Leaderboard

I think it’s pretty standard protocol for those making the grandiose claim, BF in this case, to provide adequate proof. Dmakers position holds its ground each day that goes by without proof of BF. It is on us proponents to advance the cause.

I received a correspondence from a natural museum curator who, while not dismissing my presentation regarding shoulder span ratios wanted time to think things through before answering. I have corresponded to a few academics on the matter. Waiting to hear back from a couple of others but one was interested enough to understand the issue and so I sent along the stabilized version of the PGF that included some walk-away frames. I will only do that if someone shows interest in the problem of shoulder span ratios. That was just last week. Thank you for asking, Patterson-Gimlin. I sincerely hope this thread can now stay on the course it was meant to follow and some discussion regarding additional ideas for moving the BF subject further ahead can be proposed. It was on a pretty tough road there for a while.

Okay. Do you have a progress update for us yet?

Shadow thank you for your response to my question. Believe it or not I appreciate your candor. Hiflier the only derailing I see is you trying to control the discussion.

I fully understand what you are saying. But it has nothing to do with the methodology of skeptics coming onto a thread and breaking it. Things gradually end up targeting and focusing on individual members and away from the topic. I lodge my complaint about that and the focus goes to me and even further from the topic and it becomes a useless exercise where now I am the one to blame? Not on your life! I asked numerous times for the focus to be on the thread's topic and was ignored as the thread sank deeper and deeper into areas that have NOTHING to do with the OP. It happens every time and is initiated by the same people. Next thing you know anyone coming onto later pages don't even know what the topic even is. It is a pattern that is all to prevalent and serves no purpose except one. Disrupting dialogue. But according to the skeptics I am the only one who is not getting it. I see them for what they are and what they consistently do which is wreck threads. The more critical the subject the worse the problem becomes. Sometimes it happens the disruptions happen gradually and they happen fast but they ALWAYS happen. Why is it that a thread cannot seem to be left alone without being diverted into some kind of character focus on one or more individuals and off the subject matter? Could some please explain that to me?

^^^^ You are giving them exactly what they came for. As stated above, same old song and dance.

As they continue to marvel at my ignorance, I continue to marvel at theirs. Some day (probably long after all of us have croaked) the definitive answer will be found. All of the ***-for-tat above leads me to wonder though: If a troll screams "NUUUH-UHHH!" in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does anyone care? In the interim....split wood, carry water. :-)

Exactly what type of ‘work’ do you think we, as skeptics, should be doing? Accept unsubstantiated bigfoot stories as evidence? Not gonna happen. Ignore each day that every trail cam fails to capture an image of BF? No, we will point that out as an increased likliehood that the creature isn’t out there in the first place. Your evidence doesn’t support the claim. Never has and never will at this rate. ‘Science’ and ‘academia’ will tell you the same thing if you ever get off the keyboard and attempt an honest presentation of what you think is evidence of really real Bigfoots.

hiflier, We all know our scoftics familiar game...it's all he's got...he's already stated they don't exist, an it is we who are wastin' our time, our very lives in pursuit of evidence, of the truth ! Funny, because science has actually been more open over the years, there are more credentialed people lookin' into it an openly speakin' about the subject. The University of Oxford felt the subject compellin' enough to study possible hair samples. As we've seen, it troubles dmaker world renowned primatologist Jane Goodall is fascinated by the subject as well. Unimpressive would be our resident scoftics continued attempts to discredit an belittle the efforts an work of members lookin' into sasquatch...on a Bigfoot Forum. Simple as that. Pat...

Sounds like you are assuming that the majority of the " research community " as truly capable and invested (both time and money ). The research community is far smaller than what facebook states. The majority of those claiming to be researchers are invested in tinfoil hats and are frequent visitors of the imagination station. I have talked to hundreds of people involved in this subject and I can think of maybe fifteen people that I would consider researchers, not a single one averages more than thirty waking hours a week in the forest. If you are going to come up with a reason that Bigfoot does not exist then you can't point to the funny farm and say " They have nothing ". Science has not paid it's dues on this subject and " Bigfoot Researchers " have only made the matter worse.