indiefoot Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Now, I'm not saying Ketchum stole something or even committed a crime. I'm just saying that when you screw up, you can't always escape scrutiny just by some denial. Perhaps Emily is a better analogy: p. Did either Dr. Ketchum or Richard Stubstat deny that the earlier conclusions were premature? I thought they had made that pretty clear. You sound like a one strike you're out kinda guy. Edited February 8, 2012 by indiefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Meantime, how do we know if our post will be read as responding to the immediately preceding post? What if someone posts while you're composing a reply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 @WTB Just curious, if you had to render a guess, how many hours have you logged in the field? And have you found anything at all? Hoaxed prints, stick structures? Any type of vocalizations that people could claim are BF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 #2117. Like so, Sas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 #2119. I'll risk the moderators' ire. Scrolling among comments like that is inelegant, at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 But what he claimed was that something can be Homo sapiens and NOT be human, though he failed to provide any source that supports that assertion. He may as well claim that while the subspecies Megasoma elephas elephas is a beetle, the species Megasoma elephas might NOT be a beetle. RayG I believe Mulder is defining Homo sapiens sapiens as human and all other Homo sapiens are not human. While I believe he defines human a little too narrowly, he is entitled to define it that way. It is consistent. What I want to understand exnihilo is not how we view the term here, I want to understand if the source used the basic term Human, or modern Human, or Homo sapiens sapiens , simply because its relevant to how much merit there is in criticizing the possibility. There has been more than one Homo sapiens,but only one Homo sapiens sapien. How the term was expressed at the source, is something I would really like to know. I really don't care beyond that how it is expressed here. I believe that the "leak" I read stated human but did not in any way imply specifically Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens. I believe it was Lindsay but I can't remember where I read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Thank you antfoot, I don't mean to split hairs here,but I think its important we don't change Human, to Modern Human, or Homo sapiens sapiens, unless we know that's what they meant or implied. So I appreciate your input. Edited February 8, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Try to have some patience with my lack of understanding here. Lets say there is Homo sapiens sapiens, and for argument sake,lets say there is Homo sapiens bigfooti (heheh), now when they refer to polymorphisms, would they not be referring to variance within the Homo sapiens bigfooti? If there had been no interbreeding with them, as there apparently has with Neanderthal, would we still expect to see traits in modern Humans that would surface related to the hypothetical bigfooti? I had been thinking that polymorphism referred to difference in genes between species but as I read about it it seems to refer to the physical variations between individuals within a species. Granted these can be genetic in origin but some can be the result of the environment. Perhaps someone could explain the meaning of polymorphism as it relates to human and bigfooti? Genetically speaking the genes between two populations that no longer breed together should become different little by little and sometimes by leaps and bounds. The longer the separation between the two populations the greater the differences in the spelling of the genes. This is what I had originally thought was meant by polymorphism. Wikipedia denies this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 No it wasn't rhetorical. How the heck am I supposed to know what it means when you post a photo of a putative bigfoot hair? Is it one you collected? I don't know. Is it among the samples included in Ketchum's analysis? I don't know. You mean you don't know that I have a sample in this study, or you don't know that the pic is from the same sample? I'm afraid you do know the former as someone from another forum who has called first dibs to , I can only imagine to ridicule me, but for what? Being interested in the truth about bigfoot and testing the flesh and blood hypothesis? You should be able to reason that if it was from a Lama or Alpacca I would have told you long ago. Now, are you going to claim alzheimer's here or is your memory refreshed now? http://www.texlaresearch.com/hairanalysis.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Don't blame me, blame the people who keep screwing around with taxonomy. If it isn't H Sapiens Sapiens, even if it is H Sapiens, then it's not human. That is fact. Deal with it. nope, that doesn't say it was in her forthcoming paper. my point all along was the error she was making, and that illustrated it. you can straw man all you want, but you are the one who has to turn the cranks backwards on your bicycle. Well, you don't have to, no one will make you. But you should. Methinks the parn doth protest too much. Face it, you've been busted. You cannot simultaneously claim Ketchum has made an error and then deny claiming knowledge of the contents of her paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Look, I could say "Wrong! Not fact. Deal with it." in the same tone in which you have just posted. Or mention the impression you give of not listening to people who really do know what they're talking about...........but I suspect I'd be wasting my breath. If you don't understand that Neanderthals and the little guys on Flores in Indonesia were also human then it is going to be a bit awkward trying to get you to acknowledge that throughout most of the last few hundred thousand years there have been multiple different species and sub species of human alive on the planet at the same time. We live in strange times in that there currently appears to be only the one.....HSS. Even your own links implicitly acknowledge this. Mike Edited February 8, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 He said modern human. sapien sapien human. If that's what the results say , they are worthless and any conclusions made that allude to anything other than modern humans will be also worthless. Bigfoot isn't us.If it somehow is, then it's much ado about nothing and there's just people living in the woods and being mistaken for a monster. Alternate possibility, BF is still out there and the sample batches have some problem with them. What I saw weren't no "really hairy guy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 You mean you don't know that I have a sample in this study, No, I did not know this. or you don't know that the pic is from the same sample? If I ever knew former, I certainly did not know this latter. I'm afraid you do know the former as someone from another forum who has called first dibs to , I can only imagine to ridicule me, but for what? Being interested in the truth about bigfoot and testing the flesh and blood hypothesis? You should be able to reason that if it was from a Lama or Alpacca I would have told you long ago. However forgetful I may be, your cryptic writing in this paragraph escapes me. Now, are you going to claim alzheimer's here or is your memory refreshed now? http://www.texlarese...airanalysis.htm You know, you could stand to lose the drama and you might make your point more clearly. Why not post the link up front to remind me that we had discussed this somewhere before? If I told you that Alzheimer's runs in my family and it's a serious health concern of mine as I'm getting older, would you be proud of your statement here? Now then, yes at some point perhaps in the last year I recall seeing this link you provided. However, I don't see anywhere on that page the photo you posted earlier in this thread and out of context. Can you please explain to me how the heck I was supposed to know the provenance of the photo you attached in post 2067? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I realize these discussions can get heated and people can get frustrated, but let's all bear in mind that Alzheimers is an awful affliction that descends, step by hellish step, into a walking death. Referencing it in a derisive way towards another member is a low blow. God forbid anyone on these boards have to deal with this disease either in themselves or their family. Odds are people that read these boards already are, and my heart goes out to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) No, I did not know this. If I ever knew former, I certainly did not know this latter. However forgetful I may be, your cryptic writing in this paragraph escapes me. You know, you could stand to lose the drama and you might make your point more clearly. Why not post the link up front to remind me that we had discussed this somewhere before? If I told you that Alzheimer's runs in my family and it's a serious health concern of mine as I'm getting older, would you be proud of your statement here? Now then, yes at some point perhaps in the last year I recall seeing this link you provided. However, I don't see anywhere on that page the photo you posted earlier in this thread and out of context. Can you please explain to me how the heck I was supposed to know the provenance of the photo you attached in post 2067? The photo is a picture of a hair root, it was to illustrate where the DNA is from, and yes that hair is from the sample that is in the study. I know from your postings you should not have any problem with your memory. You remember seeing the link from a discussion on another forum where "in context" it should have been clear that I was addressing concerns that any of the samples in this study could be retested. . You should remember where it was collected too. When you couldn't recall all this, it struck me as if you were being disengenuous in the question, as in not honest. If it was an honest question then I appologize, if not then I don't. You also injected the words "putative bigfoot hair" without my offering it as such. What made you jump to that without my saying so if you didn't remember? Edited February 9, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts