Guest Jodie Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 (edited) I don't think Parn is a geneticist. But I bet he could do a bang up job on dissection, maybe a videotaped sasquatch autopsy? I want in on that if you do Parn. Edited April 22, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Jodie, based on your comment above, I'm inferring perhaps he is a pathologist. THAT IS PERFECT. Alternate Crowpie recipe: 1) X-ray study of live cooperative Sasquatch. 2) dissection and description of dead stinky one with particular attention to whether they have a helical colon. Is the corpus callosum unusually well connected ? Is the cerebellum cytological structure unusual ? These two latter questions are designed to determine why they have such fast reaction time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I think it is only kind and fair for skeptics to pick their own recipe... http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 hoping it isnt the case, but i gotta wonder .......40 yrs from now is this going to be another pgf? give us all something to talk about if we end up in the same retirement home one day i suppose. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Jodie, based on your comment above, I'm inferring perhaps he is a pathologist. THAT IS PERFECT. Alternate Crowpie recipe: 1) X-ray study of live cooperative Sasquatch. 2) dissection and description of dead stinky one with particular attention to whether they have a helical colon. Is the corpus callosum unusually well connected ? Is the cerebellum cytological structure unusual ? These two latter questions are designed to determine why they have such fast reaction time. Got no idea, just trying to work in the alternative to the alien autopsy video floating around out there. Maybe we could sell it as a buy one get one free deal. I always pictured Parn as a podiatrist if I had to guess though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 hoping it isnt the case, but i gotta wonder .......40 yrs from now is this going to be another pgf? give us all something to talk about if we end up in the same retirement home one day i suppose. If scientists can read the dna, then it ain't fuzzy, so thats a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Couldn't Dr. Ketchum just release the information she has if no reputable journal will publish her reports? In this age of the intenet it would be impossible to suppress that knowledge and I'm sure thousands of college students would be asking their genetics profs about the info if it met the basics of proper research and scientific protocols. Once the information is out there it will be debated (look at the debates about it on here and we are not DNA experts or students of genetics or biology) and it will come to the attention of the media and major scientists will be asked about it and if the science appears to be right they will be hounded by the media and others for their comments and will not be able to ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Why would she do that rather than wait a few weeks to have it published properly? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Lol SY, I got it after I had my coffee. My one brain cell was blinking on and off. Well then that explains the hold up. She would need a hypothesis in the introduction, along with predicted results. No. She. Does. NOT! The samples are real. That is a fact. The samples were tested. That is a fact. Whatever the tests show are the results. That is a fact. There is no need to "hypothesize" or "theorize" anything. The test results are the test results. Res ipsa loquitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted April 22, 2012 Admin Share Posted April 22, 2012 (edited) I agree with Mulder in this case. There is no need for a testable hypothesis. This would be a discovery and a presentation of the evidence supporting it. Did the Denisovan's paper require a testable hypothesis? No. There should be enough material left over for the tests to be reproduced independently, but that is not the same as a formal, repeatable, testable hypothesis like say, the amount of energy from cosmic rays arriving on earth per square meter. Edited April 22, 2012 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Vil: I think you conflate the propaganda and nonscience of the fossil fuel industries, tobacco, and other toxic substance producers with the science which is being discussed here, which is largely based in universities and has much greater license to study what it chooses and how it chooses and let the chips fall where they may. MikeG among others has bemoaned the supposed distrust of science nowadays. I think the reasons for that are plain. Massive well funded (and this is documented, not conspiracy theory) propaganda from well known radio and TV outlets,as well as from certain members of congress and politicians, constantly attempting to head off attempts to decrease the pollution and other dangers created by these massively rich corporations. I recently read a great book called Blood Feud, which gives wonderful insights into the methods used by big pharma. The funding for real science as it is practiced in university settings comes from relatively neutral sources such as the university budget and grants from government agencies. Big profits are generally not the motivators (although big pharma has certainly seduced some university based medical researchers....a problem which is being addressed). The conflation of the two ("industrial" science and neutral academic science) confuses people. The academics are the folks who weigh the evidence of, say, the existence of a "bigfoot," and decide what is worthy of publication. p. I am constantly accused of improperly splitting Science into "acceptable" and "unacceptable" types by you, by Sas, et al. Yet here you are, actually doing just that: "industrial" science (which in your view is bought off, biased, and wrong), and "academic" science, which is apparently none of those things, being pure and completely objective in your view. *shakes head* Some would find it funny...I find it ineffably sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I would give it some more time and and see how things play out. Then take it from there. For all we know they could have a Sasquatch body by now lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Feel free to show us the scientific, peer-reviewed papers that show Fahrenbach, Meldrum, Krantz, et al were correct. RayG Translation: I can't meet Mulder's challenge, so it's "Deflector shields up!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Why would she do that rather than wait a few weeks to have it published properly? Mike I think you may have missed the "if" part in my post which was addressing some members points that some reputable journals may not publish her findings because of bias. I do not disagree with your point about waiting but we do have a fall-back point "if" there is some sort of institutional bias (even though I strongly disagree that there is any sort of bias). The mass communication of powerful information is essentially one click away on the internet and it is hard to suppress anything these days whether good or bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 POW! Ouch! 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. Narration: Jerrywayne's tactical officer reports: "Deflector shields failing! We can't take another shot like that!" I will (once again) point out what you continue to deliberately ignore: every encounter is unique, a once-in a lifetime confluence of time, space, and circumstances. What one person sees or doesn't see in one place at one time is not impacted by what any other person sees or doesn't see at any other place and time. The ONLY time what the second person sees or doesn't has ANY relevance whatsoever is in the case that they are in the SAME place and time as the first person. Narration: Mulder's logic torpedo strikes, punching a hole in Jerrywayne's deflectors and striking directly amidships. Consoles explode. Crew go flying every which way. Jerrywayne looks around his shattered bridge at the smoke and carnage. Over a speaker, and incoming transmission from Mulder crackles. Mulder: "Jerrywayne, your power systems are off-line. Your life support is failing. I am willing to discuss terms of your surrender." Mulder, please tell me you know the difference between a verified kill and "lots of reports to be read" on the Internet. Jerrywayne, please tell me that you understand you cannot say there is no evidence of bf being shot when bf have been reported shot. Reports ARE evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts