Guest DWA Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 I'll let the taxonomists handle it. But I don't think I'm observing sufficient material culture in reports, given that reported from other Homo species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted September 8, 2013 Moderator Share Posted September 8, 2013 ...and that's what I mean about the people who say this is human. The evidence? Can't kill that, and it says: nope. Ironic ... evidence or proof? We sit here arguing about evidence vs proof of their mere existence, and yet same people who point out the difference there miss the same point when the discussion turns to whether they are people or not. "hmmmmm" .... MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 All I am waiting for is the evidence that they are. Where is it? And remember there's no reason to buy Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Here's a scientist, hypothesizing: The skulls of gorillas hold a brain of about 500,000 milligrams; chimpanzees have smaller skulls and smaller brains (405,000 mg). These values, when contrasted to human values (1,330,000 mg), should produce an awareness of a very different primate than us (Stephen, Frahm, & Baron, 1981). Since brain size varies with body size, a comparative index, the Encephalization Quotient (EQ), was developed as a way of understanding intelligence and the ability to address complex cognitive tasks. Gorillas have an EQ range of 1.53 to 1.76. Chimpanzees have an EQ range of 2.3 to 2.5 and humans vary from 7.39 to 7.79 (Jerison, 1973). Much of our brain function is devoted to language, symbol processing, imagination, and planning. Taking the wood ape as an example, much of its smaller brain (guessing an EQ of about 1.7) might be devoted to sensorimotor processing, the first stage of cognitive development, and not symbolic cognition. Wood apes are primates, they have survived in this world, but doubtlessly not by the same neural strategies employed by humans. We probably share more with the dog, which evolved with us, than with these animals. When you ask your dog to speak, he barks; if you ask that of a wood ape, it will likely throw a rock at you. http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/233-lenhardtcommentary I put a lot of credence in people's voluminous, persistent, and consistent accounts of a huge bipedal primate. I do not, however, automatically confer taxonomist status on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Why would this scientist call them "wood apes?" There is no official name that I'm aware of and I find it pretty arrogant to decide for him/herself to throw that term around when it's not been proven. They look somewhat like gorillas, somewhat like hairless humans so what's up with this "wood ape" connotation? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Well, the name game is never going to go away until confirmation. That's just what NAWAC has decided to go with; it's a term that does have some history. Given that "Bigfoot" started with a newspaper headline, I'm not so sure it's that much more "legitimate." It does seem to have the corner on usage, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 All I am waiting for is the evidence that they are. Where is it? And remember there's no reason to buy Ketchum. I'd say there is the same reason as to buy so many sighting reports. Certain things repeat, and in this case it is the DNA which can't prove itself to be sufficiently ape and non-human or unknown ape at the same time. It is your side of the DNA debate that should have more meaningful results to tout, yet is absent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Contamination of DNA samples is a pretty easy thing to do. Ketchum has been so sloppy on so many fronts - especially in the area of trumpeting the results before the results were in - that that's a reasonable charge. A large and growing pile of extremely consistent encounter reports giving clear indicators of 'not human' trumps a DNA review that doesn't even have a type specimen! Even though the taxonomists will have to sort that out in the end - and the way anthropology and primatology are going we may indeed be redefining 'human' before too long - there doesn't seem to be any reason to think they are human. Every account I read that asserts that is making assumptions about what is exclusive to us that just don't wash. We aren't that special, gang. Patty sure doesn't look human to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Think "pre-human". Also, I like the term Reclusive Forest Primate. Can't recall who coined that. In the end, IMO, the DNA will end up somewhere between modern ape and modern human. But not quite either of 'em. We'll have plenty to discuss after it gets ID'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) In the old days, they called them "wild men" especially in the 1800's. People reported them carrying sticks, throwing things, grumbling sounds, opening gates that have latches, imitating bird noises and all the while most of them moving on two feet. The big foot characteristic was a kitchy (sp) term back then and it served a purpose. Only white people back then used the term "bigfoot" and personally I think it's a little insulting. The indians all but a few had a name for them. Not one of them referrred to them as "apes" mostly they translated into "wildmen," "stick indians," "boss of the woods," etc. White men could not accept them as bipedal tribes and it probably calmed themselves to think it's just a wild animal that has escaped from some never heard of circus that came thru a town with no name??? Tirademan, who is no longer with us, had a disk called "Big News Prints" so do yourself a favor and get it. You won't regret it. They are NOT monkeys........... Edited September 9, 2013 by Sunflower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Good post Sunflower, and to add: We have a whole section in our Premium Membership section of Tirademan's work called: Tirademan's Historical Archives Tons of news articles relating to the "Wild Man". If anyone is interested, let me know. Sorry, just wanted to add that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 All good Chelefoot and Sunflower, thanks for the posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Contamination of DNA samples is a pretty easy thing to do. Ketchum has been so sloppy on so many fronts - especially in the area of trumpeting the results before the results were in - that that's a reasonable charge. A large and growing pile of extremely consistent encounter reports giving clear indicators of 'not human' trumps a DNA review that doesn't even have a type specimen! Even though the taxonomists will have to sort that out in the end - and the way anthropology and primatology are going we may indeed be redefining 'human' before too long - there doesn't seem to be any reason to think they are human. Every account I read that asserts that is making assumptions about what is exclusive to us that just don't wash. We aren't that special, gang. Patty sure doesn't look human to me. Well now wait a minute, you can't get DNA without a specimen or sample of some sort, and should any sample produce the non-human unknown ape result that you seek, are we to assume you wouldn't call that a type specimen? Careful with the answer, because Sykes isn't doing his study because a negative outcome is gauranteed. Well, the name game is never going to go away until confirmation. That's just what NAWAC has decided to go with; it's a term that does have some history. Given that "Bigfoot" started with a newspaper headline, I'm not so sure it's that much more "legitimate." It does seem to have the corner on usage, though. You might look up the term Yahoo and how it relates to bigfoot. I'd wager it has a deeper history than "wood ape". It is also interesting how it's use, after being coined, is shifted from it's original meaning to being used to describe a type of person based on behavior. It should be easy to make the connections, as rural country folks began to pickup the term through inquiring what the hairy bipedal prowlers actually were. Perhaps getting it directly or indirectly from Jonathan Swift, or he from them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Well now wait a minute, you can't get DNA without a specimen or sample of some sort, and should any sample produce the non-human unknown ape result that you seek, are we to assume you wouldn't call that a type specimen? Careful with the answer, because Sykes isn't doing his study because a negative outcome is gauranteed. It is not a type specimen unless I can look at it, yes, me, and say: that is a kind of animal of which none else exists that we know of. That's for bigfoot. The type specimen of olinguito, for example, looks much like an olingo. A "steak" ain't cuttin' it. When the skeptics say "body," that's what they mean, and on that they are right. If a scientist wants to go off a finger or toe or bone, I'd need to see how he came to that. It better be a pretty unique piece. On something like this you need to see - see - something that no other known animal has. We all crap; and we all have "steaks" somewhere. You might look up the term Yahoo and how it relates to bigfoot. I'd wager it has a deeper history than "wood ape". It is also interesting how it's use, after being coined, is shifted from it's original meaning to being used to describe a type of person based on behavior. It should be easy to make the connections, as rural country folks began to pickup the term through inquiring what the hairy bipedal prowlers actually were. Perhaps getting it directly or indirectly from Jonathan Swift, or he from them? Well, again, I try to stay out of the name game, although I kinda like "wood ape" for no particular reason, Maybe it hasn't gotten freighted by all the societal baggage of the other names we use, which is why NAWAC likes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Has anyone else been able to read the documents that were posted online? https://docs.google.com/file/d/1DwVFfFOS6iX9yNQrxcSBRqRwQRn3Bkoi_3nnFDtR7-eDUkx-HOP-NjMYbG8M/edit?pli=1 https://docs.google.com/file/d/1UpuWi01e6aFefwbZtnlLVVB3q6ERADEKrdN2KFnAGaPK9mqTTrDqrjKLkm2F/edit?pli=1 The first is claimed to be Melba's responses to Nature's request for changes. The second is supposed to be a letter from Melba to Nature. I can't read them because my laptop won't open them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts