Leaderboard

Exactly! I'm sure Will likely felt the same way when Cliff told us a 72-inch stride was human. Sometimes the experts are just wrong. No one's right 100% of the time, especially when lots of folks - real investigators and kooks alike - want your attention and validation. I personally think the sasquatches bank on the little prints going unnoticed since they are the same size as ours. But SOME of us know what's up!

I agree with you Dave, this has been one of the things hurting the topic of BF for a long time, there's simply no way of knowing what is legit or not to someone on the outside who may be curious about the topic, rn the community as a whole caters to itself and isn't interested in expanding to outside perspectives if you don't already believe in BF. Having a resource that gives others the concise information needed to navigate the subject safely, and not letting BS filter into the evidence is 100% needed. It's just overwhelming to people on the outside looking in.

I would admit that Perhaps, just Perhaps I may have been mistaken. ☺ And yours is different but not necessarily correct.

You are correct. "What ifs" don't matter one bit. Neither does the current DNA that you don't have. Good question. No answers are just as valuable as the current DNA that you don't have. I'm not a researcher. I'm Joe Public. Nobody iwes me any answers, but if they tell me something that sounds flawed, they can expect questions. Maybe that's why everything is a secret? I'd love to know one and only one thing: do they exist? However, I'm not going to invest any money or time toward that answer because there are a huge plethora of well paid people who have a duty to answer it for us all. An internet discussion forum has no duty to find that answer, either.

With no disrespect meant, I 100% disagree. Zooming in shows none of that to me. Frankly I can’t even grasp how you claim to see features such as brows in this picture. I’d personally chalk that up to pareidolia.

I 've kept all sorts of creatures over my life, as well as having been a keeper at two zoos, and I'd think most people might well be surprised at just how many different types of animals display what can(only) be described as emotions. It's hardly limited to the "upper primates". These can be seen in a lot of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish. I'd doubt it skips amphibians, it's just I haven't personally seen such displays nor read of them, and That certainly does t mean they dont have them too. For example, chameleons don't change color so much to camouflage themselves(though their base colors do tend to blend in) their more vibrant displays of colors depend on their emotional state. They have combat colors, "Hey baby, hey baby!" Colors, " leave me alone" colors, and more. In a sense I'd think it akin to degrees of consciousness. For centuries most animals were thought to be acting solely by instinct. But any creature that learns from interacting with its environment has some degree of conscious awareness, just like the first cowboy to try eating a cactus, if it lives through it it learns. Similarly, you can bet that first cowboy HATES cactus, and therein is the start of emotion. It seems to me that the more socially interactive a species is, the more likely it is to have a wider range of emotive response, but that could just be the bias of a social creature. It might just be me, but humans have been trying to differentiate themselves from The Animals for a long long time, and it seems like we jump on any unprovable(at the time)qualifiers at hand, you know, like how animals arent consciously aware, self determined, able to learn, capable of abstraction, don't feel pain, don't have emotion, don't have a soul, aren t made in gods image, can't use language, and more. Is it some deep seated insecurity that we might not be special? Guilt over that whole "dominion over" thing or some need to justify the claim? Or are we afraid that we're "just another monkey" ? This whole do our closest relatives have similar emotions to our own strikes me as a rather ridiculous question. Anyone who's spent any time observing them. knows they do, unless they approach it with the preconception that it's impossible, thereby giving excuse to ignore elements of what they see before them.

The simple truth is that in any endeavor it is up to the person new to the subject matter to spend the time to ferret out that which is significant and that which isn't. The difficulty is that you don't know enough at the beginning to make those determinations. It takes a fair amount of time invested to begin to separate the wheat from the chaff. Let me give you an example. I happen to have an interest in Ripperology aka Jack the Ripper. I am a neophyte and have been investing a fair amount of time reading just to have the most basic understanding of who the suspects are, when they were in Whitechapel, and how they fit into the puzzle. Others who frequently post on Ripper forums, like we do here, have invested many years to develop their level of knowledge. I marvel at their grasp of both the big picture and all the minute details contained therein. I think in time you get a feel for what doesn't appear right when you read a witness report or speak to someone who allegedly was involved in an incident. That said, even the most seasoned and discriminating investigator can be fooled by someone fully determined to pull the wool over another person's eyes. This can be a particularly frustrating hobby or interest. One must enjoy the subject matter andespecially enjoy being out in the woods regardless of repeated failure. Trust me, I know all too well. Grow your knowledge base and let the facts lead you in whatever direction it takes.

To add to my previous post about efficiency, it wouldn't be for those who couldn't be convinced. It's for perhaps those on the fence, dabbling or perhaps discovering "hey, there's more to this topic than I previously thought", and "who's a good source to follow?", or "what evidence considered legit?" Those committed to ignoring the evidence of this topic aren't invited to the party. They can have fun discussing the flat earth. The question you now make me ponder is how would one account for a rating system as those cement-heads start ranking everything as fake or a fraud? I suppose it's just part of any public voting or ranking system on any topic.

Just last week I decided to see how the other half live and listened to interviews with Janice Carter quickly followed by one with Tood Standing. Blinky, the magical Sylvanic Valley and all his other nonsense over the years aside (if that's possible)... The interview gave an insight into his mindset and it wasn't pretty. From the current shenanigans where he wants us to believe he's going to stop billionaire hunters from harvesting a bigfoot single-handedly. To the very strong and unwavering belief that he will be the one to prove BF with irrefutable HD footage (clearly forgot about his already existing irrefutable headshots of BF). As tempting as it may be I for one would not be going into the wilderness with this guy on one of his 'expeditions'. Certainly there is something a little broken with Todd. Very sad case.

The thing he recorded with the all black eyes was a stage prop. It may look like a Bigfoot, but it certainly wasn't one.

Understandable. I was much more interested in what was going on in Les Stroud’s head behind the scenes of the trip.

Sorry...you lost me with Todd Standing.

No, I'm unfamiliar with the book, but I'm almost convinced that sasquatches are as human as a Neanderthal was.

My friend said the exact same thing (in Alaska). It may have been a prop, but it was a prop that was made to look like one that was real (apparently).

The one I saw was nearly a 100% match to the picture he had, down to the all black eyes.

I have seen bigfoot. And it looked exactly like the bigfoot that Todd standing recorded with the all black eyes. I was skeptical at first when I saw his pictures, now seeing it first hand..I do believe he is 100% legit.