Drew Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Mating with humans is one thing -- but producing viable offspring - I think that is a whole other conversation. If this were possible, then we should be able to produce the Humanzees all the conspiracy theory folk talk about... Maybe we can? LOL Point is, that it couldn't happen. If you take a hybrid off spring, and even if it can mate with the humans, eventually since humans were everywhere, it would be back to a human in a few generations. We are not talking about a different species, we are talking about a different family. Lemurs and Humans are both primates, that is the Order. Normally two different species can't reproduce. We are talking about a different Family and Genus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Yeah Drew - I know.. Which is why I said what I did. Which makes Melba's theory that much more implausible... She needs to release the raw data. I have the feeling that is where this "lemur/human" data is - and that's probably why she isn't releasing it... She doesn't want anyone to ruin her theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Let's see.. Please tell me if I have this right. Per Melba: Physical examination of the hair samples - "not human" mDNA - human nuDNA - No idea - possibly lemur.. but definitely not an ape. She also says, it's not human but closely related to human. (there went the "Constitutional Protections") But then at the end, she says they are human because of "extra intelligence"... I did not know DNA sequencing showed the intelligence level of anything. Interesting. Instead of IQ testing - it would be easier to just have our DNA sequenced.. I always did hate tests Well - if I have the above correct - that is about as clear as mud.. For anyone who read Melba's paper - until she started talking about this "lemur" connection --- was there any indication of this in her paper? Or is she talking about the data she has not made available? Not really. She mentions lemur twice, but only in lists of primates that are related to humans. Nothing about humans mating with Nephilemurs or anything along those lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 The DNA tree that was in the paper indicated that it was closer to the Lemur side than Ape side. Someone made a comment here the day or day after it was released, but it didn't catch on until that interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 So - the answer is sitting in the data she has not released... Interesting. I wonder how she intends to prove this - without showing the data.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) My bold-TM Well, first she needs to decide if it's human or not. In one breath she says it's human, but then says - it's human but only in the area of intelligence. Just because the animal is smart - that does not make it human like you and me. So, no. I still don't see murder charges. I was only addressing what Tyler put forth as evidence in his quote. 100% human, is human. Maybe the ones that won't touch the report - are not touching it because (as they have said) the raw data is NOT available in the report. I keep hearing these people say - they can't truly figure out what she is talking about without the RAW DATA... It's her ace in the hole. It's the data, if any financial rewards are to be gained, that will be the rewarding factor. Thermalman, could you talk to Melba and get her to release the data that people are asking for??? It might help. Trust me Melissa, I'm at the point of contacting her with the hopes of clarification. Edited March 4, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 The DNA tree that was in the paper indicated that it was closer to the Lemur side than Ape side. Someone made a comment here the day or day after it was released, but it didn't catch on until that interview. That tree also showed humans as being more closely related to lemurs than apes, which I think got most of the initial attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Not really. She mentions lemur twice, but only in lists of primates that are related to humans. Nothing about humans mating with Nephilemurs or anything along those lines. Exactly. Point is, that it couldn't happen. If you take a hybrid off spring, and even if it can mate with the humans, eventually since humans were everywhere, it would be back to a human in a few generations. We are not talking about a different species, we are talking about a different family. Lemurs and Humans are both primates, that is the Order. Normally two different species can't reproduce. We are talking about a different Family and Genus Look at you Drew.....throwing candy "kisses" out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) Thermalman said: I was only addressing what Tyler put forth as evidence in his quote. Well, addressed - and answered. Not human - not murder. Period. That human has to me - US human - not close, not almost - but US human. Intelligence doesn't make the grade. She may have said 100% human - but in her interview (link posted above) she said specifically - other than intelligence - it is not human... So, which is it then? It's her ace in the hole. It's the data, if any financial rewards are to be gained, that will be the rewarding factor. So, you think if she released the data - someone could steal it, accept the kudos for the work -- and no one would know where it came from? Personally, I wish she would get the science right first - then worry about the financial rewards. We already know she has put an enormous amount of time into domain names, copyrights and all that jazz.. Trust me Melissa, I'm at the point of contacting her with the hopes of clarification. Well, go for it. Seems to me that is a very good question and only one Melba can answer. Edited March 4, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) Mating with humans is one thing -- but producing viable offspring - I think that is a whole other conversation. If this were possible, then we should be able to produce the Humanzees all the conspiracy theory folk talk about... Maybe we can? LOL The 50 different species of Lemurs have chromosome pairings from 10 to 33. There are a couple of lemurs that possess 23 pairs in that grouping. If someone wants to volunteer.........? Have at it. ^@ Melissa........I believe the science is right, it's all the oppositional twisting, that's being applied by others, that's creating the degrees of uncertainty. in the public eye. A perfect example is the term Angel DNA, which was coined by a media member, and yet the public took it as spoken words from MK. Edited March 4, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) Melba said in this interview: http://www.earthfile...ategory=Science "They ARE human and with that extra intelligence, you have a better ability to avoid humans." Really? Because I have been trying to avoid other humans all my life ----- and I am a pretty smart cookie LOL. Thermalman ---- How do you (or any of us know) her "science" is right - when she has not released the Raw Data. Just about everyone who has spoken, in the scientific community, is asking to see this data yet she will not show it. What exactly did all these people pay 30 bucks for? A lesson in Bigfoot History and portions of the Erickson Video? I see this as being the biggest problem.. Basically she is asking for the scientific community to simply "take me at my word, the science is sound, it's beautiful - but you can't see it." I am not a scientist - but I am willing to bet - that's not how it works. Edited March 4, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Without transparency, it's all subject to speculation. And that's my major issue. Anytime something presents you with more questions than answers, there's something not right. Even if something were 99.9% similar to humans, that doesn't make them human. It would make them human-like beings. I know science likes to use a lot of assumptions, but in this case it's assumptions in the wrong places that are the issue. Free the data! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) OK. Scanning the memory banks here for all the scientific papers or articles about same I have read - PROVING amazing things to be real - that I had to shell out 30 smackers to see. Keep in mind, we are talking PROOF. Not "here, here's Bigfoot. Look as this [peers in microscope]." Can't think of one. Unless one counts buying a computer and paying for access to the internet. I suspect that many if not most bigfoot skeptics were once believers who shelled out 30 bucks one too many times. Hint. If it isn't obvious proof - or at the very least a solid scientific take on the evidence such as one can't find on the internet - don't pay for it. When it's proof...you know when you read it. And we have read enough. Edited March 4, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 njjohn said: Without transparency, it's all subject to speculation. Well first of all - this is Bigfoot she is talking about. Not some breed of animal we already know is on the planet. I wish she had nailed every bit of her testing to a wall so hard - no one could have shook the results. But, she didn't. That is the truth of this. She won't release the data - proving her point - yet she discusses it as if it is "science fact"... No wonder so many people are frustrated.. I know I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) @ Melissa I say her science is right, because right now it's on her word and the only science data we have. If full disclosure proves all her supporters and BF believers wrong, then I will be the first to acknowledge my misrepresented stance and eat as much crow as it takes to fill me up, right along side MK. We all are Melissa. But what's more frustrating is the numerous factless opinions by many who post their "know all" derivatives based on what little info has been provided by MK thus far. As of yet, we don't know exactly what we're dealing with? That's about it, in a nutshell. Njjohn is absolutely correct in his statement that you've quoted. Edited March 4, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts