Guest HairyGreek Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) I like to deal with direct claims, not rumors. Didn't see Art's post above. Edited October 14, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 127, buddy... unfortunately you have alot of reading to do..... It's all there, from the start of this thread, to the last page, but you gotta do some digging friend, there's no "cliff notes" here on the BFF.... All the details you asked about are contained in the numerous pages preceding this one. Or for $100 in my paypal, you can PM me and ill give you all the particulars... THATS A JOKE PEOPLE... !! GEEZ lighten up a bit !!!! Art Lol! Yeah, I tried wading through this once. After 36 pages and still nothing to come from it - I'll assume its all hogwash until further information comes forward. I was just hoping for a recap, or a funny retort and looks like one surfaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Words simply don't carry very much weight. Depends on the reputation and true character of the person uttering them Inc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krakatoa Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Depends on the reputation and true character of the person uttering them Inc. Well if there's anything you can count on in BFF, it's a reputation for a board full of true characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest herosmom Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Whew! I've plodded through the entire 36 pages here, lot's of questions answered-thanks General, hang in there! Guess I'm over-simplifying but all the heavy hitters are saying we'll have our proof soon-keep your shirts on folks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 14, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted October 14, 2011 Also- as has been mentioned, even if the DNA confirms a fully new species, and we're on the cusp of actual "discovery" - it ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT validate all the claims of habituation !! It does NOT validate every sighting report- not by a long shot ! Statements like that are just plain silly ! The problem with habituation claims, for me personally- is that very often (there are exceptions of course), the people making the claim LOVE to tell the warm hearted stories about how they did this, or did that, and all kinds of fanciful events going on- but dont you DARE ask them to prove any of it... It's the SAME just about every time- as I mentioned in my earlier post... you get the " well, you just wouldnt understand" excuse- or the "its because they need to be protected". And here I sit, knowing full well that people are perfectly capable of keeping it a secret where they are, and dont have to do a **** thing that would jeopardize the "safety" of their supposed forest friends- and they could post a picture, or even send info to a noted researcher etc... But it always seems to go the same way.. no way, no how. Then it normally ends (like the whole ENOCH debacle) with the "im taking my ball and going home" routine/ hurt feelings. I agree with you Art in mostly everything you've said, even that i haven't highlighted.. & the biggest worry i have with regards to that DNA stuff ?? That this Forum gets flooded with every crank in the US claiming this & claiming that when getting to the truth of it all will be an absolute nightmare, if possible at all.. It would possibly be an end to it all for me as learning about them will probably be so distorted that it will barely be possible.. But with regards to this Habituation stuff that you mention & not Sassy's specifically, but with regards to it on the whole, much like your perogative of not be as open as you could be with regards got your Sighting, where in truth we wouldn't really gain a lot from evidence wise, it's the alleged Habituators perogative if they don't want to share this & that, for whatever their reasons may be & yes it's frustrating because i like you & the rest of the Forum i'd guess, would like to SEE some more evidence of this Animal's existence in any way shape or form be it in Pictures, Tracks, whatever, that's why we're here i guess right ?? But that's just us being selfish which as a species, we are more often than not. You know as well as i know what kind of scrutiny Sasfooty would come under if she started to share her evidence & maybe ( sorry to talk about you as if you're not her Sas, but i hope you understand what i mean ), maybe Sasfooty doesn't feel even though she may not admit it publically, that she can take the criticism that can be pretty extreme, even on this Forum & even if we'd like to think it wouldn't be.. Yes there would be a sense of anonymity like Cervelo is suggesting in Post 1056 & he/she's not wrong but...........He/She's only saying that because he/she wants to see personally something that others have, for his/her own satisfaction, that's just being selfish like i always bring up where Humans are concerned. I think the possibility of Habituation is real, without a doubt, i also believe that it's happening now somewhere, i also believe that the people that it's happening to are not obliged in any way, shape or form to share their experiences & give in to the demands of this Internet Forum when it DEMANDS ( & yes, that's what this Forum does a lot of the time ) evidence & lastly, i also believe that not all claims of habituation are in fact truthful.. Maybe i'm way off the mark & maybe there are a zillion other reasons that Habituators don't tend to share what they could & maybe in fact i'm even giving one or two an out with what i say but i bet my bottom dollar that that's the truth where some are concerned. Just my $0.02 USD anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted October 14, 2011 Admin Share Posted October 14, 2011 & the biggest worry i have with regards to that DNA stuff ?? That this Forum gets flooded with every crank in the US claiming this & claiming that when getting to the truth of it all will be an absolute nightmare, if possible at all.. We have a plan for that... they'll have to register first and be manually validated by the admins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 14, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted October 14, 2011 We have a plan for that... they'll have to register first and be manually validated by the admins. Good luck with that one G, i'd be definately ducking for cover then.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 We have a plan for that... they'll have to register first and be manually validated by the admins. HMMMM, yea im gonna go with NO on this one..... I've been trying to figure out a way to force new members to just read the rules and guidelines... i'd be happy with that. Maybe you could come up with an idea on that ?? A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 We have a plan for that... they'll have to register first and be manually validated by the admins. Wear gloves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) ... Apparently Derek was pretty persuasive and was able to talk my wife into getting a ride from her sister to the post office and mailing it over night to Dr Ketchum on what was probably Wednesday morning. So ''my wife sent it'', I guess i could have just said that but then it would have brought up several questions i just answered first. As we have said we got the results a long time ago, if it was from a known animal we would have all been done talking about this a long time ago. ... Thanks G So you were the owner and sender of the specimen and the report came to you not Derek; and you imply that the result was not a known animal, though you don't state that. So you havent directly answered the question about whether it is a known animal or human. That is your right, no prob. I just to be clear on what you've said and what you haven't said. Has Derek seen the report itself? Edited October 14, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted October 14, 2011 Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2011 HMMMM, yea im gonna go with NO on this one.....I've been trying to figure out a way to force new members to just read the rules and guidelines... i'd be happy with that. Maybe you could come up with an idea on that ?? Keeping the forum the way it is works best,Mods are doing a great job at keeping in line with the rules. & the biggest worry I have with regards to that DNA stuff??That this Forum gets flooded with every crank in the US claiming this & claiming that when getting to the truth of it all will be an absolute nightmare, if possible at all.. Bobby Do not think that this is my biggest worry either and yes there will be people claiming this and that.Weed the false behavior of this creature and stick with the fact that we do know about them. There are people here who know the truth and know habituation cases. Also- as has been mentioned, even if the DNA confirms a fully new species, and we're on the cusp of actual "discovery" - it ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT validate all the claims of habituation !! It does NOT validate every sighting report- not by a long shot !Statements like that are just plain silly ! DNA validates it for the witnesses, and that’s a good thing. So how does that make it silly? When most of the time no one wants to even talk about what they experience. Yes if DNA can convict a person in court then DNA holds alot of weight for the witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Thanks G So you were the owner and sender of the specimen and the report came to you not Derek; and you imply that the result was not a known animal, though you don't state that. So you havent directly answered the question about whether it is a known animal or human. That is your right, no prob. I just to be clear on what you've said and what you haven't said. Has Derek seen the report itself? Parn, you missed some posts. General has since become a member of the OP, which includes Derek. "We" or "me" now implies the OP as far as results of their sample submittal if I am not mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) Has Derek seen the report itself? On one of the BlogTalk radio shows, Derek was asked if he had seen the results on the sample in question. He replied, "I've seen everything." Edited October 14, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 14, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted October 14, 2011 Bobby Do not think that this is my biggest worry either and yes there will be people claiming this and that.Weed the false behavior of this creature and stick with the fact that we do know about them. There are people here who know the truth and know habituation cases. That will still be double tough Julio, especially considering i really have little or no idea of what their normal behaviour would be really, let alone be able to tell what is false.. I really do think i'd back out of all this if the DNA stuff came back as positive & interest in the subject boomed, like i think it will.. It would simply be too much with every single twig snap in North America being construed as a possible Bigfoot.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts