Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Instead of fussing over where Dr.K is speaking, given the ''leak'' regarding the mother's origin's I'd be looking into some of the transitional Neanderthal skeletal finds and the fact currently they are pushing the neander timeline closer to ours. In looking at the foot structure and toe alignments in surviving tracks their foot most closely appears to match the BF castings collected to date. Visually anyways. Anyone who thought googling Neanderthal foot-bones wqs sexy or fun needs to give it a go! I also came across a listing of all Neanderthal remains, and was suprised to find there are ''transitional'' Neander remains, being a layperson, to me, this only mean's Dr.K in using the word hybrid instead of transitional might have been where things derailed in our reading of things. At some point the genetic's is going to have to line up in placing BF into the archeological timeline, without understanding the timeline, most of the commentary is pointless. [jmo] Currently there are 3 populations recognized within the designation Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. [ I may have said that wrong] To Muddy things further is..http://answers.yahoo...07042051AAxbQZH ''.this leaves us with at least 5 subspecies of humans (homo sapiens) 1) homo sapiens sapiens (Modern Humans) 2) homo sapiens idaltu 3) homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) 4) Denisovans (they lack a scientific name, so let's call them "homo sapiens denisova" for now) 5) homo sapiens heidelbergensis PS: this leaves us also with the possibility of homo antecessor also being a subspecies of homo sapiens.'' Regardless of who's study is published first, backround in this is going to be critical in understanding the discussion. additionally, and preemptively found this... "According to Professor Lee R. Berger of the University of Witwatersrand, numerous fossil bones indicate some populations of Heidelbergensis were "giants" routinely over 2.13 m (7 ft) tall " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidel… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Thanks for the links, grayjay. Interesting reading. Sorry to hear that you were booted from the other facebook page. I take it you aren't on Ketchum's page either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Tomorrow would be a great day for this to drop.... Couldn't think of a better gift for Christmas! If it's real that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) 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. Yup. Again a bad move PR wise. I really don't wish for failure but I would really really hate for the science/data to spot on perfect and things like this ruin it's chances to be taken seriously. Edited December 23, 2012 by rockiessquatching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 And according to her facebook page she is presently working on giant skeletons. Hmmmmm!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Is that right that you have to pay for a membership to C2C to listen to any of the shows? Not staying up that late even for Bigfoot . ; D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Hmmm is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Last I knew -- couple years ago -- you could still listen to it on your Radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) The Ketchum study will be put to the same scrutiny as any other scientific endeavor. If you belive that, I've got some ocean-front property in the deep Sahara going cheap... Edited December 23, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Last I knew -- couple years ago -- you could still listen to it on your Radio. For me that is 1 am, I used to do that after a night out, not happening now,lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Instead of fussing over where Dr.K is speaking, given the ''leak'' regarding the mother's origin's Something new? I seem to have missed it... Yup. Again a bad move PR wise. I really don't wish for failure but I would really really hate for the science/data to spot on perfect and things like this ruin it's chances to be taken seriously. If the science is sound it MUST be taken seriously if scientists are to retain any shred of credibility whatsoever. It wouldn't matter if she were being interviewed by Pat Robertson or some Scientiologist (not that either is likely to happen), whom she chooses to speak to about her work is not relevant to the quality of the work itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) If you belive that, I've got some ocean-front property in the deep Sahara going cheap... Now you have a built in excuse in case her report isn't supported by other scientists. Edited December 23, 2012 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) .. . . ..http://answers.yahoo...07042051AAxbQZH ''.this leaves us with at least 5 subspecies of humans (homo sapiens) 1) homo sapiens sapiens (Modern Humans) 2) homo sapiens idaltu 3) homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) 4) Denisovans (they lack a scientific name, so let's call them "homo sapiens denisova" for now) 5) homo sapiens heidelbergensis PS: this leaves us also with the possibility of homo antecessor also being a subspecies of homo sapiens.'' Regardless of who's study is published first, backround in this is going to be critical in understanding the discussion. additionally, and preemptively found this... "According to Professor Lee R. Berger of the University of Witwatersrand, numerous fossil bones indicate some populations of Heidelbergensis were "giants" routinely over 2.13 m (7 ft) tall " http://en.wikipedia....ki/Homo_heidel… You guys do realize Yahoo Answers and Wikipedia aren't really the ideal place to source facts. Case in point . Interesting to note, guess what the source for this answer is? Edited December 23, 2012 by Marlboro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Something new? I seem to have missed it... If the science is sound it MUST be taken seriously if scientists are to retain any shred of credibility whatsoever. It wouldn't matter if she were being interviewed by Pat Robertson or some Scientiologist (not that either is likely to happen), whom she chooses to speak to about her work is not relevant to the quality of the work itself. If someone has to release their scientific findings to those kind of platforms than it does may people question the validity of the report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 It is the totality of the stuff that has been said, off the scientific subject, that hurts the credibilty of this study. No matter what is published, it is deminished by going on shows that discuss every paranormal subject under the sun. It is probably too late, but the question should have been, from day one of this project. Do I want to be famous in the Bigfoot world or go down in the annuals of great discovery? I now lean towards the science is not good. This seems like a desperate attempt to extend someones 15 minutes of fame. I too hope still to be proven wrong. I want talk to Pat Robertson or Scientology, given the rules of this forum, but they would be better subject matter for Coast to Coast than a serious scientific topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts