Leaderboard

That's great self publication right there Guys and Girls.. Ask a question if your own research group has captured a BF in a thread title and then point everyone to someone else's blog, then also within the same original post, deny if you have or haven't.. The Soap Opera that is BF Research, so predictable these days that it's actually getting REALLY boring. Edited : Sausage fingers

icicle, I can tell you there is a paper and it has not been rejected. I know that for a fact, why it is not out yet has been covered in this thread. Speculation regarding the rejection from the peer review is not accurate. I cannot go into more details for legal reasons, but it is a solid written paper, many people have worked many hundreds of hours. Honestly, no one INCLUDING Dr Ketchum knows when it will be actually "released", for any type of publication. KB

Does it have a yellow collar?!

Lindsay posted the information on the Internet (which is ALWAYS true), and the MABRC didn't agree with him. Therefore, they MUST have a squatch! I know because I've been posting here a very long time, and I'm the expert... (SARCASM) Still not sure why everyone is going after the MABRC so hard or claiming conspiracy on their part. What's the matter, are you people tired of Rick Dyer's tent footage and need to focus on something else?!

And providing a statement neither confirming or denying a body will help stem rumors?

Ok I'm caught up now ... Bipto you are a saint to answer a the redundant questions you have

This is a gem here CT. As I struggle personally with this as well being a proponent and a non-witness. In the face of thread derailment, I'd like to comment on this, then bring 'er back on track. Personally, from a young age I'd always been in the "boy, that would be cool if BF existed" camp, but dismissed the PGF as fake, and stories and accounts of BF being seen as the common mis-ID's, attention getters, liars, and hallucinators. Then I had a good friend that confided a first hand visual experience with me along with other very strange happenings in the woods. So I started to wrestle with what this person could have seen. Fast forward a couple years and it happened again, this time with a co-worker that I worked with. As these people whom I've no reason to mis-trust (actually just the opposite) tell me this, I began to dig deeper in the phenom. Long story short, there have been too many friends and co-workers that I've spoken with that have seen one of these things for me to NOT actively entertain the possibility - nay, PROBABILITY that these types of creatures exist. I struggle often about this, but in the end it doesn't matter what you or I think because "I saw what I saw and you can't tell me it wasn't a BF" - (very common response when speaking with witnesses). Hear that enough from folks you trust with your life or the lives of your loved ones and it weighs magnitudes heavier than all the 'debunking' I read about on the internet. It is difficult, and I feel John C's pain as a witness himself, to entertain some of these 'wild' claims, outright mis-ID's, and straight up lies as truth. This phenom hosts all sorts of whack-jobs - from both the proponent and skeptic side alike. SOMEWHERE in the midst of all that is good data, usable info for those of us that would like to go out and see one for themselves. THAT is why I take issue to hoaxers (both skeptic and proponent) that target researchers - I find it offensive and disrespectful. It wastes time, money, and gets us nowhere into proving (or dispelling) the phenom that is BF. John C - quick comment on this: "It is not that good of a hoax if someone with my level of track experience can spot the hoax from only looking at the pictures. Other people who are experienced in tracks came to the same conclusion by looking at the pictures. This is not chest thumping on my part, it is my trying to comprehend how men considered some of the top people in this field, could not see the hoax and a beginner could." I would merely caution that what you use as criteria for calling 'hoax' may not be 100% effective. I am barely learning the track ID fake vs real stuff myself, but all I am saying is that there may be real prints that exhibit the traits you clue in on for fake. Same thing goes the other way around. Of course, I've no idea what criteria you used to determine hoax, so I'm really just blowing some smoke here. I really wish I had the time and motivation to put together a little "real or fake" type thread to test out folks' internet investigation on tracks. Keep everything within the realm of human feet, and then have folks render their guesses.