Guest MikeG Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Somewhere in the rules (I can't find it at the moment) is a request not to quote the immediately preceding posting. This is to save space on the server, I presume, but it also makes reading the whole thread rather easier. If you are replying to posts further back in the same thread, then of course a quote is fine, but again, they ask that you edit it down to the relevant lines that you are wanting to respond to. I'm not a Mod, and there is probably a rule about not trying to do a Mod's job!!!! Mike Edited February 8, 2012 by MikeG
Guest exnihilo Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 So mote it be. And, thanks for the info
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 The point is, I am not elucidating a belief or even sussing out probabilities. I am eliminating the impossible, and speculating about the rest. No one can tell me how many genes it would take to make you and I appear like BF, and consequently what an hypothetical genetic distance might be. But we do know that small genetic differences can lead to drastic changes, even if we don't understand the mechanisms in play. After all, only a 4% change in our genome would turn us into chimpanzees. Just for argument sake, say a person had werewolf syndrome and gigantism, such a person would resemble a BF. there was a case where a child was found living in the wild with wolves, and they said he was tolerant of any climate without clothing,also recently, the child in china that could see in the dark. these are examples of conditions within modern man that BF is said to possess .
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Parn, I would also remind you that you are committing yourself to a terribly inflexible position, in writing, and in public. You could find yourself trying to defend the indefensible once the actual results are out, At this point he really has no choice. This is like watching the Poker game in Casino Royale. Someone's ego is gonna take a beating when the game is over. He's just betting it's not him. He's betting the farm on it.
Guest RayG Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 But in the absence of this specificity, I think it would be charitable to interpret the term in a way that is renders the statement consistent, if such a reading is possible. I'm not in a charitable mood, I'm a fact seeker, a truth hunter, and an a-hat. Mulder stepped on stage with the unsupported claim that an animal could be Homo sapiens and NOT be human, and it remains an unsupported claim. The three links he presented confirmed the opposite of his claim, yet he complains he's pandering to my request for facts. His logic escapes me. RayG
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) @ Saskeptic If some dude can shoot a bigfoot and slice a "steak" out of its thigh, then it's certainly possible to take one with a lethal shot. For a guy that post the matter of "facts" , your "facts" of this matter are completely false. Edited February 8, 2012 by zigoapex
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 I would also remind you that you are committing yourself to a terribly inflexible position, in writing, and in public. You could find yourself trying to defend the indefensible once the actual results are out, and, as I said at the time of your last outburst (around the time the copyright thing reared its head), the wise know when to keep their counsel. Mike I think it's Derekfoot that has a quote from me in his signature. I'll say it here again, mirroring Parn. There is no Bigfoot. No BF were shot. There is no BF steak. There is no BF DNA. How's that for committing oneself to an inflexible position?
bipedalist Posted February 8, 2012 BFF Patron Posted February 8, 2012 Uhhhh......that would be southernyahoo with the quotable quotes....... squatch on SY
Guest MikeG Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 There is no Bigfoot. No BF were shot. There is no BF steak. There is no BF DNA. How's that for committing oneself to an inflexible position? That's fine, and I respect your position. Have you thought about how you will react if events prove you wrong, be it this month or in 10 years time? Will you be strong enough to stay here and say "I got it wrong"? Unfortunately, it isn't possible to reverse the question, as it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. Mike
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 For a guy that post the matter of "facts" , your "facts" of this matter are completely false. Isn't a main source of the DNA that Ketchum is analyzing a piece of tissue recovered from where someone claims to have shot a bigfoot, and is not that tissue referred to as a "steak?" Please accept my apology if I've confused some of the wild claims regarding Ketchum's analysis. On a side note, did not someone claim to have shot a bigfoot in southeastern Oklahoma this summer as well? The point is that there are claims out there that people indeed have put bullets into bigfoots. If you can shoot one in the rump, you can shoot one in the head. If such claims are true, then it's simply a matter of time before someone really kills a real bigfoot and we've got our proverbial monkey on a slab. I think it's Derekfoot that has a quote from me in his signature. I'll say it here again, mirroring Parn. There is no Bigfoot. No BF were shot. There is no BF steak. There is no BF DNA. Not bad. Southernyahoo has me on his sig line too!
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Saskeptic, the tissue sample recovered from the kill site is just one of more than 100 samples that are included in Ketchum's study, as Derek Randles makes clear in his recent interview. I've taken the liberty of posting excerpts from his remarks, so that they can (I hope) reach more interested listeners. Edited February 8, 2012 by Christopher Noel
Guest gershake Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Isn't a main source of the DNA that Ketchum is analyzing a piece of tissue recovered from where someone claims to have shot a bigfoot, and is not that tissue referred to as a "steak?" Please accept my apology if I've confused some of the wild claims regarding Ketchum's analysis. So far so good, just that Smeja doesn't claim that he cut that steak out of a bigfoot. He says that he found that steak days later with no signs of the rest of the bigfoot.
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 That's fine, and I respect your position. Have you thought about how you will react if events prove you wrong, be it this month or in 10 years time? Will you be strong enough to stay here and say "I got it wrong"? Mike No need for strength at all. I'll be happy to say I was wrong if that'll make someone feel better. But if you think about it, I wasn't wrong. Right now, having researched, searched, searched searched for years, I have arrived at my opinion that BF does not exist based on the evidence. It's a perfectly valid conclusion right now. If new, compelling evidence arrives that proves BF is real, then I will simply change my opinion/position in light of it. No problem. I'd love to be "wrong".
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 So far so good, just that Smeja doesn't claim that he cut that steak out of a bigfoot. He says that he found that steak days later with no signs of the rest of the bigfoot. Right, so the "steak" presumably got left behind as a result of the bullet that Smeja claims he sent through said bigfoot. That's what I thought was the story,
Recommended Posts