Guest Particle Noun Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I was posting up the skeptical blog, not RL's blog quotes per se. End of story. Did I say I gave Lindsay credibility?, you must be imagining things sir. Not trying to ride ya Bipedalist! I just took exception to you making it sound like Wally had actually chimed in on that blog, which he hadn't. That blog quoted another blog which had a preported quote from Wally, which I thought needed clarifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) Don't worry icicle - the communities bark is worse than it's bite.. I think.. LOL. Just take what you can use and toss the stuff aside that messes with your blood pressure. I'm just getting the feeling not too much messes with icicle's blood pressure. Good name. Edited November 28, 2012 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) I would question your last sentence. A few posts ago I said it was a 60 minutes piece that revealed their "pay to get better ratings" scam. I was wrong, it was 20/20: BBB has tried to get my business, and I've declined every time... and for good reason. The only positive thing about being a member of BBB is that fools in the market place think it means something. Just to answer your concern. In Manitoba, this is how accreditation works. Edited November 28, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 28, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) Not trying to ride ya Bipedalist! I just took exception to you making it sound like Wally had actually chimed in on that blog, which he hadn't. That blog quoted another blog which had a preported quote from Wally, which I thought needed clarifying. No worries, and in searching for some other documentation I came across that link.... thought it was something to laugh at mostly. It's been a long day and I'm brain-dead but not because of reading the BFF all day for a change, lol. Didn't recognize the old link to an earlier set of comments on an older version of the paper. Even so.... we now know where the angel stuff came from. Just a reminder shall we say. Oh and I should've remembered I had Wally on speed-dial all along, geesh, really brain-dead! Edited November 28, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icicle Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Mountain Lions and Copperheads concern me 100x over than either of those two. I have a concealed side arm for the bigfooters and a respect/understanding (ie logical thought processing) for Bigfoot. But those 190lb kitty cats? No freakin' way. The irony is not lost on me that I worry about Bigfoot most when I'm out in the back yard smoking a cigarette. One of those two things is likely to Get me, but possibly not the one I'm anticipating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Particle Noun was that you on io9.com? Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Tontar Thank you for responding to my post . This is what I am asking, '' IF '' there is a video of a BF leaving a DNA sample would a type specieman still be required to proof the spieces ? I am asking because some think that this paper will not do much for the public because they think it would not measure up to a body. That's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer to it. I suppose that a lot would depend on the quality of the video, what the video actually shows, and if the video stands up to scrutiny. For example, I believe it was mentioned elsewhere in the forums that one of the Erickson videos was viewed and the commentary was that it was not a very convincing subject, that it appeared to be a suit and mask situation, that it looked a lot like a Wookie, and that the eyes did not blink. It was questionable to a proponent, not simply rejected by a skeptic. So if a video shows a subject that is highly questionable to a proponent, it seems like it might be difficult for it to pass muster with the general public that might not be predisposed to believe what they see. If someone who wants to believe has serious reservations, then likely those who have no dog in the race would likely be even less inclined to accept such a video. I suspect, however, that regardless of what the Ketchum study reveals, as well as what whatever supporting materials or media might be attached to it, there will need to be a type specimen at some point in order to actually "prove" existence. If the study is rocking cool, and there are slick videos that leave little question in most minds, that's a great start, something that goes far beyond what has been floating around for the past several decades and argued over for just as long. But in the end, if there is such a species, or sub-species roaming around the woods, even with the best DNA article in the world, there will need to be physical confirmation that they are really, truly out there. If they ARE out there, they should have bodies that can be photographed, filmed, captured, detained, whatever you want to call it. Now here's a question. I stumbled upon a few things recently, such as the Iwo Eleru, which is supposedly a hominid that has very old, archaic characteristics, yet date out at quite recent, as in less than 15,000 years. This is an interesting situation considering that Ketchum has proposed that the unknown hominid DNA is quite different from modern human, yet not very old relatively. The Iwo Eleru sounds like a perfect example where an old form of hominid managed to evade extinction for quite a bit longer than its contemporaries, lasting even longer than Neanderthal. There's also another very interesting article about prior hominids within and outside of our own lineage: http://kasamaproject.org/2012/08/07/genetics-fossils-two-track-to-human-origins-two-entwined-tales/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Particle Noun was that you on io9.com? Good stuff. HA! Yep, busted. Hated that article, couldn't hold my tongue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icicle Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I'm just getting the feeling not too much messes with icicle's blood pressure. Good name. Thank you, both of you Talking of appearance, I saw Bobo Fay for the very first time on Conan yesterday and I didn't expect a lot. There wasn't much to go on. Looked like every slacker from every Kevin Smith movie you ever saw - someone you might want to hang out with for a beer and shoot some pool. Comfortable in his own skin. Likeable. It is easy to miss the importance of this and I did. Extreme ease does not always mean extreme laziness even if it mostly does. It can also mean the supreme confidence that comes from being at the top of your game. Genius is never strained, it never looks like you are even trying. He took Conan apart. The audience was with him every step of the way, which is even more evidence of genius, and Conan was practically hopping from foot to foot trying to get any cheap laugh. He needs to fire his researchers because, like me, they didn't see Mr Fay coming either. It was hilarious. I think I'm in love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SmokeyMntnHooch Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 My concern about even having an HD video that is perfect, how many people will still cite it as a fake because of apparent differences in appearance and details in North America? While they may be the same overall creature, there are notable differences between PNW Sasquatch, Oklahoma Bigfoot, the Southern Eastern "Skunk Ape", white/grey specimens, etc. The layman doesn't know the intricacies of the species/sub-species across the continent. We will still have a fight from the fundamentalist controlled companies and complexes. Even if there is legitimate DNA and a clear video of a sasquatch leaving the DNA in habitat, can you imagine what Fox News would report, if they would at all? Now think of the 68 year old grandma watching it at home who believes everything Fox spits out. Even if we have 100% proof positive DNA, the only thing that will settle the whole dispute is a dead specimen layed on a slab for us to poke, prod, cut, dissect, etc. A key issue is that the discovery would have a huge impact on a lot of folks, belief systems, and several industries. There are very powerful and wealthy people out there who would rather be dragged behind a GTO on a bed of cacti before letting their "insert reason here" go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icicle Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Let's put it this way. I do a "bit" or work with celebrities, marketing, events, and public affairs. Which person (both me) would you rather have do your presentation: If you were representing me, its Hat Dude all the way. You rock that hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 If you were representing me, its Hat Dude all the way. You rock that hat. If that's the look you need, then that's what you hire, lol. St. G- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SquatchinNY Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I just want to know: Was any part of this paper released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 durnit, busy for the last week, crap breaks, miss it, got 10 pages to catch up on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 HA! Yep, busted. Hated that article, couldn't hold my tongue. You held your own, good job. I'm in my own couple spots away from here taking on the heads that are stuck in the sand. Amazing how little people want to think outside the box and how angry they get when you challenge science, considering how often science has been wrong, why is it such a crime to question it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts