Guest Darrell Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 I bet I could fake that track. I wear a size 7.5 XXW (EEE) and my bare foot is about 9.5 inches long and 5.5 inches wide at the ball. I have very wide flat feet and my tracks in sand look just like that..
southernyahoo Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 Can you post pics of your foot with a ruler next to it to verify those measurements? 9.5 inches long and 5.5 inches wide 9.5/ 5.5 = .578 This index might be a world record, you might want to call guinness!
Guest Darrell Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 Oops, I meausered again. My right foot is 9 in long and 4.25 inches at the ball. Still that gives it a .472 index. And I bet if I walked around in the wet sand and dirt I could make a track just like that.
southernyahoo Posted August 5, 2013 Posted August 5, 2013 Like I said, it's tricky knowing the difference between Sas juvi tracks and human tracks. Note I didn't say they were definitively distinguishable by any means, only that the circumstances of the find were suggestive. From what I've been told, if you have a foot width index above .4, you are well in the minority among humans.FWIW. My oldest son gets his feet from his mother, and very wide. His foot measures 11" x 4.75" (index .431). I would enter him in any fat foot contest, though we can see that proportionally, you just beat him.
chelefoot Posted August 6, 2013 Posted August 6, 2013 Ha.. SY. That reminds me of my son. When he was small, a toddler, his feet were SO wide they looked like little boxes. I know they were half as wide as they were long. But now at 19 they are perfectly normal (index wise). I was so worried that he would never be able to find shoes to fit! *sorry...really off topic i know.
Guest Posted August 11, 2013 Posted August 11, 2013 Can you post pics of your foot with a ruler next to it to verify those measurements? 9.5/ 5.5 = .578 This index might be a world record, you might want to call guinness! sure, as soon as you post measurements along with the photo you took. and just as an aside: if I saw that track, the first thing i would have done is take my shoes off and attempt to walk along side it, you know, so i would have a valid comparison of a known human track, and your unknown track? why did you not do that? For those of you still interested in all things Melba DNA - here is an independant analysis of the data she provided: Dr. Swenson's statement that "My desktop had difficulty with a blast analysis of the consensus sequences," indicates he is unqualified to review this article. I DID run blast analysis of the three sequences published with these results: Sample 26 is a bear, most likely a black bear; sample 31 is human; sample 140 is a dog. My initial results were in error on Samples 26 and 140. Like Dr. Swenson, I learned a lot. I have submitted a paper to Melba Ketchum's journal, De Nova. Let's see how SHE treats ME. Haskell Hart Check with haskell if you have probl;ems with this!
Guest Posted August 11, 2013 Posted August 11, 2013 Email received from Prof Sykes today re update of the research. Posted on this thread as well as the Sykes thread as strange as it seems to me this thread is more popuar than that one. From: "Bryan Sykes" <bryan.sykes@wolfson.ox.ac.uk> Sent: 11 August 2013 18:28 To: "kezra xxxxxx" <xxxxxxxxx@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: OLCHP Dear Kezra, Thank for your enquiry. The situation at the moment is that most of the analysis has been completed and I am writing up the results. As for pub date, that depends on the journal. Regards Bryan Bryan Sykes MA PhD DSc Professor of Human Genetics Wolfson College, Oxford,OX2 6UD if you want the original message me your email and i can forward it to you
southernyahoo Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 (edited) sure, as soon as you post measurements along with the photo you took. and just as an aside: if I saw that track, the first thing i would have done is take my shoes off and attempt to walk along side it, you know, so i would have a valid comparison of a known human track, and your unknown track? why did you not do that? I wasn't present to document what I would do, so that's one reason I didn't walk next to them. Secondly, I think I've already stated the trackway didn't appear to me to be exceptionally long strided. Third, comparitive human data can be obtained independently of the place and time where the tracks were obtained. Fourth, moisture content of the soil is constantly changing on a river bank like that one, and will affect depth of the tracks. The President wasn't taking our calls, so we didn't talk to him about this either. Could the tracks have been documented to no end? Yep, but wouldn't change what they are...(human tracks). For those of you still interested in all things Melba DNA - here is an independant analysis of the data she provided: Dr. Swenson's statement that "My desktop had difficulty with a blast analysis of the consensus sequences," indicates he is unqualified to review this article. I DID run blast analysis of the three sequences published with these results: Sample 26 is a bear, most likely a black bear; sample 31 is human; sample 140 is a dog. My initial results were in error on Samples 26 and 140. Like Dr. Swenson, I learned a lot. I have submitted a paper to Melba Ketchum's journal, De Nova. Let's see how SHE treats ME. Haskell Hart Check with haskell if you have probl;ems with this! De Nova(sp) isn't a journal, so I expect harsh treatment. Edited August 12, 2013 by southernyahoo
Guest Posted August 19, 2013 Posted August 19, 2013 Abstract and conclusions from my article submitted to De Nova over 2 months ago with no acceptance yet: ABSTRACT Three nuclear DNA samples claimed to be of an unknown North American hominin (Sasquatch/Bigfoot) were sequenced recently, and interest in this cryptid has been renewed. These sequences are reinterpreted through extensive database searches with different results, and the conclusions of the original study are found to be in error. The three samples are seen to be from a black bear (Ursus americanus), a human (Homo sapiens), and a domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris), respectively. ******************* CONCLUSIONS Sample 26 is from a bear, most likely a black bear, Ursus americanus. This was also the previous conclusion of an independent investigation(2) of a duplicate sample using human and black bear primers. Searches limited to human, other primates, the Canis genus, and all other species, produced poor matches or no matches at all. It is possible, but not likely, that the sample originates from a previously unknown or unreported bear species or black bear hybrid. Sample 31 is genus Homo, most likely Homo sapiens. Matches to other primates, to Canis, and to all other species were extremely poor, or there was no match at all. The possibility that it could be a previously unknown, very closely related species or subspecies of the Homo genus could not be excluded, but is unlikely because the matches to human were so perfect. There is no mosaic of human and primate-like sequences as claimed in the Ketchum conclusion (2). Sample 140 is from a domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or a similar Canis species. Hits over the 15 best sequence ranges for each of human and Canis (18 in all, 12 coincided) favored Canis over human, other primates, and all other species by a wide margin in each case, except two (below the 15 best Canis hits) in which there were no Canis matches. Over each of the sequence ranges of the top 14 Canis hits, the “all other†categories also bested both human and other primates but were not close to the Canis matches, further supporting the conclusion that the sample is not human or even primate. A NCBI database search for Neanderthal and Denisovan nuclear DNA sequences produced none of the latter and only five very short (<90 bp) “environmental†sequences of the former in the NCBI databases. This low and non-existent database coverage is certainly not enough to support the Ketchum conclusion (1) (database principle 1). In summary, none of the three Ketchum conclusions are supported by our nuclear DNA sequence interpretations of Samples 26, 31, and 140, which are from a black bear, a human, and a dog, respectively. No new species of primate could be proven to exist based on this data, and no new phylogeny is suggested.
southernyahoo Posted August 19, 2013 Posted August 19, 2013 http://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.&fp=43e0657a21339a28&q=De+Nova
Recommended Posts