Cotter Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I could, do you never do your own research? This is not difficult. Meldrum addressed this issue several times as well,. It isn't a hidden secret, all it requires is 3 minutes and a ture desire to know the truth! I appreciate your help and willingness to back up your claims. I've done 2 searches "Brian Sykes Unknown Hair" and "Brian Sykes Clears Up Unknown Hair" (the latter your claim). I could not find it in 20 minutes of internet searching, clicking and searching each link on the first 2 pages of google search. I've heard several people claim this, but not provide a link. I can only assume now that you are mistaken about Sykes recanting the original statement that hair had come back unknown originally, then with further testing, was identified. Sorry I don't just take your word for it. Perhaps someone else can provide a link that definitively backs up your claim. *shrugs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 http://www.isu.edu/r...f/Oxford PR.pdf " Sykes also analyzed hair samples from Bhutan attributed to the Yeti, which seemed to defy DNA identification. Interestingly, during our conversation I learned that further efforts were subsequently successful in determining that the hair originated from bear" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 ^Thx OS, I recall reading that, but it's a second hand account, I found no direct comments by Sykes about it. I noticed that on the site they referenced another unidentified hair type as well, but that one wasn't identified at a later time. So I guess if we take a second hand account as accurate, we're still 1 for 2. And, if we are to assume this statement is true, can we assume other statements on that site are as well? We can then reasonably expect that there are indeed other relict hominids sharing the earth with us. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) I don't get why people put so much faith in that one hair sample. Sykes has lots of promising samples now. More than what he was originally aiming for actually. The future looks bright! Edited February 7, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 ^ I agree. But I have yet to see anything but second hand reports of the re-identification. Maybe I'm not google searching properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Um, the kind of obvious point here is: If you are using a habituator as the foundation of your evidence there should be video and photos and track casts and recordings so copious as to make P/G look like a drawing. It's a serious misstep to talk that up ....and not be able to rely on it as your proof!?!?!?!? And this is why everybody's talking about Ketchum getting all bubbly about habituators. Whether they want to share evidence or not is their prerogative. But if you are talking habituation to anyone who wants to listen as the prelude to releasing scientific findings, it is a major misstep...which you better correct by having so much photo, video, track and other evidence, if not a body, as to make Patterson/Gimlin look like an artist's conception. All we're saying. Who is talking up a habituation? What I'm saying is this is a DNA study on samples collected by people who've seen Sasquatch . The point is, the people who see them are collecting the samples, and it precisely satisfies the onus or burden of providing proof. Why would tracks. photo's and recordings make a difference when the standard is biological evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) Who is talking up a habituation? What I'm saying is this is a DNA study on samples collected by people who've seen Sasquatch . The point is, the people who see them are collecting the samples, and it precisely satisfies the onus or burden of providing proof. Why would tracks. photo's and recordings make a difference when the standard is biological evidence? This is about tossing tacks on the road in the path of your own truck. When you tell people well in advance of the release of a paper that you are hangin' with sasquatch, you have just erected a huge - and unnecessary - barrier for your submission to climb. Edited February 7, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 That only matters is you are pre-judging the science unseen and calling "that" attitude science. It is expected that scientists should examine evidence provided as putative, "especially" from people who have had multiple encounters at their own residence and along with evidence collected by researchers under favorable circumstances. It can't be a tack in the road if it is a logical expectation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) Let's get this moribund thread movin'! Let's say the Rick Dyer story is true (and for the record, I see it as a hoax). What do you think Melba Ketchum should do? Release her report online to get the jump on things? Hold on and wait? Then once the body is revealed take offers from competing major scientific journals? Contact Dyer et al and try to arrange a co-release? Other? Discuss! GK Edited February 8, 2013 by gerrykleier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Dr. Ketchum can't afford to be associated with Rick Dyer. Like, who can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Dr. Ketchum can't afford to be associated with Rick Dyer. Like, who can? If he actually had a body wouldn't it likely strengthen her study? However, I do at least partially agree! GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Anybody seen the scientific article yet mentioned in this John Greene email? 16 authors A Message From John Green. "Although it appears to have been overlooked by all media for several years the material presented below will inevitably become one of the greatest news stories of the century. --------------------- Sometimes it pays to be not a scientist. Dr. Aaron Filler, in his 2007 book “The Upright Ape,†presented ample evidence that all higher primates have been bipedal, walking upright on two feet, for over 20 million years. You don’t have to be a spine surgeon, which Dr. Filler is as well as being a PhD anthropologist, to see that a fossilized lower back vertebrae from an African site dated at 21 million years is almost identical to the corresponding vertebrae of a modern human. Although there are fossil bones, and fossil footprints, showing that primitive higher primates throughout the ages have walked upright, and there are no fossils that suggest that any were quadrupeds, scientists who have been taught, and teach, that human ancestors invented bipedalism after they came down from the trees and split off from the chimpanzees do not seem able to get the message In a special edition of Scientific American dated Winter 2013 and titled “What Makes Us Human†none of the 16 authors showed any awareness of Dr. Filler’s book, and several had things to say based on the old mistaken consensus. But are not chimpanzees quadrupeds? They are plainly trying to be, but they can not really do it because they have the spines of upright animals. With their backs at an angle of about 45% they get around very well using the knuckles of their hands for front feet but they can not ever be normal quadrupeds because their spines do not have the proper attachments to keep them from buckling under load in a horizontal position. And what Dr. Filler does not say, even though he has presented the facts that establish it, is that there is now no shred of evidence that recent human forbears ever lived in trees. To quote something that Dr. Filler does say, most eloquently: “In questioning and rejecting scientific orthodoxy, no mass of credentials will convince a spurned scientist that he or she should give way and accept that they have spent a career believing, teaching, and publishing in error.†------------------ Two thirds of Dr. Filler’s book presents an historical overview and then outlines a new look at the origin of species which will undoubtedly be controversial, but the material regarding the origin of human bipedalism contained in the last two chapters is simple to understand and rock-solidly based on physical evidence. And an interesting sidelight to the proof that all higher primates have been bipeds: Until perhaps as recently as 100,000 years ago there lived in China, as established by three fossil lower jaws and a thousand fossil teeth, a giant ape twice the size of a gorilla. Since as a higher primate it must have been upright it matches perfectly the huge, very heavy, manlike footprints which human ingenuity is unable to duplicate, and the immense hair-covered bipeds that thousands of people claim to have seen in Canada and the United States. It follows that the many people who investigate Bigfoot/Sasquatch reports need to realize that their quarry isn’t likely to be some unknown creature sure to be a close human relative because it walks upright, but a proven animal that lived near the land bridge to North America and that already has a scientific name, Gigantopithecus blacki." John Green Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I appreciate your help and willingness to back up your claims. I've done 2 searches "Brian Sykes Unknown Hair" and "Brian Sykes Clears Up Unknown Hair" (the latter your claim). I could not find it in 20 minutes of internet searching, clicking and searching each link on the first 2 pages of google search. I've heard several people claim this, but not provide a link. I can only assume now that you are mistaken about Sykes recanting the original statement that hair had come back unknown originally, then with further testing, was identified. Sorry I don't just take your word for it. Perhaps someone else can provide a link that definitively backs up your claim. *shrugs* check your pm. i will walk you through the process of finding these hidden nuggets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) Sometimes it pays to be not a scientist. ... To quote something that Dr. Filler does say, most eloquently: “In questioning and rejecting scientific orthodoxy, no mass of credentials will convince a spurned scientist that he or she should give way and accept that they have spent a career believing, teaching, and publishing in error.†------------------ John Green Whole post plussed; but this in particular. In the Age Of The Internet, some of us who spent our college years on beer and women instead of quadratic equations and chemo-analysis and multiple degrees may have a critical leg up on the scientists: we haven't been - as they have always been - stuffed full of (and whipped hard to retain) cant we now have to defend at all costs, because look what it cost us...! And we have access to an unprecendented volume and richness of information, and can make - as some scientists "buck," or as I might say "use," their training to make - our own decisions and do our own analysis. Edited February 8, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Well guys that embargo lifted and this is what it was. Not Ketchums paper. =3&search[sort]=date+desc&search[has_multimedia"]http://www.newswise.com/articles/putting-our-heads-together-canines-may-hold-clues-to-human-skull-development?ret=/articles/list&category=latest&page=1&search[status]=3&search[sort]=date+desc&search[has_multimedia]= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts