Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 The mood has turned a bit pugnacious with a touch of haughty. I thought this was the season to be jolly. Gotta love those look up in the dictionary type words ~ Sometimes it can look the way you have expressed cause this subject tends to be kinda like a cat fight, " you know believer versus Skeptic " i think at times things get a bit up tight and some obvious humor or a shot of simple skepticism gets the wrong tag, the fact that most everyone involved in the conversation has been around a while on the BFF should pretty much indicate there is a mutual interest in the subject and all can benefit with some good ole respect and admiration for ones opinion, after all no one has been harmed, wounded or killed lately. Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/bigfoot-news-december-10-2011/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 RL must be using fresh batteries in his crystal ball to speculate that the release date will be on the 31st January. The grammer and spelling is terrible also for someone claiming to be a journalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 SY: this is exactly the generalization/rationalization that I expect to hear. This is why DNA is such a refuge for bigfoot apologists. The deep dark secrets of DNA...(cue the music)...can never be plumbed.... No one is saying that at all...nor is the situation is anywhere near the way you present it. The claim has NEVER been "bigfoot is 'modern human' ". Assuming that the Paulides/Stubsted leak is accurate, the claim is that PARTS of the suspected BF DNA are modern human or within the modern human range, while OTHER parts (the parts you never speak about) are clearly NOT modern human/in the human range. Whole herds of cattle are wondering where their hay is while Skeptics build their army of straw men with the "results supposedly show BF is 'modern human' " meme. The fact is that, at least on the mtDNA that Richard is describing, the mtDNA is modern human. It's not me who's said that. It's him. Capiche? How many times does Richard have to say that??? 50? 146? three hundred forty leven? Pleez pleez tell me you don't think Richard is lying/dishonest/"intellectually dishonest". LOL. Plz tell me you know what "feral human" means. I didn't write that. Pleez pleez tell me you don't think Ketchum is intellectually dishonest. There goes another hayfield worth of hay, off to add a battalion to the straw man army...the only intellectual dishonesty is coming from the Skeptic side of the fence on this issue. you're certainly entitled to your opinion about the difference between Sasquatch Project and North American Ape Project. But pleez AZ spare us the faux indignation.... Mulder tosses "intellectually dishonest" around on this forum like it was rice at a wedding. And spare us the straw man stuff where you make up words that I didn't say. Then of course Mulder will come along and act like I actually said the words that you made up. LOL I've seen this Nantucket sleighride already. It's intellectually dishonest. LOL. Tell you what, parn...I'll stop calling Skeptic arguments "intellectually dishonest" when Skeptics stop making intellectually dishonest arguements, m'kay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 RL must be using fresh batteries in his crystal ball to speculate that the release date will be on the 31st January. The grammer and spelling is terrible also for someone claiming to be a journalist. "The grammer and spelling is terrible...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Looks like he has been reading the forum again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 11, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 11, 2011 Yes, for some reason, I believe he does more than "reads" the BFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) Edited December 11, 2011 by megatarsal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Tell you what, parn...I'll stop calling Skeptic arguments "intellectually dishonest" when Skeptics stop making intellectually dishonest arguements, m'kay? That's not being very fair to the skeptic's that are taking a more relaxed way here on the forum, there are plenty here that have been more than polite about questions and answers, making a blanket statement like that shows you think you are in some kinda of a war. Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 you're certainly entitled to your opinion about the difference between Sasquatch Project and North American Ape Project. But pleez AZ spare us the faux indignation.... Mulder tosses "intellectually dishonest" around on this forum like it was rice at a wedding. And spare us the straw man stuff where you make up words that I didn't say. Then of course Mulder will come along and act like I actually said the words that you made up. LOL I've seen this Nantucket sleighride already. It's intellectually dishonest. LOL. Ok Parn, let's go with the words you did write, so as not to confuse them with my "made up" words. "I would describe that as intellectual cowardice/dishonesty but definitely a good marketing move. So yes, he will have to re-write Legend Meets Science. It would hype sales, to boot." Well if I was allowed to freestyle, I'd say that it looks to me that you called Meldrum, or as least this move, cowardly, dishonest and done for financial reasons. There is no indignation or phony outrage on my part at all, I don't even care. I just asked for you to show anything indicating Meldrum has changed his stance on what Bigfoot is. You've alluded to that quite a bit lately, hinting that he has been painted into some corner as being either wrong or forced to ditch all of his theories. That is completely understandable, I just didn't think he made a move yet. But instead of addressing that, you did something completely parnagraphic and started lobbing nice little, "rice at a wedding" and "Nantucket sleighride" bombs instead of backing up your argument. Something it seems is becoming quite a trend the more I am treated with your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 #791 Arizona, here is a link to a radio interview Meldrum did this November 11 in Utah. He is asked specifically about BF as ape or human. I heard him to say that he doesn't consider BF to be human, but rather a part of a closely grouped set of hominids. Sorry, I don' know which minute in the interview to direct you to. http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/111111-bigfoot-and-cryptozoology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 #774 Parn, I think that if you search through BFRO archives you will find examples of suspected shelters made from bent overtrees. Also, using branches to knock trees has been described as well as rock throwing, implying an opposable thumb. Presents have been left for humans. Language has been heard as well as observed between individuals. Why would they need clothes with that hair, which has been compared to a ghillie suit(useful in deer hunting to obscure the human form)? BF's have been thought to steal freshly killed dear and fish. Carrying their young as they walk is also in there. Sorry I don't provide you links, but you can pore through the BFRO stuff if you're not watching the debate tonight. Chimpanzees have been known to throw items. They also use sticks to make them selves appear larger and to gather ants. They also carry their young. They also build nests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 #791 Arizona, here is a link to a radio interview Meldrum did this November 11 in Utah. He is asked specifically about BF as ape or human. I heard him to say that he doesn't consider BF to be human, but rather a part of a closely grouped set of hominids. Sorry, I don' know which minute in the interview to direct you to. http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/111111-bigfoot-and-cryptozoology That's a pretty good listen ~ Dr Meldrum says it right at the end 51:10 Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 #791 Arizona, here is a link to a radio interview Meldrum did this November 11 in Utah. He is asked specifically about BF as ape or human. I heard him to say that he doesn't consider BF to be human, but rather a part of a closely grouped set of hominids. Sorry, I don' know which minute in the interview to direct you to. http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/111111-bigfoot-and-cryptozoology Thanks for the link. Yeah that is hardly jumping on the "bigfoot is human" bandwagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) Well now, did they really believe it, or did they form a hypothesis based on observations and understanding at the time, tested it, then falsified it? SY, You are referring to the methods of science. Science as a generally accepted enterprise is a fairly new acquisition in the history of thought. I'm thinking of such "Great Minds" as George Berkeley, who argued for metaphysical idealism, itself questionable, and became a big advocate for the medicinal use of tar water, or much further back, Plato, considered by many as the greatest mind ever, even though most of the intelligentsia today ignore his "Platonic" theory of forms. My original point expanded: Over the years, Bigfoot phenomena have been almost exclusively disseminated by Bigfoot believers (and largely ignored by everyone else). It cannot be denied that once something is believed, sincerely believed, that belief is less open to objective reflection or criticism. I'll use myself as an example. When I was a young guy, I not only believed in Bigfoot, I believed in Nessie as well. When I first saw the Lachlan Stuart Nessie photo in a book I was excited: Stuart said the photo represented the animal he saw --- end of story for me --- I believed. Didn't think to doubt it. No reason to -- Nessie did exist --- I believed. As to sasquatch, my point is that the Bigfoot story is almost solely nurtured and promulgated by believers, and the phenomena really is in need of fumigation by interested, relevant scientific disciplines. The Bigfoot story seems to be driving off the cliff nowadays, as this example shows: http://treepeekers.w...this-obsession/ As to the Ketchum paper, we will have to wait and see what it has to offer, of course. My speculation based on all I've read:: 1. The report will not suggest the DNA results are 100% human. 2. It will locate what it perceives is a genetic variation that is consistent in its samples and not consistent with human DNA in the GenBank. 3. This genetic variation is large enough to rule out homo sapiens sapiens and close enough to declare it a member of the family of homo sapiens. 4. Eyewitness accounts and morphology of samples will be used to bolster the case for the DNA not originating from modern humans.. Edited December 11, 2011 by jerrywayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts