Claims of There Being No Evidence - Page 6

The Shrike · 1st July 2012, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

In his own words the event starts like this.
. . .

Really? That's way worse than I knew. I never had the stomach to sit through the videos so I've been basing my knowledge of the story on little snippets I've read quoted here and there.

This just keeps getting worse, and not for Smeja, but for the creduloids out there who give him the benefit of the doubt.

OntarioSquatch · 1st July 2012, 10:57 AM

I don't believe he's being 100% honest with the story. I think he could have changed the story a bit to avoid being labeled a murderer. But the DNA they retrieved should be able to confirm that he isn't just making this stuff up. Same thing with the skunk in a drainpipe sample.

JoeBentley · 1st July 2012, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

I don't believe he's being 100% honest with the story. I think he could have changed the story a bit to avoid being labeled a murderer. But the DNA they retrieved should be able to confirm that he isn't just making this stuff up. Same thing with the skunk in a drainpipe sample.

Right. So for the umpteenth billionth time what's he waiting on? Why is he sitting on the evidence that would prove him right and keep making up transparent excuses why he has to wait?

OntarioSquatch · 1st July 2012, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Right. So for the umpteenth billionth time what's he waiting on? Why is he sitting on the evidence that would prove him right and keep making up transparent excuses why he has to wait?

A sample from the steak has already been submitted. All that needs to be done now is publishing the paper, but that's up to the journal. It should be soon though since the peer-review is likely finished by now. The results that are going to be on the journal can't be given out or else it can't get published. It's why so many people have had to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Sonny2 · 1st July 2012, 11:15 AM

Ontariosquatch, I can't help but think you're either incredibly naive or you're having fun at everyone's expense. I vote for the latter, just because it disturbs me to think the former.

Garrison · 1st July 2012, 11:26 AM

I thought this might be interesting:

http://suite101.com/article/camera-t...-shrew-a321565

it's an article about how an actual unknown species was discovered. Oddly enough it involves scientists with cameras not morons with hunting rifles....

Biscuit · 1st July 2012, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Really? That's way worse than I knew. I never had the stomach to sit through the videos so I've been basing my knowledge of the story on little snippets I've read quoted here and there.

This just keeps getting worse, and not for Smeja, but for the creduloids out there who give him the benefit of the doubt.

It's gets dumber. The story continues

6. (I think 6) the wounded animal bounds into the forest and they give chase.
7. While crossing the field they encounter two smaller ones that are also searching for the bigger one.
8. It hard to say but for no less than 30 minutes and as much as an hour or more they follow these two "children" as the kids split up so do our fearless hunters each tracking one as the kids look for their injured or dead parent.
9. The story teller wants to shoot the children because no one will believe them otherwise. His friend is firmly opposed to this.
10. While split up the story teller encounter one of the children up hill about 60 feet away. He takes aim, fires, and wounds the child. The wounded creature rolls down the hill and lands on his boot bleeding to death on his boot
11. His hunting friend returns and cries out, "what have you done!" he then cradles the dying Animal.
12. The story teller all of a sudden thinks they will be in trouble for shooting big foot and that game and fish may have heard the shot. Never mind the earlier shot.
13. They drag the body to some bushes, partially bury, and leave to go get some smokes.

I stopped listening at that point.

Biscuit · 1st July 2012, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

A sample from the steak has already been submitted. All that needs to be done now is publishing the paper, but that's up to the journal. It should be soon though since the peer-review is likely finished by now. The results that are going to be on the journal can't be given out or else it can't get published. It's why so many people have had to sign non-disclosure agreements.

20 bucks to your favorite charity says that none of this proves Bigfoot exists.

Sonny2 · 1st July 2012, 11:59 AM

You suppose Ted Turner will start raising Bigfoot and serve Bigfoot steaks at Ted's Place in downtown Bozeman?

The Shrike · 1st July 2012, 12:18 PM

When comes the part where he describes how his gun shoots meat cleavers, capable of lopping off two pounds of flesh?

GeeMack · 1st July 2012, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

I don't believe he's being 100% honest with the story. I think he could have changed the story a bit to avoid being labeled a murderer.

The guy shot and killed and animal which he believed might be a person. And he didn't call the police? How about we label him an idiot?

Quote:

But the DNA they retrieved should be able to confirm that he isn't just making this stuff up. Same thing with the skunk in a drainpipe sample.

He's making stuff up. And he's doing it because there's a bunch of school kids out in the world just foolish enough to believe his nonsense. He's dishonest. The kids who believe him are gullible.

You're still ignoring the concept of objective evidence. And your willful ignorance won't make it go away. Are you ready to learn a little bit about critical thinking and how we apply it to reality? Or maybe it's more exciting to cling to the fantasy that Bigfoot exists and everyone who knows it is in on a really cool secret.

GeeMack · 1st July 2012, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

A sample from the steak has already been submitted. All that needs to be done now is publishing the paper, but that's up to the journal. It should be soon though since the peer-review is likely finished by now. The results that are going to be on the journal can't be given out or else it can't get published. It's why so many people have had to sign non-disclosure agreements.

When nothing ever comes of this, when you find out no article was submitted, no peer review took place, and nothing gets published in any legitimate scientific journal, will you have the courage and honesty to come back here and admit that you've been duped?

sadhatter · 1st July 2012, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

Wounded bigfoot = cuddly and huggable.
Dead bigfoot = RUN AWAY IN TERROR!!!

Also, the comments on the youtube interview are legendary. "I'M CRYING AS I WRITE TO EXPRESS MY DISGUST AT YOUR MURDER OF TWO INNOCENT FICTIONAL CHARACTERS!!"

That was my first thought too. I know quite a few hunters, and one of their big rules is that a wounded animal is the safest kind, its understanding of its own mortality causes it to long for human affection in its dying moments.

In all seriousness though, what a load of crap. Your fine shooting one, but not bringing the body back? That just makes no sense in my book, whatsoever. Heck, do you think the bigfoot would rather its death do nothing, or help people understand it exists, and how to protect its habitats?

And this is my biggest problem with the BF crowd, they don't even have to try. They just say any old ****** thing, and the rest agree so that they don't have their fantasy ruined.

sadhatter · 1st July 2012, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

For a bit of perspective, one of the other cornerstones of Ketchum's analysis is a Bigfoot blood sample from a large PVC pipe in an cropfield. According to events fermented in someone' rectum from evidence at the scene, a Bigfoot trapped a skunk in the pipe, punched both hands through the middle of the pipe, and extracted the skunk for a tasty snack. In the process, it cut it's hands on the sharp edges of the pipe.

I may not be a BF expert, but i am a skunk expert ( or rather a skunk obsessed layman, i am sure there is a skunkologist out there who could show me a thing or two.), and this (Pun not intended, as skunks do not stink, they make things they hate stink. ) just reeks of B.S.

First, skunks kinda taste like ****, and i could see an animal dealing with this, but we are supposed to be talking about something with quite a bit of intelligence backing it up. It doesn't realize that the mediocre tasting animal with a weapon, is a much less inviting target than... damn near anything else?

Second, skunk spray is a lot more harmful than people realize, and when backed into a corner is pretty much one of the only times one is going to use this. ( It takes a huge amount of biological effort to make a single spray.) Something with it's face stuck in a situation where the spray has no where else to go, is going to experience more ill effects than just an "Eww" reaction. Temporary or permanent blindness comes to mind.

Listen big foot folks, have your fantasies all you want, but leave the skunks out of it, or we are going to have issues.

sadhatter · 1st July 2012, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

When comes the part where he describes how his gun shoots meat cleavers, capable of lopping off two pounds of flesh?

You know i would just post a picture of The Ripper from the Unreal games, but i have a legitimate gripe with this claim.

Seriously, what kind of gun was this? And at what range? A two pound chunk of flesh is roughly the size of Gibs in video games, and even in that environment, they always seem way too large.

Anything big enough to do it, would have been big enough to put it down, but the fact remains, where the hell did he shoot it? Seriously, look at bigfoot, where on that mass could you shoot, and remove 2 pounds of just flesh? Especially with the addendum of the fact that it didn't die from the shot.

George152 · 1st July 2012, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by sadhatter

That was my first thought too. I know quite a few hunters, and one of their big rules is that a wounded animal is the safest kind, its understanding of its own mortality causes it to long for human affection in its dying moments.

In all seriousness though, what a load of crap. Your fine shooting one, but not bringing the body back? That just makes no sense in my book, whatsoever. Heck, do you think the bigfoot would rather its death do nothing, or help people understand it exists, and how to protect its habitats?

And this is my biggest problem with the BF crowd, they don't even have to try. They just say any old ****** thing, and the rest agree so that they don't have their fantasy ruined.

Having been a deer culler and pig hunter here I cannot understand how they couldn't have carried the body out.
We do it all the time with dead animals weighing 80+ kilos...
My betting is that it's BS invented over a camp fire and a couple of tinnies (beers)

sadhatter · 1st July 2012, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by George152

Having been a deer culler and pig hunter here I cannot understand how they couldn't have carried the body out.
We do it all the time with dead animals weighing 80+ kilos...
My betting is that it's BS invented over a camp fire and a couple of tinnies (beers)

I've moved a 400 pound fragile arcade machine 5 floors with nothing but my equally inactive friend, and a piece of cardboard. To think that 2 Huntin' style gents couldn't have managed to schlep back a corpse that they really wouldn't have to worry about damaging a bit, is just too far fetched for me.

Jodie · 1st July 2012, 02:50 PM

Well it was one of the reasons I changed my mind about my stance on bigfoot, I believe we are being duped. Derek told me he did not believe Justin's story until Dr. Ketchum verified the sample.......well you all know what I think of her ability to interpret DNA unless someone else was responsible for that end of things, still it is just hear say.

It's taking too long. I am unclear as to who is duping who here, for all I know, it might be one of those happy coincidences where two hoaxes converged and made the perfect story. Or Dr. Ketchum failed but inadvertently confirmed a hoax by perpetuating the impression that she actually extracted bigfoot DNA. There is a book coming out about this, maybe some more ~~misinformation~~ clarity will be provided.

Cutino is looking for someone to sequence the DNA, not Dr. Ketchum, it may take awhile to find the right person to do it as cost is a factor.The whole thing, the DNA study, the Sierra Kills, and intermittent blobsquatches is all too much to be believed IMO. If there was anything to be found it would have been found by now.

Mike! · 1st July 2012, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Garrison

I thought this might be interesting:

http://suite101.com/article/camera-t...-shrew-a321565

it's an article about how an actual unknown species was discovered. Oddly enough it involves scientists with cameras not morons with hunting rifles....

There's a cuddly new cartoon critter if I ever saw one!
(Sung to the tune Winnie the Pooh)
Elephant Shrew
Elephant Shrew
Funny little varmint
You're so hard to find.
Elephant Shrew
Elephant Shrew
See, he got your picture
and we saw it here on-line.
Elephant Shrew
Elephant Shrew
He's a fraction of a Bigfoot
But they caught him just fine.
Elephant Shrew
Elephant Shrew
Funny little varmint
Now what's on your mind?
Elephant Shrew
Elephant Shrew
Funny little varmint
Not as hard to find...

Mike! · 1st July 2012, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by sadhatter

I may not be a BF expert, but i am a skunk expert ( or rather a skunk obsessed layman, i am sure there is a skunkologist out there who could show me a thing or two.), and this (Pun not intended, as skunks do not stink, they make things they hate stink. ) just reeks of B.S.

First, skunks kinda taste like ****, and i could see an animal dealing with this, but we are supposed to be talking about something with quite a bit of intelligence backing it up. It doesn't realize that the mediocre tasting animal with a weapon, is a much less inviting target than... damn near anything else?

Second, skunk spray is a lot more harmful than people realize, and when backed into a corner is pretty much one of the only times one is going to use this. ( It takes a huge amount of biological effort to make a single spray.) Something with it's face stuck in a situation where the spray has no where else to go, is going to experience more ill effects than just an "Eww" reaction. Temporary or permanent blindness comes to mind.

Listen big foot folks, have your fantasies all you want, but leave the skunks out of it, or we are going to have issues.

So, um, you've had skunk then, huh? Seriously? You ate, or at least had some, skunk? Was there nothing else to eat or were you just very curious, or did you maybe lose some kind of bet?

OntarioSquatch · 1st July 2012, 04:10 PM

It didn't eat the skunk. It was looking to harvest something from the skunk. Who knows why though.

Jodie · 1st July 2012, 04:24 PM

What did it take OS?

The Shrike · 1st July 2012, 04:26 PM

Oh no. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised Ontario, but are you saying you bought the skunk in the pipe story too?

RobDegraves · 1st July 2012, 04:33 PM

Quote:

It didn't eat the skunk. It was looking to harvest something from the skunk. Who knows why though.

It makes a great little hat.

LTC8K6 · 1st July 2012, 04:54 PM

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

How can you take anyone seriously, when they believe all of these prints are from the same creature?

Especially when one has already been positively id'd as an alderfoot track?

Voodoosix · 1st July 2012, 04:54 PM

skunk gut for violin strings of course.

LTC8K6 · 1st July 2012, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Jodie

What did it take OS?

The scent gland of course.

When you smell a skunk, it's often actually a bigfoot...

OntarioSquatch · 1st July 2012, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Jodie

What did it take OS?

I don't know, but apparently the scent glands were missing.

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Oh no. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised Ontario, but are you saying you bought the skunk in the pipe story too?

Well, it's said to be one of Dr. Ketchum's best samples along with the steak, otherwise I wouldn't know what to think.

Jodie · 1st July 2012, 05:24 PM

Why do I have visions of Pepe Le Pew right now?

Don't know what to think? That's what popped into my head.

Resume · 1st July 2012, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Well, it's said to be one of Dr. Ketchum's best samples along with the steak, otherwise I wouldn't know what to think.

Perhaps you might think for yourself.

kerikiwi · 1st July 2012, 06:31 PM

I call poe on the OP.

sadhatter · 1st July 2012, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Mike!

So, um, you've had skunk then, huh? Seriously? You ate, or at least had some, skunk? Was there nothing else to eat or were you just very curious, or did you maybe lose some kind of bet?

No, i am a huge fan of the skunk, would think about eating one about as seriously as eating one of my cats.

That being said there are people who have, and, for obvious reasons skunk meat is not exactly the best tasting thing on earth.

sadhatter · 1st July 2012, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

I don't know, but apparently the scent glands were missing.

Well, it's said to be one of Dr. Ketchum's best samples along with the steak, otherwise I wouldn't know what to think.

The scent glands were missing, you havin a laugh? Does bigfoot have a scalpel, maybe some form of surgery kit? Destroyed, i'd believe ( not what did it, just would believe that they could be destroyed.), but removed?

And even assuming i was dim enough to believe that one, what would it need them for? If it is smart enough to harvest a glad, and somehow tough enough to be able to handle one with impunity, surely it is smart enough to just hold it the right way round and scare it a lot, no?

Come on man, think this through.

sadhatter · 1st July 2012, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

It didn't eat the skunk. It was looking to harvest something from the skunk. Who knows why though.

You know, i think i can meet you half way on this one.

I have no trouble believing harvested skunk is responsible for the vast majority of bigfoot sightings, claims, and interest.

Jodie · 1st July 2012, 06:53 PM

Maybe skunk juice is bigfoot's hot sauce?

GeeMack · 1st July 2012, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Well, it's said to be one of Dr. Ketchum's best samples along with the steak, otherwise I wouldn't know what to think.

First you have to know how to think. And lucky you, you've come to the right place. There are many people here at the JREF forum who will be happy to help you learn how to think critically and objectively. But the ultimate decision is yours. You can choose to remain ignorant of reality and immersed in Bigfoot fantasy land, which may seem exciting feeling like you're in on a cool secret thing that only a few people know about. But reality is actually a lot more interesting and exciting. And reality doesn't require willful ignorance and self deception.

OntarioSquatch · 1st July 2012, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

But reality is actually a lot more interesting and exciting.

I guess that's something we can both agree on don't you think

bruto · 1st July 2012, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

I don't believe he's being 100% honest with the story. I think he could have changed the story a bit to avoid being labeled a murderer. But the DNA they retrieved should be able to confirm that he isn't just making this stuff up. Same thing with the skunk in a drainpipe sample.

Right. So you don't have to worry about the lying as long as the evidence is still up in the air? Isn't that kind of weak?

OntarioSquatch · 1st July 2012, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

Right. So you don't have to worry about the lying as long as the evidence is still up in the air? Isn't that kind of weak?

The story will remain a story. But the DNA from the recovered flesh is what will help move Bigfootery forward with the help of Dr. Ketchum's testing.

LTC8K6 · 1st July 2012, 08:03 PM

The hand of the poor murdered squatch would instantly have proven it's existence beyond a shadow of a doubt...

Even without any flesh left on it...

Instead we get a ridiculous comedy routine around a squatch steak...

1st July 2012, 11:00 AM	#203
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,766	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch I don't believe he's being 100% honest with the story. I think he could have changed the story a bit to avoid being labeled a murderer. But the DNA they retrieved should be able to confirm that he isn't just making this stuff up. Same thing with the skunk in a drainpipe sample. Right. So for the umpteenth billionth time what's he waiting on? Why is he sitting on the evidence that would prove him right and keep making up transparent excuses why he has to wait?
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

1st July 2012, 11:08 AM	#204
OntarioSquatch Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 485	Originally Posted by JoeBentley Right. So for the umpteenth billionth time what's he waiting on? Why is he sitting on the evidence that would prove him right and keep making up transparent excuses why he has to wait? A sample from the steak has already been submitted. All that needs to be done now is publishing the paper, but that's up to the journal. It should be soon though since the peer-review is likely finished by now. The results that are going to be on the journal can't be given out or else it can't get published. It's why so many people have had to sign non-disclosure agreements.
	Last edited by OntarioSquatch; 1st July 2012 at 11:09 AM. Reason: spelling

1st July 2012, 11:52 AM	#207
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,770	Originally Posted by The Shrike Really? That's way worse than I knew. I never had the stomach to sit through the videos so I've been basing my knowledge of the story on little snippets I've read quoted here and there. This just keeps getting worse, and not for Smeja, but for the creduloids out there who give him the benefit of the doubt. It's gets dumber. The story continues 6. (I think 6) the wounded animal bounds into the forest and they give chase. 7. While crossing the field they encounter two smaller ones that are also searching for the bigger one. 8. It hard to say but for no less than 30 minutes and as much as an hour or more they follow these two "children" as the kids split up so do our fearless hunters each tracking one as the kids look for their injured or dead parent. 9. The story teller wants to shoot the children because no one will believe them otherwise. His friend is firmly opposed to this. 10. While split up the story teller encounter one of the children up hill about 60 feet away. He takes aim, fires, and wounds the child. The wounded creature rolls down the hill and lands on his boot bleeding to death on his boot 11. His hunting friend returns and cries out, "what have you done!" he then cradles the dying Animal. 12. The story teller all of a sudden thinks they will be in trouble for shooting big foot and that game and fish may have heard the shot. Never mind the earlier shot. 13. They drag the body to some bushes, partially bury, and leave to go get some smokes. I stopped listening at that point.
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,770	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

1st July 2012, 11:54 AM	#208
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,770	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch A sample from the steak has already been submitted. All that needs to be done now is publishing the paper, but that's up to the journal. It should be soon though since the peer-review is likely finished by now. The results that are going to be on the journal can't be given out or else it can't get published. It's why so many people have had to sign non-disclosure agreements. 20 bucks to your favorite charity says that none of this proves Bigfoot exists.
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,770	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

1st July 2012, 12:20 PM	#211
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,186	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch I don't believe he's being 100% honest with the story. I think he could have changed the story a bit to avoid being labeled a murderer. The guy shot and killed and animal which he believed might be a person. And he didn't call the police? How about we label him an idiot? Quote: But the DNA they retrieved should be able to confirm that he isn't just making this stuff up. Same thing with the skunk in a drainpipe sample. He's making stuff up. And he's doing it because there's a bunch of school kids out in the world just foolish enough to believe his nonsense. He's dishonest. The kids who believe him are gullible. You're still ignoring the concept of objective evidence. And your willful ignorance won't make it go away. Are you ready to learn a little bit about critical thinking and how we apply it to reality? Or maybe it's more exciting to cling to the fantasy that Bigfoot exists and everyone who knows it is in on a really cool secret.
	Last edited by GeeMack; 1st July 2012 at 12:22 PM.

1st July 2012, 09:43 AM	#201
The Shrike Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: USA Posts: 1,812	Originally Posted by Biscuit In his own words the event starts like this. . . . Really? That's way worse than I knew. I never had the stomach to sit through the videos so I've been basing my knowledge of the story on little snippets I've read quoted here and there. This just keeps getting worse, and not for Smeja, but for the creduloids out there who give him the benefit of the doubt.

1st July 2012, 10:57 AM	#202
OntarioSquatch Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 485	I don't believe he's being 100% honest with the story. I think he could have changed the story a bit to avoid being labeled a murderer. But the DNA they retrieved should be able to confirm that he isn't just making this stuff up. Same thing with the skunk in a drainpipe sample.

1st July 2012, 11:15 AM	#205
Sonny2 Muse Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Dust on the Wind Posts: 669	Ontariosquatch, I can't help but think you're either incredibly naive or you're having fun at everyone's expense. I vote for the latter, just because it disturbs me to think the former.

1st July 2012, 11:26 AM	#206
Garrison Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Milton Keynes UK Posts: 1,439	I thought this might be interesting: http://suite101.com/article/camera-t...-shrew-a321565 it's an article about how an actual unknown species was discovered. Oddly enough it involves scientists with cameras not morons with hunting rifles....

1st July 2012, 11:59 AM	#209
Sonny2 Muse Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Dust on the Wind Posts: 669	You suppose Ted Turner will start raising Bigfoot and serve Bigfoot steaks at Ted's Place in downtown Bozeman?

1st July 2012, 12:18 PM	#210
The Shrike Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: USA Posts: 1,812	When comes the part where he describes how his gun shoots meat cleavers, capable of lopping off two pounds of flesh?

1st July 2012, 12:26 PM	#212
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,186	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch A sample from the steak has already been submitted. All that needs to be done now is publishing the paper, but that's up to the journal. It should be soon though since the peer-review is likely finished by now. The results that are going to be on the journal can't be given out or else it can't get published. It's why so many people have had to sign non-disclosure agreements. When nothing ever comes of this, when you find out no article was submitted, no peer review took place, and nothing gets published in any legitimate scientific journal, will you have the courage and honesty to come back here and admit that you've been duped?

1st July 2012, 12:55 PM	#213
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by Drudgewire Wounded bigfoot = cuddly and huggable. Dead bigfoot = RUN AWAY IN TERROR!!! Also, the comments on the youtube interview are legendary. "I'M CRYING AS I WRITE TO EXPRESS MY DISGUST AT YOUR MURDER OF TWO INNOCENT FICTIONAL CHARACTERS!!" That was my first thought too. I know quite a few hunters, and one of their big rules is that a wounded animal is the safest kind, its understanding of its own mortality causes it to long for human affection in its dying moments. In all seriousness though, what a load of crap. Your fine shooting one, but not bringing the body back? That just makes no sense in my book, whatsoever. Heck, do you think the bigfoot would rather its death do nothing, or help people understand it exists, and how to protect its habitats? And this is my biggest problem with the BF crowd, they don't even have to try. They just say any old ****** thing, and the rest agree so that they don't have their fantasy ruined.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

1st July 2012, 01:01 PM	#214
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by The Shrike For a bit of perspective, one of the other cornerstones of Ketchum's analysis is a Bigfoot blood sample from a large PVC pipe in an cropfield. According to events fermented in someone' rectum from evidence at the scene, a Bigfoot trapped a skunk in the pipe, punched both hands through the middle of the pipe, and extracted the skunk for a tasty snack. In the process, it cut it's hands on the sharp edges of the pipe. I may not be a BF expert, but i am a skunk expert ( or rather a skunk obsessed layman, i am sure there is a skunkologist out there who could show me a thing or two.), and this (Pun not intended, as skunks do not stink, they make things they hate stink. ) just reeks of B.S. First, skunks kinda taste like ****, and i could see an animal dealing with this, but we are supposed to be talking about something with quite a bit of intelligence backing it up. It doesn't realize that the mediocre tasting animal with a weapon, is a much less inviting target than... damn near anything else? Second, skunk spray is a lot more harmful than people realize, and when backed into a corner is pretty much one of the only times one is going to use this. ( It takes a huge amount of biological effort to make a single spray.) Something with it's face stuck in a situation where the spray has no where else to go, is going to experience more ill effects than just an "Eww" reaction. Temporary or permanent blindness comes to mind. Listen big foot folks, have your fantasies all you want, but leave the skunks out of it, or we are going to have issues.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

1st July 2012, 01:06 PM	#215
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by The Shrike When comes the part where he describes how his gun shoots meat cleavers, capable of lopping off two pounds of flesh? You know i would just post a picture of The Ripper from the Unreal games, but i have a legitimate gripe with this claim. Seriously, what kind of gun was this? And at what range? A two pound chunk of flesh is roughly the size of Gibs in video games, and even in that environment, they always seem way too large. Anything big enough to do it, would have been big enough to put it down, but the fact remains, where the hell did he shoot it? Seriously, look at bigfoot, where on that mass could you shoot, and remove 2 pounds of just flesh? Especially with the addendum of the fact that it didn't die from the shot.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

1st July 2012, 01:31 PM	#216
George152 Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hamilton New Zealand Posts: 2,043	Originally Posted by sadhatter That was my first thought too. I know quite a few hunters, and one of their big rules is that a wounded animal is the safest kind, its understanding of its own mortality causes it to long for human affection in its dying moments. In all seriousness though, what a load of crap. Your fine shooting one, but not bringing the body back? That just makes no sense in my book, whatsoever. Heck, do you think the bigfoot would rather its death do nothing, or help people understand it exists, and how to protect its habitats? And this is my biggest problem with the BF crowd, they don't even have to try. They just say any old ****** thing, and the rest agree so that they don't have their fantasy ruined. Having been a deer culler and pig hunter here I cannot understand how they couldn't have carried the body out. We do it all the time with dead animals weighing 80+ kilos... My betting is that it's BS invented over a camp fire and a couple of tinnies (beers)
	__________________ Unemployment isn't working

1st July 2012, 01:51 PM	#217
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by George152 Having been a deer culler and pig hunter here I cannot understand how they couldn't have carried the body out. We do it all the time with dead animals weighing 80+ kilos... My betting is that it's BS invented over a camp fire and a couple of tinnies (beers) I've moved a 400 pound fragile arcade machine 5 floors with nothing but my equally inactive friend, and a piece of cardboard. To think that 2 Huntin' style gents couldn't have managed to schlep back a corpse that they really wouldn't have to worry about damaging a bit, is just too far fetched for me.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

1st July 2012, 02:50 PM	#218
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,909	Well it was one of the reasons I changed my mind about my stance on bigfoot, I believe we are being duped. Derek told me he did not believe Justin's story until Dr. Ketchum verified the sample.......well you all know what I think of her ability to interpret DNA unless someone else was responsible for that end of things, still it is just hear say. It's taking too long. I am unclear as to who is duping who here, for all I know, it might be one of those happy coincidences where two hoaxes converged and made the perfect story. Or Dr. Ketchum failed but inadvertently confirmed a hoax by perpetuating the impression that she actually extracted bigfoot DNA. There is a book coming out about this, maybe some more ~~misinformation~~ clarity will be provided. Cutino is looking for someone to sequence the DNA, not Dr. Ketchum, it may take awhile to find the right person to do it as cost is a factor.The whole thing, the DNA study, the Sierra Kills, and intermittent blobsquatches is all too much to be believed IMO. If there was anything to be found it would have been found by now.
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,909	__________________ testis unus, testis nullus quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur Last edited by Jodie; 1st July 2012 at 02:57 PM.

1st July 2012, 03:48 PM	#219
Mike! Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it! Join Date: May 2010 Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not! Posts: 10,265	Originally Posted by Garrison I thought this might be interesting: http://suite101.com/article/camera-t...-shrew-a321565 it's an article about how an actual unknown species was discovered. Oddly enough it involves scientists with cameras not morons with hunting rifles.... There's a cuddly new cartoon critter if I ever saw one! (Sung to the tune Winnie the Pooh) Elephant Shrew Elephant Shrew Funny little varmint You're so hard to find. Elephant Shrew Elephant Shrew See, he got your picture and we saw it here on-line. Elephant Shrew Elephant Shrew He's a fraction of a Bigfoot But they caught him just fine. Elephant Shrew Elephant Shrew Funny little varmint Now what's on your mind? Elephant Shrew Elephant Shrew Funny little varmint Not as hard to find...
	__________________ "Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes... Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."

1st July 2012, 03:59 PM	#220
Mike! Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it! Join Date: May 2010 Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not! Posts: 10,265	Originally Posted by sadhatter I may not be a BF expert, but i am a skunk expert ( or rather a skunk obsessed layman, i am sure there is a skunkologist out there who could show me a thing or two.), and this (Pun not intended, as skunks do not stink, they make things they hate stink. ) just reeks of B.S. First, skunks kinda taste like , and i could see an animal dealing with this, but we are supposed to be talking about something with quite a bit of intelligence backing it up. It doesn't realize that the mediocre tasting animal with a weapon, is a much less inviting target than... damn near anything else? Second, skunk spray is a lot more harmful than people realize, and when backed into a corner is pretty much one of the only times one is going to use this. ( It takes a huge amount of biological effort to make a single spray.) Something with it's face stuck in a situation where the spray has no where else to go, is going to experience more ill effects than just an "Eww" reaction. Temporary or permanent blindness comes to mind. Listen big foot folks, have your fantasies all you want, but leave the skunks out of it, or we are going to have issues. So, um, you've had skunk then, huh? Seriously? You ate, or at least had some, skunk? Was there nothing else to eat or were you just very curious, or did you maybe lose some kind of bet?
	__________________ "Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes... Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes." Last edited by Mike!; 1st July 2012 at 04:00 PM.

1st July 2012, 04:10 PM	#221
OntarioSquatch Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 485	It didn't eat the skunk. It was looking to harvest something from the skunk. Who knows why though.

1st July 2012, 04:24 PM	#222
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,909	What did it take OS?
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,909	__________________ testis unus, testis nullus quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

1st July 2012, 04:26 PM	#223
The Shrike Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: USA Posts: 1,812	Oh no. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised Ontario, but are you saying you bought the skunk in the pipe story too?

1st July 2012, 04:33 PM	#224
RobDegraves Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 787	Quote: It didn't eat the skunk. It was looking to harvest something from the skunk. Who knows why though. It makes a great little hat.
RobDegraves Muse Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 787

1st July 2012, 04:54 PM	#225
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,674	http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html How can you take anyone seriously, when they believe all of these prints are from the same creature? Especially when one has already been positively id'd as an alderfoot track?
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

1st July 2012, 04:54 PM	#226
Voodoosix Thinker Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 152	skunk gut for violin strings of course.
Voodoosix Thinker Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 152

1st July 2012, 05:02 PM	#227
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,674	Originally Posted by Jodie What did it take OS? The scent gland of course. When you smell a skunk, it's often actually a bigfoot...
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

1st July 2012, 05:20 PM	#228
OntarioSquatch Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 485	Originally Posted by Jodie What did it take OS? I don't know, but apparently the scent glands were missing. Originally Posted by The Shrike Oh no. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised Ontario, but are you saying you bought the skunk in the pipe story too? Well, it's said to be one of Dr. Ketchum's best samples along with the steak, otherwise I wouldn't know what to think.

1st July 2012, 05:24 PM	#229
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,909	Why do I have visions of Pepe Le Pew right now? Don't know what to think? That's what popped into my head.
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,909	__________________ testis unus, testis nullus quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

1st July 2012, 05:28 PM	#230
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,029	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch Well, it's said to be one of Dr. Ketchum's best samples along with the steak, otherwise I wouldn't know what to think. Perhaps you might think for yourself.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,029

1st July 2012, 06:31 PM	#231
kerikiwi Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 5,846	I call poe on the OP.

1st July 2012, 06:47 PM	#232
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by Mike! So, um, you've had skunk then, huh? Seriously? You ate, or at least had some, skunk? Was there nothing else to eat or were you just very curious, or did you maybe lose some kind of bet? No, i am a huge fan of the skunk, would think about eating one about as seriously as eating one of my cats. That being said there are people who have, and, for obvious reasons skunk meat is not exactly the best tasting thing on earth.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

1st July 2012, 06:51 PM	#233
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch I don't know, but apparently the scent glands were missing. Well, it's said to be one of Dr. Ketchum's best samples along with the steak, otherwise I wouldn't know what to think. The scent glands were missing, you havin a laugh? Does bigfoot have a scalpel, maybe some form of surgery kit? Destroyed, i'd believe ( not what did it, just would believe that they could be destroyed.), but removed? And even assuming i was dim enough to believe that one, what would it need them for? If it is smart enough to harvest a glad, and somehow tough enough to be able to handle one with impunity, surely it is smart enough to just hold it the right way round and scare it a lot, no? Come on man, think this through.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

1st July 2012, 06:53 PM	#234
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch It didn't eat the skunk. It was looking to harvest something from the skunk. Who knows why though. You know, i think i can meet you half way on this one. I have no trouble believing harvested skunk is responsible for the vast majority of bigfoot sightings, claims, and interest.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

1st July 2012, 06:53 PM	#235
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,909	Maybe skunk juice is bigfoot's hot sauce?
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,909	__________________ testis unus, testis nullus quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur