Guest ajciani Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 We shall see. I have also dealt with Dr. Ketchum by the way. I don't see this as a conspiracy theory, which are characterized by the involvement of the government and a necessary silence by large numbers of people. I think this now-delayed DNA project is primarily the brainchild of a single man, with the scientists probably in the dark about the true origins of the evidence. If the DNA isn't H. sapiens DNA, then bigfoot isn't H. sapiens. Those "unique characteristics" in Amerindian DNA you keep going on about are 1) NOT unique to Amerindians, 2) constitute 3 minor variances in the mtDNA, and 3) have been known about since 1994 and are included in the H. sapiens genetic patterns. Ketchum is not going to be stumped by something discovered 17 years ago, and included in the gene bank. If she is going to show a different species, then there are going to be a lot more than 3 differences. If bigfoots are in Homo, then Ketchum will easily find 30 or more differences between H. sapiens mtDNA and the bigfoot mtDNA. And I highly doubt that ANY bigfoot DNA will show the common Amerindian polymorphisms. Those polymorphisms occurred well after any bigfoot-human split. Keep in mind the range that bigfoots have. They certainly pre-date Amerindians, unless we want to tip everything we think we know about human evolution on its head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted March 2, 2011 Admin Share Posted March 2, 2011 ...did anyone else notice that the sketches in Paulides' book resemble Paulides? Your claiming that Harvey Pratt flubbed his sketches? This Harvey Pratt?: "Considered one of the leading forensic artists in the United States, Harvey has spent over 42 years in law enforcement, completing thousands of witness description drawings and hundreds of soft tissue reconstructions. His work has assisted in thousands of arrests and hundreds of identification of unidentified human remains throughout America. Currently employed as the police forensic artist by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI), Harvey is the only full-time police forensic artist in Oklahoma. (note: He was also the interim Director of the OSBI, That State's highest Law Enforcement Agency) . Harvey began his career with the Midwest City Police Department in 1965 where he did his first witness description drawing a year later. This first attempt in forensic arts resulted in an arrest and conviction. He joined the OSBI in 1972 as a narcotics investigator and retired in 1992 as an Assistant Director. His expertise in witness description drawing, skull reconstruction, skull tracing, age progression, soft tissue postmortem drawing and restoration of photographs and videos have aided law enforcement agencies both nationally and internationally. Harvey's skills have assisted law enforcement in many high profile cases. A few of those cases are as follows: Green River Killer (Gary Ridgeway), BTK Killer (Dennis Rader), Oklahoma Girl Scout Murders (Gene Leroy Hart), Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole, Bobby Joe Long, I-5 Killer (Randall Woodfield), Tommy Lynn Sells, World Trade Center 1993 bombing, Sirloin Stockade Murders (Roger Dale Stafford, Verna Stafford and Harold Stafford), Joe Fischer, Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot, Roger Wheeler Murder (Winter Hill Gang case – James J. "Whitey" Bulger, Stephen Flemmi and Johnny Martorano), the Oklahoma City Bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Donald Eugene Webb, Oklahoma State Fair Abducted Girls (Roy Russell Long), the Weather Underground Organization and Randolph Dial. " Not a chance, but please feel free to elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 And it doesn't change the simple, logical, inescapable FACT that it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss proponent scientists out of hand and embrace "skeptic" scientists without question. I dismiss Meldrum's claims very much in hand, thank you. The skeptical scientist whose opinion I embrace is myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 We shall see. I have also dealt with Dr. Ketchum by the way. I don't see this as a conspiracy theory, which are characterized by the involvement of the government and a necessary silence by large numbers of people. I think this now-delayed DNA project is primarily the brainchild of a single man, with the scientists probably in the dark about the true origins of the evidence. Not at all like blaming the government, timber companies, scientists, and wildlife agencies for the absence of biologic evidence of Bigfoot. Actually a conspiarcy theory simply implies that a group of people are engaged in a secret plot to decieve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory It will be interesting to watch you develope new behaviors for Native Americans as the facts and the evidence is revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I dismiss Meldrum's claims very much in hand, thank you. The skeptical scientist whose opinion I embrace is myself. What qualifications makes your opinion superior to that of an credentialed primate locomotion expert (or any of the other proponent scientists)? What scientific studies have you conducted on the primary evidence, where have you written up the results, and where have they been published? Put bluntly, what makes YOU right and all the equally (or more) qualified scientific experts who disagree with you wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fenris Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Put bluntly, what makes YOU right and all the equally (or more) qualified scientific experts who disagree with you wrong? name names beyond Meldrum, as he is not an expert in this and I have no intention of rehashing old disagreements, you in my opinion, hurt your cause by depending on someone who as cited some question theories, giganto in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 That is correct. "Human" means H Sapiens. "Hominid" is the proper designation for non-human members of the genus Homo. The question still on my mind (that I haven't seen a good answer to yet) is whether or not simply sharing traits with us makes the putatitive sasquatch truly a hominid. To wit: that our shared genetic traits stem from coming from the same ancestral line as opposed to being the result of convergent evolution. In a legal sense, if a sasquatch is determined to be a hominid (of the genus Homo), would killing one be homocide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) name names beyond Meldrum, as he is not an expert in this and I have no intention of rehashing old disagreements, you in my opinion, hurt your cause by depending on someone who as cited some question theories, giganto in particular. There are far more experts supporting than just Dr Meldrum. Dr Swindler, Dr Schaller, et al have also weighed in with their analyses. We also have experts in other appropriate fields, (Chilcutt, et al). It does not begin or end with Meldrum. You do yourself no favors by implying that it does. Oh, and just so your continuing mistatement about Dr Meldrum's expertise. does not go unchallenged, as an expert in anthropology and primate locomotion he is ENTIRELY qualified to examine bf evidence from that perspective, and has done so. Edited March 2, 2011 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Mulder, on 02 March 2011 - 08:47 AM, said:Put bluntly, what makes YOU right and all the equally (or more) qualified scientific experts who disagree with you wrong? name names beyond Meldrum Krantz? Sarmiento? Swindler? he is not an expert in this Who is? Please name names. you in my opinion, hurt your cause by depending on someone who as cited some question theories, giganto in particular. I look forward to your cited experts and their theories, which might give me insight into your "cause" (something I've wondered about for a while). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Put bluntly, what makes YOU right and all the equally (or more) qualified scientific experts who disagree with you wrong? Nothing. This is why I don't claim to be "right" about my opinion of the PGF. I have many times stated that my opinions of the film are mine alone, and I have no information sufficient to demonstrate to anyone else that the film was hoaxed. (You know this, Mulder.) If I did, we wouldn't be continually discussing the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kane2002 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Sometimes all this discourse as to who is more qualified, who is more unqualified, who is more right, who is more wrong, also what each of us is trying to say, gives me a headache. Anyone out there seen any good tracks lately? Edited March 2, 2011 by Kane2002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Krantz? Sarmiento? Swindler? Who is? Please name names. I look forward to your cited experts and their theories, which might give me insight into your "cause" (something I've wondered about for a while). Remember who you're talking to...the crowd that holds that one can't know anything about anything that isn't already "known". Until they get their slab monkey, no one in ANY field of science is qualified to say anything about how their field of expertise might be applied to analyzing bf evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fenris Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Oh, and just so your continuing mistatement about Dr Meldrum's expertise. does not go unchallenged, as an expert in anthropology and primate locomotion he is ENTIRELY qualified to examine bf evidence from that perspective, and has done so. With out the applicable specimen, wrong on all counts. Every time he (Meldrum) does a Definitive Guide type show he demonstrates his "expertise", again, in my opinion. And in the end all you have is the same, opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I guess that brings up a good point for clarification Shake. And no I wouldn't see them as sapiens per se. But for instance, if the DNA turned out to be that of Homo Heidelbergensis, would we consider that Human? We should, because we can't limit our thinking of what human IS simply based on our present evolutionary point of development. We know 'humans' were around long long ago and some looked more robust then the present 'us'. Homo Heidelbergensis probably looked far different then us of today. So yeah, I guess we need to be open minded about this concept of 'what is human' too. My point was more that I think that all supposedly bigfoot DNA samples that have come back as human have indeed come up as sapiens because everything else surely would have been described differently, because homo finds other than sapiens are always exciting. By which I mean that I don't think any DNA evidence that came back as human was bigfoot DNA (or was contaminated). That is correct. "Human" means H Sapiens. "Hominid" is the proper designation for non-human members of the genus Homo. Sorry, just nitpicking here, but homo is homo. Hominins include australopithecus etc., and hominids are identical to great apes. Humans, chimps, orangs and gorillas are all hominids. - Shake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Just to add that chimps are also hominins btw. - Shake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts