Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Sasquatch the tribe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Parn, Are you referring to this, which was posted for, i believe, potential copywrite on a documentary which is no longer in the works? The link to this info has been removed for some time. Also, I wish I could find the quote, but I do remember Dr. Ketchum saying that these results were from earlier in the study, and aren't to be read as relevant to the current results. But, we'll see. PN, so you are agreeing with my statement? we could argue the relevance, as her original claim of evidence that bigfoot is real (if you look at the dates) was apparently, at least in part, based on that copyright data and the Stubstad data, both of which came from her shop; she may have tried to distance herself from it now, but that's not the point. The point is that is that is all she has released. I think if you re-read my statement you will agree with it. And the poster above mine invited the speculation. p. Edited March 23, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I'm not sure I read it the same way, as it is not information rich at all, but yes, I won't join in with those claiming your speaking out of your rear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) my statement is correct, in my opinion. Your opinion is noted. As is the fact that it is totally unsupported by evidence. my statement was in response to another post and is correct, in my opinion, of course. I don't need to link to Stubstad's releases and Ketchum's copyrights. They have been linked again and again.If anyone has DNA results from Ketchum's shop that show otherwise, let's see them disprove my statement. p. Proving the negative fallacy. Furthermore, it is YOUR burden to prove that your linked claims ARE factual, not ours to prove that they are not. Edited March 23, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Does it really require primary legislation to protect a species in the States? (That's an innocent question.......I don't know the answer). I am sure that here it would be signed into law as an order by a government minister, without need for a law passing through parliament. Mike Mike, to answer your question- its both yes and no. In the 1970's numerous environmental laws were passed- and did have to go through congress, and be signed by the President into law. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, established the base law, which is administered by The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Officials from FWS are held responsible for classifying and protecting "endangered" species. It is a lengthy and complicated (and controversial) process that has to be undertaken for any one species to gain "endangered" status, and thus protection on a Federal level... So no, it wouldnt take an up or down vote by congress to gain "endangered" status for "Bigfooticus Hominus" or whatever the heck it might wind up being classified as. Any "human" or partial human connection would surely complicate and bog down the process for sure though... A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Gee, now you want the conjecture back again? Oooooooooooooooookay.... If folks like Derek Randles, Sally Ramey and anyone else involved (co-authors, reviewers, etc) are cool with 100% modern human DNA then so be it. It just gets a little confusing when she talks about a "new species". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) I don't think it has been said ANYWHERE, even in the post I made to her old Copywrite application, that the results would be 100% human. Edited March 24, 2012 by Particle Noun : to remove content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted March 23, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 23, 2012 my statement is correct, in my opinion. my statement was in response to another post and is correct, in my opinion, of course. I don't need to link to Stubstad's releases and Ketchum's copyrights. They have been linked again and again. If anyone has DNA results from Ketchum's shop that show otherwise, let's see them disprove my statement. p. parnassus I agree that every thing that we have heard is conjecture and your statement is correct.There really is nothing out in the open that truely proves these creatures exist.All we have is the story of a witness and what ever artifact that was left after the sighting.But DNA does truely seem to show some thing and that holds value.I am hoping for good results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Breaking news: modern humans found in north America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Check Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Prior to the facebook situation I was fairly confident the study was something grounded in real science and that it would reveal something important, even earth shaking. But after reading her posts about braiding horse hair, and the strange restrictions on her discussing the paper details, etc I just can't stay on board. It simply smells too much like a bad thing to me. Honestly I don't see how an unemotionally invested non-biased observer would conclude that her statements and actions are consistent with those of a scientist sitting on the crest of a wave produced by her own ground breaking work... Simply, I'm surprised she is talking at all, much less that she claims having photographs and personal witness. I hope I'm wrong, and admittedly I tend to be glass half full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Breaking news: modern humans found in north America. You BETTER have PROOF to back up that extraordinary CLAIM ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Melba Ketchum has evidence that is going to blow the Sasquatch question completely out of the water. She is going to prove conclusively that not only are Sasquatch not Homo sapiens sapiens, but they are entirely their own species that will gain scientific acceptance due to irrefutable proof. She is going to produce a type specimen!!! Producing an entirely mapped genome is going to basically just be a formality because once the cornucopia of evidence is rolled out by Dr. Ketchum, this argument is over. It's basically a "horn of plenty" of evidence. In my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Melba Ketchum has evidence that is going to blow the Sasquatch question completely out of the water. She is going to prove conclusively that not only are Sasquatch not Homo sapiens sapiens, but they are entirely their own species that will gain scientific acceptance due to irrefutable proof. She is going to produce a type specimen!!! Producing an entirely mapped genome is going to basically just be a formality because once the cornucopia of evidence is rolled out by Dr. Ketchum, this argument is over. It's basically a "horn of plenty" of evidence. In my opinion. IMO it'll never see the light of day...the report or the proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Honestly I don't see how an unemotionally invested non-biased observer would conclude that her statements and actions are consistent with those of a scientist sitting on the crest of a wave produced by her own ground breaking work... What he/she said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 How in the hades do you have homo sapiens sapiens, yet it's another species? ??That's just a tad like the Mad Hatter's unbirthday isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts