Guest parnassus Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 A very good article, excellent find! The hair evidence was probably the most fascinating aspect of the article for me, I really enjoyed the layout of the "unknown" hairs against those of known species. I wouldn't say congratulations are in order just yet...but it does appear that the study is gaining in credibility. rI find the hair images to be potentially very misleading and typical of the kind of hair "analysis" we seem to see from Ketchum and others. The idea that the great variety of human hair morphology can be represented by a single image is ludicrous.
southernyahoo Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 I predict Ketchum and Paulides will publish their DNA paper in this magazine. Oops I mean journal. I could have predicted you were going to predict that. I find the hair images to be potentially very misleading and typical of the kind of hair "analysis" we seem to see from Ketchum and others. The idea that the great variety of human hair morphology can be represented by a single image is ludicrous. And you would probably find it exhausting and boring to see a picture of hair from every known fauna just for the sake of exclusion too wouldn't you. Can you find a published paper on hair analysis that does?
Guest Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 And you would probably find it exhausting and boring to see a picture of hair from every known fauna just for the sake of exclusion too wouldn't you. Can you find a published paper on hair analysis that does? Took the words right out of my mouth.
Guest parnassus Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 (edited) I could have predicted you were going to predict that. And you would probably find it exhausting and boring to see a picture of hair from every known fauna just for the sake of exclusion too wouldn't you. Can you find a published paper on hair analysis that does? you post the false dichotomy between a single image with no explanation, and an exhaustive exposition of human hair types of multiple colors, races, chemical treatments, growth phases and body site. The latter is obviously not appropriate in such an article. But the former is misleading. And unfortunately that is common. let me suggest an alternative to your dichotomy. It would be simple to make a statement regarding the pitfalls in hair analysis and refer the reader to the FBI site and other sources. Edited April 22, 2011 by parnassus
BobbyO Posted April 22, 2011 SSR Team Author Posted April 22, 2011 Yes, that's how I understand the text. But I think it doesn't make sense that a group of orangutans split off (genetically) and become bipedal while others remain quadropeds in the same habitat. Or did it happen vice versa in Davies opinion? I think the "Homo flores" or "completely new species" theories make more sense. Well based on that, it makes no sense to me either why another " form " of Orangutan ( I'm talking about the Primate as we know the Word to mean & not the direct Translation of the word, which is " Man of the Jungle " in Malay ) would split off and become bipedal. Living in SE Asia as i do, i will state however that the " Orang Pendek " whatever it may be, is not just restricted to Sumatra. There have been Reports of things that fit the description of the " Orang Pendek " or at least a Bipedal Ape/Primate, accross the Strait of Malacca ( width of about 40 Miles or so ), in Johor, Malaysia which has no population of " Orangutans " as we know them, at all..
Guest Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 That's cool, Bobby O...I did not know that!~ Smitty
Guest Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 Well based on that, it makes no sense to me either why another " form " of Orangutan ( I'm talking about the Primate as we know the Word to mean & not the direct Translation of the word, which is " Man of the Jungle " in Malay ) would split off and become bipedal. Living in SE Asia as i do, i will state however that the " Orang Pendek " whatever it may be, is not just restricted to Sumatra. There have been Reports of things that fit the description of the " Orang Pendek " or at least a Bipedal Ape/Primate, accross the Strait of Malacca ( width of about 40 Miles or so ), in Johor, Malaysia which has no population of " Orangutans " as we know them, at all.. Interesting. Do you do fieldwork yourself down there?
Guest RayG Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 Sandwiching an article about an undiscovered primate between articles about psychic dreams, and a Brazilian magician, doesn't really fill me with a whole lot of confidence in their credibility. The article appeared no more scientific than John Green's Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, published over 30 years ago. I give stuff like this a because it does nothing but raise false hopes. Again. RayG
BobbyO Posted April 22, 2011 SSR Team Author Posted April 22, 2011 Interesting. Do you do fieldwork yourself down there? You're joking Chris, the Island i have just moved off of is home to the biggest King Cobra's ever captured in Thailand.. I don't really have a great deal of interest to be honest poking around the Forests of SE Asia, i'm not in this to be a Hero, i'm just in it to learn more about the thing in the US & Canada..
Guest Yeti1974 Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 I'm surprised that the Society for Scientific Exploration is not more well know on this forum, especially since they publish stuff by Meldrum and Bindernagel. Just because they publish on a variety of anomalous phenomena makes them no less scientific.
Guest RayG Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 Just because they publish on a variety of anomalous phenomena makes them no less scientific. It's not so much the publishing that makes them less scientific, it's being less scientific that makes them less scientific. RayG
Guest parnassus Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 (edited) I'm surprised that the Society for Scientific Exploration is not more well know on this forum, especially since they publish stuff by Meldrum and Bindernagel. Just because they publish on a variety of anomalous phenomena makes them no less scientific. No less scientific than what? with all due rsspect, this article is written on level that would be suitable for an eighth grade science class. It's a news article, not a scientific paper. It could just as easily be in Sunday Parade. Edited April 22, 2011 by parnassus
Guest Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 Hey man, I've learned a lot of breakthrough science from Deepak Chopra and Mehmet Oz in Parade.
Guest Yeti1974 Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 It's not so much the publishing that makes them less scientific, it's being less scientific that makes them less scientific. RayG And how do you define what is scientific? Anything that doesn't try to legitimize the existence of anomalous phenomena? You spin me right round, baby.
Guest parnassus Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 Hey man, I've learned a lot of breakthrough science from Deepak Chopra and Mehmet Oz in Parade. No surprise there.
Recommended Posts