Leaderboard

I'll go one more Mark, it's not just "believers" they try to "educate" but witnesses too. These people endlessly are basically calling me and others liars/mentally ill/deluded etc, daily, and that's not good and that gets to me. I'm glad i've mellowed in my old age or else i'd have been banned long ago given the stuff that gets spewed out by these people over, and over, and over, and over again. They can't accept that some people have seen these things, continually tell them that they're wrong both directly and indirectly, slip in endless sarcastic remarks on a forum dedicated to the very subject and yet they're the one's who talk about cultish behaviour. It's mad.

Because so many within this subject are only interested in scientific acceptance if THEY are the ones who shown as discovering. It's selfishness of course, in some cases driven by money. Especially where the BFRO is concerned these days with the TV Show > $400 expeditions. But it's very puzzling where Meldrum is concerned, you're right.

Yep, at this stage because of the dead ends where testing is concerned of anything Smeja, it can only be viewed as compelling story at best unfortunately. However, in my opinion, Bart's video is now the best evidence to the whole situation there because of how the entire shooting episode was screwed up time after time from day one. Unfortunately that's just the bottom line.

Tyler went on Melbas FB page and suggested that in order to put the debate of Sample 26 to rest, that she have it independently tested by an outside lab of her choice. If Melba is so sure of her findings and that there was something fishy (sample swaping) going on with the testing done by the 2 labs that Bart and Tyler sent the "steak" to... I see no reason she wouldn't want to have her results validated.

It reinforces my opinion that current research practices, unfortunately, just don't cut it and a complete overhaul with what is done in the field needs to be considered. And I have every respect for anyone who attempts to get dirty in the field looking for evidence of this animals existence, but current methods just aren't good enough. And I will bite on this one. Remember, what I saw was not a bear, not a Gorilla, not any known animal or not a man and all I'm left with is thousands of sightings describing the same thing that I saw. That's all I'm left with and the only conclusion I can personally make, what I saw is the same as what is written about in thousands of sighting reports in North America. Just because a Professor tested x amount of samples with no positive results in any doesn't change my personal opinion that this animal exists one little iota. If I had other options regarding what I saw that day I'd be all ears, but I don't have any.

Ah, so the following statement was just a description of hypocrisy directed randomly towards me, but since you didn't use the word "hypocrite" you are absolved of the charge: You insult me. You then call foul when I return the favor. Heads you win, tails I lose. How very sophisticated. I cop to loose verbiage here. I did not mean that everyone entertaining notions of a paranormal 'foot shared these traits, and was not clear in making the distinction that a "theme" didn't apply to everyone. Truly they are traits shared by people on opposing sides of many issues. On the flip side, Pragmatic Theorist and Jodie are fine examples to follow in any discussion. Perhaps. Even more so if it was "Explanation of why I believe 'foot is Paranormal", so long as that explanation didn't involve taking pure conjecture and couching them as absolute representations of fact. If you'd like to have a discussion thread that is purely theoretical and reduces the risks of people asking for evidence, I'd suggest opening a new thread with a more philosophical title. Para came on this board with the stated purpose of "proving Bigfoot was paranormal." He spammed various threads with monotonous statements of faith and thinly veiled insults on the cognitive abilities of those who didn't share his belief, and he refused to engage discussion on any of those threads on which I was participating. Para then started this thread with a specific title claiming evidence. How is it even remotely my fault that he failed to produce, and that I called him on it? This is a seriously deficient standard to take. I would suggest you do the following: Go back and read all my contributions to this thread, and instead of picking out small portions of things I said and trying to find points of contention, try to understand what those individual lines or words mean within the context of my overarching points within the posts, and within the context of the flow of this thread. Because you are just getting silly now. You seem to have taken offense at something I posted that had nothing to do with you. I'm not sure why you felt compelled to do so, but you obviously felt the need to flex your wit at my expense -- a bit of posing that has now backfired miserably in my estimation, given my contributions to this thread predate yours by several days and were substantive, engaging, and on-topic. Your mileage, of course, may vary. I'm more than happy to leave off, offer mutual apologies for hurt butts, and go on with our respective pursuits. But I'm not willing to have my words misrepresented or taken out of context to fulfill whatever narrative your pride demands.