Bill Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Can I make one small request for those who post to this discussion, or on the topic of dr. Ketchum's work elsewhere? "an off the cuff remark by MK" (this is an example from a page or so back, one of several, referring to Melba Ketchum as MK. But for quite a few years recently, the initials MK were widely used in reference to Mr. M. K. Davis and his PGF analysis. He has apparently ceased work on this topic, but there are many people who still associate the initials "MK" with him. It would be a dis-service to Dr. Ketchum to have a confusing set of initials associated with her when they can be easily misconstrued as referencing Mr. Davis. So I'm simply going to make a polite request that we leave the initials "MK" as they were, to indicate M. K. Davis, and that some new shorthand or intiials be selected for Dr. Ketchum, if any such initials abbreviation is needed. Maybe something like "DK (for Dr. Ketchum) or DMK? It just seems to me the last thing we need now is confusing initials when we refer to people being discussed. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Say whaaat?! That's all hearsay, making any inferences based on that is not a wise course of action. I duly qualify my statements. However, folks at OP seem to be saying that the Sierra Kills sample will be used positively in the paper and recent comments link the adult creature shot to Patterson's Bigfoot via similar appearance. The Ullibarri sample is likewise said by people who should know part of the paper's case, and the drawing I included is drawn by her direction. The chewbacca ape assertion is more problematical because the Erickson team have not discussed the issue with the media. One or two people have remarked about the video they have seen of an otherwise impressive image of Bigfoot. I suggest that these do not match up as variations of a single species of animal. Of course, the bottom line is that we do not know what the report will in fact entail. And just maybe I am not a very wise person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 If these are accurate representations of the creatures in question, they would seem to cross the boundaries of mere species variation and represent different genera. The fangs alone would terminally burden any attempt to place these creatures as mere close-cousins. You never met my Auntie Mabel from West Yorkshire, did you?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Have met a couple of humans with the pronounced fang look, naturally occurring but somewhat offputting to say the least! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 19, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 19, 2012 Hah, Gotta watch out for them offputters, esp. if they are an ex- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 (edited) When I look at the first two pictures jerrywayne posted,I see two things that look remarkably similar ,only with less facial hair on one. There is considerable differences in how individual people look, and if we assume they are closely related to us we very well could see the same in them. Isolated breeding over long periods of time would certainly highlight this even more. The picture on Eriksons site is labeled Matilda, and does look similar to chewbacca, but also to the posted pictures. http://www.sasquatch....com/index.html Look at the brows,the thick lips,etc,rather than focus on the hair I would have shown this better,but I seem to have to figure out how to post pictures again Edited February 19, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 The Sierra Kills creature is now said to be like Patterson's bipedal ape; the Ullibarri account is of a human; one Erickson habituation video is said to portray a very Chewbacca like animal, replete with fangs: I have heard no suggestion that the DNA report is going to verify multiple types of surprising hominins or anomalous apes. The Ullibarri creature looked like this: The Sierra Kills creature is now said to resemble this: While the Erickson videos include something said to look like this: If these are accurate representations of the creatures in question, they would seem to cross the boundaries of mere species variation and represent different genera. The fangs alone would terminally burden any attempt to place these creatures as mere close-cousins. Needless to say, it would be really controversial if the DNA report alleged the existence of ancestral or wild people of multiple types, as well as new types of chewbacca apes. But, then again, we have heard no rumor to the effect that the report will try to support the idea of multiple types of sasquatch. As I said before, I hope that the report is not what it is rumored to be, liner notes to a greatest "contemporary hits" of Bigfoot stories, and will instead be something we haven't thought of or imagined. If so, those who want to thumb their noses at the skeptics here, note that the paper's conclusions may just as well be a surprise to skeptics and true believers alike. my impressions: upper: H. sapiens sapiens middle: H. sapiens sapiens lower: H. sapiens sapiens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Ol' Dr. Ketchum is hitting the campaign trail hard now... "DrMelbaKetchum: I hope that when our data is out that it will afford protection for our hairy friends. They do not deserve to be hunted or captured." --http://twitter.com/DrMelbaKetchum/status/171070491208069120 "DrMelbaKetchum: Everyone needs to step back and take a Jane Goodall approach. Study without harm, that is the best way." --http://twitter.com/DrMelbaKetchum/status/171070523093172224 She's not doing a very good job of keeping her â€findings†secret anymore... I just hope it's as clear-cut as she is making it out to be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 You never met my Auntie Mabel from West Yorkshire, did you?? Fangs as individual aberration? Hmmm? Anyway, http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolution/Chapter2/2.3b.htm Then again, the great Steve Buscemi: When I look at the first two pictures jerrywayne posted,I see two things that look remarkably similar ,only with less facial hair on one. There is considerable differences in how individual people look, and if we assume they are closely related to us we very well could see the same in them. Isolated breeding over long periods of time would certainly highlight this even more. The picture on Eriksons site is labeled Matilda, and does look similar to chewbacca, but also to the posted pictures. http://www.sasquatch....com/index.html Look at the brows,the thick lips,etc,rather than focus on the hair I would have shown this better,but I seem to have to figure out how to post pictures again Or we could look at these images as cultural expressions. The Ullibarri sasquatch reflects the Native American idea that sasquatch are of a tribe of giant Indians. The second image is a humanizing portrayal of Patterson's yeti. I call it yeti because Roger was looking for "America's Abominable Snowman" (i.e., yeti) and he and others thought the quarry was some type of ape. The Chewbacca image reflects a portrayal either by someone not totally familiar with popular portrayals of sasquatch, or someone limited by a virtual Chewbacca image. Just speculation folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted February 19, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted February 19, 2012 Can I make one small request for those who post to this discussion, or on the topic of dr. Ketchum's work elsewhere? "an off the cuff remark by MK" (this is an example from a page or so back, one of several, referring to Melba Ketchum as MK. But for quite a few years recently, the initials MK were widely used in reference to Mr. M. K. Davis and his PGF analysis. He has apparently ceased work on this topic, but there are many people who still associate the initials "MK" with him. It would be a dis-service to Dr. Ketchum to have a confusing set of initials associated with her when they can be easily misconstrued as referencing Mr. Davis. So I'm simply going to make a polite request that we leave the initials "MK" as they were, to indicate M. K. Davis, and that some new shorthand or intiials be selected for Dr. Ketchum, if any such initials abbreviation is needed. Maybe something like "DK (for Dr. Ketchum) or DMK? It just seems to me the last thing we need now is confusing initials when we refer to people being discussed. Bill Surely it's all about context Bill ?? This is after all the " Ketchum Report " thread ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 (edited) ...The second image is a humanizing portrayal of Patterson's yeti. I call it yeti because Roger was looking for "America's Abominable Snowman" (i.e., yeti) and he and others thought the quarry was some type of ape.... Patterson seemed to think it was some kind of proto-human. Why else would he draw this? This doesn't look like it is supposed to be an "ape" to me. Gimlin said she looked like a huge hairy human. What makes you think he thought it was an ape? I think what he was drawing would have commonly been called apemen or cavemen back in those days. This image isn't humanized. I guess I lack the imagination to see an ape there. Edited February 19, 2012 by BobZenor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Just thinking. Could Patty possibly still be alive after all this time? Interesting quote from DMK: Jane Goodall would not like their approach and I do not either. Think about it, they do not bother us, why should we bother them, chasing after them? They live in peace and have families just like us, just like gorillas and I am sure relic hominins also. You will never learn their true behavior by chasing them. Legislation will be needed with stiff penalties to protect them. While they can avoid us, I know of cases where an inexperienced juvenile gets himself in a jam and is confronted with a person, sometimes a person with a gun. Eventually, someone will kill one again if protection is not voted into law.\Reading between the lines, but not trying to draw too fine a point on it, it appears that BF are being contrasted with "relic hominins." Hints, shadows, glimmers of meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Cynical? Not sure if you're trying to inject a little levity or not. Here's how Ambrose Bierce described a cynic: CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision. If you choose to believe that you're getting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, with no spin applied, so be it. I'm not so trusting. RayG No levity, just an observation: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cynic cyn·ic (snk)n. 1. A person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness. 2. A person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative. 3. A member of a sect of ancient Greek philosophers who believed virtue to be the only good and self-control to be the only means of achieving virtue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Have met a couple of humans with the pronounced fang look, naturally occurring but somewhat offputting to say the least! I actually have fangs which I was born with. Back in the day I could get free cans of Beer because people wanted to see me open the beer cans with my fangs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Fangs are cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts