Leaderboard

I have a dissenting view. Remember, the guidelines are to promote discussion, not to promote proving. If you are able to step back from your own positions and watch in abstract how "business is conducted", it becomes pretty obvious that the rules are not there to facilitate resolution of the bigfoot question. I don't fault the mods, they just enforce the rules. They're among our most kind and welcoming individuals ... just don't become the job they have to do. (Says a guy with a warning point. ) I don't know where the Steering Committee falls so far as defining the rules and guidelines so I do not necessarily fault them. But someone, somewhere, has **designed** failure to resolve the bigfoot question into the very underlying structure and operation of the forum. Why? And .. accident or intent? Ironic that observation has to come from MIB, huh? I have no issues with witnesses, "mere" believers, knowers, or honest skeptics. My issues are with the scoffers masquerading as skeptics who are here adding nothing of value but asking disingenuous questions to derail debate, harassing people into silence, and so on. They are quite good at staying just inside the boundaries of acceptable conduct while still achieving their purposes. There's nothing that can be done about it unless the rules change. As it stands this is a debate forum, not a bigfoot issue resolution forum. It does not help the new witness who is dazed and confused with their world view turned upside down, it just throws them to the wolves. Even I, who have been "at this" for over 35 years and generally a pretty thick skin, have personal stories I will not share here because of the environment. I welcome honest questions, not the thinly veiled derision and ridicule I've seen others subjected to. The forum accomplishes its mandate ... discussion. If you are frustrated by the lack of progress, look at the rules and guidelines again with a sharper eye. If you're not getting what you're here for, perhaps what you're here for is not what the forum is here for. I would not recommend BFF to a new witness. The "help" water is too shallow and the "debate" water too deep for someone at that point in their journey. That's my observation. Hopefully I don't get tossed out on my rear for sharing it. MIB

I already have determined the presence of toothpaste. I'm asking now what it is made out of. Once I know, I'll decide whether it is appropriate to tell you. There are many possible answers to the puzzle. Based on the data I have to work from, "mere ape" is an unlikely conclusion. If I had to throw a number at it, 5% or less. I'm not sure about the 5%, but I'm adamantly opposed to making any unprovoked attempts to kill anything in the other 95%. MIB

You,re simply on a kill mission, all the toothpaste we've had to date says human or known animal, The hominin results are human. You're not only risking your life, but your good conscience. Your initiative should include how you might legally retain a human body.

I'm not here to tell everyone exactly where to go have an encounter, but the types of places where they occur are well described in the reports. Are you having trouble seeing that? If you want info, why not consult the reports for good places to be effective? Location comes first, then method of documentation. If you need less ambiguity, then you'd need to demonstrate what you would do with the info. How would it lead to resolution if I told you everything I know?

I don't know how to respond because I don't merely disagree with your answers, I disagree with your choice of questions and assumptions. We're coming from different places, heading different places, for different purposes. The issue of proof is, in my view, being addressed out of order. It's Pandora's Box. I think it best to understand what it is we are proving, what it means, how that proof affects us and them, the impacts of proof, rather than jump to the conclusion that proof will be beneficial. ITs like toothpaste .. once it's out of the tube, for better or worse, it's out of the tube. The "proof" folk blindly, and I think naively, assume proof will be for the best. I'd prefer to make sure that we want and need toothpaste before I squeeze the tube. I don't expect to convince you, but I hope the reframing of the questions illuminates the difference in choices. I absolutely am not, on a personal level, at all interested in the status quo. MIB