Unknown Primate Dna

[Guest thermalman]

Gotta know how science works to be one. Otherwise, you're just an accomplished techie in a corner of the field, and you aren't interesting me in what you think.

A confession....... at last?

Edited February 6, 2014 by thermalman

[Guest Darrell]

it would be cool for the field if there were now, or had ever been, such a thing as a 'professional Bigfooter'.

Rene Dahinden, Peter Byrne, Jeff Meldrum, Grover Kranz to name just 4.

[norseman]

I would agree with you on Rene and Peter, although Peter spent a lot of time searching for the Yeti in Nepal.

 

Jeff and Grover are/were College professors. Much of their time is spent giving lectures and grading papers......

[Oonjerah]

You did a good job there Oonjerah, Plussed.

 

Dr. Rogers' analysis of the hair is consistent with many from Fahrenbach and I expect some of his efforts with DNA extraction.

 

I see Meldrum siding with any interpretation that doesn't suggest BF is human. So around and round we go,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Thank you, SY. 

 

Yes, I liked Rogers' input. 

 

Dr. Meldrum has always, I think, had a big investment in BF is an Ape,

just an ape, not too bright. Lower than Us primate. This in spite of 

the fact BF footprints look far more human than ape. 

 

The worst of that is, he tossed scientific objectivity out the window 

to take that view. He didn't need a lengthy observation of Bigfoot in

habitat to assess the creature's intelligence.  

 

But I greatly admire him for defying the mainstream!

[Guest]

Rene Dahinden, Peter Byrne, Jeff Meldrum, Grover Kranz to name just 4.

Krantz was an anthropology professor. Meldrum is a professor of anthropology and anatomy. Dahinden did full time work, as did Byrne (periodically).

[southernyahoo]

SY... That hair description sounds familar to a recent batch for East TX a year ago too huh ?

 

Yep, We will call these beings wildmen one day, as we once did IMO. I don't know if "people" who are "scientists" can wrap their head around the concept of "manimals".  

[Cotter]

Manimal was a cool show.  Freaked me out as a kid.

It would explain the BF shapeshifting tho!

 

[Guest]

Funny how the original name (Wildman) used in the 1800's newspapers is turning out to be the most accurate description

Edited February 7, 2014 by GEARMAN

[Guest DWA]

I'm curious.

 

The vast majority of the evidence I am aware of says to me, ape may not be certain, but it appears very likely.

 

(The foot evidence, cited by many as evidence that it isn't an ape, is in fact as strong an ape signature as any.)

 

Personal observations I always treat with caution, unless a taxonomist is making them and backs them up.

[Drew]

DWA, I agree.  If you are going to cite Jeff Meldrum as the expert on Bigfoot, and he is a primate locomotion specialist, and he says it is an Ape-like foot, not a human foot, you kinda have to go with that.

 

If you don't, you are saying that Meldrum is not an expert, or that he is looking at fake feet.  But those fake feet are the hallmark of Bigfoot evidence.

 

If you say Bigfoot is a human, you have to throw out the PGF, and any cast that Melrum has declared to be a Bigfoot foot.  Because HE IS A PRIMATE LOCOMOTION EXPERT.

[southernyahoo]

If you say Bigfoot is a human, you have to throw out the PGF

 

 

I don't know about that. Most skeptics argue it must be a human because all the arguments about limb proportions and the way Patty walks fails to convince them otherwise. A flat flexible foot is common in nonhuman apes but has been studied in humans too, so not an exclusively nonhuman trait. Something I'm sure Meldrum is aware of and points to ,in his presentations about the pressure disk visible in fossil hominin tracks. 

[Guest]

All I am saying is if there is anything true to viable crossbreeding in all these different hominins that are popping up left and right and one does turn out to be the big guy then I am loosely calling it "man" as in wild man since its able to breed. In Meldrums own words he has said not all foot prints exhibit the mid tarsal flexation and that flex has been found in ancient bipedal hominins as well.  The toes sure line up just like a humans foot plus many facial features are close then the behavior and possible speech place it likely a notch above ALL other wild animals. Opinions of either side are valid here and there but the truth is it keeps landing in the middle so semantics of calling it ape or human or just primate is a moot point still its really mapped out on the big tree genetically and morphologically on a cold slab .. cheers

[Guest Urkelbot]

I wouldn't be so sure about the toes.  According to Krantz 

 

Many sasquatch footprints show nearly equal-sized toes lined up almost straight across in a rather nonhuman manner as might be expected. Curiously, there are also several reported bigfoot prints which do not show much of those traits, but appear rather more human in the toes. There are two possible explanations for this. Sasquatch feet may include a great range of variation from a nearly human set of toes at one extreme to the ideal type described above at the other extreme. The second possibility is that some of these prints were faked, at least in part, by enlarging the impression of the first toe to make them look more "convincing." I would rather not choose between these two alternatives at the present time.

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/91-anatomy-of-the-sasquatch-foot

 

Krantz is kind of funny in the paper he includes a  graph of height and weight estimate of bigfoot, based upon 3 examples, that include a hunter who supposedly killed one in washington and estimated its height and weight, of course he forgot to keep any evidence to back up this claim but whatever. Also Jacko from 1884. Is Jacko considered a hoax by proponents at this point?  The third was pattersons bigfoot in the video.  Which you can at least verify by the video itself for height.  But Krantz includes Pattersons estimate on its weight. Since apparently Patterson was a crack weight guesser and deduced Krantz's weight accurately. 

 

[Guest]

Well from tracks and track casts I have seen within our group, most seem to have a "big" toe and get smaller along the line but do have a big toe

[Sunflower]

Compare your feet to your spouse or significant other, friend, relative and see how many different characteristics there are just amongst us the hairless ones.

 

Hubby has a large space between the big toe and the second toe.  Looks strange to me because my feet do not plus my little toe curls under and is more of a trangle shape (weird) and I realize that some of this could be attributed to the type of shoes we have worn since birth.

 

He can pick up items by just using the big toe and second toe.  I have a high instep and as a child needed orthopedic shoes to correct knocked knees which only showed up on me but none of my siblings.  Your ancestry can definitely enter into this as well.  Feet, earlobes, teeth, skull shape and size, high cheek bones, space between the eyes, thick hair, thin hair, olive skin, pale skin, and genetic conditions passed on but only from a particular group of people.  

Edited February 7, 2014 by Sunflower