Leaderboard

You know PT, you really have got to really think deja vu with all of this (just insert new names of major players). It is just this kind of stuff that the BFF is legendary for in regard to having a fine institutional memory for the institutionalized twerps that try to gain Standing in this field with nothing but slight of hand, fraud and shenanigans. Each cumulative revelation of these clowns helps our cause or at least gives us a breather.

I didn't bring up unicorns in the first place, so you might be better served if you pointed that at someone else. And they are not the same thing. One has a horn.

All together now: You can't hiiide, your demon eyes, And your smiiiiiile, is a thin disguise... Thought by now, you'd realiii-ize Ain't no way to hide your demon eyes.

Priceless, yes. But hey, it is only the YELLOW demon eyes you really got to be on the lookout for !

Very good question Drew. We don't know, of course. We are only able to judge them from the ones that do make the cut. From what I've been able to gather, the BFRO routinely excludes some of the more obvious attempts to hoax. Still, I'm guessing, they err on the side of disclosure on ones that are more borderline. My conclusions about the report above, after all, is just a spitball lobbed from my armchair. The investigator may have had very good reasons for including it, which we are not privvy to. We all have our own gag reflex settings, after all. I can only say I wouldn't give a report of this kind much weight, but some others may have the background and context to consider it. That is just the really the neat thing about published information. If somebody later provides me with solid reasons why a report like this should be given more weight, I'll reconsider. I agree with DWA, dmaker, on your point. Critical thinking is why. We either have the capabilities to do that, or we don't, but all are capable of learning it. Otherwise, to quote the Archdruid again, we are just employing a thought-stopper. My point of entry view on Sasquatch evidence is that people are mistaken, people misidentify, people hallucinate, people lie and people tell the truth. Well, that overlays ALL my interactions with humans. Learning to know which is more likely, based on all information available, is the chore.

^Of course there's "nothing you can do", that's why you haven't answered the questions I asked. Statistics deal with interpretations and probabilities of numbers- it doesn't mean it can predict absolute conclusions. Just like statistically you have more of a chance to die in a car than a plane, but that doesn't mean you're absolutely going to die in a car. You tried to claim a factual conclusion based on statistics, or what you claimed were statistics (but really wasn't).

Actually skeptics must think that every single bigfoot sighting MIGHT be a hallucination or a mistake. A skeptic preserves the possibility that bigfoot may be real and provable. Anyone that maintains that all bigfoot sightings MUST be hallucinations or mistakes is in truth a denialist, not a skeptic.

I think we need to remind our selves that humans are also capable of nasty animalistic behaviors and actions, if the sasquatch is human { or near human } it should not surprise us to see them take on wild creature like behaviors. They grow up in a harsh environment that teaches do or die, if they observe other wildlife using such behaviors successfully to obtain food and defend themselves what would stop them using these same tactics ? Friend or foe, the idea that they are your friends is really more of a romantic idea. No matter how much trust you earn or how friendly you are it does not change that they are wild and simply unpredictable. That being said, I personally go out solo most of the time to attempt to earn trust and get closer, I am fully aware that it is dangerous but it a risk I am willing to take. Risk nothing = gain nothing.

Have you noticed that there are really two camps on this one, On the one hand the "Pro-kill Camp" who believe we need to kill a specimen to prove the existence of the creature and thereby protect the whole. who generally ascribe to creature ape like qualities, and downplay the possible human characteristics such as language who also tend to point to the dangerous and unpredictable nature of the creature And the other "No-kill Camp" who believe that we have no right to harvest a specimen in order to prove their existence, and rather rely on research to shed light on them who generally ascribe to the creature human like qualities, and diminish the instinctual animal characteristics such as merciless killing of prey who regard the creature as curious, of little danger, and fairly predictable in nature Mind you this is a bit of oversimplification on my part, but I think the dichotomy is present, and I am wondering where the middle ground falls on the issue. I know this is not anything new, but I just am trying to understand our community and the ruts we tend to fall into as enthusiasts and researchers, and armchair quarterbacks with a web connection. I feel that our efforts to define the creature has it's own pitfalls, as the above arguments suggest. So what I am seeking here is a middle ground of sorts for those of us in the community who feel that there is merit to both arguments, and are not feeling compelled to argue for Kill or No Kill, and do not desire for that issue to skew our understanding in either direction when trying to understand the nature of this creature.