Guest Peter O. Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I'm pretty sure you know exactly what they discussed because I think you are one of them. If OntarioSquatch was a Robert Lindsey, we'd have caught on by now. Besides, if there were more Robert Lindseys, there'd be enough Dark Matter to collapse the universe. Or is he a nature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Lindsay wouldn't collapse a universe, but rather cause it to burst apart at the seams. I know I've a difficult time getting far enough from him. I pull leeches from me when they start sucking blood, and I feel no differently about robert's spiel. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 You can determine that the specimen comes from an uncatalogued hominin and a member of a particular genus and that it was hairy since the specimens (most of them) are hair. If you have sufficient divergence and collaboration across the specimens you would have a new species or hybrids that have never been sequenced before. If you combine that with photo's and video footage taken from the same areas you can definately describe the creature, even if it is unethical to actually put a complete body on the table. If it is from the genus homo then there are boundries that have to be respected. We simply don't commit homicide for the sake of science. If bigfooters are left to find a new hominin in our midst then it will be bigfoot , period. Lots of hair samples means the creatures were/are hairy? That does not make sense. Maybe they have almost no body hair but like to have long head hair like the Cree? Since when does a photo or video of something in the area of a sample mean that according to scientific standards the sample must be from the photo'd something? Hopefully what you are saying has nothing to do with the "logic" that Ketchum is trying to use in her paper or DC Comics wouldn't even publish it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Lots of hair samples means the creatures were/are hairy? That does not make sense. Maybe they have almost no body hair but like to have long head hair like the Cree? If the hair is from the cree then we will know that. Since when does a photo or video of something in the area of a sample mean that according to scientific standards the sample must be from the photo'd something? It's corroborating evidence, you can't hoax the sample providing DNA, and with that the two pieces of evidence are stronger. Hopefully what you are saying has nothing to do with the "logic" that Ketchum is trying to use in her paper or DC Comics wouldn't even publish it. Photo's and DNA are used all the time in scientific documentation of species. Logic says it can prove a new hominin exists. Why else would skeptics cry about better evidence of that type? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 ^ Can you provide some examples to back up your point? I am only aware of one new species identified & documented using photo and DNA and that was fairly recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Yes. I would like to share that having a unique DNA sample that cannot be unerringly attributed to a physical specimen cannot be used to describe a physical specimen. What part of that do you not understand? The unique DNA could belong to a hominid that is 3 feet tall and hairless because you CANNOT extrapolate DNA information into a physical description. Period. End of story. Capice? I'm just curious, are you related to Parnassus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 ^ No but I do have a graduate degree in Philosophy and I understand what logic is and how to use it. I also have the ability to research various subjects that interest me or that I am seeking an answer to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Don't let's fall into the trap of talking abut each other again, folks. Nor about ex members. This falls under the heading of "off-topic", and we're here to discuss the Ketchum Report. Veiled accusations of false identities aren't for the open forum, either. If anyone has such suspicions, then please PM them direct to an Admin. Thank you. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 ^ Can you provide some examples to back up your point? I am only aware of one new species identified & documented using photo and DNA and that was fairly recently. Are you talking about documentation or proof of a new species? It depends on how much and the quality doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Does it have 23 or 24 pairs of chromosomes? Edited July 23, 2012 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 You'd have to ask Dr. Ketchum, or just read the paper when it publishes. That is a good question to ask though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Are you talking about documentation or proof of a new species? It depends on how much and the quality doesn't it? Are they not the same thing? I thought this was the bottom line from the beginning and Ketchum's motivation for the paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 "The manuscript is NOT at the Nature Group! How many times do I have to say this? There is no pub date yet! Those pics are not real either, it looks like the hair is mounted on something fake (or tanned) and it really looks more like tanned coyote hide. The morphology is wrong for BF hair. Talk about grasping at straws. I wish people would stop bombarding me with emails every time all this fiction gets posted but that is all it is, fiction. Geez.... Ok, now that I have responded this time, this is the last post I am going to comment on the subject of this blog....and I am not going to waste my time answering any emails on it either. Just know, whatever that blog says as it pertains to ANYTHING we are doing or know, it is NOT true and I will not address this again. There are no leaks from our group and NOBODY, even the submitters, know anything at this time as the dynamics of the study have radically changed. I have way too much to do to than to answer a lot of emails. I don't want to be rude and not answer so I am posting this as an answer to all. Please do not expect anything further until the paper is released. Thanks everyone and I appreciate the support." https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum/posts/475859872426134 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 How many times to you have to say it? Well, dozens of times if you have nothing to back it up. Only once if you can substantiate what you say. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 If she doesn't have a pub date, how can she know the paper is going to be published in 2012? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts