Guest Strick Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 That interpretation is coming under challenge. Read "Them and Us": http://themandus.org/ Mulder, I have no idea as to the value of the study, but there are are some fantastic avatar pics just waiting to happen over on that site you referenced.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) Maybe a little late in following the discussion, and I don't have much of an opinion except that the history of these revelations over the years have often added more friction and warmth without a lot of light and so far that doesn't seem to be changing, though I hope it does and that I am wrong. As for the question as to number of chromosomes, I've read and have had it explained that when it comes to genetics, the exact chromosome count can be over-emphasised regarding exact number, shape and size, though obviously the number is indicative of an average characteristic count, it's just that none of us are totally average. When specific individuals in a population have their chromosomes mapped, something that is not all that common, one of the aspects of its analysis is identifying the various chromosomes. They don't seem to look just like they do in the books and don't just line up like in the text-books, much like every humans' internal anatomy is distinctly different on the gross level. Part of the reason surgeons perform anatomy examinations on real bodies it to become comfortable with the fact that we all look different on the inside almost as much as we look different on the outside. Chromosomes, as was explained to me, act as a kind of filing cabinet for the storage of instructions. The actual reproduction, after which the strands of the DNA become all uncoiled in a region where it is exposed to the genetic mechanisms which act like zipper pulls, zipping up the chain of the DNA and after which it is arrayed on the distinctive long spindles that we see just as the two nuclei are pulling apart. What is critical during mitosis is that these actual blueprints, or instructions encoded on the DNA, are actually out of their 'chromosome file cabinet' and that they get back into one of these coils once they coil back up to form the chromosome again, which they almost always do, but sometimes in different ways, but that difference, which need not necessarily preclude successful reproduction, might cause problems later on, or not. My point would be that a chromosome count of a single individual (BF or otherwise) might not be definitive when it comes to some questions of species identification. Cheers Edited November 14, 2011 by dogu4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Why ?? What research & results have you found to make you start to feel uncomfortable with something that has resulted in the research that the people in question have done ?? Because eyewitness reports say that they look completely different from us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted November 14, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted November 14, 2011 Because eyewitness reports say that they look completely different from us. Not sure about that, full body of Hair excluded.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Mulder, I have no idea as to the value of the study, but there are are some fantastic avatar pics just waiting to happen over on that site you referenced.... Chilling, aren't they? More chilling, I've had a number of people tell me that their "locals" look almost exactly like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Dogu4 wrote: distinctly different on the gross level. Part of the reason surgeons perform anatomy examinations on real bodies it to become comfortable with the fact that we all look different on the inside almost as much as we look different on the outside. Susi says: That's just not correct. I've seen autopsies, I've been in surgery. We all look alike inside, it's the skin color, shape of the face or body, and height of a person that only makes external differences.Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) Are you guys saying that it will be in May 2012 before we get the results of the DNA? What happened to this year? HTG, We put men on the moon more than once, yet we can't confirm BF yet? Perhaps we should have NASA involved. Seriously, What is happening? Why does this keep changing? Edited November 14, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Where did you hear May 2012? A little context please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Check the link in the first post of the thread, NGJ. Check the link in the first post of the thread, NGJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 So the name means 'hairy human'. Where does the 18" feet and being 7-9 ft tall, long arms, and huge size come in? They ain't just hairy Indians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 I don't know, I am having difficulty thinking that something like this could be classified as anything close to us. I know it's blurry, but it helps paint a picture of what you would be facing out there. These aren't just some "hills have eyes" people out in the woods. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=23160 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 HTG, We put men on the moon more than once, yet we can't confirm BF yet? There are people who Challenge this too Susi they argue that Solar Radiation would have Killed the Astronauts or at least irradiated them to the point of near death before they even set foot on the moon, not to mention the other contradictory evidence they point to and demand explanation for. As to the validity of those claims I make no personal comment. But what I am saying is for some people nothing short of them experiencing the event themselves (and sometimes that has to be more than once) they will always deny the realism of the event. Some peoples personal view on how the Universe works sometimes comes with built in filters and optional blinkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 The most frequent human trisomy (47 chromosomes) is Down Syndrome, trisomy 21 ie three of the number 21 chromosome. You are correct, but it's also very obvious, the ones I was trying to tell Susie about aren't always immediately apparent like XXX,XYY, and fragile X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I don't know, I am having difficulty thinking that something like this could be classified as anything close to us. From reported physical descriptions, I am thinking that bigfoots would be more closely related to humans than are any other extant great ape. Some molecular primatologists are arguing that chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans should be classified as members of Homo. While such classification is difficult for me to wrap my mind about, one can't be too shocked to learn that some may propose classifying bigfoots as Homo. I suppose any organism properly classified as a member of genus Homo is, by definition, human; but, it is not necesarily a modern human, Homo sapiens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 From reported physical descriptions, I am thinking that bigfoots would be more closely related to humans than are any other extant great ape. Some molecular primatologists are arguing that chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans should be classified as members of Homo. While such classification is difficult for me to wrap my mind about, one can't be too shocked to learn that some may propose classifying bigfoots as Homo. I suppose any organism properly classified as a member of genus Homo is, by definition, human; but, it is not necesarily a modern human, Homo sapiens. While I haven't heard of anyone trying to classify chimps gorillas and orangutans as Homo, I find it hard to believe considering they aren't even hominoids, let alone hominids, let alone of the genus Homo. They really aren't that closely related in the scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts