indiefoot Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I thought I remembered something. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) Thanks for posting that article. I'm beyond confused anymore. I don't know what's real, what's hyped, or even what to think about all of this. It is rather disconcerting. 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. Thanks Jodie. I've been out of school for so long I'm beginning to think that I'm *now* permanently *out to lunch*. Edited November 15, 2011 by SweetSusiq 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. 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 I can't see it being closely related to us either. There are far too many major phenotypic differences between them and us. IMO, if the DNA results come back as human or very close to human, scientists and skeptics will question the chain of custody of the samples, implying contamination, and/or will call into question the sources of the samples themselves, suspecting that they must have come from human sources and not sasquatches as claimed. They would not be out of line to do this. Remember that Richard Substad, when discussing the mtDNA of one of his samples (from FL, I believe), said that it was traced to a tribe of humans from the interior of Africa, and that he assumed it was from cross breeding with sasquatch because he did not believe any members of that tribe had been sold into the slave trade and brought to the Americas. There is absolutely no was to be sure of every African tribe that was or was not sold into slavery, brought to the U.S., and contributed to the gene pool. Anything to the contrary will be ridiculed by historians and anthropologists alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I can't see it being closely related to us either. There are far too many major phenotypic differences between them and us. IMO, if the DNA results come back as human or very close to human, scientists and skeptics will question the chain of custody of the samples, implying contamination, and/or will call into question the sources of the samples themselves, suspecting that they must have come from human sources and not sasquatches as claimed. They would not be out of line to do this. Remember that Richard Substad, when discussing the mtDNA of one of his samples (from FL, I believe), said that it was traced to a tribe of humans from the interior of Africa, and that he assumed it was from cross breeding with sasquatch because he did not believe any members of that tribe had been sold into the slave trade and brought to the Americas. There is absolutely no was to be sure of every African tribe that was or was not sold into slavery, brought to the U.S., and contributed to the gene pool. Anything to the contrary will be ridiculed by historians and anthropologists alike. I see it a bit different. If the samples come back as human or very close to human, scientists and skeptics will argue that the samples are human based, i.e., no Bigfoot. No need to argue for contamination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I see it a bit different. If the samples come back as human or very close to human, scientists and skeptics will argue that the samples are human based, i.e., no Bigfoot. No need to argue for contamination. Well, that was the "or" part of my "and/or" statement, lol, so our views aren't all that different really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 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. Here's an interesting tid bit. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jan/24/research.highereducation In 1991, the Pulitzer prize-winning ecologist Jared Diamond called humans "the third chimpanzee", setting us alongside the common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and its less aggressive but astoundingly promiscuous cousin, the bonobo (Pan paniscus). By 1999 confusion over the biological status of chimpanzees prompted scientists in New Zealand to join forces with lawyers to petition the country's government to pass a bill conferring "rights" on chimpanzees and other primates. The move drew derision. Roger Scruton, the moral philosopher, asked: "Do we really think that the jails of New Zealand should henceforth be filled with malicious chimpanzees? If not, by what right are they to be exempted from punishment?" New Zealand granted great apes legal protection from animal experimentation. British Home Office guidelines also forbid experiments on chimps, gorillas and orang-utans. You can bet it will be the same with squatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Just FYI. It seems Melba Ketchum's name has been removed from the list of proposed speakers at the conference. I also heard from an extremely good source that there's nothing to the Homo Sapiens Hirsutii designation (at least as far as Ketchum's study). I'm sure our friends at JREF will be deeply disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Just FYI. It seems Melba Ketchum's name has been removed from the list of proposed speakers at the conference. I also heard from an extremely good source that there's nothing to the Homo Sapiens Hirsutii designation (at least as far as Ketchum's study). I'm sure our friends at JREF will be deeply disappointed. And such is the Bigfoot rollercoaster..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 And such is the Bigfoot rollercoaster..... Or Merry-go-round... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Just FYI. It seems Melba Ketchum's name has been removed from the list of proposed speakers at the conference. I also heard from an extremely good source that there's nothing to the Homo Sapiens Hirsutii designation (at least as far as Ketchum's study). I'm sure our friends at JREF will be deeply disappointed. This is in no way surprising to me. The original implications of very near human appear to have come from the Paulides/Stubsted camp, and they have been on the outs with Ketchum for a long time now according to reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Near human or not, whatever she's found is not going to be called Homo Sapiens HIrsutii. That's a good thing IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 This is in no way surprising to me. The original implications of very near human appear to have come from the Paulides/Stubsted camp, and they have been on the outs with Ketchum for a long time now according to reports. Hmm...what makes you think that Paulides and Stubstad are in cahoots, Mulder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Hmm...what makes you think that Paulides and Stubstad are in cahoots, Mulder? I don't think they're "in cahoots" per se, but they seem to be coming from the same position and saying similar things about what BF is, and both have run afoul of Ketchum at some point from what I've read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 I don't think they're "in cahoots" per se, but they seem to be coming from the same position and saying similar things about what BF is, and both have run afoul of Ketchum at some point from what I've read. Inform us of the fouled relationship between Ketchum and Paulides please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts