Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 ^That's her personal one. Her public one was removed some time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 their is only about 4 logical possibilities to the studies delay. 1 of them is that is that she is hoxing, IMO this is least probable answer. It's out of her hands now, and she is waiting like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Remember the communication "chatter" stopped before 9/11? While some of you are interpreting the reduction in "chatter" from Dr. Ketchum as signs that the study is in trouble, or it's all a hoax, etc.... I'm considering that it may be a sign that something is imminent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 It's Thursday again. Just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Today feels good. Move over, Higgs boson! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scooterdad Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Today feels good. Move over, Higgs boson! Ha Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I don't understand the second question, but I'll address the first. To me, the paradigm shift that I see people like Mulder calling for is the recognition of a species for which insufficient physical data exist to do so. Approximately 1.3 million species have been described to-date, and for every one of those there is (or was) a voucher specimen somewhere in a museum. I have never understood the relaxation of the standards of taxonomy that some people think should be applied in the case of bigfoot. If it is your position that all of the least ambiguous evidence presented to date can be interpreted as either being of humans or hoaxed by humans, then it wouldn't be a relaxed standard but one upheld on the side of caution, however wrong that might be in your eyes. If you are thinking of a potential paradigm shift in our knowledge of human evolution, I'm not sure a living hominin bigfoot in North America would bring about a paradigm shift in our understanding. It would be really cool and give anthropologists a lot to write about , but I don't think it would represent such a radical departure from how we understand things right now. It would be a hominin that did two unexpected things - dispersed to the Nearctic and survived to the present time. The far more baffling thing would be how it did that without leaving a trace of its existence. That's the part that we'd really have difficulty explaining and would require a paradigm shift. There you go. Descriptions of the evidence that proves bigfoot, along with it's DNA signature "will" shift our understanding, and prevent misinterpretation of said evidence. Many things in past archaeological findings would and should be revisited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 If it is your position that all of the least ambiguous evidence presented to date can be interpreted as either being of humans or hoaxed by humans, then it wouldn't be a relaxed standard but one upheld on the side of caution, however wrong that might be in your eyes. Huh? How could describing a species without a specimen not be interpreted as a relaxed standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Not having a specimen of an extant hominin which makes humanlike evidence is an ethical standard upheld. If that prevents the scientific standard of having a specimen (body) then so it shall be. We both agree there is a new standard in DNA which we can use to "know" it's there even if we don't have the complete physical body. I view it as a necessary path to recognition of the species, given the potential political fall out. I expect that there will be some new video or photographic evidence to be made public when this study is released. This is another standard by which species of primate have been officially recognized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Yeah that looks like the Facebook page of a scientist that has the most earth shattering and ground breaking discovery in science of the last 200 years right in her hip pocket. I guess it's too much to ask for just a tidbit, a hint or maybe even some kind of coded cryptographic message inviting her "followers" to decode it for the answer at this point. I'm hoping something comes from the British fellas or the Russians. That's where it's gonna come from the soonest, IN MY OPINION anyway. Nalajr It could be viewed that way OR it just as easily could be viewed as though she has NOTHING and never has and this has gotten into something that she vastly over promised and couldn't deliver on and now she doesn't know how to get out with a graceful exit. Isn't that an equally plausible explanation for the set of circumstances at hand? Nalajr Nalajr There was banter around at the Richland conference that Dr. Ketchum would be very upset about a different or new DNA study. A competition thing. Personally, I think she has probably has good data but...what she proposed it is might be the hang-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 ^That's her personal one. Her public one was removed some time ago. yeah, I remember that. Sorry for the confusion. Although there is a blup or two concerning BF once in awhile on the personal page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 There was banter around at the Richland conference that Dr. Ketchum would be very upset about a different or new DNA study. A competition thing. Was any of this "banter" directly in conversations with Dr. Ketchum, or was this just a bunch of people playing Speculation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 NABS says the paper will be published before any others. I think they really want it that way, but now that Oxford is in the game, it might turn out differently from what they expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Who or what is NABS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I would think Dr. Ketchum knows what Oxford is in for if they find the same DNA. Oxford seems to expect DNA that they will recognize and file accordingly into a paper they can publish, potentially as a negative study. The rabbit hole will go deeper and it will take longer if positive findings occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts