Guest King Kong Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Looks like she might see the body http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Melba-Ketchum/359075637446173 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Doubtful she will see the body....the invitation was just another delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Careful Dr. K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 This thread was shut down and reopened and yet the nastiness continues. Time to lock it for good and honestly if I were a mod I'd ban the serial offenders permanently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) When someone is nasty about this they should disciplined. This thread should remain open for discussion until this evidence is sorted out. Isn't that what threads are for? Not everybody that disagree's with it is being nasty. Have you seen idoubtit.wordpress.com? It might be considered as being nasty. Some skeptics jump to conclusions right away because BF is never an option. Often they're wrong, I see this on all the skeptical websites. Edited March 2, 2013 by Kerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Plussed. Pretty fundamental scientific mistake bigfoot skeptics make first words out of their mouths: Mystery solved! No, we have no evidence of that. *You* need to provide the evidence. Multitudinous errors follow. It's a scientific discussion, people. The side without evidence is the side without standing. (Yes. That all these people from all these places are posting all this stuff here is about as strong evidence for sasquatch as one could get short of proof; and it isn't even the tip of the iceberg.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) I will argue that when science makes assumptions on unknowns (much like Ketchum expects us to by not releasing all the data), it's hard to buy without questions. I think you are reading too much into the word assumptions. When (real) scientists make assumptions, they aren't just saying "I don't want to deal with this, let's just assume X and get on with it." They're saying "We've done experiments X, Y, and Z, and we've made observations A, B, and C, and they are all show Q. Therefore, we can assume that Q is correct (or constant)." There are strong bases for their assumptions. @leisure - https://geoinfo.nmt....thods/home.html scroll down to assumptions. Yes, but if any of those assumptions are not met -- if for instance the rocks are not in a closed system -- it will be relatively obvious from the chart. Let's begin by speaking to the possibility of contamination or leakage - that argon is either added to or subtracted from the rocks between the time of formation and the time of dating. Using the formula previously mentioned, we can draw a chart where the x-axis is the parent isotope (40K or 40Ar) and the y-axis is daughter isotope (40 Ar or 39Ar). Using our formula, we should have a steady decrease in the parent isotope and increase in the daughter isotope, i.e .a straight line. If the data is non-linear, we know that there was a problem with contamination or leakage and the dating is not reliable. See e.g. "Refuting 'Radiometric Dating Methods make Untenable Assumptions!'" available at http://debunkingdeni...e-assumptions/. With regards to the assumption about the rate of decay being constant, this is observable and has been validated repeatedly. This includes validation through experimental methods, as well as through observing and measuring radioactivity from supernovas and other cosmological phenomenon. See e.g. "Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates" available at http://www.talkorigi.../CF/CF210.html. It should also be noted that many, if not most, of the objections to radiometric dating and the underlying assumptions come from young earth creationists, whose objections are based not on scientific grounds, but on fundamental and intractable disagreement with the results. And with that, I will end this tangent and get back to our regularly scheduled programming: Lemurs, and the cave-women who love them. Plussed. Pretty fundamental scientific mistake bigfoot skeptics make first words out of their mouths: Mystery solved! No, we have no evidence of that. *You* need to provide the evidence. Multitudinous errors follow. It's a scientific discussion, people. The side without evidence is the side without standing. (Yes. That all these people from all these places are posting all this stuff here is about as strong evidence for sasquatch as one could get short of proof; and it isn't even the tip of the iceberg.) Errr, no. The side proposing the existence of a species bears the burden of proof. But, at least you acknowledge that anecdotal sightings aren't proof. Edited March 2, 2013 by leisureclass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) I don't take frivolous cases. Unless they pay me a lot of money, up front. Seems like work is slow, if you're spending a lot of time on this board? 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. Really funny how gullible some are to fallible conclusions? And here we have MK with DNA evidence, backed by other labs and scientists, and people are "put out" because they have to pay for the report, which they don't believe at any rate. Zigoapex, this could get ugly because the above mentioned evidence is beyond reproach. Unlike many I have had my blurry pictures validated by my internet lawyer, leisureclass, and if anything should happen to me or my family then he has been instructed to turn the said documents and blurry film in to a massive lawsuit naming the people responsible by first middle and last name and cleaning then out down to the last pair of underwear they own. So unless want to be underwearless on the street in your home town I would suggest you drop this line of invasive and potentially slanderous train of thought forthwith. Anyone and his dog could validate blurry pictures. Are you threatening Zig? Edited March 2, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Bye bye ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) We've already thought about it, ApeHuman brought up the suggestion weeks ago before Ketchum's interview produced lemur..... or before anyone else publically commented on it here after reading the paper. People that have seen the eyeglow have thought about it for years, so yes it is interesting and inconclusive until peer review shows that there is fidelity to Ketchum's research. For those who think "interbreeding" needs to take place for a human to possess similar genomes to creatures, take a look at this. Men and mice share 88% of genes. and 96% with gorillas. So sharing with lemurs is not out of the question. 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 For those who think "interbreeding" needs to take place for a human to possess similar genomes to creatures, take a look at this. Men and mice share 88% of genes. and 96% with gorillas. So sharing with lemurs is not out of the question. We know we share with lemurs. In fact, we know exactly how much we share with lemurs - 80%, give or take. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC430288/ The issue isn't having similar DNA to lemurs. The issue is that we aren't closely related enough to interbreed with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Thermalman, If I recall isn't it that we all split from the same organizims from the ooze? So it would make sense that Lemur could be in the dna. Also the problem I see is this for the people who say her resaults were contaminated. Explain the contamination of Lemur? since Lemurs are not in the US Forests. The only explanation i have seen is well maybe some lemur got loose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) I'm no expert on DNA cath, but info we can gather off the net, seems to indicate that all warm blooded animals share the same "basic" DNA foundations, along with some other DNA "crossovers". In those "crossovers", some specific genomes are from different species, thus giving each creature a unique DNA sequence. I stand to be corrected though. "Found in nature only on the island nation of Madagascar, off Africa’s southeastern coast, lemurs and their close relatives the lorises represent the sister lineage to all other primates. And that makes lemurs key to understanding what distinguishes us and the rest of our primate cousins from all other animals, according to Julie Horvath, a post-doctoral researcher in the IGSP." 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 (edited) I can't read this today...but from the abstract this gene group is implicated in nocturnal vision with prosimians : (S) opsin gene sequences what is interesting is it seems to conclude that this visual flexibility/structure can appear later rather than earlier in evolution..the other article linked above also indicates these visual soft tissue structures might arise or decline more quickly than we traditionally attribute thru molecular clock..certain regions seem to have different 'speeds." So I am not suggesting any hybrid...but a hominid that has this gene association and functionality..while still being what ever we think BFs are based on field data..biases included. a member here sent them to me and I find them exciting...one identifies one area that is associate with night vision..and the other theorizes that those visual systems are more flexible genetically than we have considered.... so if anyone has free access to any of these and wants to forward a copy i will accept it with a thank you! http://onlinelibrary....20957/abstract and http://www.pnas.org/...2/41/14712.full an aside: recent study shows bush babies use ultrasound to communicate..wow, so by extension maybe BFs are using infrasound...the other side of the specturm...in sound and size? but again another possible representation of seemingly weird BFness that has precedent in primate lines... also in one of my above posta..not sure where, but recent..is the DNA phylogeny of living primates.. is current and detailed...also GenesRus sent me a nice paper on the various human accelerated gene regions...if anyone want to get into this idea in depth..and track down what regions might be implicated in visual systems that we might share...or on/off.. I am over my head to do more than ponder really... Edited March 2, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 2, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted March 2, 2013 For those who think "interbreeding" needs to take place for a human to possess similar genomes to creatures, take a look at this. Men and mice share 88% of genes. and 96% with gorillas. So sharing with lemurs is not out of the question. Yes, but it is not the total percentages that count, it is the coding regions and the expressions of those genes that count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts