Leaderboard

No worries...English was never one of my strong suits.

Well, NAWAC finally shot something - a TV show.

Have one sign an affidavit.

(And yet, and yet...hunters correctly identify and kill hundreds of thousands of ungulates each year) I say again: If your probabilities of Sasquatch existing depends on thousands of humans being 100% consistent in their misidentification, and never-ever getting that wrong (err...right), you are basing a conclusion on something that occurs very, very rarely....up to a point of approaching a virtual certainty this cannot be true. I've long felt skepticism on this topic owes more to miscalculating and misapprehending probabilities than any other factor you could name.

Thank you sir. Will make sure tree doesn't have a Wood Ape swinging in it.

Careful, you're getting all emotional again, and you're such a valuable poster you don't want to say something that will get you another 'vacation.' Back on topic. Ontario, you're absolutely correct that man in academia are very reluctant to pursue in any manner what some would consider an element of cryptozoology. Or any other fringe topic a researcher would like to do work on, but knowing that the results regardless of the findings - would be frowned on by their peers. Speaking with a physicist/chemist last night, he spoke of this - and the gist of what he lamented was that there are those who work within the framework of either academia and those who do research for firms - and neither will fund such outlier efforts. Leaving it up to individual researchers - who also must pay the bills - leaving little to spend on something that the unknowing say doesn't exist. I think you 'slop' pigs. You're light is burning bright, tonight.