Leaderboard

My apologies for being so pedantic on this point but when you are discussing the state of BF studies at any point (and I note several seem to have bowed out rather than confront their conclusions about the track evidence), you have to establish this baseline. If you believe all the tracks could reasonably have been hoaxed, without ANY exception (and really, does any truly honest thinking person REALLY believe that?) you have just established your unwillingness to ask yourself hard questions. As I said up-thread, those who do think this probably help explain the retarded state of the research more than anything else. Some of those who think this way are intelligent and rational people. If they are not willing to confront their own prejudices and predetermined conclusions on this basic piece of evidence, what hope has the idea of BF research have of gaining legitimacy in the mind of the general public? "None", is the answer, I believe.

Link to the paper: http://1drv.ms/1BnR9hm I am away from WiFi access until Saturday. I do hope you enjoy the research! Original thread. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50970-what-about-the-bones/

I just don't get the prints made by smooth soles. Life in the mountains would take a toll. Photo credit Peter Byrne.

This is the question no one is answering. Which is the unequivocal, definitive, definitely made by a sasquatch footprint cast to act as the standard by which we judge all the others?

I understand what Gum means when he says this, "I wouldn't try to foist my personal beliefs on anyone". A lot of this is really just personal opinion on the subject. In the case of the question "Have any victims' names (dead or alive from the 'destroyed campsite') surfaced recently" however, that doesn't require personal opinion. If no case can be found on record then it never happened.

It could also mean that people are recognizing that you like to push phony Bigfoot stories while avoiding real world questions. Deja vu.

Yep. Everyone in Bigfoot world is uber rich and sell several million copies of their books. I also hear that Colin Farrell has agreed to play the part of Thomas Steenburg in the blockbuster new movie which will capture all the drama and excitment of a five day field trip in a damp, cold Alberta wilderness. And skeptics reckon that footers believe all kinds of nonsense....?

club asked a straight question, which you replied to with your characteristic nonsense, he called you out on it and I let him know that it is your standard procedure. For that, I'm to blame? Sure pal, sure.

I have heard more than one complaint that the BFRO rejects reports that do not fit their paradigm. Puts them in the same camp as Crow. Just a matter of degree.

Nah, you're putting an invalid spin on it. I will take you at your word that you hallucinate. Someone else MIGHT, but that's not the same as "everyone does" which seems to be what you're trying to insinuate. We're not all as messed up as you in the same ways as you, we have our own different and creative ways and amounts of being messed up. That's just how it is. So far as I can tell I've never hallucinated anything in my life unless this whole existence is a hallucination and you're a figment of my imagination just like everyone else. The take-away: not everyone is hallucinating every bigfoot they see. MIB

Hello DWA, Nothing on a BF Forum is. What constitutes being a "requirement"- or not- is pretty much a personal opinion. Ya wanna read? Then read. Ya don't? Then don't. Either way one's opinion has value and is welcomed. If you say something isn't required reading, well, it's your opinion; not the standard. I think maybe you should relax a bit? Just sayin'.