difference between the two. Just as there is a big difference between a true skeptic and out right cynic. Thomas Steenburg P.S. If the moderators disagree with me moving this post to this thread as well. I understand.

I had met to write this on the resent Washington track find thread but it has been locked for now so I will just state my 2 cents worth here. As researchers part of the job is to expose hoaxes and the people who perpetrate them. That is part of what being a researcher is all about. It is also one of the things which separates a true researcher from an Advocate. One simple fact that I have learned since I first got involved with this subject in 1978 was the fact that you will encounter fake sighting reports, footprint finds, and all kinds of other weird and wonderful stuff which so many advocates insist must be caused by Sasquatch in one way or the other. The late Paul freeman who I knew well comes to mind and I now fully admit that back in the early to mid 1980s he had me fooled. Meldrum still has me scratching my head on some of his footprint claims. But the man was hoaxing at least part of the time and could very well have been all of the time. Ivan Marx syndrome as I call it still infects a good many people who are in a hurry for what ever reason to draw attention to them selves. Or hoaxers who wish to chuckle at the fact they succeeded in fooling the researchers. The main problem in these cases are researchers whom feel they must not in any way reveal that they may have been taken in. To that I say do not worry about it. Its a learning experience, it will happen. A certain fellow recently up here in British Columbia at Golden Ears Park had taken in quite a few people for a short period of time, myself at first took a great interest in what he was claiming to come across, the first red flags for me was his extraordinary luck with out any real convincing back up. Finally I caught him red handed and exposed his antics, much of which was debated right here on this forum. I guess it is now against forum rules to mention his name but many of you know who I am talking about. The real crime, (for lack of a better word} as far as I am concerned would be if a exposed hoaxer were later on to be taken seriously. That just makes the whole field look foolish and all researchers appear as simple advocates. After all the goal here is to find a answer to a great mystery not push some religious type faith. Researchers have to except the real possibility that the Sasquatch question may very well turn out in the end to nothing more than a fantastic peace of North American folklore. I personally at this point do not be leave that, but as a researcher in search of an answer I have to accept that in the end this may turn out to be the case. If it does end up this way in my life time the howling skeptics who will cry. "I told you so" will not bother me in the slightest. Why? Because I was a researcher in search of the answer, not an advocate pushing a faith. Big difference between the two. Just as there is a big difference between a true skeptic and out right cynic. Thomas Steenburg

I think you can keep this very simple, hoaxing is lying. Period. Since when is lying acceptable? How can anyone justify the perpetrators deeds? You can’t. His machinations cost a lot of people time and money. This is inexcusable. These good people, who are actually trying to uncover this mystery, were taken advantage of. Knowing several of them personally I can say none of them are independently wealthy. None of them are funded. The only place Elbe has had a problem is here. The information should have never, never been revealed, especially here while the scene was still hot. The investigation was not complete. Your confusion can be understood since you are not working with all the puzzle pieces. If you think you know more, congratulations on your being omniscient, too bad you are wasting your time bashing bigfooters when you could out be doing something constructive with your amazing abilities. No one is going to share their protocol here. No one is going to share investigative technique. No one is required to reveal their sources or witness information. It’s part of the protocol not to. No one in the bigfoot community owes you anything. No one is required to place at your feet, silver platters of evidence.