Guest slimwitless Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 They're actually 135% human (by volume). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 actually I think Parn knows more than we give him credit here for, he might even be one of the profs on the review board when it is handed in....... This would be an unfortunate thing, since parn has clearly exposed his bias with blatant absolute statements prior to any review of the actual data. This puts him in the position of having to save face, or admit when he is wrong. He's clearly dodged the fact that creatures can be discovered and known about/ accepted without a body. Skepticism is not a position of certainty, especially when there's not been the opportunity to fully review the data. It still won't mean much if he comes on here to try and refute the findings when published, this isn't the place to feild his rebutals in the arena of peer review. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 They're actually 135% human (by volume). Some settling may have occurred during shipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I think Kitikaze is on the review board too. It should be absolutely impartial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 They're actually 135% human (by volume). What's sad is that you are correct. They are a little bit bigger than us less hairy humans are, perhaps 3 times an average man's weight, or is it 4 times? Then add in their amazing survival skills and they truly are a miracle..of nature. Can they be taught math and logic if they are human? Perhaps some grooming and clothing options? Can they handle matches to start fires should they wish to cook their kill? I think Kitikaze is on the review board too. It should be absolutely impartial. I'm impressed of the quality of our members who have been selected to be a part of this research. We are honored and lucky to have them as members.. However, I'm sincerely surprised that a dozen more of our members are not on these committees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) Read this sentence from Ketchum slowly,..."We are not announcing any potential journal or publication date until we are allowed to do so by the editors of the publication." 1)This sentence doesn't exclude the possibility that the paper has already been approved for publication. 2)If Ketchum had not yet submitted the paper, she would not have any editors whose permission she needed in any way: I say the paper has been submitted. 3)The sentence permits the inference that the editors of the journal may soon give their permission for the announcement of the already approved paper. 3.5)Why would Ketchum have an announcement unless she already has an approval? 4)Alas, the sentence can equally mean Ketchum doesn't yet know if the paper will be approved and published. Edited November 10, 2011 by mitchw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 You know, this is why I tend to not wax eloquent on here. The only thing I ever get accused of is being rude for being short. See people? See what I mean, limit the words, be precise, no mis-interpretation should ensue. If I had been her I would have said this: Do you want this **** thing done right? Then shut the hell up and wait. It will get done when it gets done, people. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Do you want this **** thing done right? Then shut the hell up and wait. It will get done when it gets done, people. You forgot the accompanying photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Kiss my Grits Slim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Read this sentence from Ketchum slowly,..."We are not announcing any potential journal or publication date until we are allowed to do so by the editors of the publication." 1)This sentence doesn't exclude the possibility that the paper has already been approved for publication. 2)If Ketchum had not yet submitted the paper, she would not have any editors whose permission she needed in any way: I say the paper has been submitted. 3)The sentence permits the inference that the editors of the journal may soon give their permission for the announcement of the already approved paper. 3.5)Why would Ketchum have an announcement unless she already has an approval? 4)Alas, the sentence can equally mean Ketchum doesn't yet know if the paper will be approved and published. Agreed why would she state the paper was not Nature unless it has already been turned down by them or already accepted by another. It seems she would limit her future choices by that statement. Also, why is she now making comment about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I heard a rumor that the paper had been rejected by one journal and submitted to a second. I was told the second should publish. Anyone sitting on a killer video? That would probably speed things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 This would be an unfortunate thing, since parn has clearly exposed his bias with blatant absolute statements prior to any review of the actual data. This puts him in the position of having to save face, or admit when he is wrong. He's clearly dodged the fact that creatures can be discovered and known about/ accepted without a body. Skepticism is not a position of certainty, especially when there's not been the opportunity to fully review the data. It still won't mean much if he comes on here to try and refute the findings when published, this isn't the place to feild his rebutals in the arena of peer review. Not that Parn needs defending HOWEVER, NO creature has been proven via DNA evidence without some sort of physical evidence as well . (a bone, a fossil , a tooth a skeleton...etc) UNLESS it was merely a sub species of an existing animal ( a new kind of rat snake, a new kind of chicken turtle, a new kind of pig frog, a new kind of lemur ...etc) Just having a DNA profile that doesn't match Chimps, Orangs, Gorillas, or humans is going to be a smoking gun. It isn't. It's just going to be a limb that leads from point A to point B. Chimps share like over 98% of OUR DNA!!! if the results come back and are similar it may not be the slam dunk we wish for. It may say that "well it shares these traits that mosts animals share, and these traits humans share, yet it looks different than humans.... we don't know what it is..) The fact that they don't KNOW what it is doesn't scream BIGFOOT!!!! (and that doesn't mean that Ketchum is wrong either) I can have a human Vs human DNA test to see if I killed my girlfriend. They can determine I didn't do it. They can't always tell that species A of snake is different than species B of snake via DNA. They use things like scale count, patter formation,habitat and amount of specimens per area to determine that. Darwins Finches on the Galapogos are often genetically similar to the 1/100th of a %, but they have adapted differently. They have different species names they have different ways of feeding..etc. BUT we know what a Darwins Finch is, so we have a true baseline. When it comes to Sasquatch, the baseline may be us. any differences will take years to work out without a type specimen. Well I hope my paragraph of pain helped a bit to decipher this DNA maelstrom! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 If they are as human as parn says they are then dna is the only way they should be proven. We don't kill indigenous people just to prove they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LissingMinx Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 If they are as human as parn says they are then dna is the only way they should be proven. We don't kill indigenous people just to prove they exist anymore. fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) If they are as human as parn says they are then dna is the only way they should be proven. We don't kill indigenous people just to prove they exist. Hmmm I says whaaa ?? !! Shorter parnassus: 1. The DNA that Ketchum has is human (except for known animals), And 2. I agree with Saskeptic that the popular list of Bigfoot features excludes the possibility that it could have human DNA. Here is the win win win outcome: Ketchum says " no bigfoot DNA yet and that is because Bigfoot is rare and evasive and we just have to keep looking. " The only loser on this would be Paulides. Edited November 10, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts