clownboy

New Member
  • Content count

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About clownboy

  • Rank
    Wildman
  • Birthday 03/27/1967
  1. Another legend passed.
  2. I never doubted there was some truth to the incident. That news clipping just doesn't seem to match the story told in present day. I kinda imagined the miners hunkered down and scared poopless all night in the cabin. Then maybe as they retold their story and as others re retold the story, additions were made to spice it up. Look at other naratives from the past, Washington and the cherry tree...Lincoln never told a lie(even to his wife?)...Some guy with a coonskin hat wrestling a grizzly bear. We accept all these tales with a grain of salt and believe they are based on a truth, just embelished. I see this incident possibly the same way. It's a great story even if it's false so I'm not looking to tear it down. In regards to the stories of boy scouts throwing rocks at the cabin, wouldn't that be Minor on miner crime?
  3. MArc, the caption on your newspaper photo says, "Wild Apes are reputed to have played pranks." Since that remark was made immediatly after the events, it makes me wonder how much of that story has been embelished after many many retellings over generations. Kinda like the 3 lb trout your grandpa caught when he was a kid. By the time he tells his Great grandchildren it's grown to 13 lb and took him four hours to land. I dont know but "Pranks" sure wouldn't be the word I'd use to describe what the modern story relates happened.
  4. Yes, you do get it. They were Hired to play a role that they are close to in real life. Thus someone drew the short straw and had to pretend to not believe.
  5. In case you didn't notice, they were all playing roles. The Scientist/Teacher, the Mountain Man, the Know-it-All, and the Sceptic. All that was missing was The Millionaire and his wife. If I spelled Sceptic wrong please replace with Disbeliever. Having brainfreeze atm.
  6. I have to say, I never saw this thread until now but it deserves an award as most entertaining read in quite some time. I have no opinion either way on the photo but I sure get a kick out of all the expert analasis going on here.
  7. I used to think I would have no fear. My curiosity and my naive belief that EVERY Bf was a gentle creature would override everything. Now that i've made some sense out of the Missing 411 books and some other materials, I can say my mind just does not know anymore... not that I'm sure BF is responsible for any missing people but hey, we humans kick out a bad apple about every 10th child so why wouldn't BF?
  8. Rogue, 1) I vastly disagree with your thoughts on this. I have yet to come across a database with tens of thousands of Unicorn sightings but I guess it's all in how you look at it. We can agree to disagree on this. 2) I understand your argument on dermal ridges but do you really expect an expert would be fooled by this? I mean that's why their print experts, to differentiate between real and fake/flaws. 3) I really don't believe bears with mange are so numerous they account for all these sightings. Would'nt that be opposite of a BF anyways? I mean usually lotsa hair is reported in sightings. I can see maybe a few dimwitted people might freak out in these cases but not the number of sightings reported on a yearly basis. Also I really don't know what bear your refering to as whooping but last I checked whooping isn't the only sounds BF reportedly makes. What about those screams that are recorded that no one seems to be able to list a known animal to? The sierra sounds also come to mind. All this falls under the mistaken Identity file which is quite hard to swallow in my book.
  9. I have a question(s) for Darrell. While I can see you are basing you conclusion on the final proof alone ( a body), I'm curious what your explantion is for thousands of people across centuries and of all races seem to see the same exact creature time after time? If BF was a figment of their imagination, then would'nt there be the same number of Unicorn sightings? Or Leprachauns for that matter. What causes all these people to see the same thing with similar behavior patterns and vocalizations? Would'nt the Vocals alone be wildly sporatic if everyone was making them up? What's leaving all those footprints with dermal ridges that Jimmy Chilcut examined and proclaimed to be so realistic, no one but an expert in primate prints could even hope to fake? Is everyone who is faking prints that good? Why do people find prints in areas 100's of miles from any town or city. Random pranksters wasting time and money to lay them out in the middle of nowhere? And last of all, the thing that really bugs me, when people say that sightings are just a bear being mistaken for BF. If you take your 5 year old to the zoo and he looks in the Gorrilla pen and shouts "bear" , I think you're in a load of trouble. Any kindergartner can tell the difference easily. I find that claim to be the most insulting to even the most basic intelligence if you get my drift. Anyway's I see your point about ultimate proof, I'm just curious how you explain these things away as nothing. I'm trying to write this with a neutral tone so we can explore both sides of the fence. My mind is still open so give me good reasons why you have reached your conclusion.
  10. Susi, Georgerm's post did not say it was his own findings. It caimed it was from a biochemist with a P.H.D from Harvard. However, thank you for posting your response as it made me reread it and realise that he never gave his name. I would value it more if someone risked putting their name to thier findings. As to your feeling that Ketchum is an expert in DNA, you might want to consider that she only works in the one field of DNA extraction and evaluation. I have no problem with her knowledge in those fields, it's the conclusions she's drawn outside of her fields that I think would be strengthened with the proper experts guiding her work.
  11. Ty Chelefoot. The author seems to really know what he's talking about but sadly is very difficult to follow and absorb for us amateurs. I hate just having to draw conclusions when someone is just off the charts smarter than me but can't put it all into layman's terms. I'm trying to teach myself about DNA little by little but it's like learning Chinese on a See and Say. I still like the fact that these are fact checking papers and not personal attacks on Ketchum. They expose themselves to fraud just as much by doing so and I doubt their authors would want to embarress themselves in print over a subject like this unless they spot the real errors that they and their peers would agree upon.
  12. Who's the bonehead now? Sorry, way too easy.
  13. TY Georgerm. I think #5 was the best point made by the author. Some of the other points seem to just try to explain where she might have made mistakes(contaminated DNA and such) and I do really appreciate a professional viewpoint. Now I see this in a more plausible light that it could go either way. It didn't actully disprove it 100% but it showed where the holes are which weaken her findings. In retrospect I think it's a shame she didn't or couldn't get other top level experts involved before reaching a conclusion. It would have help filter the study and find the errors before publication. A expert in anthropolgy would have worked out a great number of the kinks had they worked alongside during the study. I still believe Ketchum was never try to defraud anyone just maybe getting too far ahead too quickly and not having the benefit of top level experts to work it through. My opinion only but those Erikson project snippets she never should have attached herself to. They seem way too phony to include with a serious study. Ty again for expanding my knowledge and keeping my mind open to all facts whether they be pro or con. It's the only way this mystery will ever be solved.
  14. Suzi, I am not taking the stance of looking to defend it. I'm just needy in the facts department. Be they positive or negative. I don't like sounding like a fool when I repeat propagnda rather than stone cold facts.
  15. Now that I've found a thread about this subject that is not 8 miles long, would someone please enlighten me about one thing. When Ketchum's report came out and was extremely railed upon, I never heard one EXPERT prove that the science was flawed. I read many reports about how it MUST be flawed but no one stepped up to the plate and said "Here's where she went wrong, her math was off, she left something out, etc." So your own personal opinions and agendas aside, can anyone link me to the actual proof that Ketchum screwed up. If her report was erroneus I would like to know for my own benefit, not to suit someone else's beliefs pro or con. I do feel strongly that the only real claims can come from other genetics experts who took the time to fully research what she came up with. So post a link where I can read that so and so from Neanderthal State has went over her findings with a fine tooth comb and has the proof that it was a faulty study. I have no interest in any article that states it's wrong because BF can't exist. I'm quite sure this same argument was drummed up 150 years ago over Mountain gorrilas. However, if she screwed up on the technical side I would like to know.