Martin Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) ^That is exactly how I added it up too leisureclass! Are you a mathematical genius as well as a world class lawyer? Did you get my retainer in the "Martin v Thermalman" did she collect $500k case? Edited March 2, 2013 by Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) I love how the DNA shows thats it more along the DNA line of an Ancient lemur. And everyone is jumping on it saying Lemurs and Humans can't breed etc... One we don't know what happened in the past do we really? we speculate. So then I guess i have a question. How did a Lemur dna show up in the United States Forests? I have attached a pdf document (bottom of post) that brilliantly illustrates how a multi-source sequence result with the animals named (bear and human) can push the test resutls to exactly where Melba's results have ended up. This came from one of my PhD contacts. Wish I could take the credit. PLEASE Melba Lemur supporters - look at it carefully, and get the point it is making. No, I don't think she has found a species with the genome she is suggesting. But the conclusions of the paper do not support the naming of the species Homo sapies congnatum. I can not prove the contig is wrong (it make no biological sense to me the way it is) without access to the raw data. But if it was right, it would not be a Homo sapiens. I hope this makes more sense. You are going to love the visual in this doc, RR. So explain to me the mistake in the Paper and what Bart said on the interview with team Tazer? about the sample who packed it and sent it? Explain why you said one thing on the Interview with Team Tazer and its different in the report? Justin retrieved the sample from the snow... his wife did the transporting to the post office... where is the conflict here? Why would she share anything with anyone, prior to the publishing of her study? Why should she do all the work and then let someone come along and ride in on the glory at the tail end of it all? The simple fact was that the sample you obtained from Mr. Smeja was different than the one Dr. Ketchum had. The only way to be able to claim that both samples were from the same item was for Dr. Ketchum to have actually chopped a piece of her sample off for you, and that clearly did not happen. Uuuugh, so draining and so frustrating. THe pictures and chain of custody CLEARLY (and almost incontrovertibly) show that Justin sent the same piece to Melba. And for the 40th time, MELBA asked ME to delay the release of my results - I did NOT approach her. I only asked that she give me enough support for her conclusions, to persuade me to delay my release. She didn't produce, so I stopped delaying. A wise man once told me (I know I'll screw it up) something like if you stop and deal with every dog that barks you'll never get to your destination. I hear it sounds much prettier in French but you get the idea. It's time to go to work and get this thermal footage finally out. Something positive. LOL, thanks Bart. Perhaps the best adage my Quebecer wife has imparted to me. Basic translation is "If you stop to kick every dog that barks at you, you will never get to your destination." I always had a habit of wanting to "set everyone straight" … “teach people a lesson†…I was always kicking at the barking dogs - arguing, getting in to fights, taking people to court, etc. This current debate has been very bad for that habit - I've tried (often unsuccessfully) to suppress that argumentative side of me, Lately I just truly feel that our work in uncovering a negative... in I dunno... "reprobatory researchâ€, is finished here. We need to get back to productive research. There have been a lot of let-downs surrounding some very promising evidence lately, and I would imagine that if you have never seen one with your own eyes (and even if you have), this is likely a very difficult time to stay convinced of the existence of this animal. The good news is that none of us have the "holy grail" just yet folks, so get out there and get some great evidence – you could find the next great proof! Leave the keyboard, and get out to the woods! We’ll keep you posted on the boots. visual representation of contamination Genbank results.pdf Edited March 2, 2013 by Tyler H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Well Thermal... When you spend as much time as leisureclass and I do together you develop a bond.... Strong like steel chains..... and you begin to trust one another in a way that is impossible to define.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 No doubt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 other scientists read the article and critically analyzed it. This critical analysis validated Mertz's findings, thus becoming the generally accepted date for the Messel fossil pit. But I could be mistaken about all that. They have no real clue what the true rates of decay are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) ^That is exactly how I added it up too leisureclass! Are you a mathematical genius as well as a world class lawyer? Did you get my retainer in the "Martin v Thermalman" did she collect $500k case? I did indeed, although as we discussed, I would prefer future payments be made in cash installments under $10K for tax purposes. They have no real clue what the true rates of decay are. Care to site your source for that? Edited March 2, 2013 by leisureclass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 ................... Maybe use some of your avatar to clean up your filthy buddy! ............... Now that you mentioned my avatar it could be noted here that some months ago Smeja was advised by Melba to dip his remaining "bigfoot" steak in bleach in order to............. didn't you read the thread?..... Go read it then lets talk..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Mertz et al. probably dated the Messel fossil pits where it was found by determining the amount of postassium (40K) and argon (40Ar), and then feeding those values into the formula where t stands for time and t 1/2 is the half-life of potassium. In this case, t probably came out to 47 mya. Then, Mertz et al. probably published their findings in the peer-reviewed journal Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg during 2005 in the article "A numerical age for the Messel fossil deposit (UNESCO World Heritage Site) derived from 40Ar/39Ar dating on a basaltic rock fragment," where other scientists read the article and critically analyzed it. This critical analysis validated Mertz's findings, thus becoming the generally accepted date for the Messel fossil pit. But I could be mistaken about all that. Now, would you like to explain what's wrong with this dating? "We weren't alive" isn't a legitimate answer, nor is "it disagrees with Ketchum." There are problems with the testing methods though. In order for ar/ar to be verified, you need another sample taken from the older k/ar testing method. There are assumptions that need to be made with the ar/ar testing and in plenty of tests it has come back way off the mark. Basalt tested in Hawaii that formed in the 1800's came back 1.6 million years old. Even the old carbon dating methods were found to have serious inconsistencies when flooding occured in those areas for any prolonged periods of time or in the event of fossils, if they laid in the water table. I'm not saying that you're completely wrong and that the tests aren't sometimes accurate, but when methods have repeatable flaws and so many assumptions and conditions that cannot be known in order to be accurate, It's just a guess. For instance, how do you know that those samples sat in the same mineral deposit for the entire lifespan of the sample? Could the mineral deposit have been something else that over time became that mineral? That's always been my problem with completely trusting dating methods. Every one has particular requirements that can only be assumed without 100% certainty. It proves it could be... but could isn't solid proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) @ Martin........So now you believe Smeja? Sheesh. Your friend still needs his moral ineptitude sterilized. LOW, LOW, LOW. *shaking head* If these are the type of people you have for friends, then you will eventually need a lawyer. Edited March 2, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 There are problems with the testing methods though. In order for ar/ar to be verified, you need another sample taken from the older k/ar testing method. There are assumptions that need to be made with the ar/ar testing and in plenty of tests it has come back way off the mark. Basalt tested in Hawaii that formed in the 1800's came back 1.6 million years old. Even the old carbon dating methods were found to have serious inconsistencies when flooding occured in those areas for any prolonged periods of time or in the event of fossils, if they laid in the water table. I'm not saying that you're completely wrong and that the tests aren't sometimes accurate, but when methods have repeatable flaws and so many assumptions and conditions that cannot be known in order to be accurate, It's just a guess. For instance, how do you know that those samples sat in the same mineral deposit for the entire lifespan of the sample? Could the mineral deposit have been something else that over time became that mineral? That's always been my problem with completely trusting dating methods. Every one has particular requirements that can only be assumed without 100% certainty. It proves it could be... but could isn't solid proof. I cited my sources. Care to show the same courtesy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) Smeja = Ketchum, Nobody has to be right about this, there are so many red flags here that I am truly surprised that you are defending Ketchum so viciously. I'm not defending Smeja. All I am saying is there are huge holes in Ketchum's study AND Bart and Tyler believe Smeja THINKS he shot a bigfoot which seems to show that the DNA was a bear and smeja mix. The only thing I can say is that both you and Melba would be wise to retain leisureclass as your legal counsel from this point forward and he is as tenacious as he is good at math. Edited March 2, 2013 by Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 The only thing I can say is that both you and Melba would be wise to retain leisureclass as your legal counsel from this point forward and he is as tenacious as he is good at math. I don't take frivolous cases. Unless they pay me a lot of money, up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 @leisure - https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs/argon/methods/home.html scroll down to assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I'm not saying that you're completely wrong and that the tests aren't sometimes accurate, but when methods have repeatable flaws and so many assumptions and conditions that cannot be known in order to be accurate, It's just a guess. For instance, how do you know that those samples sat in the same mineral deposit for the entire lifespan of the sample? Could the mineral deposit have been something else that over time became that mineral? That's always been my problem with completely trusting dating methods. Every one has particular requirements that can only be assumed without 100% certainty. It proves it could be... but could isn't solid proof. Man, speak about tangents... but my debating side has to point out that there are multiple methods of dating... radiometric, carbon, erosion, paleomagnetic, size of the rain drop indentations in surfaces (forget what that one is called)... So, as fallible as each may be individually, when you get situations where each one comes close to agreement with the others... you can have reasonable confidence in the conclusions. I'll stop now - way off topic, and distracting from the great pdf provided by one of my PhD contacts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 I heard it from a friend who saw her check book.... he was able to take a quick snapshot (it's a little blurry) and he is going to post the pictures very soon....... and he saw her original paper and it was only peer reviewed and written by Robyn ForestPeople....... and Smeja steak (the center piece of the study) was a bear and Smeja mix which resembled meerkat cuddled with a lion cub from 45 million years ago or 15,000 years ago or bear from 2 years ago... that part is up in the air....... and the DeNovo Journal is the best outlet for "serious" papers regarding bigfoot dna created in the past 3 weeks. If there is a legal problem with this post please contact my internet lawyer "leisureclass" as he is well qualified to squelch any problems coming from the above statement. He can answer your questions about where does "it" show she collected $500k etc. etc. etc. how hard is it to fill in a ledger and put her name on it, it's worthless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts