Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Freakzilla wrote:There was recently a giant chick on Tosh.0 whom men pay for her to sit on them, pick them up, throw them around and stuff like that.

I don't know where they come from.

Link please

Nekhrun wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:There was recently a giant chick on Tosh.0 whom men pay for her to sit on them, pick them up, throw them around and stuff like that.

I don't know where they come from.

Heaven.

Serkanner wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:There was recently a giant chick on Tosh.0 whom men pay for her to sit on them, pick them up, throw them around and stuff like that.

I don't know where they come from.

Link please

no, no; you do not want ...

and Freak, why am I not surprised that you're a Tosh.0 viewer ?

(me, too - I'm wondering just how far he can go with the blatant racism,
even tho it is obvious that's part of the joke - Rev Sharpton ain't got
much of a sense of humor these days)

Freakzilla wrote:There was recently a giant chick on Tosh.0 whom men pay for her to sit on them, pick them up, throw them around and stuff like that.

I don't know where they come from.

Do they grow them? Dam Tlielaxu!

Dah dah daaar!

By Benjamin Radford | LiveScience.com – Tue, Oct 11, 2011

Russian researchers looking for the yeti — the Asian version of the North American Bigfoot — claim to have found "indisputable proof" of the long-sought mystery beast in Siberia.

There isn't a ton of evidence to work with — just a few strands of hair and some tracks in the snow — but it's enough that the research team says its 95 percent sure that the yeti exists. Others, however, are mighty skeptical of the findings.

The yeti is said to be muscular, covered with dark grayish or reddish-brown hair, and weigh between 200 and 400 pounds. The yeti is relatively short compared to Bigfoot, averaging only about six or seven feet in height.
Despite dozens of expeditions into the remote mountain regions of Russia, China and Nepal, both creatures' existence remains unproven. Sir Edmund Hillary, who was the first to scale Everest with sherpa Tenzing Norgay, found no evidence of the creature. Famous mountaineer Reinhold Messner also spent months in Nepal and Tibet, climbing mountains and researching yeti reports following his own sighting. In his book "My Quest for the Yeti" (St. Martin's Griffin, 2001), Messner concludes that large native bears are responsible for yeti sightings and tracks.

This is, of course, not the first time that searchers have claimed strong, or even indisputable, proof of the yeti. In 2007, American TV show host Josh Gates claimed he found three mysterious footprints in snow near a stream in Nepal's region of the Himalaya Mountains. Locals were skeptical, suggesting that he simply misinterpreted a bear track. No follow-up information ever emerged, and the "Gates track," once touted internationally as strong evidence of the yeti, is now largely forgotten. [Mythical Creatures: Beasts that Don't Exist (or Do They?)]

Last year, a strange, nearly hairless animal was captured by hunters in the Sichuan province of China. Researchers and news reports suggested that a yeti had finally been captured alive, though the proclamation turned out to be premature: embarrassed officials eventually admitted it was nothing more than a mangy civet — a small, catlike animal native to the region.

The Russian search for the yeti was conducted, in part, by a small group of researchers invited to participate in a "yeti conference." Apparently, the team found some gray hairs in a clump moss in a Russian cave in the Kemerovo region in western Siberia. According to a spokesman for the Kemerovo region, "During the expedition to the Azasskaya cave, conference participants gathered indisputable proof that the Shoria mountains are inhabited by the 'Snow Man.' They found his footprints, his supposed bed, and various markers with which the yeti uses to denote his territory."

If true, it's an amazing find. Yet it's not clear why, if the researchers are certain that the cave had been recently (and actively) used by the yeti, they didn't simply set up cameras to record the creatures, or wait for the animals to return to the cave, where they could be trapped and captured alive, offering conclusive proof of their existence.

Some Russians view the announcement with considerable suspicion and skepticism, suggesting that the sudden discovery is a publicity stunt to increase tourism in the impoverished coal-mining region. So far it seems to have worked, as hundreds of people have come to tour the cave. In fact, the event seemed more of a media circus than a scientific expedition when former Russian heavyweight boxer Nikolai Valuyev recently toured the cave "searching" for the yeti, to great media attention.

If populations of yetis — like Bigfoot — really exist, they have somehow managed to avoid leaving any physical traces of their presence: no bodies, bones, teeth, hair, scat, or anything else. Of course, just because these creatures have never been found is not conclusive proof that they don't exist. All new evidence should be carefully and scientifically analyzed; however, if history is any guide this latest yeti discovery will soon fade away, leaving proof of the creature's existence in question.

This story was provided by Life's Little Mysteries, a sister site to LiveScience. Follow Life's Little Mysteries on Twitter @llmysteries, then join us on Facebook.

Benjamin Radford is deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine

http://news.yahoo.com/russians-claim-in ... 02825.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Man, I know indisputable proof always leaves me sitting around 95% sure of a thing.

Canada's Loch Ness Monster Caught on Tape?



By Lauren Sher | ABC News Blogs – 16 minutes ago..

A possible sighting of Canada’s version of the Loch Ness monster at a lake in British Columbia has stirred up the legend of the sea creature long-rumored to reside there.

A man visiting British Colombia’s Lake Okanagan claims he filmed video of what could only be the elusive monster, known to locals as Ogopogo. The 30-second video shows two long ripples in the water in a seemingly deserted area of the lake.

“It was not going with the waves,” Richard Huls, who captured the scene on camera during a visit to a local winery, told the Vancouver Sun. “It was not a wave, obviously, just a darker color. The size and the fact that they were not parallel with the waves made me think it had to be something else.”


Ogopogo is the Canadian version of Scotland’s famous Loch Ness monster. The first recorded sighting of the alleged creature in Loch Ness was nearly 1,500 years ago when a giant beast is said to have leaped out of a lake near Inverness, Scotland, to eat a local farmer. Since then, the legend has taken on a life of its own through first-person accounts of those who claim to have seen it and in public imagination.

As with Loch Ness, the Ogopogo phenomenon dates back hundreds of years and is believed to have its origins in native Canadian Indian folklore with a creature called N’ha-a-itk. The locals would not cross the area of the lake where they thought the monster resided without an offering to feed the monster if attacked.
Ogopogo is most commonly described as a 40- to 50-foot-long sea serpent. There have reportedly been thousands of sightings of the monster through the years, including a marathon swimmer in 2000 who claimed he saw two large creatures in Ogopogo’s likeness swimming with him at times. The lake has been searched and no concrete evidence of the monster has turned up. Still, the legend of the lake monster lives on.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/ca ... 41654.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh... it's Ogopogo?!

I've been calling it Ookiepoookie.

SandChigger wrote:Oh... it's Ogopogo?!

I've been calling it Ookiepoookie.

That's very humbling for you I imagine.

When I was a kid I thought it was the Loch Nest monster though so I can't really say much....

Yeah, but you still say "rediculous", so...

SandChigger wrote:Yeah, but you still say "rediculous", so...

When?! I've been pretty careful about that since Sandrider made fun of me for it!

OH, and mister linguist - I don't "say" that, I "write" it.

(I bet there's a good chance you SAY it as well. Otherwise why would you write it like that? )

I thought was spelled with and 'e' until recently to, Thing. Don't feel bad.

Yeah, but you're from the South... he's a Nyuck Nyuck.

SandChigger wrote:Yeah, but you're from the South... he's a Nyuck Nyuck.

Shit, I didn't know I could use that as an excuse! Well, I guess I can't, IN THE SOUTH.

I actually don't say any particular vowel at that point in the word, it's more like that letter is gone and I go straight into the D. If I'm stressing the word then the first part comes out as "rid" so I'm pretty sure I say it correctly as per it's spelling!

I like my "foreign accent" English.

English usually sounds better to me when spoken by a fluent non-native speaker (i.e. foreign accents). That may be because I'm used to hearing it spoken with a Derry or Belfast accent though. Painful.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:I actually don't say any particular vowel at that point in the word, it's more like that letter is gone and I go straight into the D.

Mmm...it probably seems that way to you, but you're probably pronouncing a central, neutralized (schwa) vowel, or a raised variant thereof. Otherwise, coming word-initially, that would necessitate the R being syllabic, which would sound something like the -er on the end of words like writer.

SandChigger wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:I actually don't say any particular vowel at that point in the word, it's more like that letter is gone and I go straight into the D.

Mmm...it probably seems that way to you, but you're probably pronouncing a central, neutralized (schwa) vowel, or a raised variant thereof. Otherwise, coming word-initially, that would necessitate the R being syllabic, which would sound something like the -er on the end of words like writer.

Yeah, I was actually thinking about this earlier, I could only really be going straight into the D if I was doing an R sound that started with a vowel, starting with R like in ridiculous it seems to be impossible (which I think is what you're saying with the syllabic thing?).

Saying it a bunch of time, I think it's a cross between "rid" and "red", that kind of sound and very un-stressed/quieter.

I like learning about sounds... I like making different vowels and consonants and really thinking about how my mouth/tongue move to make them, it's neat.

Really thinking about how your mouth/tongue move to make the sounds... has put me off my feed.

It is fun though, like how an L put the tip of the tongue behind the front teeth and moves it down (and lets air past the whole time), while a K arches the tongue to the roof of the mouth and blocks all (or most) of the air until it's lowered.

Shit man, I'm an audio guy, this stuff is neato to me.

Articulatory and acoustic phonetics were (pretty much) the (only) real scientific branches of Linguistics for most of the last century.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:Shit man, I'm an audio guy, this stuff is neato to me.

You'd be surprised what they're forcing by law in the name of intelligibility in the new national fire alarm code.