Guest Cervelo Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) ^^^^^ Edited December 2, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UPs Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Tim, this is directly on topic. In another thread, you claimed that you have the ability to tell of someone is lying by seeing them tell their story and looking right into their eyes (FB thread in reference to witness interviews). Have you watched the interview with MK that was linked here and if so, can you let us all know your unique opinion and also what it is based on? She is a member here so please keep that in mind. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Notice: Guys, discussing MK's trustworthiness and honesty based on the opinion of another member Will not fly here! Discuss the report and not the member. Many of you need to re-read our rules. I will close this thread if I notice any more off-topic discussion or if I keep receiving reports from this thread. You folks are grown and you should start acting like it. See Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 ^^^^^ *pic removed per forum rules* Translation: You still can't. Not surprising. DNA comes from critter. DNA = critter. It's still that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SmokeyMntnHooch Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Notice: Guys, discussing MK's trustworthiness and honesty based on the opinion of another member Will not fly here! Discuss the report and not the member. Many of you need to re-read our rules. I will close this thread if I notice any more off-topic discussion or if I keep receiving reports from this thread. You folks are grown and you should start acting like it. See I agree but we have no study or report to actually discuss, just hearsay and hypothetical spats. It's bound to continue with this vs. that when there is no released study yet and 349 pages of *** for tat. What do you propose everyone discuss in this thread now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Well, you can't keep discussing a subject if you've completely exhausted the material you have to discuss. Discussion of who's lying, who's this and who's that are off-topic. Sorry, that's just fact. Perhaps we could discuss posting by the rules within the topic. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules Take a moment and look them over. Maybe then you'll be a bit more clear about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 2, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 2, 2012 Ask icicle. I said preprint, not handprint from getting slapped across the face from the author?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) Translation: You still can't. Not surprising. DNA comes from critter. DNA = critter. It's still that simple. I don't think I've every disagreed with you on that but you keep repeating it for some reason..... Just don't think a study that is suggesting something like this is going to fly without some pretty good back up. Edited December 2, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I think she will produce. The precise time does not seem to be of her choosing, at this point. Why are you defending MM's highly unprofessional conduct? She might produce something, it just won't be BF related DNA, or anything of substance to prove BF is real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Tim, Don't worry if this study isn't accompanied by a body, hand, foot or significant part. It will be plowed under like fertilizer in a field on its merit alone I don't think so, if she has what she says Bigfoot will never be looked at in the same way again. If she doesn't produce some paper soon this isn't good for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Just don't think a study that is suggesting something like this is going to fly without some pretty good back up. Exactly. MK says she has the goods, now it's just a matter of will they hold up. We are all waiting for this to fall one way or the other. Until then, we have to wait. Understandably frustrating for both sides of the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Orygun Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Best case scenario (and least likely) is that an unknown critter is identified via the DNA. Worse case is that with the very premature publicity stunt any future, and possibly actually valid DNA results will be ignored by the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 It was either a hoax or one of the greatest discoveries in history. The public is now leaning hard toward the hoax side so she is out of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) She might produce something, it just won't be BF related DNA, or anything of substance to prove BF is real. I disagree. The Sierra Kills reports seem credible, although with some inconsistencies (which have been explained in part by the participants' fear of a homocide prosecution). And I agree with Mulder that if you have a piece of flesh, you can determine where on the tree of life, and specifically where within the primates and homonids, the animal falls. Flesh of bigfoot equals proof of a previously unrecognized homonid. And I do not for a minute think Ketchum was sloppy, or that if she was, any sloppiness wasn't subsequently corrected by those confirming her work. In any case, the paper itself and its supporting evidence will stand or fall on its own. Edited December 2, 2012 by Oak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Please, everyone stay on topic and away from MM. Don't get the thread closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts