Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) Thank you .. For the compliment ..... I have migrated from a skeptical ( 98% empty ) position to a 98% full senario. The remaining 2% is a visual encounter, all other questions have been answered..... I would like to see a Bigfoot in the flesh ...... Which may happen soon ( just missed this last weekend ) I have seen and read enough to accept that statement ( a believer) with a resounding yes. There is no honor in being a skoptic,, that is proven horribly wrong, at this point in the progression of the Ketchum report. Other than that small talk ..... What say you Glad so see your following it! Edited December 23, 2012 by AaronD to remove trolling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 It's not blind faith for people who've seen. What's your explanation for those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 It's not blind faith for people who've seen. What's your explanation for those? Well..if YOU saw it...then that's all ya need. Convincing other's is another matter. Fact you saw it isn't enough for people like me..never will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Never said it was. I'm curious though, what do you hope to accomplish by going through various threads and ridiculing people that are open to the possiblity of bigfoot existing? The "blind faith", and "hook, line, and sinker" comments. . . those aren't even reasoned counters. Saskeptic you're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) Hmmm. If someone genuinely saw one, then that's good enough for me. Edited December 23, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 ^ Each iteration of revision requires peer review. We should bear this in mind when discussing how long the process takes from initiation of research to publication. There are many that think you turn it in to 3 guys with little round glass and red felt markers, and if all of them agree it's a good read without many typos, It's good to go, and really shouldn't take that long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Was watching an old episode of Seaquest on Netflix. The story is set in 2018. One character says, "Sea monsters aren't real. There's no such thing as sea monsters." The other character comes back with, "That's what they said about Bigfoot!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 So....is this paper officially dead now? I hope she just bypasses American journals and go straight to Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 There are many that think you turn it in to 3 guys with little round glass and red felt markers, and if all of them agree it's a good read without many typos, It's good to go, and really shouldn't take that long. That's pretty funny! Yeah, I have the impression that there are quite a few folks that think banging out research and writing a paper should just be a matter of a day or two. "Why golly shucks! How many days does it take to read 50 pages!!???" :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) Was watching an old episode of Seaquest on Netflix. The story is set in 2018. One character says, "Sea monsters aren't real. There's no such thing as sea monsters." The other character comes back with, "That's what they said about Bigfoot!" I think we are all kind of watching the conventional wisdoms of society ... Scientific American just published a Winter 2013 Magazine special titled, "What Makes Us Human." Airport purchase, 12$ and worth it. But, what I find most curious is the article on the evolution of hairless humans...and oddly the writer mixed the use of the type of root word..(wrong adjective, but you will get idea) every time she had an opportunity: Sentences went like this: "blah, blah... hirsute or hairless....blah, blah," ..I would write either, " hairy and hairless," or, " hirsute and non-hirsute..(or whatever is correct form on that!). She wrote well, and would know she was doing this... .if I recall rumor was Ketchum wanted to designated Bigfoots Homo hirsute or such? The last sentence of that article was a zinger : "Viewed this way, naked skin did not just cool us down - it made us human." Whoa! LOL besides a few other incredible leaps in this article this one is special! .If you read it watch for underlying assumptions about the whys of nakedness, etc. Anyway, along with the Review on accelerated regions in Human genome GenesRus sent me (thank -you!) the dialogue seems to be beginning...a tighter definition of "human?"..... I did see sometime ago a thread on this here? Or generally what makes us human? It will be a discussion of great import sometime in the future.... That potential debate is what keeps me listening...and waiting.... p.s. Did I ever mention I prefer the taxonomic designation I chose? Homo indomitus - untameable man? no glasses, I hope this icon is freindly Edited December 23, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 "I am feeling better so I will be on Coast to Coast tomorrow night. All you night owls are invited to listen. " - https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum/posts/538956526116468 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 "I am feeling better so I will be on Coast to Coast tomorrow night. All you night owls are invited to listen. " - https://www.facebook...538956526116468 link seems dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I want to be respectful: This is a bad idea. I love Coast to Coast, but it is not the forum for a for a person of science to be discussing, potentially, the biggest break through in evolutionary biology in history. For all the science bashers, go ahead and tee me up, but this is a professional and PR mistake. Let's say I'm a scientist with "SETI" and just got the signal that very well could be the definitive proof, There is no way it should be discussed on forum like that untill it has been confirmed by other professionals. I've said it before, Bigfoot proponents are their own worst enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 link seems dead? If you are a friend of Dr. Ketchum's on facebook, then the link should work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) If you are a friend of Dr. Ketchum's on facebook, then the link should work. Edited December 23, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts