Guest gershake Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) In response to someone wishing her patience: "My patience went about the first of the year like everyone else's. LOL So ready for this to be over." http://www.facebook....otal_comments=2 Edited June 15, 2012 by gershake
bipedalist Posted June 15, 2012 BFF Patron Posted June 15, 2012 Does he mean our "Jodie"? she left the BFF and now "has seen the light" at the JREF from what I understand... so it I wouldn't put much weight on those rumors. I suppose so, in what contexts, I wouldn't know. It was no secret from open forum posts that she had a direct pipeline to Justin. Many members engaged Justin in behind the scenes PM's besides her too and that could be gleaned from the thread as well. I thought it strange with all of Lindsay's experience that he would make a "who are they" comment re: TEXLA (and our friend Southernyahoo). Any hoe-handle that's been on this forum reading (even before they were banned) would know the connection or have the journalistic skills to find out if they gave a dime about it.
Drew Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Here is a nice (although of course simplified) quote from a recent article by the California Academy of Sciences about new species: "While it takes months and even years to formally describe and publish a new species in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (the reason they are not included in the 2011 total)" (entire article found here: http://www.calacadem...new_species.php ). Science takes time. This sort of controversial sciences takes even more time. What is controversial about describing a new species? It should follow the same path that describing any species uses. Don't assign any holy requirements to describing a new species of primate. If there was evidence which allowed cataloging of the species it would be just like any other animal. There isn't this evidence of course, despite Mulder's claims of hair samples, and footprints, and stories. One can always hope that this will change, but I predict it will not.
indiefoot Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 How many other animals may be able to have a chat with us?
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Drew, I'm curious how you might account for trackways that go for miles. Are you thinking that trackways spontaneously appear by magic, that they are all hoaxed even in the most remote regions, or that bears will walk on two feet without straddling just to mess with us?
southernyahoo Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Lindsay doesn't know my name, and I don't mind that at all. LOL What is controversial about describing a new species? I think an educated guess would be that some species are very closely related and the controversy occurs between the lumpers and the splitters. 2
Guest Particle Noun Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 What is controversial about describing a new species? It should follow the same path that describing any species uses. Don't assign any holy requirements to describing a new species of primate. If there was evidence which allowed cataloging of the species it would be just like any other animal. There isn't this evidence of course, despite Mulder's claims of hair samples, and footprints, and stories. One can always hope that this will change, but I predict it will not. Really? This isn't a subspecies of Norwegian wood gnat, it's Bigfoot. The paper will be read with more skepticism and incredulity than most. I don't think I'm stretching too much here....
Guest Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 What is controversial about describing a new species? It should follow the same path that describing any species uses. Don't assign any holy requirements to describing a new species of primate. If there was evidence which allowed cataloging of the species it would be just like any other animal. There isn't this evidence of course, despite Mulder's claims of hair samples, and footprints, and stories. One can always hope that this will change, but I predict it will not. The samples, tracks, etc are a matter of public record...or did I just hallucinate the book I read about them...and Dr Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al hallucinate examining them?
Drew Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 I have asked for the test results many times. You have yet to provide them.
Guest Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 ^And I've pointed you at where their findings can be documented many times...you have yet to acknowledge them.
Drew Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 I must have missed the test result document that said 'This hair is Bigfoot'
Guest Particle Noun Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Well, it can't be right? I mean, there is no type specimen. So, it comes back "unknown Hominid", which can't be bigfoot, because there is no type specimen, so it comes back "unkown hominid", which can't be bigfoot, because there is no type specimen, so it comes back "unkown hominid",which can't be bigfoot, because there is no type specimen, so it comes back "unkown hominid", which can't be bigfoot, because there is no type specimen, so it comes back "unkown hominid",
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Perhaps we should start awarding smiley faces...
Guest watch1 Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 Well, it can't be right? I mean, there is no type specimen. So, it comes back "unknown Hominid", which can't be bigfoot, because there is no type specimen, so it comes back "unkown hominid", which can't be bigfoot, because there is no type specimen, so it comes back "unkown hominid",which can't be bigfoot, because there is no type specimen, so it comes back "unkown hominid", which can't be bigfoot, because there is no type specimen, so it comes back "unkown hominid", See..I told you we been riding on a merry-go-round and we always end up where we started. Watch1
Recommended Posts