Leaderboard

First of all, speaking for myself, I am not an "MK believer". I am a believer of looking at the data. The truth is in the data, and not in what people say that MK did or did not do, or say or did not say. All of that is irrelevant. When people with agendas try to steer us away from the study, then that is just wasting my time. I am just waiting for a qualified, credentialed expert (unbiased, ergo outside of bigfootery) to look over her data, and prove/disprove her results. Until such a person receives that data, then all of this is pretty much a sideshow, especially that which has nothing to do with the study's data. But I'm not worried about the data and what it may/will/does reveal, do you?

Aren't you one of Smeja's handlers? Or at the very least, involved with the Trent U bear sample fiasco? Don't you think that maybe you have a conflict of interest with Ketchum's study, and perhaps you should declare your bias?

I hate to admit it... but I love [Not]Finding Bigfoot. I guess I don't really care that it isn't research. I'd watch the show just to see the testimony/encounter investigations. I know lots are probably bogus, but I still like to watch them. I guess that's what keeps me coming back to the BFRO reports - not for the evidence factor - but for the entertainment. Oh, and by the way, the rumor is that Les S. actually believes in bigfoot.

That's a silly thing to say. Anyone comfortable calling them 'wood apes' would be comfortable calling them 'relict hominoids' as well, because all apes are hominoids. Do you know what the term 'relict hominoid' denotes? Relict - An organism or species of an earlier time surviving in an environment that has undergone considerable change. Hominoid - Of or belonging to the superfamily Hominoidea, which includes apes and humans. Of coarse I know what it means, which is why it would be a fit for the group and bigfoot, but since this group attempts to remove any perception of any human quality in bigfoot, the fact the term includes humans, I had to ask if it was too humany. So it's only silly, if you object to it. The descrptor "wood ape" actually doesn't fit all the TBRC's observations.