 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | my thoughts |
| From: | |
Irishtheruler
|
posted
Mon, Sep 7 2009, 9:19pm
|
Karl,
Another good blog. I especially like the "Interdimensional Travel Permit:" it appears to be a King Kong head in a "Johnny Dangerously" suit topped off with a hat that reminds me of the era of writing from F. Scott Fitzgerald. Excellent.
The rational mind and cryptozoology almost seem inversely proportional at times, agreed. The grand lure of cryptozoology is simply this-
There are some crazy creatures on this planet, and we are still discovering some. Nobody is an expert on all of the creatures, so there still remains an element of uncertainty. It is topic of interest for almost everyone. Given the broad spectrum of the topic at hand, it is no wonder why it has, and will remain, a popular topic for many. Now given the "average intelligence" and world views and whatnot of the "average" man, where he/she might live, shapes the cryptid at hand.
Not playing Devil's advocate here, just trying to justify my perspective and my interest here at CZ. I posted before that I saw an unusual lizard sitting on the windowsill of our new FLIR facility. I saw seen thousands of lizards here in Florida, but never one like this. It scurried off after I approached and I highly doubt I could have caught it with a great deal of effort. So my point is that I think there are creatures, animals, out there that exist and can do it below radar, and that's where the majority of my interest lies. Bigfoot, no. I find it too coincidental that he is so anthropomorphic- it is an easy fool for the general population, i.e. a suit. But I will say that there probably are some fascinating animal discoveries awaiting us, and I'll stay tuned.
-Irish |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
Karl
|
posted
Mon, Sep 7 2009, 10:02pm
|
The BF image is one I photoshopped for my own site some time ago with an added gangster suit I got form a costume site; any resemblence to any King Kongs, past or present, living or dead, is purely coincidental. To be honest, I "borrowed" the face from a bigfoot movie, and put it on a gorilla head that I reshaped. I then played around with light and shadow until it looked a lot ape and a little human.
I completely agree that there are some wonderful zoological treasures still hidden out there. My son and I saw a snake that looked like a big scaley earthworm while we were hiking in nearby mountains. We tried to capture it, but failed. When we got home, we tried to find it in our large collection of animal books, and on the internet, but we could not find it anywhere. My son wondered if we were the first to see such a creature. I doubt it. I believe it is documented somewhere, we just couldn't find it. But it was kind of exciting to see a creature we had never seen before, especially up close and in the wild. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
hojoo
|
posted
Tue, Sep 8 2009, 1:22am
|
|
Karl you might have exposed rock throwing as nonsense, but lets see you do the same to the irrefutable evidence that is held in such high regard by Bigfootologists: broken branches! Or how about tree trunk knocking? Or sticks stuck in the ground? Plenty of non rock throwing related nonsense, i mean evidence, for you to examine. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
cabbageweevil
|
posted
Tue, Sep 8 2009, 4:31am
|
Re rock throwing -- though I’m not in any way a diehard Bigfoot believer, am moved here to do a little bit of defending of perceived “Bigfoot loons”. Something that appears to be pretty much a constant in reports of alleged Bigfoot encounters, is that – for whatever reason (or non-reason) – this “whatever-it-is”, while mostly seeking to keep humans at arms’ length, seems to stick to ways of doing so, which do not involve physical harm to people. The rational-thinking line is, of course, that warning-off of this kind, would be carried out in such a way as to cause maximum damage – but it can be wondered whether “rational” always and invariably equates with “correct”.
The whole Bigfoot thing, is a weird scene. If one accepts that it might not be all purely hoaxing, lies, error and imagination, and that there could in fact be “something out there” – the indications would seem to be that whatever b/f may be, it is an exception to some normal and usual rules – one instance, “non-violent intimidation tactics”, as above.
Find myself chary of the views of anyone engaged with this topic, who asserts with ironclad certainty, “this is how it is – I KNOW -- and those who hold opposing views, haven’t a clue”. I feel thus, equally about rational-thinking sceptics, and about ardent believers, who take such a position. Would consider that there is just too little non-anecdotal information available on the whole subject, to warrant dogmatic pronouncements on it, especially about matters of detail re b/f’s attributes. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
Karl
|
posted
Tue, Sep 8 2009, 7:04am
|
What is dogmatic about employing common sense?
What sound and substantial indications do we have that a Bigfoot-like creature might exist?
Why would a creature that tries so hard to avoid detection bring attention to itself?
What do we know about human nature?
Do we have unquestionable evidence of hoaxing?
Dowe have unquestionable evidence of pranksters?
Do people support their own egos?
Do people find ways to support their beliefs--even to the point of self deceit?
Which appears to be more apparent; Bigfoot activity, or social and psychological activity?
Are all the answers to these questions dogmatic? |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
cabbageweevil
|
posted
Tue, Sep 8 2009, 9:22am
|
Wow – I wasn’t envisaging getting this rapidly, to a situation where next likely step would be, your and my “seconds” arranging a time and place at which you and I would sort out our differences in a possibly “ultimate” fashion…
Cannot help feeling that Bigfootery is largely, nowadays, in a situation analogous to Germany / USSR 1941 -- 45 (“believer” fundamentalists, “sceptic” fundamentalists – identifying “then / now” neither, respectively, with either) – total opposition and total hatred and contempt, total fighting-to-the-death, no quarter given, no middle ground. So much, from both sides, couched IMO in terms of “I’m right – if you think otherwise, you’re mad”. It’s possible for people to advance strongly-held opinions, while being courteous to, and not rubbishing, those who think differently.
People hold all kinds of ideas – some of them, from almost all possible viewpoints, crazy. On a scene such as this, nobody knows for certain – nobody has the right to claim to KNOW the truth, and to vehemently trash those who may think otherwise. Sorry if here, I’m imputing attitudes to you, which you don’t in fact hold – just, “the way it seems”. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
Karl
|
posted
Tue, Sep 8 2009, 5:38pm
|
My apologies. Without a mild introduction, those questions appear quite aggressive, and that was not my intention.
I simply wanted to point out that common sense is not dogmatic.
When people disagree, there are times when everybody is wrong, but more often, one side is wrong to some degree and the other is right to some degree. Applying simple common sense and logic can often point out which is which.
Being unable to prove a negative, I cannot claim to "know" the truth, but I can certainly claim to know what makes sense and what does not make sense until someone shows me where I have erred, if I have indeed erred. Being aware of my imperfections, I have no problem adimitting that error is a real possibility. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
cabbageweevil
|
posted
Wed, Sep 9 2009, 2:30pm
|
(and to luna 1580)
Karl – thanks – my apologies too. There seems to be something about the whole Bigfoot subject, which encourages quarrelling and offence-both-ways – often unnecessarily.
“Available data” on this matter suggests to me (others’ mileage will for sure vary), that this could quite possibly be one where what’s happening, actually runs counter to common sense: next step, or simultaneous step, involvement of things paranormal – which strikes me as the least-unlikely explanation for this phenomenon – and which position also likely to be seen by many, as lunacy, and / or an easy cop-out re the whole thing. A great number of possible opinion-type lines, to potentially run with…
I’ve perhaps been spending too much time lately on JREF, where – in the nature of things – the “sceptic fundamentalists” largely hold sway, and – do what their predilection, inclines them to do… irritation thus, to would-be holders of a middle ground… |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
Karl
|
posted
Wed, Sep 9 2009, 10:13pm
|
|
While JREF has its share of "skeptic fundamentalists" (that's a good term, I like it), it also has a good number of level-headed members. Refusing to accept "middle ground" does not necessarily make one a "skeptic fundamentalist". |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
Irishtheruler
|
posted
Wed, Sep 9 2009, 11:06pm
|
I could accept "middle-ground" if I had a shred of proof. I know I'm kind of jumping in on this here but all these labels mean nothing when it comes down to the real hard-core science of it all. Bigfoot to me is black or white: it exists or it doesn't. Proof or no proof. I am a person of a scientific nature; I deal with specifics and adhere to them. Speculation is simple that, speculation. I can tell you the wavelength of a laser and if it's dangerous or not, and specifically what part of your eye it might harm. I can diagnose a FLIR system over the phone. I watch cars drive down the highway and I can guess by the color of the smoke out of the tailpipe what's probably wrong with the engine. What I'm getting at is that my mind is a mind of cause-and-effect: experience has taught me that certain situations have generated certain results, without fail. I will admit that my knowledge of the animal kingdom as a whole is limited, but I must throw in the fact that I have studied the animal kingdom in whatever information is thrown my way for many years.
I would sincerely like to be proved wrong. Again I will throw out the "anthropomorphism" card- just too easy to make a suit for a goof.
-Irish |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
cabbageweevil
|
posted
Thu, Sep 10 2009, 6:41am
|
(to “all concerned”)
Suppose that it is partly, the way this general subject has, of attracting (none in present company, by the way) a certain number of truculent types, at both extremes of the two main camps, who tend strongly to the general attitude characterised by me lately as, approximately, “I know; I’m right; anyone who thinks otherwise is, ipso facto, an idiot.” An attitude which automatically makes my hackles rise; and can cause a tendency to forget that majority of participants in the debate, who take a more moderate and less combative line.
I don’t have a scientific turn of mind, and can easily accept the envisaged possibility that there might be areas of what goes on on Earth, in which the rules of science, actually don’t apply. Which maybe lays me open to accusations of having such an open mind, that the brain falls right out – OK, “if so, then so”. I do a good deal of lurking on JREF, but am not brave enough to post much on their Bigfoot-related threads – being aware that the razor-sharp intellects there, would speedily turn me into chopped liver. Am just not certain that that particular approach, in fact “seals it” concerning this issue… |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
Karl
|
posted
Thu, Sep 10 2009, 7:39am
|
Your mind won't fall out if it is securely in place, no matter how open it may be. But one must take care when opening their minds to extraordinary things.
Sometimes a particular approach "seals it", and sometimes it doesn't. There are always variables. But I have to agree with Irish that there are no variables when it comes to the existence or non-existence of cryptids; it's either one or the other, it can't be both. There is no "middle ground" for existence. The lines are clearly established, and therefore I see no fault in taking sides. I am on the side of doubt and disbelief, and I write blogs that support my choice.
I don't know if we'll ever be able to explain all things beyond our atmosphere, but I feel confident that explanations can be found for everything that occurs on our planet. I'm just as confident that there will always be people that reject those explanations. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
cabbageweevil
|
posted
Thu, Sep 10 2009, 9:45am
|
No fault seen, in taking sides. Wonder, though, whether existence / non-existence, is actually so totally open / shut. What about things supernatural / spiritual? / hopping between dimensions (sometimes here, including physically in all respects, sometimes not) / yes, even perhaps involvement of aliens and UFOs. I have the feeling that this angle on Bigfootery, is the least-liked of any such, by most people in the general “arena” – for an assortment of reasons; one such, likely, because of at least a couple of proponents of the paranormal in this issue over the years, having been most obnoxious in their propounding, going way beyond advancing their notions in a polite and civil manner.
Quoting a friend who in the main feels as I do about this business: “…the notion that bigfoots [if not totally imagined / “manufactured”] aren’t simply flesh and blood has merit. It explains the inexplicable – it explains everything. Yes, it replaces a small mystery (why hasn’t it been captured / found / remains been retrieved) with a bigger one (if it’s supernatural, what is it?) but to think that way is for me liberating. It’s also unsatisfying as well, though, because it points to the conclusion that the mystery will never evolve, there will never be a body, or great footage or anything to change the status quo. It explains why they’re not found, but it doesn’t explain how they’re not found, or what they are. Plus, it begs a million questions about the nature of the supernatural…”
Holding notions along those lines (and not reckoning self likely – for one thing, not interested enough – to espouse, with absolutely no sense-making evidence, any particular paranormal “line”) – what would make most sense for me to do, would be to abandon my interest in Bigfoot, and most other cryptids, and turn my attention to something more likely to lead somewhere. However; have been interested in this matter for most of now-in-its-latter-stages lifetime: it’s fascinating to read other interested folks’ deliberations about it. Plus – I cling to a faint hope that just possibly, Bigfoot is a purely-flesh-and-blood pongid / hominid/ whatever creature, of quite amazing stealth / intelligence / elusiveness, which might in the end be discovered. That would, for me, be the most cool thing of all – much preferable to its being a matter of the boring old supernatural / unknowable, which has perplexed mankind since time began. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
Jenkie
|
posted
Thu, Sep 10 2009, 3:18pm
|
I, for one, am firmly convinced of what some call "supernatural" forces, and am what one must consider an optimistic skeptic concerning the existence of BF; that is, I truly hope such a creature exists, yet am continually disheartened by the lack of objective evidence surfacing over the last 15 years.
That said, I have never seriously entertained theories that rely on paranormal or supernatural explanations concerning bigfoot. Perhaps an example of selectively applying Occam's Razor to my reasoning....
Jenkie - wearing my heart on my arm, but under my sleeve |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
Karl
|
posted
Thu, Sep 10 2009, 7:11pm
|
|
I cannot deny the possibilty of "supernatural forces", science has not explained everything. Still, I feel confident that explanations will eventually be found. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
Karl
|
posted
Thu, Sep 10 2009, 7:08pm
|
Considering the supernatural and paranormal basically gives one permission to make up the rules, which allows them to believe anything is likely, however unlikely it might be.
The paranormal is backed up by nothing more than say-so. While many find that acceptable, I do not.
I believe that without the regulations of the scientific method, we would blindly wander back into the dark ages, and start burning witches again.
I'm sorry, but I will always reject paranormal considerations and a supernatural Bigfoot.
As for alien intervention; I cannot say that extraterrestrials do not exist, but if they do, I have seen nothing that convinces me that they have ever visited this planet. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
luna1580
|
posted
Thu, Sep 10 2009, 2:55am
|
thanks. i am happy you know that asking questions -about anything and EVERYTHING- has value.
thank you. i am not setting out to devalue the answers people may find, and however they may find their own peace within them, but i can NOT respect any person who would tell the world (or tell a single individual) "just don't ask, just accept the 'mystery' (without another thought now)...take it all 'on faith'..." -a person selling that is cheating people. period.
life is grand and our planet is awe-inspiring. and human life and life on our planet are both "harsh" and "unfair". so go ahead and ask any questions that leaves you with....
i think i respect curiosity second only to empathy/love/respect. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
kittenz
|
posted
Thu, Sep 10 2009, 8:17pm
|
The more bigfoot "evidence" that I see, the less believable the possibility of bigfoot's existence becomes. It all seems to be too much like grasping at straws.
No carcasses found by scavenging dogs. No unambiguous photo evidence. No bigfoot ever shot by a hunter, killed by a vehicle or washed up after a flash flood. No bigfoot found dead any time, anywhere. No bigfoot fossils.
Bigfoot are too intelligent to leave fossils or get killed by accident in locations where their bodies will be found? Please. People get killed by accidents and natural catastrophes all the time, and while they are admittedly rare, people leave fossils and traces of their life activities. Where are those of bigfoot?
Maybe in the vast forested areas of the Pacific northwest there is an unknown animal that is bigfoot (hominid or not). But the evidence is remarkable for its absence. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
Karl
|
posted
Tue, Sep 8 2009, 6:48am
|
|
Please explain how broken branches, tree trunk knocking, and sticks stuck in the ground are "irrefutable evidence of Bigfoot activity", and then I won't be able to show how such thinking is irrational. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
Karl
|
posted
Tue, Sep 8 2009, 7:02pm
|
hojoo, after reading your post again, I just realized that you're being sarcastic. My apologies for the serious reply.
I have to stop responding so early in the morning. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
luna1580
|
posted
Wed, Sep 9 2009, 3:46am
|
remember, reality has a widely known pro-science bias! ;)
and more seriously (as that was a "serious joke"), i fully agree that there is nothing "hostile" or "dogmatic" about asking anyone supporting any idea to just lay out their belief's support rationally on the debating table. if they can't do that very thing -and then get defensive- well....all i can say is that they may doubt their own ideas, and the action of doubting itself may scare them.....
don't forget, doubt is equally helpful in both faith and science. in faith is makes you question your original beliefs (and any that may surface later), and if you come back to them in the face of doubt it makes them truly real to you. in science if your doubts lead to an invalidation of your hypothesis then they give you more informed grounds to form a new and better hypothesis to go out and test. either way, doubt helps us find truth.
the only people i really fear for are those who have been indoctrinated into thinking that the very act of having a question, of having a doubt, is itself sinful. these people will struggle always and blame themselves, because whatever answer finally works for each of us (in matters of faith), or works for the physical world (in matters of science), if you suppress even the asking of any questions it will weigh upon your soul. whatever we each end up believing, these beliefs are all the much more glorious if we struggled and worked within our minds and hearts to find them -ultimately- for ourselves.
so, any persons out there caught in any belief structure that shames-against or scares-against or outright-denies-against them even asking their own questions i believe is doing them an immeasurable disservice. this is not any statement against faith, simply a strong statement against binding the curious mind and thus preventing each person from asking their own questions, as they need to in time..... |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
mysticete
|
posted
Thu, Sep 10 2009, 7:30pm
|
|
Where do you live? I thought it was the Pac Northwest. If so, you might want to look up a picture of a rubber boa. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
Karl
|
posted
Thu, Sep 10 2009, 7:44pm
|
Nope not the Pacific Northwest. I live in the northeast tip of Utah.
I have to say, the rubber boa looks an awful lot like the snake we saw, but we only got a about a fifteen second glance at it before it slithered into the foliage and disappeared, so I can't say for sure. I can say for sure that it isn't native to this area, so I don't know what to tell you. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
mysticete
|
posted
Fri, Sep 11 2009, 10:13am
|
|
I would have to double check my field guide at home...I know they range far enough west to get into Wyoming, so it's possibly in your area as well. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
Karl
|
posted
Sat, Sep 12 2009, 12:39pm
|
|
I could find nothing in the local guides supporting their presence in this area, and I've never heard any stories from anyone finding a rubber boa. This, of course, does not discount the possibility if they are found as far as Wyoming. Perhaps my son and I saw the exception to the local rule. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
mysticete
|
posted
Sat, Sep 12 2009, 4:06pm
|
|
I double-checked my Peterson guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. They are indeed found in the mountains in North and parts of western Utah. They are hard to find snakes, so you should consider yourself lucky to see one :P |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
Z.Z.
|
posted
Tue, Sep 8 2009, 9:38am
|
Another awesome blog Karl :)
I am often amazed how the cryptid programs employ people who are so obviously inept.
Those who fire weapons at unknown targets should be banned from the use of any firearm for life IMO. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: my thoughts |
| From: | |
Karl
|
posted
Tue, Sep 8 2009, 5:41pm
|
Thank you Z.Z.
And how I agree, oooooh how I agree. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
