Guest slimwitless Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 He also had the oldest documented case of Lyme disease.
Guest Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) He also had the oldest documented case of Lyme disease. Oh, yeah and that kind of threw them for a loop, too. They were a little surprised the disease hasn't changed in 5,000 years. Edited December 4, 2011 by rwridley
Guest Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Tom Biscardi offers hunter 50 grand For bigfoot steak claims dna real sasquatch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcAzPu8OmzY
Guest Jodie Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 I'ld sell him a nice piece rump roast with some rabbit fur sewed on it just so I could literally make an "ass" out of him.
Incorrigible1 Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Dammit, Jodie. That's good gin expelled thru my nostrils at this early hour of a Sunday morning.
southernyahoo Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Besides, no offense, but how would one know what one is getting? That is one of the core issues, isn't it? It's a core issue with any unattached evidence, and this is a key point in why bigfoot hasn't been proven, it's hard to justify the persuit on just the possibility.
masterbarber Posted December 4, 2011 Admin Posted December 4, 2011 There's no blog at http://bigfootsteak....-on-sierra.html but that doesn't surprise me.....
slabdog Posted December 5, 2011 Author Posted December 5, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcAzPu8OmzY (sigh).....so now who's this latest goon thats decided to propel himself into the "talking head" spot light.... "Off the Wall"...ehh... yeeeah... At least Mike Rugg runs a museum for golly's sake... off-the-wall (ôf-wôl, f-) adj. Informal 1. Very unconventional or unusual: manic, off-the-wall creativity; off-the-wall humor. 2. Exhibiting bizarre behavior; crazy: their off-the-wall friends.
Guest maximusnow Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 News on Ketchum paper was handed back (i.e. not *rejected*) for several reasons. One of the reasons: The paper “does not contain a testable hypothesisâ€. REF: http://bigfootlives.blogspot.com/2011/12/matt-moneymaker-on-ketchum-dna-project.html Thanks Sharon , Maximus
Guest slimwitless Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Yes, Moneymaker is talking about a previous journal submission. According to Ketchum the paper is in peer review at a journal other than Nature.
slabdog Posted December 5, 2011 Author Posted December 5, 2011 Thanks Sharon , Maximus[/i] Thanks? For re-blogging what was already posted on another blog? Ok sure... Thanks....for the copy paste job....I guess.
Guest maximusnow Posted December 6, 2011 Posted December 6, 2011 re-bloging???? this is a forum. Cut and paste was my way of avoiding........ (Hey, I read on this blog that .......such and such and such.) Can we just compromise and call it a quote with out quotations? Let me save face every now and then..... Maximus
JDL Posted December 6, 2011 Posted December 6, 2011 All it will take is one sniff of the sample and Biscardi will be talking 'real deal'. I agree; if TB is high bidder, his money spends like anyone's. The sample's worth a lot more than $50k if they hold onto it until after the reveal.
Guest Jodie Posted December 6, 2011 Posted December 6, 2011 It depends on whether the rest of the world agrees with Dr. Ketchum's interpretation of the results,I would imagine.
Guest slimwitless Posted December 7, 2011 Posted December 7, 2011 It seems Matt Moneymaker thinks General's sample is from a coyote. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2011/12/matt-moneymaker-claims-to-have-seen.html
Recommended Posts