Leaderboard

Nothing is stopping that K5. Lifted with tires that are ready take on any challenge. Nice job.

I’ve also got this soft top coming for the K5.

Welcome back, Cotter. (that would be a good name for a sitcom ) Welcome to the Forums! JLBF, Aldee and Sasquatchewan.

Thanks, but it's a depressing reality. I find it especially sad that many of these junk hoaxes and stupid icebox dramas seem to focus on Alaska. It has been proven that they're attracting the exact folks that we need to get rid of. The only bright spot about it is that most of these people go straight out into the Bush where reality has a very cold and savage reality waiting for them.

I was asked to participate and I declined. I'm going to do a podcast about it soon. I'll try to remember to post it here. The interaction with the producer was...interesting.

Interesting thing, at least in abstract, as I see it. I think that you, as a scientist, should be paying attention to this and be cognizant of the implications. In areas where bigfoot "should" be, the report data, whether it is height, weight, track size, or other, generally follows the sort of bell curves you should expect from a biological population. In areas where we're generally more skeptical of bigfoot reports because the terrain, cover, moisture, etc seem less suitable, bigfoot reports follow a different pattern, one which seems to be always-increasing. To me that does not suggest a real biological thing, rather, it suggests attention seeking by people who are compelled to compete for that attention and feel they must one-up the last guy to get it. Same seems to follow for behaviors though maybe not as clearly. I think there are attention seekers in the PacNW, SE, and other places where there are bigfoots, but their reports are only a small fraction of the total reports and can be identified as outliers ... say beyond 2 standard deviations from the norm. On the other hand, the attention seekers in places w/o bigfoots or without significant numbers become a very much greater percentage of those regional totals. This makes standard deviation less "solid", less repeatable. Chi-square and all that. I don't know .. but my personal opinion is the 9 foot tall three toed skinny monsters with glowing red eyes which were reported back in the '70s with UFO connections are something other than the bigfoots that trigger the reports here. A statistical comparison would seem to make that conclusion unavoidable for a scientist and mathematician. You could say they're just BS or you could say they're something else, but IMHO "Patty" they are not. (I don't know if this makes any sense .. I hope it does. I'm not always very good at explaining things.) MIB