Guest Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Very well said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Very well said! Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) You keep saying Justin submitted the sample but you have yet to explain why you are the one receiving the test results. If they are both part of the same group, and have signed the NDAs then both would know the results. If only DR signed the NDA then only he would know the results and would be bound to not share specifics with General. General would then be relying on what he saw in his own arms to know if there was any chance it was 100% human. DR, did the right thing in having General send the sample, he stayed out of the chain of custody that way, not that Dr. K. wouldn't have a cheeck swab on him by now however. Does this make any sense? Edited November 25, 2011 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Ok, first off, from what you haven't said, you do come off as short sighted and you have changed your story a couple of times, that's not good. By the venom and defensiveness in your response I can see that you probably didn't initially think it all through and now you are stuck. It's only taken me and a few other posters several times asking this same question in many different ways over the course of a few months to even get an answer, if this is what you want to call an answer. You keep saying Justin submitted the sample but you have yet to explain why you are the one receiving the test results. So, excuse me for being concerned, but it still sounds like you need some help since things never, ever work out the way you anticipate. Even if everything turns out the way you want it too, there will be differences in what you said here versus the book so which version is the truth? Why respond on a thread if you can't tell the truth to begin with? That just further eats into your credibility IMO, even though I've found it all fascinating, just like I do when I drive by a car accident on the interstate. Yes Jodie I have said why we are receiving the test results. We are working with him. I head an ORG that does BF research, hello.. I haven't lied about a **** thing. The story has been consistent from the beginning. So what do you think I'm lying about Jodie? How have I changed my story? DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Derek, sure you did, go back to the beginning when you initially started posting here. You told the story one way second hand, said you had been to the site when you hadn't. You just now in another thread said your NDA's were about the test results only, but Justin says you told him they were about more than that after he revealed the location of the shooting. He said you "reminded" him about his NDA. You might be the head of an organization but that doesn't make you any better than anyone else at keeping up with inconsistencies in both of your stories. So which one has the story straight? The one you keep posting after every time he shows up on the board because you have to do damage control? Or you, the one that I have noticed with the irritable responses every time someone asks you an uncomfortable question? At this point, the DNA study would have been fine with one less sample. Considering the story you were given about how the sample was obtained I would think you would have some very serious reservations pursuing it. The only motive on your part that I can think of for going forth would be greed, ego, or both. If it isn't that, then your actions speak for themselves. If they are both part of the same group, and have signed the NDAs then both would know the results. If only DR signed the NDA then only he would know the results and would be bound to not share specifics with General. General would then be relying on what he saw in his own arms to know if there was any chance it was 100% human. DR, did the right thing in having General send the sample, he stayed out of the chain of custody that way, not that Dr. K. wouldn't have a cheeck swab on him by now however. Does this make any sense? Yes, it makes sense, but at the time he sent the sample, Justin was not part of the group, that happened later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Derek, sure you did, go back to the beginning when you initially started posting here. You told the story one way second hand, said you had been to the site when you hadn't. You just now in another thread said your NDA's were about the test results only, but Justin says you told him they were about more than that after he revealed the location of the shooting. He said you "reminded" him about his NDA. You might be the head of an organization but that doesn't make you any better than anyone else at keeping up with inconsistencies in both of your stories. So which one has the story straight? The one you keep posting after every time he shows up on the board because you have to do damage control? Or you, the one that I have noticed with the irritable responses every time someone asks you an uncomfortable question? At this point, the DNA study would have been fine with one less sample. Considering the story you were given about how the sample was obtained I would think you would have some very serious reservations pursuing it. The only motive on your part that I can think of for going forth would be greed, ego, or both. If it isn't that, then your actions speak for themselves. Yes, it makes sense, but at the time he sent the sample, Justin was not part of the group, that happened later. Jodie, you are wrong. Plain wrong. Don't know what I've ever done to you but your postings to me have been just as hostile as mine to you. I haven't lied about anything. Why would you assume I think I'm better than anyone on this forum? Have I acted that way? I don't know where you get off scolding me, I've never done anything to you. I'm not a greedy person and I'm certainly not egotistical. I started posting here before I visited the site. Perhaps you should go back and revisit prior postings before accusing me of being a liar. I don't appreciate it at all. We have an NDA with Melba and an agreement with the author. Is that so diabolical? Do I have the right to get irritated with some of the questions, yes of coarse, I'm only human, especially when the questions have been answered multiple times right here on this forum. When I feel I've been out of line I have apologized, which is more than I can say for you. Now please, get off me. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Jodie, you are wrong. Plain wrong. Don't know what I've ever done to you but your postings to me have been just as hostile as mine to you. I haven't lied about anything. Why would you assume I think I'm better than anyone on this forum? Have I acted that way? I don't know where you get off scolding me, I've never done anything to you. I'm not a greedy person and I'm certainly not egotistical. I started posting here before I visited the site. Perhaps you should go back and revisit prior postings before accusing me of being a liar. I don't appreciate it at all. We have an NDA with Melba and an agreement with the author. Is that so diabolical? Do I have the right to get irritated with some of the questions, yes of coarse, I'm only human, especially when the questions have been answered multiple times right here on this forum. When I feel I've been out of line I have apologized, which is more than I can say for you. Now please, get off me. DR Look, nothing I've said was rude, I've asked straight up questions and gave you the answers you asked for. Now if you take offense, that is strictly your problem, not mine. You won't get an apology from me for not soothing your fragile sensibilities since it isn't ego related in your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Responding to the OP, nothing will come of it. No evidence in squatchdom has ever met the challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Responding to the OP, nothing will come of it. No evidence in squatchdom has ever met the challenge. Correction, no Skeptic has ever admitted that evidence has met the challenge. We have good scientific evidence going back to the 1970s, such as Tom Moore of Wyoming Fish and Game's forensic hair analysis, and moving forward to Chillcutt's dermal findings, Fahrenbach's statistical studies, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Mulder, no evidence has met the challenge, it's really that simple. If it had, mainstream science would be studying it. Let's all hope that Ketchum's findings are not only up to snuff but properly done so we can all have the finding we want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Your link is to a gallery of "hypothetical" renderings. They are to offer a starting point for a witness, to begin a more accurate description. Travers will work with a witness to alter the starting sketch to get it right. So you are grossly misrepresenting those images. Same as with the assumption that the EP image is suppose to represent what he has on film and derrived from the mask. You can't use assumptions like that to infer or bolster a suspicion. How do I know some guy isn't making masks to match various pieces of art which may or may not correspond to a genuine forensic sketch or film image so that people like you could infer that the reverse occured and someone hoaxed with the mask? Yes, they are hypothetical renderings ..... but rendered from some knowledge of Bigfoot accounts ....yes? It has been assumed by others that the EP drawn image is based on a video in their possession. Of course, we do not know if this is true. On the other hand (and there is almost always a other hand), why would the OP have an artist's rendering that would be dissimilar to what they have on video? Such a tack would be confusing in the long run. Also, at least one person viewing a EP video said the creature looked like "chewbacca", which one could reasonably say resembles the EP image. And if you read my post again you will see that I did mention the idea that the Bigfoot mask may be a copy of the EP rendering, but we would have to check the relevant dates (which was publicly offered first?). And again, I said the mask may be of importance, maybe not. I never stated it proves a hoax. I'm considering the possibilites. Why would you discount the possibilities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Jerrywayne, Would what you are saying fit the description offered here? I'm considering the possibilities. An innuendo is a baseless invention of thoughts or ideas. It can also be a remark or question, typically disparaging (also called insinuation), that works obliquely by allusion. In the latter sense, the intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent. WIKI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Jerrywayne, Would what you are saying fit the description offered here? I'm considering the possibilities. Of course the possibility exists that there is no connection between the mask and the EP image, as well as a possibility there is a link. The mask exists. The EP image exists. They look very similar. They look more similar to each other than they do to other images of Bigfoot. What does this mean. Let's consider the possibilities. And no, speculating on this interesting similarity is not innuendo on its face (no pun intended). On the other hand, your back-handed question might be considered an innuendo of sorts. Well ....possibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Yes, they are hypothetical renderings ..... but rendered from some knowledge of Bigfoot accounts ....yes? I think the only knowledge Travers used to come up with those images is that BF is purported to be an entity from the primate great ape family with a combination of humanoid and or ape features. he was trying to cover all bases with those, thats about it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alpinist Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Please show me a representation of Bigfoot, either drawn or mask-wise, that as closely resembles these two representations as they do each other, please. Perhaps you make too little of the similiarities. Similarities ? Well they are both jpeg files ... Let me guess Jerry, you work as a lawyer, either criminal prosecutor or patent infringement litigation in the cell phone industry ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts