Guest parnassus Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't seem to find any reference directly noting that Dr. Ketchum claimed the DNA "comes from modern humans". At best this attribution is anecdotal based on "journalism" that hasn't held up, from sources that were involved early in the study before nDNA sequencing was done. I do think you are correct to note that research papers must have a testable hypothesis. However, I would be shocked if she had a hypothesis in her paper that said the sample set was homo sapiens sapiens. I won't say that you are confused. But I will say that, while no one has seen ThePaper, back in 2010 when Ketchum announced that she had proof, she wrote the famous copyright documents. And the famous copyright documents describe modern human DNA. Did THAT shock you? LOL rhetorical question.....and what about all those domain names? and the stuff that Paulides has been saying all along, and the close relationship she obviously has with Paulides (and I'm not referring to any social ties.). Dude, how can you NOT think that's what she has? simply the fact that it is so amazing? is that your only reason? Now she has "backtracked" on the copyright stuff. I really don't know what she's got, obviously, and I didn't say I did. I offered the best explanation I could think of for a hearsay possibly misunderstood statement that might resemble something that a reviewer might have written on a rejection letter. Agree, Mike. Here's a choice wikipedia quote on global cooling. I'm not going to pretend to be a climate scientist (I'll leave that to the climate scientists) but I've been familiar with the concept of the greenhouse effect ever since my dad took me to see Soylent Green in the early seventies (or was that Omega Man)? Oh, there's that...and the planet Venus. Anyway, since I know CO2 is irrefutably a greenhouse gas, I have no reason to doubt those more knowledgeable than myself on the topic. The sad thing is that someone will invariably say this is a political topic...which is patently ridiculous. not loud enough..... The sad thing is that someone will invariably say this is a political topic...which is patently ridiculous. Edited April 20, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Well, I won't be modding it as a political topic........but I will be asking that this thread get back to the core subject rather than be diverted by global climate change. Now please.............Dr Ketchum......her report......remember? Thanks Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I won't say that you are confused. But I will say that, while no one has seen ThePaper, back in 2010 when Ketchum announced that she had proof, she wrote the famous copyright documents. And the famous copyright documents describe modern human DNA. Did THAT shock you? LOL rhetorical question.....and what about all those domain names? and the stuff that Paulides has been saying all along, and the close relationship she obviously has with Paulides (and I'm not referring to any social ties.). Dude, how can you NOT think that's what she has? simply the fact that it is so amazing? is that your only reason?Now she has "backtracked" on the copyright stuff. I really don't know what she's got, obviously, and I didn't say I did. I offered the best explanation I could think of for a hearsay possibly misunderstood statement that might resemble something that a reviewer might have written on a rejection letter. I think the highlighted points above summarize the gist of this entire thread rather well. Yes indeed she backtracked from the copyright filing. Was I shocked that she applied for said copyrights? Not really, as I have no idea what is really in the study, not being privy to the data. It was "interesting" to me that she applied for the copyrights and then indicated that it was very early in the process and further investigation has made it a moot point. It seems from this information that there may be a close correlation between homo sapiens sapiens DNA and the data set of samples she has fully sequenced. But again, as you said, no one has seen the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 20, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted April 20, 2012 I'm sensing a theme. Yeah, the pitch is thrown to minimize spin (of the ball), something there for everybody for sure..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Feel free to show me the scientific, peer-reviewed papers that show Fahrenbach is wrong with his analyses, or Meldrum is wrong about the biometrics of the cast tracks, "butt cast", Skookum impression, et al. Feel free to show us the scientific, peer-reviewed papers that show Fahrenbach, Meldrum, Krantz, et al were correct. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Well it must be coming out next week since it will be my birthday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Happy Birthday in advance Gearman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Lol. I wouldn't be too surprised if she comes out empty handed, but I could have sworn I've seen her in a video-documentary analyzing yeti hair. I forgot the name of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Well it must be coming out next week since it will be my birthday! That doesn't work. Yesterday (Friday) was my birthday. Still no report. P: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted April 21, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 21, 2012 At least two years minimum as I read it. But does seem that this should still change the way we think of our world. "One drawback to the peer-review process is that articles may not appear for one or two years after they are written. For this reason they are not the best sources to seek for hot, news-driven topics." http://lib.calpoly.edu/research/guides/articles.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Question, If this is a success would sasquatch be recognized as an actual species living in North America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Difficult to see it any other way, if......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I think once the report is published it will very likely generate a lot of discussion and debate within the scientific community. It will need to be verified by being able to repeat her work, and I would think it will likely create more interest in the subject especially in light of so many recent discoveries of humanoids that lived as recently as 10,000 years ago. Shortly after the paper comes out a bevy of people will be released from their NDA's and I would guess that there are a number people and organizations that are preparing to release their own statements and materials to show how they collected their samples. Add to this the Erickson Project movie and we will likely have a healthy debate in public forums, media, and scientific bodies. Will the publication of the Ketchum report immediately convince the world of the existence of BF? Not immediately. I'm sure there will be die hard skeptics in the science community that will likely do their best to attack the work. I'm sure there will be those that will still require a complete body for study. However, it will certainly move the debate forward by leaps and bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Don't forget, BFSleuth, there are still people who argue that we never landed on the moon....all those years ago. Nothing short of a shuttle for them to personally walk on the moon's surface will convince them otherwise....what would that translate to in terms of BF existence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Since when did you start dealing in "formal logic" or logic in general? POW! Ouch! You're still trying to tell us that because Bob Ballard didn't see a bf at 13000' down during his dives on the Titanic in 1986 that a hunter didn't see a bigfoot 3000 feet up the slope of Mt Ranier in 2012. BAM! Ouch, Ouch! You win, Mulder! I've been K.O.ed by your devastating combination punching, your piston-like left-jab made of an ad hominem, and your right cross of a non-sequitur. Type "bigfoot shot" into search engine of choice. Lots of reports to be read. Next unobjection? Mulder, please tell me you know the difference between a verified kill and "lots of reports to be read" on the Internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts