southernyahoo Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Dang SY your starting to sound like this... No , I think Melba intends to let you see it, published & passed or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) I have been reading through various threads, and even forums, and I have noticed a trend. There are a lot of skeptics, and even believers saying that Melba's stories of seeing Bigfoot, participating in habituation surveillance claims, etc are going to hurt her case, and threaten her integrity in the minds of science. They scoff, and feel she is making a fool of herself,etc. This is kind of off topic I know, but I just want to offer up an alternative point of view. It only hurts her case, or makes her look a fool,etc, if its not true, and not documented. If it is true, and its documented, as part of showing provenance of some of the samples, then its a whole different ball game isn't it? I wonder if she is not a little wiser then some would give her credit for. Even the fact that she recently moved, could be a change made getting ready to deal with this. I think painting her as a dummy, or a romantic could be a little misguided. Sorry this is a little off topic, but I thought it was an appropriate spot to post this, if you disagree,please remove it. Edited November 26, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Sigh... Still waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I hope Dr. Sykes has a thick skin if his study ha similiar results lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 If Ketchums results can be proven with the release of the science behind it, she wont need a thick skin. The out cry on here by self proclaimed internet skeptics probably means nothing to her. I doubt she reads this forum, and I really doubt she reads Jreff, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I think I can clear this up: "non-human" = non Homo Sapiens Sapiens "non-ape" = hominid "non-archaic hominid" = no KNOWN archaic hominid. So the better way to put this would be: hybrid of human and new, previously undocumented species of near-human hominid And the long knives will be out and razor sharp for this one. Cervelo is either not understanding or refusing to understand how gene sequences work. There are billions of people on the planet, true, but not one of them would ever show up genetically as anything less than purely 100% H Sapiens Sapiens regardless of race, gender or individual genetic mutations. Two questions. Why would you assume "near-human hominid?" Ketchum's press release states the paternal "DNA is more distantly removed from humans than other recently discovered hominins like the Denisovan individual." Of course, Ketchum's imprecise language is not helping, given that she says it has "non-human" DNA; hominin considered Homo would be considered "human," and anything further back, australapithicina (genera), would be unlikely to mate and produce fertile offspring with modern humans. And, is it not true that many people of European descent (if not all) have a small percentage of neanderthal DNA, so that they would not be "purely 100%" modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens? Or am I just picking a nit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I have been reading through various threads, and even forums, and I have noticed a trend. There are a lot of skeptics, and even believers saying that Melba's stories of seeing Bigfoot, participating in habituation surveillance claims, etc are going to hurt her case, and threaten her integrity in the minds of science. They scoff, and feel she is making a fool of herself,etc. This is kind of off topic I know, but I just want to offer up an alternative point of view. It only hurts her case, or makes her look a fool,etc, if its not true, and not documented. If it is true, and its documented, as part of showing provenance of some of the samples, then its a whole different ball game isn't it? I wonder if she is not a little wiser then some would give her credit for. Even the fact that she recently moved, could be a change made getting ready to deal with this. I think painting her as a dummy, or a romantic could be a little misguided. Sorry this is a little off topic, but I thought it was an appropriate spot to post this, if you disagree,please remove it. I agree entirely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clubbedfoot Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Can't "Ketch'em" Report.....just beating the sceptards....just have a feeling this is not going to go well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Hopefully this is just one of those examples of science being dragged kicking and screaming out of one its little dark comfort zones into the light of reality. We have seen example after example of it. Science is a wonderful thing, and a blessing to us all, but the minds of science resist unexpected change, and hate to see old accepted hypothesis that have come to be accepted as fact, take a kick in the bread basket. I think Mulder has tried to explain that to us before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 The time frame of 15,000 years seems odd. How long ago were the land bridges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 18,000 years ago (the best guess, but everyone says between 70,000 to 11,000) from Asia to North America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Hopefully this is just one of those examples of science being dragged kicking and screaming out of one its little dark comfort zones into the light of reality. We have seen example after example of it. Science is a wonderful thing, and a blessing to us all, but the minds of science resist unexpected change, and hate to see old accepted hypothesis that have come to be accepted as fact, take a kick in the bread basket. I think Mulder has tried to explain that to us before. True. Even in my life time Scientific "Truth" has changed many time as new discoveries have been made. I have never ever heard a scientist admit they were just plain wrong and apologize to millions of school children for teaching them something terribly incorrect. The march of science just sort of show up magically in new science books...... generational knowledge is differential unneccesarily, too much pride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I have been reading through various threads, and even forums, and I have noticed a trend. There are a lot of skeptics, and even believers saying that Melba's stories of seeing Bigfoot, participating in habituation surveillance claims, etc are going to hurt her case, and threaten her integrity in the minds of science. They scoff, and feel she is making a fool of herself,etc. This is kind of off topic I know, but I just want to offer up an alternative point of view. It only hurts her case, or makes her look a fool,etc, if its not true, and not documented. If it is true, and its documented, as part of showing provenance of some of the samples, then its a whole different ball game isn't it? I wonder if she is not a little wiser then some would give her credit for. Even the fact that she recently moved, could be a change made getting ready to deal with this. I think painting her as a dummy, or a romantic could be a little misguided. Sorry this is a little off topic, but I thought it was an appropriate spot to post this, if you disagree,please remove it. I would say that the problem with any claim of habituation and witnessing habituated Bigfoot is that you have all the evidence before you, and you know where to find all that evidence, and yet you produce no evidence (other than unsubstantiated anecdote.) Yes, that is discrediting. The time frame of 15,000 years seems odd. How long ago were the land bridges? And the hybridization allegedly began in the part of the world now Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) Unless of course you realize that the next best thing to a type specimen, is DNA with proper provenance and study, and documentation. Film, pictures, etc have proven to be ignored or ridiculed. I am sure she did not think this would take five years. She probably underestimated the resistance, and the magnitude of her findings. If what she claims is true, this is a giant leap from Goodall finding the mountain gorilla's, and a private study to boot. Why would she prematurely attempt to introduce evidence, rather than take the time needed to do it right? If the science stands behind her findings, this is not small thing jerrywayne, this is revolutionary. It completely upsets our anthropological views, our understanding of humanity, and mess's up science's homo exclusive club. Premature release, partial findings, that would be discrediting, not our impatience. Edited November 26, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I would say that the problem with any claim of habituation and witnessing habituated Bigfoot is that you have all the evidence before you, and you know where to find all that evidence, and yet you produce no evidence (other than unsubstantiated anecdote.) Yes, that is discrediting. And the hybridization allegedly began in the part of the world now Europe. That what I was getting at, I am just wonder how we got Yowies here in OZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts