Guest Jodie Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 What claim is his team investigating Ridley? Who is the team? That someone quoted him saying he thought the story was true, or that you aren't really Ridley, or both? That was chuckle inducing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 After reading it a few times, I surmised he had me confused with Richard Stubstad because I sign off my emails with "Richard." Can we find someone named "Melba" to send him a few questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 What claim is his team investigating Ridley? Who is the team? That someone quoted him saying he thought the story was true, or that you aren't really Ridley, or both? That was chuckle inducing He means his team is investigating the claims that I am the victim of misidentification. They must be doing a thorough investigation because that was last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Can we find someone named "Melba" to send him a few questions? It is definitely worth a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RioBravo Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 For the record, I sent Paulides an email asking him if he had a comment on the Sierra shootings. I wanted to know if he believed it. Someone in another thread claimed at Honobia he indicated he thought the Sierra shootings did happen. I wanted to know if he thought it was true, did that mean he believed that General killed a human being? He fired off an angry email to me in response that made some statements about me that I had trouble grasping because they were so... wrong. After reading it a few times, I surmised he had me confused with Richard Stubstad because I sign off my emails with "Richard." I sent him an email back explaining that I believed he had me mistaken for Stubstad. He replied saying his team was investigating my claims. I'm not joking. So, like the Fonz he does indeed have trouble apologizing. Nice work, RW. Also like the Fonz, Paulides has jumped the shark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted October 26, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted October 26, 2011 Yah, I'm just hopeful the guy who leads the proverbial pressie is not named Richard <something> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I was at Honobia for one morning session. Paulides did not mention the Sierra incident even though he was speaking about Ketchum and the DNA evidence. He did say he thought most scientists would ignore her paper. This would be a curious statement to make if he had knowledge of Ketchum's paper being reviewed for possible publication in NATURE magazine. Also it was mentioned that Ketchum was submitting samples to other labs for testing and the labs were told beforehand the samples were from humans. If we believe Paulides, the paper will show Bigfoot as human, if not homo sapiens. Yet the argument and evidence will be ambiguous enough not to overturn the general scientific distance from the subject. In my humble view, the paper is being bookended by releases from the Olympic Project and the Erickson Project that seem too good to be true, yet problematic in relation to the paper. If the paper suggests that Bigfoot is a homo sapiens/related homo hybrid, the OP and EP seem to have their Bigfoot miscast. The heavily hair-suited and fanged creatures in Kentucky, and California's short-faced bear-like creatures (EP and OP) don't seem to have much homo sapiens blood in them. As it stands with the Sierra story: General sticks to his account, Randles supports him without reservation, and Ketchum allegedly will offer support scientifically. End of story? I speak for myself. No offense to any one --- but General's account seems too odd. We are expected to believe a seasoned hunter, who says of himself that he does not fear bears in the wild, who's photo appears on the OP wrestling a shark bringing it on board, is the same fellow who freaks out when confronting a monster/bear turned monster/monster. General is young, but no kid. Yet, his recounting of the shooting makes me think of myself, at 5 years, watching The Wolfman for the first time. Also, the statement that the wounded adult Bigfoot ran on all fours, even if temporary, is really fetching it from afar. If Bigfoot is human, or if it is a bi-pedal, long-legged ape, its body structure/mechanisms would not make such a means of locomotion plausible. If it crawled on all fours, maybe. But run? If we take General's story as a story we can see why he wants to portray the first shooting as a confusion (what is that? a bear? must be, right? walks like a man, not a bear? its, its a monster! got to kill the monster!). Makes it more dramatic that way for the story's listeners and offers motivation -- even if out of character for the story teller. The mentioning of the copious dung seen before the encounter does seem credible at first glance. After all, that's what we would expect if a family of giant apes are in the neighborhood. But, most Bigfoot stories and accounts oddly don't mention scat at all. On the other hand, by bringing up the dung mystery early on in his story, General is using a story device known as "foreshadowing." This story device is meant to hint at what is to follow and possibly set up expectations in the story's listener or reader. General's story would make a good book. This is all speculation on my part --- and the worst kind of speculation, armchair. Take it or leave it. Either General shot two Bigfoot, or he didn't. General and Randles should know better than me. Ketchum and Erickson will be up, hopefully soon. And hopefully, my misgivings will be shown to be wrong. P.S. Thanks Mr. Randle for your reply. You too, General. (Who do you want to play you in the movie? And please pet the bloodhound for me -- a noble breed indeed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest General Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I guess it all comes down to I'm lying or im not (at this point sense DNA and many other details aren't released) I suppose it would be real interesting if I submited to a lie detector test on film. Maybe I already have. Time will tell I'm looking forward to sharing all i know with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) 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. Edited October 26, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Why all the secrecy? I know of someone who submitted a paper for publication (in some shark journal) about whale sharks, she told me all about he paper and she was waiting for word if it was to be published (it was). The only reason is they want all of us to pay for the information. I can see no other reason. It seems to me that Erickson could release his footage and documentary and then Ketchum could release her DNA evidence and the General could tell his complete story all at different times. I just don't understand.... and as others have said before, pardon us for being skeptical, but when you hear people cry wolf often enough you stop buying into their story (even IF the wolves are actually coming this time!) The bigfoot fanatics have heard similar stuff so often, it's kinda hard to blame us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Did your friend with the whale shark paper put her findings on an open forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I don't know i didn't ask. But I'm sure that if she is on a Whale shark forum she would've discussed her paper. Call me impatient, but I've been hearing about this stuff for so long and it keeps getting pushed back... and back.... If we had never heard of this stuff and not been teased with the Trailer for the doc and all, it would be no big deal. But as i said, we've all been burned before by supposed "life changing verified proof of Sasquatch..." that it tends to make one a bit cynical and gun shy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) dup post.. Edited October 26, 2011 by StankApe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Also like the Fonz, Paulides has jumped the shark. I'm surprised I didn't see that coming. Good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) I read where General's partner raised a gun and pointed it at General after the second shooting. Well I've been around enough guns, gunmen,hunters and armed professionals to allow me ask the following question open to anyone to answer.....What kind of Yahoo fires on a young juvenile but is traveling with another Yahoo ignorant enough to level a weapon on partner? I don't give a **** about being upset scared etc etc. Was the juvenile 9 feet tall? Did it weigh 400lbs? Oh come on it died in General's arms did it not? So exactly how gosh darn big and menacing was it? In any event there are character anomalies here or there's an anomaly laced story being portrayed. I suspect this is all leading up to a couple of book deals and DVD sales. But tell you what when the story makes it on PBS NOVA then perhaps there's some legs to it. In the meantime IMO it's more about capitalism than science. Edited October 26, 2011 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts