Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 My guess is that several blogs will have this show on their sites tomorrow, but if not I have found this guy's uploads useful :http://www.youtube.com/user/Boomdaddy00/videos?view=1&flow=grid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) See. Its easy! Have you seen the study? What facts do you have to offer as evidence that the study is flawed? Fish or cut bait, rockie. Finally someone who understands that wikipedia is not a good place to get information from. Always check the source . Actually, it's an excellent way to get an overview of a topic. Yes you should check the "root sources" but nothing about wikki automatically invalidates it as an intermediate source. Edited December 24, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Have you seen the study? What facts do you have to offer as evidence that the study is flawed? Fish or cut bait, rockie No i havent seen it. Why do you think it's flawed? Have you seen the study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) 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....ki/Homo_heidel… I found this link interesting too: Four species of Homo You've never heard of Part II http://blogs.smithso...d-of-part-ii-2/ Edited December 24, 2012 by Skunkfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 My guess is that several blogs will have this show on their sites tomorrow, but if not I have found this guy's uploads useful :http://www.youtube.c...iew=1&flow=grid Thanks Apehuman and Guy in Indiana...I am sure you are right that someone will have the show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Did Dr. Ketchum say last week that the paper has passed peer review? No, Dr. Ketchum has not confirmed peer review has been passed, only that she has addressed the issues from peer review and the paper has been resubmitted. However, on her FB page on 12/8/12 Linda Sedlak said it was "out of peer review" and would publish "sooner than later". LS may or may not be well informed, but it is interesting to note she is close to Dr. Ketchum and used to be her PR person and her comments were not corrected by Dr. Ketchum or the new PR person. Therefore I conclude.... .... it is all confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 BFSleuth: ".... it is all confused." I know I'm confused. If you are, too ... thanks for the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Got to say Ketchum's Coast to Coast interview is worth the listen, all 2+ hours. No big announcements but some good perspective information. When listening, I recommend not expecting to be provided answers about the study but rather look for the answers as to why she's doing all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 She inspires confidence and respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) I think melba did a great job with the interview, George is a good interviewer. It, answered many questions, and you can see that she was told she could answer some stuff but cannot talk about the data itself, Witch makes sense. Edited December 24, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Halfway through it. Couple nuggets so far. 1. Eluded to 2 bad apples early on in the study. Stubstad and I am assuming Biscardi? Also one of the bad leakers was s gentleman wanting to make a documentary- Erickson. 2. Confirmation. It is still in peer review. 3. Regrets taking the study on. Said if she could go back she wouldn't want anything to do with it. Also seems to be closer to scrapping it and just releasing her info to get it out. I think she knows what we have all known. It'll never pass peer review. Open it up for the public to see! Release the vids! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 I think she knows what we have all known. It'll never pass peer review. Huh? Well, I guess anyone can make a blanket statement of "knowing" an outcome based on no information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steenburg Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 I have to say I just finished listening to her interview on coast to coast, and was pleased how she put to rest, (|t least in my opinion) some of the wilder accusations which have been thrown at her. So many now its hard to keep track. Also glad to hear her say that not all of the samples worked on all came out legit. Some were submitted by people, {Not named of course} who have been exposed for hoaxing evidence in the past. I think I know some of them. I must say I am still confused as to how one can claim Sasquatch DNA when there is no Sasquatch to compare with, Also I am surprised on her stance on the human vs ape argument being a scientist and knowing that in the zoological seance, as well as the anthropological seance Humans are apes? Now folks I will just say again perhaps we should wait to see if her report passes per review, and read the report ourselves before strongly coming out on one side or the other. That is what I am waiting for. The fact which has caught my interest in this report is not so much what she says the Sasquatch is, but that she says they are in fact there. I want to read the final report before I draw a firm conclusion. Thomas Steenburg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Slueth, I'm listening to the interview now. Her words is my source. Give a listen. You can hear her tone and her words indicate she knows the jig is up. Just about to get juicy. Commercial now then the "what if" it doesn't pass. Also coming up- asking her about other studies in the rest if the world. I e Sykes. Just said if it doesn't pass she will release her info on a site for all to see. Gripes about old school and the process. Cites her info against a recent finding of a new monkey species being published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) All we can do is continue to point to fact and refute misinformation. We certainly don't need to be carrying water for the other side by buying into bogus arguments like the "BBB proves Ketchum is shady" nonsense. This "information" has already hit a number of blogs outside this community - and they sure didn't get my help. Who is buying into anything? I asked about this information - which is how people learn things. I am not going to apologize for asking questions. Not asking questions and simply buying into anything is the worst thing any of us could do. For or against... No one is suggesting you are, Melissa. But when you add to the misinformation by citing things that aren't relevant you become part of the problem rather than the solution. Yes actually you are. Again - neither you, I or anyone else in this community gets to decide what those outside this community thinks is relevant or even worthy of conversation. The BBB conversation doesn't bother me nearly as much as some of the things she has said. If you see a lightening storm on the horizon do you stand there and wait for it to strike you where you stand - or do you go inside and protect yourself? If it were me, I would get my backside in doors.. If I had friends with me and did not see the impending storm - I would hope they would get me inside. Pretending it isn't there won't make it go away. History should tell you - the information we release and what is discussed about the person are always two different things. I noticed you said nothing about Patterson and what he went through - or what Bob Gimlin goes through today even though he has explained fully. Edited December 24, 2012 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts