Posted by: graemebird | January 7, 2010

Panda Deniers/Birds Law Of Persistent Controversies.

They did not believe that the Panda existed. Some still don’t. They are the more die-hard of the skeptics. They think that believing in Pandas is akin to not having yet grown up and learnt to wipe ones nose. They think that Stephen Hawking has the low-down on what the universe is like. They imagine that Suskind was right to leave plumbing. They imagine that Phil Plait can see things when he looks through a telescope, other than exactly what Phil Plait wants to see.

These are the Panda-deniers. They want to move our thinking forward to a new and greater enlightenment. They point out correctly that science has established, by peer review, that bears never had, never could, and never will, live off bamboo shoots. They wonder how anything that looks like a teddy bear can get down to serious reproduction. They assume that the panda, as advertised, would be already extinct.

But what do they know? Its not as if they are ever going to work out that Pandas are indeed real. And that they are really a bunch of Chinamen from the communist tourist department wearing a suit. The Panda denialists lack the necessary guile, to see the world around them as it is, rather than how they would wish that world to be.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. We most certainly do exist. People who say we don’t know nothing of us, our dreams and memories, our broad appreciation of animal life and the universe. The spaces in which we can live are shrinking because of human activity, laws, forbidden, territories. But our knowledge is still vast. Bears are aware of space and galaxies and stars and things far away. No research humans can do will give them access to our brains, to the detailed knowledge we have, to our unique perspective on things.

    We know that everything is an illusion. Things such as sub-atomic particles or whatever humans call them that spin in orbits round their nucleus, you’ve named protons, electrons, neutrons, positrons and so on, are not the last word.

    Panda Bears think the ultimate particle must itself be made of something and perhaps can think and feel. Everything spinning, orbiting and dancing in complicated movement can only have a temporary form and therefore are illusory we believe, in the sense they once weren’t, then became, then will disappear and be no more.

  2. Professor Quiggin graciously passed the following comment.

    “The neoclassicals have this reversalist trick. Where they suddenly put on their faux-libertarian hat to justify selling off strategic resources to foreign communists, running a system that armtwists people into the slavery-lite of appalling private debt, and where they justify tolerating behaviour from banks that ought to come under the fraud and racketeering statutes.

    Neoclassicals never seem to see a bigshot insider that they don’t take a shine to. Some of the worst of consequences of all this is happening right now. Where financial idiots and proven failures are in the process of advising the Queensland government to ruin the prospect of expanded rail in that state this century.

    Apparently the Premier has two finacial firm advisors. One of them a welfare recipient organisation that manifestly failed. Another, one of the most mysterious names in financial history.

    Both these clowns telling her to do exactly the wrong thing. Any responsible advisor would have stopped that privatisation going down the literal train-wreck path it is going.

    Meanwhile the ring-leader of the massive financial failures of last year is the designated advisor to our Feds when it comes to the national broadband network. Here we see these people, all of whom ought to be unemployed, if not up on formal criminal charges, advising our politicians to do the wrong thing.

    The labour party comes up with the pretty sound idea of separating the underground and trans-spatial assets from the operating companies for telecommunications. But they are going to wreck it all by listening to these financial charlatans.

    Now my point is, surely there is room for alliance between the hard right like myself, and some of you leftists, who are likewise appalled by the mess that the financial ignorance of the neoclassical right is dealing out to us. I listen to Professor Keen. And I say to myself: “This fellow. I am with him.”

  3. “SASQUATCH” oh my a human with a vast vocabulary makes me bleat with joy Mr Bird. I can see you’re a very special human, open to the unknown and cosmic mystery aided by the keys of language and imagination.

    Many humans fail to use their sensory and visceral abilities, characteristic of all animals, in a free and undirected way. Humans are less than fully human when they deny to awareness various aspects of themselves and their environs

    Such humans are to be feared, Mr Bird, and never trusted.

  4. Fuck the pandas.

    And fuck Johnny Chinaman, too.

  5. Global cooling on steroids.

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/as-of-december-31-2009-12-year-cooling-trend-is-now-1103f-per-century.html

    This isn’t going to ease up, bar something entirely out of the blue. Authentic science suggests that this cooling will continue clear through the 2030’s. And not much hope of serious recovery for decades later.

  6. So are the Pandas part of the creeping Chinese plot to dominate the Pacific basin? I wonder if genetic science has been deployed by the Ministry of State Security. I think Jerry Westerby was on to it and that’s why they had him bumped off.

    YOU IDIOT? ARE YOU TOO STUPID TO RECOGNIZE AN ALLEGORY WHEN YOU SEE IT? MY GOODNESS YOU ARE A CRETIN ADRIEN.

    SKEPTICISM ABOUT PANDAS WAS A 19TH CENTURY PHENOMENON. WHAT I’M SAYING ABOVE IS THAT PERSISTENT CONTROVERSIES OCCUR WHEN BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG.

  7. Redeem yourself dummy. Tell me if this looks like the real deal. Now note. I didn’t fucking ask if you believe this is the real deal. Thats not the question. I’ve never been able to get dummies like Reynolds to see the difference. Before one can go into evidence for or against something being the real deal, one must review the evidence in a way that is totally devoid of this I believe this or I believe that crapola. Remember no-one is interested in your beliefs.

  8. I don’t think it looks real Graeme in this film clip and I reckon whoever filmed it didn’t know the first thing about wild animals. Doesn’t mean bigfoots don’t/didn’t exist,. but this is a set up I reckon. A hoax.

    Who was Patterson? A miner?

  9. Graeme, to elaborate. I note from a quick squizz on the web that much of the analysis focussed on its physical makeup and movement.

    But what is not at all authentic or believable, IMO, is its movement in relation to its environment and in relation to the presumably perceived threat posed by the humans tracking and filming it.

  10. It’s a truism and good rule of thumb not exclusively but should always be asked: who benefits from this or that belief or proposition or course of action? Follow the $ and related or similar.

    In the case of climate change denialism to ask the question is to answer it. The big non-renewable energy polluters and associated corporate beneficiaries are quite clearly the people benefitting from, funding and pulling the puppet strings of the climate change denialists, some of whom call themselves scientists. These people are exactly like the scientists and lay idiots today (mostly “libertarians” and right-wingers) who still deny the strong direct link between tobacco use and cancer, etc. or endemic unemployment and social dysfunction.

    Overwhelmingly these individuals and their shock-troops and foot-soldiers in the media, politics, etc., are mentally and ideologically bought, owned, controlled and used by those who most benefit from business as usual under 21st century crony capitalism. That’s THEM, not US, in our majority. Climate change and its implications are simply just too threatening to these industries totally exploitative and destructive m.o. The fact that every single government and most relevant, reputable scientific organisations and individuals in the world accept AGW, despite the fact that they too represent its beneficiaries in myriad ways, tells you all you need to know about the persuasivenes of the scientific basis for the current global climatic diagnosis and projections. It’s a split within the ruling class and predominant corporate economic and financial interests.

    Fortunately, it’s a small, not nearly enough, but highly significant win and basis for global hope that AGW denialism is for the most part cynical minoritarianism.

  11. In short, Graeme, which side are you on?

  12. I’m definitely against the global warming racket. Since this is an attack on science and the need for evidence. This is a relentless exercise in lying and rigging the data. Accepting data that is dirty, and rejecting data that they don’t like. Extra CO2 is good for the biosphere. So its not acceptable to tax it.

    Professor Quiggin approved another of my posts:

    ““Im not that fond of the central banks interventions in interest rates myself having never been truly convinced of the wisdom of either monetary policy or other central bank interventions such as the strangely one sided and huge bailouts that recently occurred with taxpayer funds.”

    We have to change our definitions so we don’t wind up calling flagrant bank subsidies “monetary policy.” Alice how would you feel having a low interest loan from the Reserve Bank? Particularly after the stock market had crashed? Would be good wouldn’t it? Why give the banks this massive subsidy? Why not give it to me.

    I’d refinance my house, my credit cards, buy undervalued shares. I’d promise not to recycle the money into debt-addiction and asset bubbles. So I’d use the funds more wisely than our banks. And naturally within a few decades I’d be a billionaire.

    This is not monetary policy. Funneling resources to the banks is not monetary policy. Or we ought to have the discipline to cease to call such an outrageous violation of any sane notion of social justice “monetary policy.”

    A lot of the ambiguity and argument between which is more effective in which contexts, between monetary and fiscal policy, comes from us showering the banks with loot and calling it monetary policy.

    If monetary policy means debt reduction through new cash creation (to stimulate demand) that may be bailing out the banks in an indirect way. Monetary policy to stop demand overshooting ought not be about us selling more bonds and retiring the cash? Why obligate ourselves and drum up yet more business for the financial institutions and traders? Monetary policy to dampen demand is simply nudging the reserve asset ratio up.

    Not only is this sort of monetary policy more morally sound. Its far more powerfully effective and predictable as to its results.”

    Nice Dylan number. I cannot remember hearing this one.

  13. With the Sasquatch movie. I don’t know whether its fake or not. I think its a particularly good fake if it is a fake. No-ones been able to come up with anything close so far. Like with the long arm and elbow bend placement. The really smooth walk and the apparent muscle movement. The long gate for someone apparently in such a big and heavy suit. Its 43 years on an if someone came up with a better fake the effort which would allow them to do so might still leave one with ambiguity about the original. The muscles and breasts I think are really good work.

  14. “But what is not at all authentic or believable, IMO, is its movement in relation to its environment and in relation to the presumably perceived threat posed by the humans tracking and filming it.”

    I don’t know sal. I don’t know if a beast of lets say 500 pounds would run anywhere. Certainly because of its bulk. But also because its habitat, if it exists at all, is the dense forest that humans cannot deal with. So it may be that running isn’t really part of what these critters are about. The beast was moving at a pretty reasonable pace. Its smooth and relaxed walk might have made it appear otherwise. But she only has to get into the thick of the trees and she then has the advantage on the feeble homo-sapien.

    If it exists it must be a deep forest animal like the Panda. Otherwise we would easily find it and its skeletal remains.

    Now that we have the infrared night vision goggles becoming more ubiquitous, then these animals ought to be readily locatable, if indeed they are there. They say that the beers do the dayshift, whilst the Sasquatch works by night. So they ought to find it in the next few decades if its there.

  15. Mr B

    As you may be aware, I am a fervent admirer of Gen George S Patton. I am sure that you, too, admire him as a True Patriot.

    I was reading about my Hero and came across the following quote. What Patton says here basically sums up my Political Philosophy in its entirety (although it only addresses the question of Cosmopolitanism indirectly), and I would like to share it with you.

    This is what Patton says:

    “The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinese or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.

  16. Right. Subsequent and prior history seems to have borne these pronouncements out. You see at the time the communists were dominating Washington policy. Trying to destroy Germany utterly in the most vindictive of ways. Patton swung behind the now defeated Germans to stop this viciousness.

    Patton could see the way that policy was going. Had him under-resourced and busted out for slapping a kid. At first he thought that Eisenhower was under the sway of the British. Then that he had gotten the Presidential bug. Later he could see that pretty much everything was done to favour Moscow. Which is why he started talking in this way.

    Of course he had to die. So he was murdered. First had his neck broken by an American hit-man. Thereafter they turned a blind eye when the communists poisoned him.

    He was hospitalised. Made a recovery. Then suddenly died. The original assassin, who was just meant to take him out of action, rather than kill him, confessed all.

    Nobody cares since its a social faux pas to ever mention leftist conspiracies. Only conspiracies held to be rightist are OK.

  17. Good lord, Mr B!

    I didn’t know “those people” murdered Patton. Thank you for letting me know.

    I will add that to the long list of Hebraic crimes for which judgment must one day be rendered.

    • Lets not blame the Jews for this Ron. After all Jews were the target of the Soviets as well.

  18. Mr B, do you think Ike was a Soviet Agent?

    I have heard that rumoured before and, if true, would explain a lot.

  19. I bet if the so-called “Academics” and “Experts” had sent Gen. Patton out to find Panda and/or Sasquatch it would have been “GAME OVER” for the hairy fuck.

    • Right. The idea would simply be to go in their with night-vision goggles. How well you can you muffle the sound of the helicopter? The Sasquatch also has night vision it would seem. So you’d want to do this deal right.

  20. “Mr B, do you think Ike was a Soviet Agent?”

    No not at all. But when he had to deal with McCarthy he had Soviet agents around him. As smart as he was he was not immune to manipulation. And so when McCarthy arose to haunt his ass it must have been traumatic for him. Since here was a good man who had basically been coaxed into doing the Evil Empire’s bidding. Its about the Washington communists controlling the overall zeitgeist of the place.

    But people like Patton and McCarthy, superior to Eisenhower, were not subject to such manipulation.

    Most really smart guys are like Eisenhower. Patriotic, intelligent, but unable to buck the over-riding culture.

  21. That is not a Sasquatch. It’s a man in a suit.
    An animal that lives in deep forest would not stride like that – purposelessly and non-sensuously – through a blighted landscape of logged trees.

    What was it doing there for starters?

    A wild animal knowing it was observed, or not, would be sniffing the air, making noises to communicate or ward off, it’d be keeping an eye left and right and if it knew it was being followed as appears the case, it would be attempting to either conceal or defend itself.

    • Oops. I thought you were Mr Soon. So I went and replied within your comments. And wound up clipping the last bit off.

  22. Bob reckons he’s the fellow in the suit. That would be fine if he could make another suit as good and repeat the effort.

    Subsequent efforts for people to dress up in a suit and try this sort of thing on have not been impressive. So one has to at least acknowledge its a very clever hoax, if indeed it is one.

    But there is other evidence. Supposedly 5000 or so good quality sightings, of either the animals themselves or the footprints. Footprints are not as easy to fake as one might assume.

  23. It doesn’t move like a wild animal. It looks like some dude walking down Main Street.

    It’s probably a Vietnam vet. They’re were lots of them hiding out in Six Rivers National Forest.

    They were recluses and would try to scare off intruders by pretending to be wild beasts. It was commonplace at the time.

  24. Birlab I don’t work like you and Soon do. I don’t follow religiously a single line of thinking.

    I believe in holding up many paradigms in parallel and ranking them. I don’t buy into this occult epistemology where you think you know something for sure, when you cannot possibly do so. Hence I’m always finding myself playing devils advocate in these situations.

    I think its a very good fake. If a fake at all. If you think its a fake for sure, show me another known fake that looks as convincing.

  25. I missed this at the time but it’s a good sign. Lee Kuan Yew continues to have good instincts into his old age

    http://shanghaiist.com/2009/11/04/lee_kuan_yew_chinese_netizens.php

    In his various meetings rubbing shoulders with very important minds, the sage-like Lee who has often been counted on to interpret Asia to the west did not hesitate to tell the Americans what he saw in his crystal ball.

    “The 21st century will be a contest for supremacy in the Pacific because that’s where the growth will be,” said Lee. “If you do not hold your ground in the Pacific you cannot be a world leader.”

    Prior to his meetings with Obama and Clinton, Lee received a lifetime achievement award from the US-ASEAN Business Council in a high profile event witnessed by the likes of Henry Kissinger. In his keynote address delivered at the gala dinner last Thursday in Washington, Lee urged the US to remain engaged in Asia:

    The size of China makes it impossible for the rest of Asia, including Japan and India, to match it in weight and capacity in about 20 to 30 years. So we need America to strike a balance.

    Those comments had the effect of rubbing up Chinese netizens the wrong way. Within a few hours of the Global Times 《环球时报》report hitting the interwebs, Lee’s comments attracted the fury of hundreds of Chinese netizens, but wait a minute, there’s more.

    In building any new East Asian architecture, Lee said the United States must be “an important part” of it, adding that “it would be a serious mistake for the region to define East Asia in closed or, worse, in racial terms.”
    Here is a snippet from a Global Times blogpost summarising the reactions of Chinese netizens (with translation from the Malaysian Insider):

    Many of those who responded were upset and said that Lee had treated the Chinese as outsiders although they had treated Singaporeans as “among their own”.

    “Lee Kuan Yew spoke for the feeling of those in the West who fear China’s rise would harm their vested interests,” said one netizen.

    Another described Lee as “a political animal”, saying that while he “relies on China to develop his country’s economy, he is ushering wolves here to deal with China”.

    A third posting said: “Just because he has achieved some success in Singapore, he dares to play the guiding light that shows US the way. If he has the stuff, he should go to Africa and offer tips on how to shake off poverty and achieve wealth.”

    Another posting brushed off his comments as insignificant as Singapore was a small country.

    “Lee Kuan Yew had made such comments likely because Singapore is a small country that needs an interplay of balances in the international arena,” said the netizen.

    “However, what significance do his words carry when the reality is that for a voice to be heard and the views realised, one needs to be truly powerful,” the netizen asked.

    A few highly vitriolic essays written by netizens have been given prominent positions in the blog sections of mainstream media portals. Here are just two of them:
    李光耀的言论暴露新加坡是美国围堵中国的桥头堡
    “Lee Kuan Yew’s comments reveal that Singapore is but a pawn of the US in countering China”

    无耻梦想:李光耀想让新加坡统治整个东盟当以色列!
    “Shameless dreams: Lee Kuan Yew wants Singapore to rule ASEAN like an Israel!”

    The response by the Chinese mainstream media has been somewhat more measured. Most reports underscored the online fury among netizens, and then weighed in on political scientists to reflect sentiment on the ground. Here are a few headlines:
    李光耀谈话显示东盟信任美国胜过中国 [China News Agency]
    “Lee Kuan Yew’s comments show that ASEAN trusts the US more than it trusts China”

    石齐平:李光耀为何建言美国制衡中国 [Phoenix TV]
    “Shi Qiping (political commentator): Why Lee Kuan Yew wants the US to counterbalance China”

    李明波:李光耀说啥不必太在意 [Guangzhou Daily]
    “Li Mingbo (Guangzhou Daily columnist): No need to pay any heed to what Lee Kuan Yew says”

    李光耀亲美言论激怒中国网民 新加坡多家媒体辩解 [Guangzhou Daily]
    “Lee Kuan Yew’s latest comments anger Chinese netizens, Singapore media offer an explanation”

  26. Right Panda. But don’t you think the fellow did a marvelously good job, if you are right?

  27. How tall is it? I guess whoever it was was wearing stilts, if not unusually tall. The stilts would account for the stiff, awkward, human-like movement.

  28. Right Soon. This is a big worry. But how can the Americans play a part when they are so manifestly bankrupt? Its very hard to see how they can even stay together. Why would a state want to pay off an impossible Federal Debt or put up with the burden of the Feds when the Feds are destroying the economy with no hope of recovery?

    Why would a state who is solvent want to hang around and pay for the bankrupt states?

    We here in Australia have to consider that we are on our own and must start the preparation to repel a Chinese invasion.

  29. Bob was supposed to be about six feet tall. The people who analysed the film saw the animal as around seven feet tall I think. Some folks point to some sort of camera trickery. Making the animal seem bigger than it was. You got a lot of youtube relating to Bob walking like “Patti”. What I think was particularly good is the seeming muscularity on the thigh. I’d like to see them pull that one off again.

  30. Wasn’t it thought to be female? You commented on the breasts?

  31. Some of those US Vietnam vets liked playing weird shamanistic games. They’d dress up as apes or bears and wander round wild areas stoned out of their brains communing with nature or imagining they were back in a war zone in protective disguise.

    Vets did it here too. There are still a few of them from the Vietnam era living rough out in wild forested areas on the NSW north & south coasts or further out west round places like Wollemi NP.

  32. Lee Kuan Yew?

    More like Lee Kuan Jew, if you ask me. He’s a devious Asiatic pseudo-Hebe. Hence Kissinger’s involvement.

  33. Yes thats right Panda. So that was a pretty praiseworthy part to the fakery as well. If it was a fake. The muscles showing through on the leg and the swinging breasts. Excellent work. And not something anyone has successfully bettered so far it seems.

  34. They have done pretty well with the costume. Because this youtube shows a static photo of Bob next to Patti. And bobs legs are too long and his arms way too short. So if this is Bob in that suit then its no ordinary suit. This is something very clever.

  35. Joseph McCarthy, along with Richard M. Nixon and Chairman J. Parnell Thomas, was involved with The Un-American Activities Committee.

    This committee systematically brought people to them on the charges that they were un-American” because of their (alleged) left-wing politics.

    Many of these people were artists, actors like Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall and screenwriters like Dalton Trumbo (‘Johnny Got His Gun’, ‘Papillon’, ‘Lonely are the Brave’, ‘Roman Holiday’, ‘Exodus’) working in Hollywood.

    When they were brought before this committee and refused to answer whether they were communists on the grounds that what Senator McCarthy was doing was unconstitutional, many got blacklisted, their lives devastated, their incomes and careers destroyed.

  36. After looking at it they have Bob scaled wrong. Because Patti ought to be a full foot taller. Which would make Bobs legs about the right length. But then Bobs arms would be way way too short. They are far too short anyway with Patti as a six-footer. And there is no possibility that Bob is on stilts. Its the opposite problem of his body not being nearly long enough. Patti will have a full foot of extra body on Bob if she is seven feet. But if she is six feet then Bob could not fit his legs into the suit.

    So that this is some real clever trickery. Because if Patti is really bob and six feet well her legs are too short. If she is Bob and seven feet well her legs are about right but then how does Bob articulate his neck so well with his feet flat to the ground? And the way that his hands look pretty natural in the swing. Even though we know his arms must be halfway up the suit.

    I’m telling you if this is Bob this is no easy thing that he’s managed to pull off. If a professional magician were involved with this it would be far easier to dismiss.

  37. “Joseph McCarthy, along with Richard M. Nixon and Chairman J. Parnell Thomas, was involved with The Un-American Activities Committee.”

    McCarthy wan’t involved with that. He was in the Senate. The “House” is to do with Congressmen. The Senate is to do with Senators. If you look at the records you will never find Senator McCarthy asking questions in that forum.

  38. Do you deny that Senator Joe McCarthy had anything to do with the anti-leftist witch hunts in that period of American history?

  39. Mr Bird, I put it to you:

    Are you or have you ever been a denialist?

    Yes or no?

  40. Wherever possible I attempt to be a denialist rather than a skeptic. Because being a skeptic would imply that the global warming fraud had an apriori case. Which they don’t.

    On most issues I’m a skeptic. Like on the man in the suit issue above. It looks like I’m an open supporter because I think people are too sure of themselves when it comes to items like this.

    On using deficit spending to create demand I’m a flat out denialist in this area as well. I’m a denialist whereever I know I’m right. I’m a skeptic when I think the other fellow cannot possibly know for sure.

  41. “Do you deny that Senator Joe McCarthy had anything to do with the anti-leftist witch hunts in that period of American history?”

    The red scare is an historical myth. Rather it was anti-communists who were subject to social ostracism. He had nothing to do with anything other than his own ferreting out of communist spies in sensitive government positions.

  42. “I’m a denialist whereever I know I’m right.”

    Sounds very subjective and unscientific as a philosophical approach.

    I thought you were better, more open, than that.

  43. I agree the red scare was ideological-mythological.

    But what makes you say it was actually “anti-communists who were subject to social ostracism”?

    First I’ve heard of this, Graeme.

  44. Well I don’t always know I’m right. The two examples I gave were the global warming business and the Keynesian multiplier. These two I know I’m right about.

    The man in the suit. I don’t know I’m right about this. But everyone else seems to be pretty sure.

  45. Re the man in the suit. Yes it was a man in a suit. But you were trying to pass it off as fair dinkum.

    The most cursory glance at it today shows it to be a risible fake.

  46. Well they were for sure. Look at McCarthy himself. Got all these communists and spies turfed out of the public service. And he’s been pilloried for his efforts ever since.

  47. I don’t think a risible fake Sal. I think a very good fake. I mean how did he get his neck to move with his torso a full foot too short? How did he get his arms to look natural when his arms were way too short?

    You see I’m not one to be sure about things. Except where I know I’m right. Whereas others are so sure they are right even when it strikes me that they ought to not be quite so sure.

  48. Most of them weren’t public servants as all. A complete furphy. They were industrial workers, actors, screenwriters, directors, cleaners, bar workers, entertainers, homosexuals, bohemians, family men and women, bright sparks.

  49. Ronald Reagan testified before the house committee. His testimony was really innocuous. After that he was never cast in any decent film again. He got back from Hollywood, and he walks in to the room and his wife is there with some other Hollywood type. She says “You bore me” then asks him to get out. He couldn’t believe it. He basically lost his first marriage and his movie career over this most mildest of testimonies. It was the same for pretty much all the anti-communists who testified.

  50. “They were industrial workers, actors, screenwriters, directors, cleaners, bar workers, entertainers, homosexuals, bohemians, family men and women, bright sparks.”

    McCarthy never got anyone like this taken out of a job. I don’t know about the House Committee. I cannot vouch for them.

  51. Graeme, sometimes it is hard to see the wood for the trees. God knows I know that. But the mechanics of how this created shaped up from merely a visually verisimilitudinous perspective is really a very limited basis on which to decide its authenticity.

  52. this creature

  53. Right. But in the same way its a limited way to show its lack of authenticity.

    What we can show is that if its a fake its a very good one.

    If Patti is seven feet Bobs legs might be about right. But then his head would be where her breasts are and his arms are way too short. If Patti is closer to six feet Bobs legs are way too long.

    This is a very good fake if a fake.

  54. A person with better proportions to go in the suit would be Michael Phelps. Phelps has incredibly short legs, a long torso, and long arms. He might just get away with it. But Bob. He doesn’t look right for the suit. Unless it is a very special and clever suit. ie a magnificently impressive fake. As opposed to a merely risible fake.

  55. Fake’s are never impressive. It’s the real or nothing. Why bother otherwise?

  56. Oh, so everyone now according to your historical revisionism should feel sorry for all the welches, toadies, scabs and carpetbaggers who fell over themselves to testify before the anti-democratic, unconstitutional McCarthyist witch-hunt tribunals?

  57. I don’t know if any such people testified before McCarthy. McCarthy knew who the traitors were already. But he needed evidence that would not blow his information source. So he had to pull in communists and ex-communists who weren’t so culpable to testify against those that he knew to be working for the Soviets.

    His original project wasn’t to put anyone in jail. He wanted to quietly move security risks out of the State Department and into private industry. This is by no means unethical since people don’t hold public service jobs by right. But he got this massive reaction from the establishment. These were people who may have had a guilty mind about the American betrayal of Eastern Europe and horrific war crimes carried out to suck up to Stalin.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Here is some much better evidence in favour of the Sasquatch. This is to do with footprint evidence. Much harder to fake than what is usually assumed.

  58. “He wanted to quietly move security risks out of the State Department and into private industry.”

    You’re saying he was a traitor?

  59. I think it is time to change your gravatar. May I suggest some possibilities?

  60. Actually here is a more full-on documentary of the Sasquatch evidence.

    Its a playlist in five parts.

  61. You can suggest them. But I think its important to advertise McCarthy’s innocence and great heroism.

  62. McCarthy doesn’t do it for me. Especially since I know you are far more intriguing and attractive than he.

    How about one of these dudes?

    or

  63. Yes, eye of the beholder is crucial.

    Some unfortunates can only see externally what they feel internally, which is rotten and rotting, frightening and ugly.

    Others can project their internal world externally and see indescribable and endless light and beauty everywhere.

    It’s a priceless gift and lifelong advantage to be in the latter camp.

  64. “…see indescribable and endless light and beauty everywhere.”

    Oh, but I do:

    http://psychorockabilly.tumblr.com/post/327148831/sophia-st-villier

  65. That’s actually an ugly and asexual pic. Sort of proves my point.

  66. Sal I’m pretty happy at Professor Quiggin at the moment you know. I’ll just have to forget about those issues where we disagree strongly. He’s giving me a fair run over at his blog.

  67. “Oh dear,

    Bird thinks the onus is on me to prove there is no sasquatch”

    Of course Jason Soon. I’m glad you interpolated what I said so faithfully. The onus is on you. Because no beliefs get any special priviledges. No-one gets the handicap, though people like you are always whining for one.

    The pro-Saquatch types have excellent footprint evidence as well as witnesses stretching back as far as memory goes.

    What do you have?

    Nothing.

    Cambria’s six million dollar man video is a bit of a case in point really. It shows how hard it is to knock up a serious Sasquatch and put it on film. Its a job for Peter Jackson. Not for a couple of trackers back in 67. So we have to be a bit impressed with Patti. Either as the real thing or a very clever fake.

  68. Mr B

    No disrespect intended, but I’m pretty sure they didn’t have night vision goggles in WWII.

    But I’m sure Patton would have captured a Panda AND a Sasquatch if he hadn’t been busy given hell to Jerry and showing the defeatist Jew Montgomery how to brawl.

  69. Last time we rejected the Sasquatch, back in the 70’s, the thing was he didn’t fit into the evolutionary picture. We were supposed to have gone from Erectus, to Neanderthal, to homo-sapien so where does homo-Sasquatch fit into this deal? Bigshots throw an evolutionary party but the Sasquatch not invited.

    But now of course we know that Erectus, Neanderthal and homo-sapien all overlapped. So the question now is “Where did these other blokes go?” Being pretty intelligent, powerfully strong and bipedal surely has its advantages. So its a mystery where these other blokes got to. Humans could have banded together to defeat Erectus clans. But would this mean extermination? Would we as a race, have hunted them down Nazi-style and murdered every last one of them? No what would have happened is we would have evolved “off-camera” in the niches not condusive to entry into the fossil record. But when we finally emerged fully formed and successful, we then would have driven the other two off to the niches that we didn’t particularly care for.

    So now the Sasquatch helps add to the picture. He could be homo-erectus, or Neanderthal. But our prejudices change more slowly than the evidential picture. If he’s there than most likely he is our closest relative. We ought to take him seriously. Seriously enough to go out there with the night vision goggles and pop a dart in his ass.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: