Guest Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Of course you realize Martin, there are kangaroo's loose in the states,and one of the most likely places to see one is Florida. Many animals have been released or escaped in Florida, and thrived. As a matter of fact I recall hearing an old story of a zoo that turned many animals loose on purpose when it closed years ago. If your friend is as sound as you say, then he probably saw kangaroo's in his yard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 This thread will be a historical document of sorts no matter how this plays out...although one of greater significance if Ketchum delivers. I've had that thought before. It'll be interesting to see what happens no matter what it is. I'm hoping for BF but who knows. ....Application Title: A New Contemporary Feral Species of Hominin.... Um, wouldn't any non-human hominin necessarily be 'feral'? What would that even mean in a Homo context? Non-tool-using and living without fire or other accoutrements of civilization, even though H. erectus used fire and stone tools? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Let's revisit this: http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/01/breaking-sasquatch-tribe-revealed.html Folks here are saying this document is not important because Dr. Ketchum has stated her study superseded her early appraisal of the evidence. So, according to advocate interpretation of what has transpired, Dr. Ketchum originally believed the evidence pointed to a modern tribe of 100% human whose phenotype has been appreciably altered by certain genetic mutations, but eventually, with deeper analysis, the DNA pitched a "curve-ball" and Dr. Ketchum and company now have the real truth, Bigfoot are a new species of feral hominins. Now, the question needs to be asked: why was Dr. Ketchum apparently willing to go with a 100% human Bigfoot initially? Was it because she found consistent mutations in the samples and also accepted such things as the California kills story and the Kentucky habituation videos at face value? Or was it because her case was "interesting" enough for her to think she could finesse Bigfoot as 100% human? Or was she predetermined to find Bigfoot in the samples? And what changed? Or has anything really changed but the language? If she converted 100% human DNA into Bigfoot DNA, might she also have converted 100% human DNA into DNA of feral hominins? I'm not implying fraud. I'm thinking more in terms of emphasis or moving the data in the direction of a more Bigfoot friendly outcome, verbally and conceptually. I might be naive, but I don't see fraud here. If the report does not advance the case for Bigfoot, it may be because the data is ambiguous enough to be interesting, but not strong enough to hold up, and the hoped for outcome strengthened the interesting part and was blind to the weak part. Edited May 16, 2012 by jerrywayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Now, the question needs to be asked: why was Dr. Ketchum apparently willing to go with a 100% human Bigfoot initially? Could it just be that current DNA tests would pick up any close hominin as H. sapiens? There was something mentioned about developing "DNA primers" whatever that is. Once this was done, perhaps she was able to pick up the actual differences. Differences which mainstream tests would not test for, because, for one thing, 'mainstream science' assumes that there are no other extant hominins that have to be differentiated in a DNA test. Edited May 16, 2012 by Peter O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 The only problem with the kangaroo vs Sasquatch logic is there haven't been thousands of sightings of kangaroos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Yet there is kangaroo roadkill and some pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Let's revisit this: http://bigfooteviden...e-revealed.html Folks here are saying this document is not important because Dr. Ketchum has stated her study superseded her early appraisal of the evidence. So, according to advocate interpretation of what has transpired, Dr. Ketchum originally believed the evidence pointed to a modern tribe of 100% human whose phenotype has been appreciably altered by certain genetic mutations, but eventually, with deeper analysis, the DNA pitched a "curve-ball" and Dr. Ketchum and company now have the real truth, Bigfoot are a new species of feral hominins. Now, the question needs to be asked: why was Dr. Ketchum apparently willing to go with a 100% human Bigfoot initially? Was it because she found consistent mutations in the samples and also accepted such things as the California kills story and the Kentucky habituation videos at face value? Or was it because her case was "interesting" enough for her to think she could finesse Bigfoot as 100% human? Or was she predetermined to find Bigfoot in the samples? And what changed? Or has anything really changed but the language? If she converted 100% human DNA into Bigfoot DNA, might she also have converted 100% human DNA into DNA of feral hominins? I'm not implying fraud. I'm thinking more in terms of emphasis or moving the data in the direction of a more Bigfoot friendly outcome, verbally and conceptually. I might be naive, but I don't see fraud here. If the report does not advance the case for Bigfoot, it may be because the data is ambiguous enough to be interesting, but not strong enough to hold up, and the hoped for outcome strengthened the interesting part and was blind to the weak part. I think I could help you make more sense of it. but nda prohibits. I am looking forward to the day when the paper is out and Dr. Ketchum herself can explain how conclusions could change, but this is exactly what scientists do when their data is still coming in and bringing more revelations. More data means a better picture of the truth. It could have been less definitive , yet consistent data that lead to early acceptance and persistence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Could it just be that current DNA tests would pick up any close hominin as H. sapiens? There was something mentioned about developing "DNA primers" whatever that is. Once this was done, perhaps she was able to pick up the actual differences. Differences which mainstream tests would not test for, because, for one thing, 'mainstream science' assumes that there are no other extant hominins that have to be differentiated in a DNA test. That's how I read it. Assuming everyone is being honest, it's the only scenario that satisfactorily explains the various twists and turns in this saga. In other words, it sounds like she was thrown a curve ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted May 16, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 16, 2012 I don't understand how anyone is not skeptical. Big-time bf proof claims haven't panned out once yet. Everyone should be a little skeptical at this juncture. IMO <-- not a policy, just my opinion. Some people have seen them. Once that is done there is no longer room for skepticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Some people have seen them. Once that is done there is no longer room for skepticism. For certain. Heck, I haven't seen one at all, but know they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Um, wouldn't any non-human hominin necessarily be 'feral'? What would that even mean in a Homo context? Wildman? Feral definition. 1. existing in a natural state, as animals or plants; not domesticated or cultivated; wild. 2. having reverted to the wild state, as from domestication: a pack of feral dogs roaming the woods. 3. of or characteristic of wild animals; ferocious; brutal. If I use number 3 I could arrive at a "brute in human form" also known as the Yahoo http://www.etymonlin...searchmode=none Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Some people have seen them. Once that is done there is no longer room for skepticism. I once saw what I would have sworn was a bigfoot... until I got closer and saw it was a bush/small tree. What we see/interpret is not always accurate. Heck, I haven't seen one at all, but know they exist. You know they exist? How so? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Salubrious saw 2 of em like at 10 feet so he may feel that chances of misidentification were very small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) I know they exist, yet am still a little skeptical. People who hoard information that should be shared with everyone make me a little leery. If she were a little more professional, it would help alleviate most of my concerns. She strikes me as high-drama, and someone who desperately wants to be famous. Edited May 16, 2012 by PacNWSquatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted May 16, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted May 16, 2012 Some people have seen them. Once that is done there is no longer room for skepticism. Which leads to frustration, which leads to warning level increases.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts