Leaderboard

The criteria is simple- if they're not producing hoaxes then they're serious about their research. The chances are 50/50 real or hoax. That's why all research should be questioned to determine if it's serious, and not just accepting it on faith. I never brought "us vs them" into this- you did. You're the one hung up on rivalries. My only objective is seeking truth- I don't care about any 'teams'. I've questioned and argued with people on both sides of the argument. Do these little categorical things really bother you that much? If the medical field had a zero success rate and high scam rate as the Bigfoot field then absolutely it should all be scrutinized. If that scrutiny is a deterrent then that's the way it goes. This is the wrong field for overly sensitive people- just like any other field, not everybody is cut out for it. That's not the problem- the problem is why don't people start asking for these things from the beginning? Then you would have had six months to get the results, or one year, or two years. Hence the big problem with people that just take things off of faith and give excuses later on. No, I disagree. There is a difference between determining a hoax and proving a hoax. The majority of what we call hoaxes have never been absolutely proven, but we have enough information to conclude that they are. To expose a hoax is generally to show proof of the hoax. Of course it's a better way, but this is not a field where definitive proof presents itself very often. That's why I usually don't conclude anything without what I would consider to be sufficient evidence to back my conclusion.

I use adherent for the following reasons: There is no evidence for any sort of attack shown in the B.G. videos (a messed up camp can have many sources). There is no evidence of a sasquatch (hair,blood,teeth,scat, footprint). There is no record of a 911 call being made. There are no police reports of missing persons. There are no records of deaths. No family members reported missing or dead family members. B.G. made fantastic claims which one would have expected to have been corroborated by at least one other source (911 records, park service,police, sheriff, rangers,family of the missing/dead) also one would have expected an attack to have caused at least a single hair to be shed from a sasquatch or at least one footprint to be left. In the absence of corroboration of any sort from any quarter and the lack of any tangible trace evidence you take B.G. at his word. To me, that is the action of an adherent. I think it's perfectly fine to believe the guy; I don't find it rational to do so but it is your right to believe whatever you wish. I was just curious as to why you'd take him at his word minus all the things I mentioned above. I understand your point, you believe B.G. because B.G. states that it happened. Is B.G. the only person whose word you would take or do you also take Standing at his word regarding his filmed encounters?

It sounds like they are taking the 1st step to make some kind of contact. The ball may be in your court. Maybe start a gifting area, I wouldn't go the food route, maybe some unbreakable toys. Of course if he wants them gone, motion detector lights, and game cams.