--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > I have a bit of experience in a few areas in your list. > > Bigfoot is how chicks know at fist glance that I am goat-like in my > endowments. (I wear clown shoes to bars.) > > Orbs are the delightful things that fill out the upper part of a bikini. I > have done more than my share of making sure they are real by exposing them to > scientific screw-tany. > > Leylines should always be smoothed out in your bed from the last frolic or > the new girl may flee. > > Palmistry is how we all manage between encounters with our partner. > > > Ok not my best but that's what I got. Nice post is really all I wanted to > say.
Hey, that was good! I logged back in specifically to mention something I learned about bigfoot but your post made me think that maybe he (or the cosmic joker) was having us on. Maybe not though... I was at a conference of strange phenomena organised by the Fortean Times. One of the speakers was a nice chap called Loren Coleman. He is, or was, the worlds only professional bigfoot hunter, though he might prefer "cryptozoologist". He's never actually seen one himself but he's met a lot of people who have. His lecture was about bigfoot appendages. Really. He started of with a slideshow about how coy people are about genitals generally, showing loads of pics from science textbooks and depictions of early human cavepersons. All of who were turned conveniently to the side or had a leg strategically crossed over their nether regions. His point being it's such a part of culture and so ingrained we don't even notice we are looking the other way. But when he interviewed bigfoot witnesses he'd ask them detailed questions about appearance and movement, noises made etc. Very thorough. He also asked if the witness caught sight of the bigfoot's genitals. Usually they'd blush and say yes and the description given would be written down and left forgotten in notebooks. Weird thing is, the descriptions given were all the same but not in a way you'd expect. Loren would ask if they were like human genitals? No. Chimpanzee or gorilla? If they didn't know he'd give them a description and the answer would be no again. So when Loren asked what sort of animal they most resembled (if any) they would always say "A horse" and not just in size. Apparently bigfoot have a most un-apelike manhood. Pretty weird turn up I thought. Could everyone make up or imagine the same thing? Because of the cultural blindness for genitals he thinks this qualifies as serious evidence as it isn't what you'd expect. Apparently. I don't know what a gorilla's todger looks like myself. Can't say what it proves either, if anything. I can't see how a huge man-ape creature could be living wild in 21st century USA but that doesn't mean they don't. It was food for thought though and a highlight of the weekend for me, something completely unexpected, a world within the world I thought I knew, even if it is mad, deluded seekers running around the woods at night. I've been on ghost hunts and I know how we can kid ourselves when in a strange environment and especially when in a group. Here's the book if anyone fancies a read, he puts it all much better than me: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743469755/cryptozoologi-20 > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > Re: The Venn Diagram Of Irrational Nonsense > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/339067 > > > > > > Fowarded to FFL by a shade I met in a dream: > > > > > > "My dear FFLers > > > > > > Until my eyes died and gave me all-seeing vision I was unaware > > > of your august journal. But what a shock to my ethereal > > > system! My life's work, what? "Bollocks"? BOLLOCKS? And all > > > neatly classified too: "Religious BOLLOCKS", "Quackery > > > BOLLOCKS", "Pseudoscientific BOLLOCKS" (now there's irony, > > > ed.), and (Lord preserve us) "Paranormal BOLLOCKS". I am > > > deeply humbled." > > > > > > Poor chap, eh? It seems the deceased was a Professor Archie > > > Roy: > > > > Yeah, poor chap indeed. I'd hate to have spent my entire life > > studying daydreams. But I only spent my idle teens doing it so > > I got off lightly. > > > > > > > << A fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and professor of > > > Astronomy at Glasgow University, Roy was the world authority > > > on the mechanics of orbits, on which he carried out research > > > long before computers were capable of doing the work for him. > > > In the 1960s and 1970s he worked as a consultant to Nasa, > > > helping to put the first man on the Moon. He also had an > > > asteroid, 5806 Archie-roy, named in his honour. > > > > > > But he became better known among the general public for his > > > research into the spirit world. This began in the 1950s after > > > he lost his way in Glasgow's old university library and found > > > shelves of books on spiritualism and psychical research. > > > > Spiritualism. Chortle. What did he think of ectoplasm? > > > > > "My first ignorant reaction was 'What is this rubbish doing in > > > a university library?'," > > > > S'funny, that was my first reaction. But many years later and > > with a complete lack of any reliable evidence for the paranormal > > I tend to side with the 'it's all bollocks' POV. Until some new > > evidence comes along that is. Archie never found any. Nor has > > anybody else. But my mind is always open. But it's got to be good. > > Nabby's youtube polemics don't cut the mustard. > > > > If you want to have a go at convincing us go ahead. Start wherever > > you like on the diagram. How about: > > > > Chemtrails > > Astrology > > Numerology > > Hollow Earth > > Moon landing denial > > Dowsing > > Bigfoot > > Leylines > > Orgone energy > > Palmistry > > Orbs > > > > Shouldn't be too hard as so many books and websites have been > > written about them. In fact these subjects are so well known > > that it ought to be a breeze to sort the wheat from the chaff. > > > > Remember, just because a decorated scientist believes paranormal > > stuff it don't make it more likely to be true. Look at John Hagelin, > > he honestly thinks it's possible to predict the future using tea > > leaves because all subatomic constituents were together during the > > big bang! > > > > > > PS Do you want to buy my complete collection of The Fortean Times? > > >
