Leaderboard

Total BS, if things came down like any high average IQ person can figure, certain members should be dinged and tossed. That is for all to see and few to confront with their faithful, yet selective "reality testing". The forum is nothing less and certainly a whole lot more for permitting all to see the hypocrisy inherent in those defending it.

I love the bigfoot subject, and i love being outdoors. But I live in Scotland, so its all just an internet thing. I absolutely love my hills, and I'm in them almost every day. If I see a deer, a grouse, a hare, or a falcon my heart sings. You guys trek around in North America with the promise of seeing a Bigfoot! Its like buying a lottery ticket for a pound. You are buying the dream. You guys have that dream every day you go outside. I would never tire of that.

I don't think conclusive proof of involvement really matters on an internet forum or community. His reputation is all he has here and he's pretty much flushed it down the toilet himself. The lack of conclusive proof isn't going to change the fact that people have lost all trust and respect for the guy. Just like there is no conclusive proof for probably 90% of hoaxes out there doesn't mean that people won't go with gut instinct and probabilities.

I dunno, I look forward to seeing what the Bigfoot Times November Issue says about the issue. I wonder if there will be a retraction. That is who provided the evidence. In journalism, it is usually a good idea to have a reliable source prior to publishing. Sources are very difficult to make a journalist divulge. However, if there is a problem with it. My guess is we'll see a small retraction in the next issue. @ Transformer - by Bob G not participating in a Q&A - what does that imply? That he is innocent but just doesn't 'feel' like humoring the skeptics? Is that what you get out of that? If not, what does that say about our current situation with our member? Or, guilty or not, we should not be asking those types of questions to members? Or just skeptical members, b/c I've seen a TON of accusations put forth toward Bill Munn's and don't recall certain folks ever taking issue with it. Please clarify.

This is a Bigfoot discussion board. JohnC, you're entitled to your opinion. However, it's not a "Discuss evidence in the manner that meets JohnC's approval" board. Do you seriously expect everyone to tow the line you feel is appropriate? Our membership is quite diverse, from hardcore skeptics to people that believe that Bigfoot is living in their doghouse. Also, we are not a research forum, we're a Bigfoot discussion board. Read the forum rules and you'll see that stated right upfront. I appreciate your suggestion that we consider the direction we're heading in, but what you fail to understand is that we cannot discern what is truth or hoax, nor can we limit the right of those that bother you just because you don't like it. That's not discussion, that's a limitation of our membership's point of view. We merely provide a place for discussion. It's the membership that that reads the claims, weighs the evidence and determines what to believe or if its truth or hoax. Our role is to provide an avenue for those interested in Bigfoot to share what they wish. If they choose to share the fact that they don't believe evidence presented, fine. If they choose to believe everything hook, line and sinker, that's fine, too. If individual researchers choose to withhold their evidence, what are we supposed to do about it? Really, what can we do about it? All are free to discuss what they wish - or to not present evidence as they wish - as long as they post according to the forum's rules and guidelines. If you'll read those rules and guidelines, you'll see nothing concerning us dictating the direction of the discussion, only the format. As far as you not wanting to pay to join the Premium Access, that's your choice. Nobody requires you to do so, although you're missing out on a great addition to the existing forum. Since you're not a member, you have no clue what goes on in The Tar Pit. You make it out to be what you think it's like, not what you know it's like. Isn't that hoaxing evidence in a way? What is your motivation to hoax? You've made statements about something you're not qualified to discuss, in my opinion. Yet in fairness, the BFF allows you to discuss your opinion according to the rules. How much more fair and impartial can we be? Do you want us to consider what direction we're heading in when it comes to what you want to post, or just what others post? Luckily for you, we allow all opinions. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's just the way it goes here.

Thx for the posts Tontar. Maybe you could help set the record straight. Were you involved in any way with the Elbe Trackway?

If she did go to work at McDonalds, I wonder if she could check the DNA on those burgers. I have some theories on that stuff... LOL

I have heard they did sequence the entire genome. The primers should still be useful if you want to sequence genes from a suspected sasquatch. IF they sequenced the entire genome those tests of specific genes or parts of genes obviously wouldn't be as definitive since all genes are sequenced. The primers are more for screening and sequencing parts of specific genes I would think. If the whole genome were sequenced they could easily target regions and select what primer to use so I would imagine that making the primers was done before the sequencing of the entire genome. It seems a bit superfluous now as far proving sasquatch if they have entire genomes. She might have other uses for them planned. The machines that do the entire genome apparently automate some of that like what primer to use. They do entire genomes for a few thousand dollars now. I don't recall for sure since I have a difficult time forming new memories but I believe it was something like a couple of weeks and $5,000.00 to do an entire genome. It seems like the technology to sequence a whole genome has made leaps and bound even since her bigfoot project came out. It is hard to keep up with. I am guessing that sequencing the entire genome might have complicated the study by adding much more data and opportunities. Some of the peers might have wanted greater verification. This is good explanation of what primers are. Apparently the main enzyme that makes DNA can only add to an existing chain and primers are long enough sequences to select end and starting points to replicate.