Leaderboard

Agreed. I'm pretty confident that government doesn't want this to be discovered, and science is too busy chasing government money to care.

Yes. I think adequately detailed video CAN matter to science. It will never be accepted as proof but it might draw attention / resources. So if a person will only consider something valuable if it provides the final proof, then no. If moving the ball forward, even if not itself providing the final acceptance, is thought to be useful, then we should be looking at video as a tool in the toolbox. That said .. there is plenty of junk video already. Blurry. Short or choppy. Ambiguous. We need to expect a pretty brutal assessment of what we present. We need to be realistic about where the goalpost lies and not try to claim conclusive proof when all we're presenting is more blur. There is another aspect to video. Video that is useless so far as proof may still be useful to an investigator for learning things about bigfoot we don't know yet. It's not about getting skeptics to accept existence but rather to provide those who already accept existence with more detail. That doesn't require near the level of detail. IMHO ..