Guest RedRatSnake Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Nice Post ~ Jerry ~ Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) Yes, that is what it all comes down to. When this story goes mainstream, you will have plenty of time, and requests, to submit to a lie detector, even if you already have. Bottom line: if your story were true, as a seasoned hunter, you should have collected the odd little creature you just shot and killed and taken it to the nearest game warden and said, "hey, I don't have a clue as to what kind of animal I just shot, I felt it was going to attack us so I killed it. What IS this thing, anyway?" The fact that as a seasoned hunter you did not do so implies to me that either something else happened and you have withheld that information, or else it is a total, but needed, fabrication to explain why you have a story but no body. I'm not totally closed to your story; how could I or anyone not involved know with certainty the truth of your account, one way or the other. If you guys have all the evidence y'all say you do, then my comments are immaterial. Edited October 27, 2011 by Tautriadelta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) Yes, that is what it all comes down to. When this story goes mainstream, you will have plenty of time, and requests, to submit to a lie detector, even if you already have. Lie detector tests aren't admissible in a court of law (unlike eyewitness testimony which isn't admissible as evidence for bigfoot). Edited October 27, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 For what it's worth, I happen to think General is a pretty good storyteller. His post describing the shooting of the adult was brilliant IMO. That doesn't mean I think he's making it up. He did have a lot of time to think about how he was going to respond to the shooting questions. As to your other points, there are reports of these things running on all fours and a popular bigfoot blog recently ran an article about bigfoot scat. The researcher claims he found 50 fecal piles in a single days search of an active area. Can I speak to those claims? No, but they don't seem to be outside of the realm of possibility if these things actually exist. Most importantly, Ketchum clearly thinks the sample is from a bigfoot creature. Both Randles and General have hinted that's the case and in my opinion Ketchum would quickly distance herself from the story if there wasn't something to it. She hasn't done so. I'm also of the opinion the study may well involve more than DNA. If so, it could have required experts in other disciplines - a possible reason things are taking longer than even Ketchum expected. I admit this is mostly conjecture but it's not entirely uninformed. As for Paulides, I believe he's unable to think of these things as anything other than human for some of the reasons already stated. There's another possibility not open to discussion as it's largely considered a taboo subject in these parts. Personally I'd feel better if he wasn't so closely involved. Concerning General as a storyteller. You are correct, "that doesn't mean ... he's making it up." My point is that elements of his story make more sense if we deconstruct his story as a tall tale rather than as a reporting of real events. As to Ketchum, it remains to be seen if her paper, arguments, and evidence are defensible in the world of science, even if peer reviewed. Paulides seems to be closely allied with Ketchum. He also seems to be confident that Bigfoot is human. Do you think Randles has enough information from Ketchum to determine the nature of Bigfoot, or just a blanket thumbs up -- yes its positively a Bigfoot --- from Ketchum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Lie detector tests aren't admissible in a court of law (unlike eyewitness testimony which isn't admissible as evidence for bigfoot). You're right about lie detectors. Eyewitness testimony is admissible as evidence for Bigfoot, its just not considered conclusive, beyond question, evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) Concerning General as a storyteller. You are correct, "that doesn't mean ... he's making it up." My point is that elements of his story make more sense if we deconstruct his story as a tall tale rather than as a reporting of real events. I'm not hung up on the details of the story. All I know is that here is a piece of flesh that Ketchum believes is from a bigfoot. How that flesh arrived at her lab (although extremely interesting) is actually immaterial in the grand scheme of things. I can't wait to hear the story though. I'm certain there will be a few surprises. As to Ketchum, it remains to be seen if her paper, arguments and evidence are defensible in the world of science, even if peer reviewed. That's true. But that has no bearing on the fact that she believes the hairy piece of flesh that arrived in her lab is from a bigfoot. Paulides seems to be closely allied with Ketchum. He also seems to be confident that Bigfoot is human. How should I put this? I'm not sure someone that doesn't believe in Darwin should be interpreting where a particular hominid fits in the tree of life. Do you think Randles has enough information from Ketchum to determine the nature of Bigfoot, or just a blanket thumbs up -- yes its positively a Bigfoot --- from Ketchum? I think so. There is at least some corroborating evidence that the nuDNA results leaked by Lindsay in his July 4th blog post are legitimate. (Too bad Hairy's not here to give me an earful). I should add (on edit) that it probably depends what you mean by the "nature of Bigfoot". Randles claimed to have "seen everything" when asked whether Ketchum showed him the results. Edited October 27, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 It's possible that the incident actually happened and they are just defending the story as it happened. The only way I could see there being an agenda, (at least in the way you phrased it) is if their story was purposely leaked for Lindsay to stumble upon. Is that what you're getting at? Not exactly. If the event happened randomly as stated then up until the return and sample collection there wouldn't seem to have been an agenda. Afterwards as the cast of people involved increased and the DNA testing started then ideas of either a book or DVD would have had time and input to develop. It's not at all unusual as things like that happen all the time. But once the realization that the event can be taken to different possibilities then it becomes to the advantage of all those involved to steer the information in as favorable direction as possible. If everyone involved, especially the shooter were planning to remain silent and out of the public/media then it wouldn't have mattered what anybody said or would say. I don't fault them for anything they may now have planned I just find that the course it seems to be taking is unfortunately a little to typical in bigfoot scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Not exactly. If the event happened randomly as stated then up until the return and sample collection there wouldn't seem to have been an agenda. Afterwards as the cast of people involved increased and the DNA testing started then ideas of either a book or DVD would have had time and input to develop. It's not at all unusual as things like that happen all the time. But once the realization that the event can be taken to different possibilities then it becomes to the advantage of all those involved to steer the information in as favorable direction as possible. If everyone involved, especially the shooter were planning to remain silent and out of the public/media then it wouldn't have mattered what anybody said or would say. I don't fault them for anything they may now have planned I just find that the course it seems to be taking is unfortunately a little to typical in bigfoot scenarios. But is it worth all of that effort to try and keep a story on track, just to write a Bigfoot book? I see your point, but that all seems to be a lot of trouble to go through, for something that probably won't make a lot of money, unless the story is proven to be true. One thing I find different about this Bigfoot scenario, is that they're not trying convince anyone of anything. I think the course that this alleged encounter is taking, is being steered by rampant speculation, fueled by frustration. That's quite understandable, IMO, especially with all of the "soon" and "be patient" statements that have been bandied around over the past months. Like most, I'm just a bystander, watching this whole drama slowly unfold, and like most, I've got no skin in the game. When it's all said and done, I won't be anyone's fool and I might just learn a little more about human nature. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 It has been said in many different ways, but IF the study results pass a reputable peer review, will it ultimately matter how, why, when or where General obtained the sample he submitted? Will it matter if his story about the shooting is fabricated, provided the DNA tests come back repeatedly as something unknown? The only thing we know for sure is that this shooting story really has no more credence than the Enoch story. IF the DNA results are as have been implied, it still doesn't prove the story to be true regarding the shooting. I say this only because we have not been offered any real evidence in the way of photos, etc that the event took place as stated. To be clear, I am not saying it didn't occur as General and Derek have told us. I am simply saying that the DNA results, while lending credence to the part of the story that General (or someone) submitted sample to the study, does not prove out any of the rest of the shooting incident details. Now, if there are photos of the little one, or perhaps even the large one, that are being held back for specific reasons, it will change the way we will probably view this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 So the General is just wandering the Sierras and happened upon a chunk of reasonably fresh Bigfoot steak. That is if the DNA bears it out as "Unknown". How else do we suppose he came up with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 That's exactly right, PattyWagon. Unless there is some other corroborating evidence like video, no one will ever know with absolute certainty what happened that day. All we have for evidence is a piece of flesh that (by all indications) Ketchum feels is the real deal. Even if General did take the little one, we'd still have to take their word on how the event transpired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RioBravo Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) How should I put this? I'm not sure someone that doesn't believe in Darwin should be interpreting where a particular hominid fits in the tree of life. Not that I disbelieve you, but how do you know this? Edited October 27, 2011 by RioBravo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 One of the reasons I think this is likely true comes from jerrywayne's update on Honobia here. The relevant quote: "The location was a church retreat. This may have had something to do with Paulides noting he was not an evolutionist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 So the General is just wandering the Sierras and happened upon a chunk of reasonably fresh Bigfoot steak. That is if the DNA bears it out as "Unknown". How else do we suppose he came up with it? Technically, we don't know if it was General who actually found the sample, and we really don't know for sure yet that it was him who submitted it. This is just what we are being told. It is not impossible that someone else either shot the thing, or found a body. Maybe they didn't want to get involved with the deal and passed it off to General. We've heard not a word from 'Driver', who allegedly was the other witness at the scene. Without any testimony from him, all we have to go on is General's story. He absolutely could have fabricated it for no other reason than to inject himself into the story to replace whomever actually DID either shoot the creature, find the flesh sample, or both. Regardless of how many heavy hitters in the field believe him, we have not been shown any proof of the story being as told. I do hope it all turns out the way it's being portrayed, especially if it can help get these creatures documented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Central Pa Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Bottom line: if your story were true, as a seasoned hunter, you should have collected the odd little creature you just shot and killed and taken it to the nearest game warden and said, "hey, I don't have a clue as to what kind of animal I just shot, I felt it was going to attack us so I killed it. What IS this thing, anyway?" The last thing I would do with a BF body is take it to a game warden......If I was responsible for the death and it was human looking I would be scared,very scared and TBH I'm not sure what I would do. Alot of what the General has said about the body of the adult matches my sighting from a long time ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts