southernyahoo Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) @ Parn, If you had a bigfoot body on the table and it's DNA was 100% human, it wouldn't be bigfoot it would be John Doe, and you'd better have a good explanation why you have his body. Edited March 20, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I love the collective front argument for "Science". Like "Science" is an old guy living comfortably in Anytown, USA. Everyone once in a while, the learned select make a pilgrimage to Science's house, ask Science for his blessing on newfound knowledge, then shake in rapture when Science accepts what people have presented. What is considered "science" is a broad continuum which is interpreted by everyone on an individual level. To say that something has to be accepted by "science" is a very subtle way to avoid committing to a process that takes the judgement out of their hands and allows "Science" devotees to be perpetual nay-sayers. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ^No, in this discussion "science" is shorthand for "recognized by a legitimate nomenclatural authority, such as the ICZN." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 My opinion is that it is a hoax, based on those discussions and other information which I cannot divulge. p. He's the guy in the suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 For you, perhaps, Sas- I'll guarantee it doesn't mean that for everyone. Unless you get a consensus stated from everyone, then the waters of "Science" continue to be muddied. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The March 7th issue of Nature published the genome of the gorilla. About 2% difference between us and them. Ketchum report should be very interesting to say the least. The branches of the family tree are getting darn crowded, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 another eye opener.... have a listen to this http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-great-turtle-island/2011/04/29/arla-williams-talks-about-bigfoot thats the person ketchum has put in charge of the protection effort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Dr Ketchum also stables some of her horses at Arla's place and many have speculated that this is where she has been having her personal Bigfoot experiences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 must be where the bigfoots braid her horses hair too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Ketchum made a statement on her FB page yesterday in reference to when the paper will be released. "It could be quite soon or a little farther out. Not too awfully long though." IMO she's knows there is only a couple things that needed to be verified, if you look at the whole timeline,you could piece together what's going on. Edited March 20, 2012 by megatarsal to edit quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The issue was the PGF, which is not specifically addressed in my sig line. It is discussed in other threads, but a person brought it up, giving his opinion. Now if you want to pursue it, I'd suggest you go to the PGF threads. My opinion is that it is a hoax, based on those discussions and other information which I cannot divulge. p. @Parn: Why can't you divulge the info? Can you toss a bone out as to what the info pertains to? A proponent attempting to make such a "special knowledge" pleading would be torn to shreds by the Skeptics. another eye opener.... have a listen to this http://www.blogtalkr...s-about-bigfoot thats the person ketchum has put in charge of the protection effort For those of us who don't have time for an extended listen, could you sum up what (in your opinion) is so shocking or disturbing about this person that you would refer to it as "an eye opener"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) IMO she's knows there is only a couple things that needed to be verified, if you look at the whole timeline, you could piece together what's going on. I've been watching this whole farce from the beginning and have seen the timeline progress in real time, no pieces needed. It seemed very professional up until Ketchum started talking and the statement I quoted above is just one example of the strange things that she has said. I wish I could still have hope for her success, but she's pretty much crushed any hope I'd had before. Edited March 20, 2012 by megatarsal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Mulder, I believe the issue is regarding Arla Collett Williams, who is one of the people Dr. Ketchum has made an administrator on the Sasquatch Protection Group. I haven't done a lot of background research (read: googled) but from what I glean she has some...um...interesting ideas about sasquatch which run into areas few would consider scientific. Frankly, I'm not sure what to think about it. I think the effort they are going for is a good one, and I don't want to disparage anyone on the company they keep, but I certainly don't ascribe to any sort of spiritual dimension to the Sasquatch phenomena. And, while I still have high hopes for this study, it does give me a little pause, and a big hope that this angle isn't in any way indicated or included in the study (there is no indication that it will be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) @Cotter: I'm sure if you read the PGF threads you'll get the idea. If not, PM me and I'll reveal everything tell you why I can't reveal everything. @mulder I'm just not sure your "shredding" concept is accurate so I'm gonna have to ask you to show me some examples that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that "A proponent attempting to make such a "special knowledge" pleading would be torn to shreds by the Skeptics." obtw If you want to cite "special knowledge" that's okay with me. p. Edited March 20, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 If Ketchum's or anyone else's analysis led to the recognition of Homo bigfooteus by the ICZN, then the scientific consensus would be that bigfoot exists. This would be analogous to the IPCC's recognition of anthropogenic climate change: it is, by definition, scientific consensus. Yes, there are some people who don't accept it. Those people are not in step with the scientific consensus on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts