...that IS interesting...

I think it's the same outfit that does the paternity tests for "Maury"...but I could be wrong.

That's the premise of the show, in a nutshell. Except they only stay on the spot for 24-hours or less. May take them days to get there, but the whole thing, from the landing at the in-country international airport to when they repack their bags, is about a day or less.



???

Could you tell me the university where they hand out degrees in paranormal biology? Everyone's an amateur at this, its just a question of having additional skills that can be adapted and applied. Is the biologist running their ghost hunting episodes for the show as well? If there is a "brains" behind the operation at Destination Truth I'm pretty sure we're talking about someone in the ballpark of a typical paranormal BBS chatroom type. I have watched the show. If you have information otherwise, please share.



Already covered that. The short answers are either "no" or "most likely not" for the reasons already stated. If you bother to read them you might find they are sound reasons.



Again, this has already been explained. Nobody actively does anything. The lab provides a service on a contract basis. Think of it as the scientific equivilent of an oil change. They don't own part of your car afterwards, metaphorically speaking. As far as the show goes, the answer is "most likely not unless they see an angle". The "Ardi" type model I proposed is the best chance, at least as I see it, to get further testing done (whatever the conclusions) and actual scientific involvement. But, if you prefer to think the scientists who run TV shows on the SciFi channel can handle it better, that's you're right.

Just a friendly observation+suggestion. No offense was intended. PMing would be pointless with more than two people involved and a vacuum waiting to be filled, IMO.



As long as people watch the sponsors don't care. Largely, that's exactly what the first season was.



Hmmm.... I suggested something like that and there was opposition from the other side of the aisle. Hmmm....



Unknown hominoid would be more like it, as best as I can figure it out. Findings as yet to be confirmed or challenged by peer review. The devil is in the details



Again that is the show. The perky female assistants only last one season, and its a miracle no one gets killed. That we know about...

Its hared to say if he calls the shots or is the brains.



Pity she'll only last one season. Assuming the don't get her killed.




Didn't the first season, and usualy there is no evidence as such even now. But more often something is happening on camera, which either means they are getting better at what they do or fakery is involved. Alternately, they shoot many more shows and only air the "good" episodes. Orbitz must love them.

Which is one reason I have the crazy idea that outside scientists should be involved in this circumstance.

Strange that you yet feel you must waste so much time on it. Perhaps its just the good company?

Hmm...

Let's see here. We got hundreds of sightings by local people, and a handful of documented sightings by explorers and mountain climbers in the region, spanning back over a hundred years. All the documentation describes something ape-like in both appearance and behavior.

Then, in 2001, a British team investigates a sighting area with a Bhutanese witness/ tracker. They give a hair sample to Oxford PhD and renowned DNA expert, Dr. Sykes, who proclaims the hair sample to be the first sample he has never been able to classify.

Finally, we have Destination Truth go to the same location the first mystery hair came from (Bhutan) and brings back a hair. This time another DNA expert, not to mention Chairperson of the International Society for Animal Genetics, Dr. Ketchum, identifies the hair as coming from a large, unknown primate.

Here's the equation:

X = [Sightings + DNA test #1 + DNA test #2]

X = yeti

We must use logic to move ahead, whether the general public, or the peer review industry is ready or not.

You don't need to be a paranormal biologist to understand procedures on handling evidence, procedures for writing a paper on the discovery of a new species, etc... Plus, what is paranormal about an imaginary bipedal, hairy primate?

Hi Gambit, whats the name of the book, sounds kinda interesting, might be worth a read....................

Here is the actual equation

X= Where are the results of the study fx(odds of study being produced approaches zero)

Thanks for the clarification. I think I'm starting to understand the show a little better. To make sure we're on the same page . . .

You're saying that these guys weren't in contact with any kind of local biologist or guide who claims some knowledge of yetis in the area. They just picked a spot on a map, with perhaps a history of sightings, went in commando-style and in the process recovered a sample of unusual hairs. So there is no responsible biologist working with the producers of the TV show. Got it.

They sent the hairs to a DNA lab, and the technician there claimed that they were from a "large primate." (I still don't see why anyone is excited by this and calling "yeti" when "Homo sapiens" does not appear to have been ruled out, but I'm willing to play along.) The lab technician was allegedly very surprised by the result, and for some reason she thinks the sample is really significant, i.e., she thinks it's yeti hair. Is this right?

Now I know how contracts work and I get that the lab technician might not have access to the data. But, absent anything but conjecture to the contrary, I'm working from the assumption that she is a biologist trained in analysis of tissue samples to determine the taxonomic origin of the material. (If not, she'd have no business conducting the analysis in the first place.) If anyone, she should understand the gravity of coming up with an analysis result that indicates a unique, undescribed species. Evidently, she also was willing to have her analysis made public in the context that it would be interpreted as startling new proof that yetis are real. Now if she really believes that, then she has the chops to do the most important thing that can and should be done with the analysis: submit it to a high profile journal like Science or Nature. If she's not confident in her own ability to do this, then surely there is a supervisor in her lab, a professor who trained her, some well known figure who does similar work (Sykes? Ketchum?) on whom she can rely to take the lead.

You paint the producers of "Destination Truth" as not having any interest in pursuing publication of their allegedly startling find. I agree they might not know that this is what they should be doing, but I disagree that they would be disinterested. I mean, what better way to stick it to the man than for your paranormal TV show to have - in a 24 hour expedition - brought back the only solid, physical evidence ever collected anywhere regarding one of the world's most enduring mysteries? Eat it, mainstream science!

Now your contention is that we in the "bigfoot community" should proactively seek to get the data, reanalyze it, and take the lead on writing it up? Okay, go for it. There probably are some folks here who could do that - I'm not one of them. I personally think it would be a waste of time as I find the story dubious, but if you and others find it compelling then by all means dig deeper.

Saskeptic,

No, she did not say it was Yeti hair. The crew was looking for the Yeti and found hair that tests strong for human markers. So Ketchum, says it is a large primate. Human may have been ruled out by morphological examination, and the fact that its not a perfect match to what humans would test for the same markers.

Aren't we all playing along so that we can get to the truth of what the results in the test really means? You seem to come down hard on DNA testing of biological physical evidence and prefer a picture or video on youtube, but can't seem to go watch this episode on youtube. Whats up with that?

Ask CSICOP, they consider debunking their BF to be on their patch, under the heading "Claims Of the Paranormal". If you disagree, I suggest you give them a call and point out the error. I think they have a differrent definition of the word than you for which I applaud you.

I consider it a biological issue with biologists, paleoanthropologists, and primatologists the best specialties to study the matter. The statement was made in response to the idea that professional scientists with an interest in BF shouldn't get involved. To me scientists not in this category have adequately demonstrated they are not interested and do not want to get involved, except of course those who demostrate bias by prejudging evidence and declaring it all bunk.

Ideally all camps would be well represented to keep the examination on track.

Yeah, I'll call them, right after I point out something

They are no longer called CSICOP, just CSI, Center for Skeptical Inquiry.


http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show...now_not_csicop/

Didn't know that was an option (my VCR perpetually blinks "12:00"). I only use You Tube to look up classic performances of Don Kirschner's Rock Concert.

Right, so "morphological examination" of the hair might indicate that it's not human, thereby making the DNA analysis interesting. So, who did the morphological examination? Is that person someone we might expect to grasp the importance of yeti DNA confirmation and perhaps take the leasd on a publication? (Rhetorical questions, now that I know I can go find the episode on YouTube and see for myself.)

I'm not sure what makes you think I'm somehow anti-DNA. A tissue sample that can be analyzed to fit "yeti" in its most likely position in a hominid cladogram would be the next best thing to bagging a body. In fact, if we had a body, we'd still take a tissue sample to run such an analysis. My standard recommendation for bigfooters is to set up bait stations with (1) track plates for high definition footprint impressions, (2) camera traps that would show exactly what left that footprint, and (3) hair catchers that would allow for the collection of a tissue sample from which we could determine what the thing was that left the footprint and the photo.

So I'm all for DNA analysis of suspected bigfooty material. But my "skeptic sense" starts tingling when I hear about some potentially groundbreaking analysis of such material that appears on a television show but nowhere in the primary literature.

It's not like it was hiding from ya.

From the OP



My bolding.

Saskeptic,



You really do need to watch more TV!

To the best of my knowlede, no. The "DT Team" consists of Josh, an assistant, a medic, a camera man, a sound man, and originally one of the producers (whose job it was to call a halt when things got out of hand, except it was usually way past that point when he did it). If I missed anyone somebody pipe up. Currently, the producer isn't, I think, being depicted at all. Its conceivable that he's lurking in the background somewhere, and there may be some additional support personal we are not shown (I have reason to think there are more undiscussed/unshown camera men, which is typical of what is needed for these type of shows), but at this point that would be speculation. Its possible that other persons are responsible for researching the topic, its even conceivable that an advance team scouts locations and provides various reconnaisce (hence their improved rate of "findings"), but again that's speculation. But the above indicates the actual active field researchers shown. They do consult with scientists and paranormal experts after the fact if they have "evidence" that they have brought back with them, most of which is inconclusive and a small portion of which is interesting. Generally the scientists are zoologists or paleontologists. This may be their first foray into genetics.

As depicted they research a topic from LA, compile some sort of basic understanding of a phenomena including locality (described during an animatic at the opening), pick a general area, arrive via air transport (currently via Orbitz), get into their decrepit rented vehicle(s) [or other transport, such as camels], arrive in the general area, talk to some locals, pick a specific location based on those interviews or the earlier research, set up a base camp (usually after dark), run around in the dark with cameras, try to chase down anything that might conceivably be what they are looking for, pack up (with or without rest first), and then head home. "In country" time, or at a minimum time in the area of interest, is depicted as one day or less.

Now this is television, and through the magic of editing things may not be what they seem, but this seems pretty consistent. They are often depicted as going into areas where the risk factor is considerible (and real, such as poisonous snakes), where significant medical assistance is hours to days away, and then the risk is increased by their efforts to investigate (such as SCUBA diving into areas they believe have giant squid and do have sharks). Its possible its all staged, but in general they appear to be going to real locations and running real risks, and occassionaly there appear to be minor injuries or illnesses. Losing the roof of their cockpit while in flight doing location scouting was interesting, for example. If they staged their trip into Chernobyl, they should be gettin an Emmy for it, because it looked like the real deal.



Well, again, my interpretation of what was said is a bit different. And lacking an exact understanding of current techniques and procedures in a commercial lab I may be incorrect. The finding from the human panel indicated to me that what the technician meant was that it was similar to great ape or human. Its possible that is incorrect, but from what was said I think that was what was intended, and I also think what was meant was monkey was excluded (these kind of DNA tests are not going to indicate differences in monkey size). Either differences in the human panel or other marker panels indicated that it was not a match for humans, and the online scientific database consulted failed to bring a match either. One would expect human, great ape, and a large collection of monkey genetic signatures to be in such a database (for it to be of much use). Physical examination of the hair also indicated that it wasn't human (due to courseness, according to what we were told), and the color and length don't seem to be good matchs for great apes (something that wasn't discussed). So my interpretation -- which may or may not be correct -- is the initial findings indicate that the specimen is an unknown hominid or great ape, not a monkey, and that's why it should be of interest. In any case, during the show it was stated that the purpose of the tests was to determine if it matched any known animal.

The most likely alternative, if this interpretation is incorrect or the testing is invalid for whatever reason, would presumably be hair from a very large local monkey, whether known or unknown. Scientifically -- and perhaps otherwise -- we should be interested in the existence of an unknown large monkey in these mountains, because if it is much larger (as such fossil monkeys were) it might explain some/all Yeti sightings. If its a known species of monkey, then that is a scientific finding of interest because it invalidates the current findings. Now, if I were a skeptic, I would prefer to have that conclusion scientifically demonstrated, if only to avoid the continual rehashing of the idea that the Yeti's existence is a demonstrated scientific fact because of this incident.



As depicted, or perhaps my interpretation of it (based on its location, for example, as depicted in the show),the lab is probably not primarily scientific. There are many uses for genetic analysis, and many of them are practical and prosaic. Law-enforcement forensics, paternity tests, medical, agricultural, and even farmed-out bio-tech work might be the labs primary function. In other words, I didn't get the sense that the lab was involved in major scientific research, instead it seemed a place where samples are sent to be analyzed in a standardized fashion. If its shown up in other cases like this, it may be because it does so inexpensively. In other words it may just produce piecemeal work on a contract basis. Now it may be done competently, and correctly, and there may even be trained scientists on staff handling and physically processing the samples (more likely done by technicians), and typing up the boiler-plate of the findings, but it didn't appear to be research oriented. Dr. Ketchum may or may not have the background, despite any credentials, for the high-level scientific analysis and identification of an entirely new hominoid species from DNA. This is not to make accusations of incompetence, I'm just pointing out that all scientists are not created equal in terms of expertise. I would guess, to a large extent, what she is capable of doing has been done and the results have been passed on in a report to the production company. For example, there was no discussion (for whatever reason) of chromosomal analysis, that would be done visually by an expert. How many chromosomes are there would be of great interest. But its possible that this was impossible if only partial DNA was recoverable from the hair shafts themselves. I suggest you at least watch the final segment of the show using the YouTube link posted earlier and see what you think for yourself, its not the focus of the show but what is shown is suggestive. The entire episode (in higher quality) appears to be (legally) viewable yet on SyFy.com: http://www.syfy.com/rewind/?__source=Syfy_Global_Nav



Well, the producers might care, but their job is to produce a show not scientific results. Right now they have 'warm and fuzzy' results: they can keep saying they have proof that their team found 'concrete scientific evidence of the existence of the Yeti'. "If it ain't broke", why should they fix it? Further testing will either have similar results or the reverse. Further testing will presumaby cost a lot more money, as we have reasons to think this may just have been a mitochondiral test. In any case, producers in these sort of situations generally work for someone else, who has the final say. Again, the primary interest is producing the television show, anything beyond that mission statement -- or that doesn't further the ultimate goal of ratings -- wouldn't be a priority or would be ignored. So they could be very interested but short of scraping several hundred thousand dollars out of their pocket for further research they might have dropped it at this point. What is needed is professional scientifc interest (stage 1-BF interested scientists), that leads to confirming preliminary tests (assuming enough remains of the sample to do so), which hopefully will lead to someone with the required expertise (stage 2-independent neutral experts) to take on a full scientific examination, for there may be non-trivial costs associated with such an endeavor which may require the backer. There is a potential backer in the SciFi channel itself, which is why I have suggested the "Ardi" model as a way to market it to them (you might want to watch those shows too). Other backers may be found, its a question of interesting them.

In terms of 'sticking it to the man', originally the show (while I found it personally entertaining) produced a real minimum of results. They've been doing a lot better, particularly in season 3. Possibly in part because of equipment changes. As someone who spends a certain amount of time going "commando" (as discussed in the above context) this is both interesting and perplexing. On the other hand the evidence is often not very clear-cut, i.e., something happens that has them running around in circles or scares them to death, but nothing definitive is documented. So they may still be on the level.



Not the lead per se, but they should get the ball rolling and then pass on the baton, to mix metaphors. The alternative is, as we have seen before, a more complete investigation doesn't take place.

I've given reasons above why you might have reasons, even as a skeptic, for further investigation, if you buy them is for you to decide. Things aren't debunked until they actually are debunked, at least in my book. First, I don't have the expertise for this project and I don't have a relationship with those in the BF community that do (i.e., I don't have their ear). I'm not a "networking" kind of guy, the opposite in fact. I think there are a few scientists on the BFF, and that may be a place to start, but so far no one has popped in an shown interest. Secondly, while it may be useful for this particular project, I've suggested that the BF community would be well served by having its scientific members form a more formal arrangement, a panel if you will, where they can work together and have ideas, information, and evidence (such as it is) ran past them for their inspection. Again, no one has taken the idea and ran with it. Frankly, at the moment I've got my plate full working myself to death in the Maryland archives digging up old newspaper accounts. Conceivably I might be able to do something, but I may have to bring some "firepower" with me. (Hmmmm...) In any case, what we most need now is guys that know guys: if someone can actually have a conversation with the people we know are scientists, including those with a higher profile, and they are willing to participate to get an investiation jump-started, that may be the leverage needed to do it. So, if anyone has ideas, feel free to PM, otherwise the alternative is cold calls and they don't often work.

I'm open to suggestions, but the status quo is that believers will be talking about this until doomsday, skeptics will ignore it even if it might be turned to their advantage, and we will all be ignorant as to whether or not this test was really valid or not.

Regards,

PF

[quote name='Saskeptic' date='Nov 12 2009, 12:03 PM' post='568018']
Thanks for the clarification. I think I'm starting to understand the show a little better. To make sure we're on the same page . . .

You're saying that these guys weren't in contact with any kind of local biologist or guide who claims some knowledge of yetis in the area. They just picked a spot on a map, with perhaps a history of sightings, went in commando-style and in the process recovered a sample of unusual hairs. So there is no responsible biologist working with the producers of the TV show. Got it.


They actually got guidance from local buddhist monks in the area,and also got a very good footprint cast in the same area last year which is why they went back.As for the host of the show,Josh Gates,he holds a degree in archaeology.I would assume being an archaeologist he would have knowledge of proper evidence handling and things of that nature.The footprint from last year and the recent hair samples were obtained in the country of Bhutan.Also in the Himilayas neighboring Tibet I believe.As far as a biologist working with the show I would have to look at the credits and research everyones credentials,which I will do pronto

I wouldn't say that. I think, however, there is a general tendency among skeptics to dismiss (shall we say) unusual DNA results out of hand (contamination, incompetence, fraud, etc.) and accept those with prosaic explanations automatically. For example, contamination with goat blood from a meal might lead to DNA misidentification of a Yeti hair as a goat. Yet we don't hear arguements that an error is probable in those cases.

As for the other suggestions, yes they would be most desirable if the target species would cooperate, but it won't (at least it hasn't so far). If we did have a hair that testing indicated was an unknown hominoid, and we had all the other things (photos, tracks, etc. at the moment the hair was lost), it still wouldn't stop the scoffing and claims of fraud. The hair alone is sufficient evidence (once validated) to warrant further scientific interest. Not proof, but worthy of serious interest by serious scientists.



Not stated. Possibly Ketchum, or someone else at the lab, possibly (but less likely) an outside expert. If my suspicion is correct the lab may handle forensic cases, and these may be of a non-genetic nature. Though I suppose it may be part of their normal screening procedure (to avoid running a DNA test on a synthetic fiber, for example).



At this point its a preliminary report, not a scientific paper. All the more reason to get independent confrimation or invalidation, whether any journal allows it to be published or not.

+++

Regarding my previous post:



I'm not sure where that extra "their" came from. I'm pretty sure CSICOP actually doesn't own a BF, so I think that's a typo that came about while I was revising that sentence.

I certainly don't want them to initiate legal action for baseless accusations like this (gulp).

Didn't know that about him, thanks for the info and anything else you dig up.

While hosting the Ghost Hunters Live Halloween even (which I saw a few minutes of), Josh said (jokingly or not) he just sent his tape into SciFi and they gave him a show. Why didn't I think of that?

To nitpick (Josh presumably, not you), I'm not sure if anyone gets an "archaeology degree". One would presume the major was anthropology with a specialty towards archaeology (i.e., what classes were chosen). Whether it was a BS, MS, or PhD of course matters as well. Maybe its a BA?

People have been discussing contamination, so I will address it the best I can (not having been there). Typical procedure as I understand it for biological samples is to (if possible) thoroughly clean them to remove contamination. So if we have an object like a hair, and this is successful, then the hair is processed and the DNA that is extracted is from inside it (unless one would be lucky enough to get a root with the hair, which might be a bit more exposed). This is what you do with bones or a tooth as well, but in those cases they clean it and then more or less cut into it and try to get a sample from the interior. In general, DNA from other animals is not going to produce a human like signature unless something is closely related to our species, so the only viable candidate for contamination in this case is presumably human. In criminal forensics cross-contamination is, I believe, compensated for by comparing DNA from subjects know or suspected to have come in contact with the matieral tested. In this case, the list of people would presumably be known and careful examination (comparing markers) could rule these sources out.

But I'm not an expert.

I think the initial handling of the evidence is in the show (grabbed with tweasers and put in an evidence bag), so you can interpret that and see if you think contamination took place then or if they were likely to allow it later.

According to the credits there was one cameraman. An interview shot at several different angles with "B roll" (reaction shots and close ups of the computer) suggests that there was some heavy duty editing. They don't have to feed the guest with false statements or have her lie in order to sway an audience. They only have to omit anything that is to the contrary of their goal. Anything that says "This is not or may not be yeti DNA" remains on the cutting room floor. Tv folks have other savvy ways of producing that is also considered "not lying". She classified it as a large primate, then she sent it to a lab. She could have sent her findings to the marine life and reptilian DNA database at DeVry institute for all we know and according to what was presented, they still would have not lied. I'm pretty sure if she sent large primate DNA to such a database, it would come back as unknown.

How deliberately omitting evidence as you now claim is different from lying and again can you provide any proof of them deliberately omitting evidence hence lying which is the same thing in any book. And more impoprtantly why would any lab bother to check DNA findings of an alleged mammal/primate on a reptilian only database again as you claim?

That's my point. No breath-taking evidence= no viewers, no viewers= no sponsors, no sponsors= no show. Like I stated, I've never seen any of these shows, but if they don't come up with something to keep the viewers glued to the screen, the show dies. The reason I would'nt trust it much.

What breath taking evidence? Hair samples that produced the very preliminary possibility that it might be from a large primate? That's hardly breath taking! Breath taking would be a body or them capturing the actual creature as if that's ever gonna happen.

Did I say breath taking?, I meant earth shattering.

I like earth shattering better than breath taking

You can name it anything you want. the point is they haven't found in the show anything Breath Taking Earth Shattering, Breath Taking or anything taking for that matter period...

What about breath shattering?

Agreed (I believe we are on the same wave length) That's the reason I view any "evidence" from them with a grain of salt

Or (you can see this one coming from downtown) Earth taking? Or would that be reserved for the UFO forums?

Hi

I like ~ Nerve Rattling

Peace
Tim

I work with a dude that has that condition. Pop a Tic-Tac Bro!

Keep in mind, nothing put forth for TV should be considered "evidence"...it's simply "material". And yes, TV will "spin" things in the interest of ratings, not proof. It's just the way things are done. It's "entertainment" unless it's the news, and even the news shows have been guilty of spin. Take a look at what Hannity tried to pull off recently.

I really don't see what the big deal over all this is seriously! What they found is tantalizing at best but that's all. And even if at some point they, MonsterQuest or any one else in the field ever does come with something Earth shattering it will still come under hot scrutiny and debate. Or has everyone forgotten the debacle over the alleged microbe fossils found on an asteroid from mars back in the 1990s and how all that turned out in the end? So anything short of an actual body will not quell scrutiny and debate. Even if someone ever got actual DNA and again could not be matched to anything anywhere it will come under scrutiny and debate. A lot of people like in this case will blame the results on contamination or that they used the wrong database or that the database or all databases used were faulty. That computer viruses and trojan horses were responsible for the results etc, etc...

I don't "now" claim this, I always claimed it. This is how a show is made. First ask anyone here that has appeared on a show if 100% of every element of what was shot is in the finished show, including every word of every interview. I hate to answer for them but, they will tell you no. Now ask them if they believe the show lied. The answer may or may not be no depending if the show took them out of context, which I am not claiming. If they included everything into the show, the show would run 19 hours long. They will only put in the elements that tell the story that they want to tell. That is all. I stated it was a one camera shoot which is the proof you are seeking. It was not a seamless, fluid interview.

To answer your second question; I wasn't being literal by saying it went to a reptilian database. I don't think DeVry even has a DNA database. I'm saying the show can get away with not lying by sending it to an insufficient database. One that does not have the certain primate sequences on record which would produce an "unknown" result. And they would not be lying. They don't have to say that it is from a primate when they send it to the lab. They just have to ask if they will run the sequence. They will leave it to the audience to assume that every animal is on record on the database that they used.

I should have said this first but never get too upset with what I say here. You seem angered. I will never insult you, so you should never feel insulted. It's just my opinion and should never be used for scientific reference. Half of what I say or more is said in jest like.........You can tell by the title of the show that they haven't even arrived at telling the truth yet.

Read this post...

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=568130

That post is in this thread. I don't want to take the conversation backwards.

I get the feeling that we are not discussing the same thing here.

Oh just read post #133 will you...

Hahaha I did the first time. Hence post #138.

you know i laugh every time i come here lately. this site is sadly become an online sport of sorts. folks play the i know more than you and can out talk you to prove it game with a second match of i am the friking god of squatchers and will prove any evidence wrong.

i got news for all you fools. nothing we talk about is anything more than speculation until that warm body is on a slab. for the hoaxers among us i mean warm unknown primate type body not any vermin in a cheap fake fur. once that happens some will be closer to actually being right than others. make fun and try to drown out your mortal enemies then.

god i long for a fully armed and polite society who all talk face to face. things were simpler then cause you knew if you spouted off out of line you might just be handed a body part to taste test.

my god people your trying to discredit people and crap you know absolutely nothing about. there are people here whose integrity is above reproach and some idiot makes an accusation and you all jump in like zombies in a cheap B movie.

grow the hell up. talk about what could be and get off your asses into the real world and i mean where kids dies of starvation and people freeze to death on the streets near you house. maybe then some civility will return to this site and discussion.

when did it become ok for people working to the same end to crap all over each other in some weird quasi sexual fetish or sport. what happened to the helping hand or collaboration. if the best you can do is attempt to destroy all in your realm then your just a waste of air and i suggest you become an organ and tissue donor so atleast you will amount to something of some importance to the world you leave behind .


oh...i could care less anyones opinion of my typos or other errors. consider this an ADA post. my disabilitys cause nerve damage that causes loos of finger control. i have more importiant things to do than kiss the hall moniters butt.

C&C2-
Are you posting this same message all over this forum?
This is the second time I've read it now, and I'm not even done with my first cup of coffee.

I personally think he (C&C2) just had way too much caffeine or something...

Strange, I just saw that same post somewhere else also. Rarely does the same lecture translate into another thread.
Yeah man, it's just a dialog. Nobody is bashing anyone. I finally know about a topic so I felt I should contribute. I do know about television production. It's been my profession for over two decades. What I don't know about is the wild west and frozen zombies and whatever else was just mentioned.

I think C&C2 meant to post that in the "The Michigan Recording Project" thread (which he did) but didn't bother to delete it here.

Wow, me too.
That must be where your scathing wit and sarcasm come from...

the cat walked across the key board. im just sayin. i cant edit now but as i read thru several threads i see a few places where my opinion might be relevent. the noobs dont know what im talking about as it was pre crash/hack and life was different then.

Forgive, my ignorance, but I don't know the secret handshake so I can't get into any of their meetings.

So "Claims of the Paranormal" wasn't a big enough field, now they can be Skeptical about everything? Next they will become Skeptical about skepticism, much in the way Conservatives are now skeptical of Republicans.

Interesting position: 'I have no personal knowledge of X, therefore I know all about it'



So by the standards that its being suggested we judge by is that a lie of ommission?

Maybe its the same post in different threads because the same behavior is present? Hmmm...

Well, if it were a democracy I'd write him in as a candidate for moderator.

And he's right, the only peace around here is the peace of the biggest guns, in several senses of the phrase.

Its not supposed to be this way people.



Editor as hoaxer... and I thought the butler did it!



We can't help it, we're just serious people... of course if you would prefer we not take you seriously...?