For Those Of Us Who Don't Think Sasquatch Is Genus Homo...

[hiflier]

Hello All,

I am perplexed. No really, I'm perplexed because of mixed messages. Nothing to worry about I don't think because for me it happens all the time. But there was something about this thread that seemed a bit off. Took me a while to nail it down but I think I've zeroed in on the danged thing. It's the title of the thread. Because IMO it just doesn't fit the link in the OP. The link is talking about one thing and the title is talking about another. Please hear me out here because I think there an important facet to this.

The find in South Africa is wonderful and all so don't misunderstand me as I'm not downplaying it's significance. But for me there's been some cognitive dissonance and I think what it is is that the South Arican discovery is Homo. But I don't see that Sasquatch is and maybe that's where the issue for me lies.

From what I can tell Sasquatch is closer to Pan...not Homo. Actually it's neither but the one element that has been sticking out here (and I've been a while looking at it) Is one glaring point. No mid-tarsal break is present in the foot bones. But there's more to it than that. A lot more, Where is the mid-tarsal break in most of the footprints we've seen over the last couple of years? Some prints are well defined BUT it's a normal looking print without the mid tarsal flex. In those instances where only one print is found, even though other are looked, for there is no mid-tarsal flex from a step, a run, a walk, or a jump. just a relatively flat print.

"Patty" showed the mid-tarsal flex and a few other prints look to have a similar morphology. My understanding is that the Great Apes have this defining trait. Homo does not- ever?? So defining Sasquatch as Homo is attempting to combine the genus of two families- Pan and Homo. Sasquatch has more Pan than Homo IMO BUT! with a larger braincase. To me a larger braincase doesn't necessarily mean Homo. I think it is as I said.....neither Human nor Ape. It's perceived Human-ness IS in it's brain and it's upright gait. But if I was to divide all the characteristics up including it's physical description? 75-80% Pan. Most likely more than 80%.

The find in South Africa is not Pan. The foot is Human- Sasquatch's is Pan. The thread title drops the thought into one's mind of "Homo" before the discussion can even begin. Sure the find is significant, and sure it shows yet another line of Homo. And yes we DO need to look in North America for it's own version......of Pan.

"For those of us that don't think Sasquatch is Homo..." It's to the point where I don't even understand what is being stated in the title. The way I've been reading it is that the thread is for people like me that DON'T think Sasquatch is Homo. But the link is truly 100% about Homo, and not at all about Sasquatch. Took me a while to get it. Very clever. Had me going for a while there.

Sorry for the length of this. Anyone follow what I've just said? It's easy.....Bigfoot, mid-tarsal break; Homo, no mid-tarsal break. I wonder how Dr. Meldrum would approach this?

Edited September 13, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The biomechanics displayed by the Sasquatch in the Patterson film is almost identical to that of humans. Same thing with the limb proportions; almost identical. All a person needs to do to look like one from a distance is wear a fur coat. 

[hiflier]

Hello OntarioSquatch,

And that's what I'm saying regarding Patty's gait. But the mid-tarsal break that showed up in the footprint ISN'T a biometric of Humans. It's a trait in the Great Apes. Homo doesn't have that so the title of this thread should be more like "No Mid-Tarsal Break Seen In New So. African Homo". THEN I would've interpreted the title no problem. I didn't know HOW to interpret the existing title.

1) "For Those Of Us Who Don't Think Sasquatch Is Genus Homo..." here's a link that shows it's possible isn't .

OR:

2) "For Those Of Us Who Don't Think Sasquatch Is Genus Homo..." guess again because Sasquatch in only one of many lines of Homo (this link that says it's possible is).

IDK- popping in the word Sasquatch into the title? Kind of muddied things up.

Edited September 13, 2015 by hiflier

[bipedalist]

"There is no damage from predators, there is no sign of a catastrophe. We had to come to the inevitable conclusion that Homo naledi, a non-human species of hominid, was deliberately disposing of its dead in that dark chamber. Why, we don't know," Berger told CNN.

"Until the moment of discovery of 'naledi,' I would have probably said to you that it was our defining character. The idea of burial of the dead or ritualized body disposal is something utterly uniquely human."

 

From a CNN link:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/africa/homo-naledi-human-relative-species/index.html

 

The burial part is key. 

 

From an NYU Press Release by James Devitt: “An international research team, which includes NYU anthropologists Scott Williams and Myra Laird, has discovered a new species of a human relative. Homo naledi, uncovered in a cave outside of Johannesburg, South Africa, sheds light on the diversity of our genus and possibly its origin.

‘“This discovery is unprecedented in the sheer number of hominins collected from such a small area in the virtual absence of other animal remains,†says Williams, an assistant professor in NYU’s Department of Anthropology. “That makes this site unique. Moreover, the announcement describes only the tip of the iceberg of analyses that will come, and we hope that is also true of the cave itself and the material that it still holds.â€â€™

Williams worked at the excavation identifying and processing the material as it came out of the cave. In addition, both Williams and Laird attended a 2014 workshop, in which scholars from around the world traveled to Johannesburg to carry out studies on the fossils. At the gathering, Williams led the study of the axial skeleton, which included the vertebrae and ribs, while Laird, a doctoral candidate, worked on the skullsâ€

This discovery is profoundly important for the field of physical anthropology and the study of human origins. Congratulations to Scott, Myra, and their colleagues!

 

 

 NYU team was in on this ......  

Edited September 13, 2015 by bipedalist

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Recent studies have shown that mid-tarsal flexibility is also a human trait http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130606-feet-primates-science-research-anthropology-study-apes-humans/

[Patterson-Gimlin]

(Oh.  Oh.  Actually the *real* reason I posted this:  to show how taxonomy might surprise people - particularly those of us who have been thinking that an ape is the most likely thing we are gonna call that North American primate when all is said and done.  But the more I read it and think about it...the more important the above become.)

Thank you for explaing that.  I actually agree with you. 

[hiflier]

Hello Ontario Squatch.

 

From that article:

 

"But perhaps some people's feet can still manage ape-like feats. According to DeSilva's study, conducted over the past two summers, about 1 in 13 humans may have the midtarsal break in their feet.the midtarsal break in their feet."

 

And:

 

"But it's all relative. Some subjects with floppier feet didn't technically have a midtarsal break, though their walking pattern came close,"

Edited September 13, 2015 by hiflier

[MIB]

about 1 in 13 humans may have the midtarsal break in their feet."

 

I've been hearing about this

 

It does not pass the sniff test.   They do or they don't.  No "may have" about it.   It's really simple.  We have proof of humans.  By the billions.  1 in 13 is a huge number.  Go round up 100 people at the beach and ask to look at their feet, ask them to take a couple steps, see how the foot flexes.    Unless the suggestion is that those feet only have a relic mid-tarsal break that no longer functions (and if so, 1) is it really a break?  2) is it relevant to the discussion of mistaking human for bigfoot tracks if people can't use it?) it should be pretty obvious.   Couple hours, case closed one way or the other. 

 

Continuing to say "may" when a determination can readily be made within a couple hours and the case closed is inherently manipulative.  Someone is taking things out of context for dishonest purposes.

 

MIB

Edited September 13, 2015 by MIB

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

It's saying the amount flexibility varies from person to person. The 1 in 13 thing is just a rough estimate. Prior to these studies it was believed that Homo sapiens didn't have any mid-tarsal flexibility at all.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The difference from person to person can be really dramatic

 

 

 

It some cases it's difficult to tell the difference between a Sasquatch foot and a regular human foot

 

Edited September 13, 2015 by OntarioSquatch

[SWWASAS]

I have very flat feet. My foot print in the sand looks like the middle picture. For that reason I am very leery of declaring any human norm size footprint found where there are other signs of human presence as likely anything but human. The probability is just not good enough for me when 10 To 20 percent of certain ethnic human populations exibit signs of the mid tarsal break. If there are ten or 100 thousand humans for every BF then unless the size of the print exceeds human norms, it is less likely BF and more likely human just because of probability.

[Doc Holliday]

i'd like to see more effort or info  on the burial issue with this new find.... that has potential to explain a few things imo....

 

 I wonder how Dr. Meldrum would approach this?

 

 after the good doctor M ditched KBhunters blog  and a forum with many folks that had spent good $$ on "Legend Meets Science"......

 

tbh, after that   i'd be more interested in Dr Scholl's opinion.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

[norseman]

My wife picks up things with her feet. I can barely spread my toes.

[Guest DWA]

With all the variation in the human foot, there appear to be consistencies in sasquatch tracks that can be used to "type" them as not (OK, in all probability not) human.

 

(And this is without even having to consider:  1.  what's a barefoot person doing here? or 2. how could a human make these tracks?)