The Ketchum Report

[Guest thermalman]

Look'em up J. See what I mean? Brightest star is Sirius, "The Dog Star".

Edited January 28, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

My mistake. I forgot that Polaris was the North Star. Regardless, any astronomer will tell you that Sirius is the brightest. Polaris being brightest is a cultural myth.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest thermalman]

The Big Bang theory explains how the universe was created or began to exist. The reality: The Big Bang theory extrapolates from our observations about the present universe that the early universe underwent a massive, rapid expansion that has continued to this day. Some people have interpreted the data to postulate that time, space, matter and energy had a beginning in the finite past, but the central value of the Big Bang theory is the explanation of the early expansion of the universe -- not how the universe came into being. Another theory dead in the mud.

The Coriolis effect is what determines the clockwise or counterclockwise rotation of water in a flushed toilet. The reality: Sadly, this is one of the rare instances in which Lisa Simpson gets the science wrong. In the sixth-season Simpsons episode "Bart vs. Australia," Lisa educates her brother on the Coriolis effect, which she claims causes water to drain counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern. This is not really true. The Coriolis effect is the name for an inertial force that determines the trajectory of objects moving within a rotating frame of reference. For example, it helps us understand how the rotation of the Earth affects the movement of weather patterns. The amount of water in your toilet is too small to be affected by Coriolis. Do you need more Jerry?

So, until the peer review is done on Ketchum's report, all the gossip, rumors and skeptical theories are myths with no value and dead in the water.

Edited January 28, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

Another theory dead in the mud

But what's your point?

Science provides us with the civilization we have....all the technological advances of the 20th century are predicated on science.

Theories are MEANT to be TEMPORARY and will eventually be supplanted by more comprehensive and rigorous theories. That doesn't mean that current modles are dead in the *MUD*. The Model of evolution is valid....it may be supplanted by more sophisticated models in the future.

BF has yet to be scientifically demonstrated to exist...and no argument you can proffer will trump that fact.

Ketchum study is doomed to failure..in my opinion..because, at a MINIMUM, it will not demonstrate the PROVENANCE required of the samples tested.

Edited January 28, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest thermalman]

Evolutional theory has been built on total speculation and error filled dating. My point being, theorys are just that, theorys. They shouldn't be forced or taught as truth until unequivably proven.

[Guest]

Nothing in science is unequivocal or absolute. WHY? There ARE no absolute truths in the world of observation.

Mathematics, however, is absolute..why? It's inherently LOGICAL. "If equals are added to equals, the sums are equal". That is unequivocal and can NEVER be refuted. Science is NOT LOGIC per se..it examins EMPIRICAL phenomena and tries to deduce various conclusions from those observations. It will use mathematics as a tool (this the beauty of physics)..just as Newton did...but, the conclusions and theories derived from these observations are NOT unequivocal nor forever lasting. I'm done for now.

Edited January 28, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest thermalman]

yay and thank you

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Evolution would take thousands of years to test, but it's about as close to fact as science comes! Btw, anyone listen to the two interviews with Professor Todd Disotell? He was very skeptical of Dr. Ketchum's claim, but also expressed his opinion on why Dr. Ketchum's human-ape hybrid theory is totally plausible.

[Guest]

Just keep in mind..your THERMAL IMAGE only exists because SCIENCE and SCIENTIFIC observation made it possible

The only question is...is that *Image* a BF?

Edited January 28, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest thermalman]

No its not. Its my bro.

[Guest]

Evolution would take thousands of years to test, but it's about as close to fact as science comes! Btw, anyone listen to the two interviews with Professor Todd Disotell? He was very skeptical of Dr. Ketchum's claim, but also expressed his opinion on why Dr. Ketchum's human-ape hybrid theory is totally plausible.

Not within the 15K year time frame. Show me where Disotell says human-ape hybrid is possible under Ketchum's thesis.

No its not. Its my bro.

LOL..COOL.

[Guest]

My only problem with skepticism is when they come to the predetermined conclusion that Dr Ketchum is wrong, or hoaxing, or incompetent, or a lunatic,and I find it absolutely incredible, that the skeptics, who have not seen her work, expect us to discount it, because it is delayed. I don't think its a question of supporters of her work,its more of a not willing to dismiss so readily based on delays, character assignation, and the insistence of self proclaimed internet skeptics. As long as there are people out there who are involved with sending samples, and part of the s study, who are still patiently waiting, then so shall I.

hey john - agreed that pre-determined conclusions about her work in the absence of any work to evaluate are about as useful as a tire pump in canoe.

the problem i have (as somebody who'll judge the work on its merits), is the nagging concern that the haphazard PR, the repeated promises of "soon" that don't come to fruition, and the concern that parallel testing has given rise to a divergent result, are factors that don't militate in favor of work consistent with a professionalism that will leave no doubt as to the merits of her results. maybe her work will come, maybe it will be soon, and maybe the science therein will be airtight, but i think there's a few circumstances here that raise concerns and that until proven otherwise, those concerns have a degree of validity.

[Oonjerah]

I am reminded of the old saying, "90% of life is showing up."

I'll interpret showing up to mean: We present ourselves in a way that most people

can understand and validate.

Some people can do the work, and do it quite well if we leave them alone in their

comfort zone. But when they show up, their appearance is not as we expected. What

they say and do seems contradictory. We think, "What is wrong with that person?"

and raise a red flag.

In this particular case, all I know is: I don't know what's going on or what to expect.

It's my expectations that are the problem here.

[Guest]

Scientific consensus on a subject is known to be challenged and reconsidered. What happens with consensus is that it forms an accepted paradigm based upon a theory and backed by observation. What disrupts this are observations that do not fit into an existing paradigm. When there are many observations and points of data to be considered, a new theory and thus new paradigm must be examined. The existence of Sasquatch is a major challenge to an accepted paradigm. Still, that does not give reason to wholly discount subjective observation. There is more than enough data now to warrant investigation. That is what amateurs, hunters, citizen scientists and the odd prof has been clamoring for. But the skeptics and mainstream science argue from a comfortable vantage point within an accepted paradigm and old paradigms are hard to die as is illustrated in this video on paradigm shifts:

[Guest]

Its my bro.

Is he not heavy?