Guest Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Bigfoot lives in the forest of North America, because Chuck Norris allows them to...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) Jerry, I was willing to believe you were "respectful and curious" about my question and assertion to Parn, even though your hypo was simple and slanted. I am less willing to believe your sincerity now, as you claim you are insulted by my response. Is it the reference to "not listening?" Your follow up response reveals that again in your fixation on how a witness ought to respond. You also drag up hoaxes, etc. To me a witness is someone who witnessed a Bigfoot, neither hoax or a misidentification, but a Bigfoot witness. But, you also ignore again the other two elements I suggest to Parn. Your use of trivializing/colorful language is another indicator to me that you aren't sincere in trying to understand the impact to a witness. Your inquiry and responses fall into that second category of "fall-out" I refer to, an unbelieving public. I am wondering if it has occurred to you your repetitive stances as a skeptic are often perceived as insuting to witnesses? You might be insulted b/c I "endure the less informed?" Jerry I can't really help you there, the fact is Bigfoots do exist, people do witness them, and then must endure skeptics (often close loved ones) who feel clever enough to wave away the reality, in their lives and this world. I don't think I can help you out here Jerry. I suggest you reread my post to Parn. And the response to your interjection. That about covers it, unless you start a thread on this topic. But given your response I doubt I will join that thread. Those discussions are very personal, and rely on trust and respect to get past the mundane to what is important to the witness and our understanding of Bigfoots. I am not feeling it with you, so I tend to clam up in the presence of such. It is one of those "consequences." I often don't feel free to discuss my experiences openly, not something I am accustomed to, even now.. I don't have on my glasses this am, and a busy day ahead.so please forgive typos. I didn't want to leave you thinking I am impressed, or dissapointed, with your response. It is typical. But, I won't engage with you again, I no longer try to convince anyone, expecially the unwilling, and am here for different reasons., Edited April 24, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Bravo Ape Human, Bravo!!! That was magnificent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 The whole "I don't accept any one of your mountain of reported sightings, therefore bigfoot do not exist" stance is akin to sticking one's fingers in their ears and shouting "Nyaa, Nyaa, Nyaa, Nyaa Nyaa, Nyaa!" Parn doesn't have to accept what he refuses to hear, even if it requires extreme and convoluted argument to deflect fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 "Good grief people, this is my private FB. If I want to post a picture, I will do it. If I think it is BF, that is my business. If not, and it is just an interesting picture of a structure, that is also my business. This was not science, just something interesting for the BF enthusiasts that like to see unusual stick structures. It's not rocket science, it is just for fun. Please lighten up for crying out loud." http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=420732264605562&id=100000063763125 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 It's interesting to see the collision of the social aspect of social media colliding with highly anticipated science (one hopes for that at least). I don't think it's all being handled very eloquently, but there isn't a really good template for that yet. I would say that it's....strange...that she would say that (this post was from her true private FB account, not the one set up for her that Sally also posts in) since she ALSO posted it on her more official account. In any event, just more fodder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 What picture are they talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Not even a good photo. This is actually enhanced. The original is much darker. Honestly, this photo and recent round of comments have diminished my expectations for this project by a lot. That's not necessarily fair, and I'm still excited about it, but this photo is not good, isn't that interesting (to me) and is typical of the sort of non-evidence we see all the time. If the level of evidence in the study is even remotely close to stuff like this, well... To be fair she wasn't making a link between this and the study, and I accept that she just posted this image 'for fun'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 25, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted April 25, 2012 Those are Chuck Norris' cache of rattan escrima fighting sticks...... I'd recognize them anywhere despite the blur artifact and attempted finger slide coverup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 By god I think you are right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 "I know they exist because of their DNA and also because I have seen them." -- Dr. Melba Ketchum. I guess Columbo can pack it in, the mystery has been solved. Oh, just one more thing... can someone wake me when her paper finally gets published? Thanks. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 First new plant species described by its DNA. Seems like DNA for species identification is gaining momentum... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-plant-described-dna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 First new plant species described by its DNA. Seems like DNA for species identification is gaining momentum... http://www.scientifi...t-described-dna Don't you think the distinction is that you can go "pick" these flowers... look at them... smell them... photograph them, and even take them home with you. There's no disputing that they are real. It's just not the same THING as Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I honestly can't wait until they are recognized as an actual living species. Once that's done, scientists will take them seriously and want to search for answers to their habits and behavior. It'll show society it's ok to be open-minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Don't you think the distinction is that you can go "pick" these flowers... look at them... smell them... photograph them, and even take them home with you. There's no disputing that they are real. It's just not the same THING as Bigfoot. Yes, but even though you could smell them and pick them, it took DNA testing to determine the actual species of plant. Anyone know how long it took between doing the DNA testing, and publishing the results? I got the impression it was only last month that the testing was conducted. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts