Leaderboard

Thanks for sharing. I hope I am able to view it here in Florida. You are most kind.

Airdale, Don't know, we just get the channel with the rest of our tv channels. I sent them a message to ask if it will be viewable on their site, have ta wait an see. You're welcome. Pat...

I'll take any good wishes I'm given in regards to my time in the woods. Camping is one of my favorite activities.

While I never met the man, myself, I have read some of his works. He always struck me as a well grounded scientist brave enough to reach beyond the mainstream, and seriously examine this rather hands off subject. I always enjoyed his appearances on the various documentaries, and the articles he wrote. It saddens me to learn of his poor health and that we face the loss of such a stalwart warrior of truth. Those with vision help others see, and that he has done indeed!

I'm so sorry to hear this. He seems to be such a genuine person, and a true gentleman. My prayers for he and his family.

I know their verbal behavior and nonverbal behavior scratch the abstract/symbolic realm. They may not make fires that most can discern or form perfect stone tools but they make representational toys and toy with us.

So in other words, by "demonstrated" you did in fact mean "just look at it." Which version of the muppet photos are we talking - the original, with the pine needles obscuring the face, or the version with the needles photoshopped out, which altered the spacing between the eyes and the skin tone substantially? What about the other ones? Are we talking about the one where the sasquatch face morphs into Todd Standing's face, thereby "demonstrating" it's CGI? Personally, I've never seen a real bigfoot period (well, distant glimpses don't count in this context). So how should I know what a real bigfoot looks like? I'll admit the muppet one looks a bit funky, but the descriptions in reports have led to theories of multiple types, dogmen, etc etc so how am I to make a conclusive judgment based on appearance alone? Honestly, on a close look, it's not that obviously synthetic to my eyes. I think it's too bad that the mob rules in this field, and when people we consider "respectable" associate with people we've decided are "deplorable hoaxers," we say the respectable ones have lost credibility rather than putting a bit more faith in those we found dubious. What if his footage is real? What kind of message do we send others who might have valuable footage about what might happen to them if they come forward? IMO, this kind of emotional reactionary language and group think is FAR more damaging to the field as a whole than any one hoax. Even casually tossing around terms like "kool aid" - I promise you I approach this subject with a very even keel and a level head, and I don't appreciate condescension. I suggest that people need to make much better use of what I'll call the 'limbo bin' when categorizing potential evidence. These are items you can't be certain of on their own. You may have suspicions one way or the other and feel tempted to move them into the bogus bin, but if all you have is your gut reaction, why bother?

Show me. All I've ever seen is near-universal knee-jerk reaction that amounts to "Just look! It's so obviously a hoax!" ... which is pretty far from "demonstrated" to my mind. If a conclusive demonstration of the methodology producing these alleged hoaxes is out there, please point me to it. To be clear, I don't have that much stake in defending Standing. My main interest in this is the reaction to it, which to my mind was swift, unmeasured, and unscientific, and quickly led to a pitchfork-mob vilification of a guy who to me seems very passionate and knowledgable (and experienced in the field with sasquatch, which is obviously what got Stroud and Meldrum on board), and who might have captured some of the best footage to date.