Bonehead74 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Which group? The ones that migrated from warmer climes in the south? They weren't, but they compensated with skin clothing. European Neanderthals developed in glacial Europe over several hundred thousand years just as the other native animals did. The author covers this in his presentation. So ice-age H. sapiens from colder climes were hair covered? Did they shave when traveling closer to the equator? My point is we do not have any intact Neanderthal bodies, skin, or flesh to indicate their level of hirsute-ness. It is all speculative. That being said, I vote we stop discussing this in the Ketchum Report thread. There are other, more appropriate places to argue about possible Neanderthal morphology. Edited March 22, 2012 by Bonehead74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Motion Carried. Lets get back on topic folks ie the Ketchum Report. Off topic subjects may be edited out. Thanks megatarsal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 There isn't really anything more that can be said about this report until it comes out. If anything I think this thread should be in the campfire chat section Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Betcha you'll make a few more choice comments, though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 In defense of Melba Ketchum I would like to point out that her report was delayed by an unexpected "curveball" . What was first a reasonable prediction by her of an early publication was thrown off a lot by the need to redo and reevaluate. From what she has said, that reevaluation involved a complete genome measurement and analysis. That is a BIG job. Little wonder that the publication has taken much longer than first expected. I'm glad it happened because a complete genome analysis was needed. Patience is in order. She says "soon", and there is no reason to doubt it, barring further unexpected events. It is easy to imagine a wide variety of unexpected events beyond her control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Except that this is the science equivalent of vaporware. Maybe we need to coin a new word to describe it? Vaporpaper rhymes but maybe someone can come up with a better one? :-D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 If all you had to do is say you have results without publishing any, then vaporware is a viable analogy. However, software doesn't get published in a journal critiqued by editors and peer reviewers. The analogy doesn't hold water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Even if it's [edit: i.e. the paper] based on airvidence? Edit: Seriously, though, my analogy was simply referring to the pushing back of release dates. Software has to undergo a Q&A process too before its release. Therefore, I still think my analogy holds. Edited March 23, 2012 by Peter O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I've said it before and I'll say it again....This will amount to nothing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 In defense of Melba Ketchum I would like to point out that her report was delayed by an unexpected "curveball" . What was first a reasonable prediction by her of an early publication was thrown off a lot by the need to redo and reevaluate. From what she has said, that reevaluation involved a complete genome measurement and analysis. That is a BIG job. Little wonder that the publication has taken much longer than first expected. I'm glad it happened because a complete genome analysis was needed. Patience is in order. She says "soon", and there is no reason to doubt it, barring further unexpected events. It is easy to imagine a wide variety of unexpected events beyond her control. Curveballs become a regular part of baseball by the time you're in high school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Curveballs become a regular part of baseball by the time you're in high school. And baseball games end up with a result, this is a never ending saga...I'm starting to lean towards outright rejection of this saga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Yes, Mulder, I agree that in order for a statement to rise to the level of an opinion it means that it appraises a set of facts. Summitwalker's "opinion" that there can't be 200 samples from 28 specimens because "nobody can prove the existence" of BF doesn't really qualify. It is more a statement of belief that bigfoot CAN'T exist, therefore there CAN'T be evidence. It would follow from his belief that it is therefore useless to look for BF because it doesn't exist, and will reject any evidence because the evidence is .... [fill in the blank]. Except that I never stated that BF did not exist, I just find extremely hard to believe there are 28 specimens collected when there is no evidence otherwise. I suppose you can play the word games but it will still be my belief and my opinion. I do think BF may exist, but only in the PNW and on up, that too is my belief and my opinion...and my theory! Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 So then by "Nobody can prove this creature exists" what did you mean? Are you buying into the paranormal BF or something? It lives in another dimension? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) so many on here act like a 5 yr old that didn't get the toy they wanted because the store was out of stock, then blows up and complains they will never get it. but at 5, you understand why they don't have patience.... Edited March 23, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Well, I for one can't discount the witness testimony. These people are seeing something. But I can discount a lot of the pareidolia blobsquatches and hoaxes that don't look like a real animal at all. I admit I'm a bit jaded after joining this forum and "researching" on the internet further, but that's only because some of these people are on acid if they think they've videotaped Sasquatch. I hope my cynicism toward a lot of the airvidence (like a steak that evaporates when it's overcooked... ;-) ) doesn't translate into people thinking I'm cynical toward the whole enterprise. Just parts of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts