indiefoot Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) I doubt any but the 20 or so BF skeptical society members will agree that the so called copyright conclusions are important. Edited February 8, 2012 by indiefoot 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) 20? try most of the world.... I don't really care about what the copyright stuff says. I'm patiently (well perhaps not so patiently) awaiting the paper. It will tell me all I need to know about this issue. If it's done well and points to an unknown primate living in the USA well great! If it says homo sapiens and starts pointing out strange deviations not present on Genbank, I start to lose my enthusiasm. Bigfoot can't be a homo sapiens sapiens with a weird polymorphism. It's at least a subspecies if not a different genus. Edited February 8, 2012 by Wookie73 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I am still not getting the gist here I think Parn. Just because it came back Human, how does that indicate what your saying? Neanderthal is Human, yet very different from us. Radically different if Danny Vendramini is correct in his depiction of them.( I am just using them as an example here). Could there not be that kind of variance, yet, still genetically test Human? I understand we could get into the whole definition of Human from the aspect of tools,cultural organization,etc. But speaking strictly from the DNA, would Ketchum and the crew really be inaccurate in calling the DNA Human? Excluding fantastical claims, just sticking to bigger, stronger,hairier, and what ever interesting evolutionary changes may or may not have occurred. They did not say it tested Homo sapiens, just that it tested Human......or am I just messing this all up? I just wanted re-post this,in case it got lost in the crowd, I am seriously wondering on it,if we can tell the difference between us and Neanderthal(radically different looking), then we should be able to tell the difference,between us and Bigfoot, even though Ketchums results would apparently indicate we are all human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 He said modern human. sapien sapien human. If that's what the results say , they are worthless and any conclusions made that allude to anything other than modern humans will be also worthless. Bigfoot isn't us.If it somehow is, then it's much ado about nothing and there's just people living in the woods and being mistaken for a monster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) I did not see where Ketchum or anyone from that camp said Homo sapiens sapiens, I did see a mention of Human however, could you direct me to that Wookie? Maybe it was Lindsey, or someone, I can't even remember now, but I know I did not see Homo sapiens sapiens Edited February 8, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Patience, patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 20? try most of the world.... I don't really care about what the copyright stuff says. I'm patiently (well perhaps not so patiently) awaiting the paper. It will tell me all I need to know about this issue. If it's done well and points to an unknown primate living in the USA well great! If it says homo sapiens and starts pointing out strange deviations not present on Genbank, I start to lose my enthusiasm. Bigfoot can't be a homo sapiens sapiens with a weird polymorphism. It's at least a subspecies if not a different genus. 20 or so that are concerned enough to make their opinions on the subject known to the enthusiasts in the field. I agree with the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Let me get this straight. Homo Sapien Sapien is "modern human". Any subspecies of Homo Sapien is not modern human, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Just in case anyone is wondering what I am talking about, this video is also a depiction of Human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Neanderthal weren't big enough to be the source of Sasquatch tho..... Plus, that guy makes a lot of broad assumptions in his conclusions. Plus, Neanderthal wouldn't have a muDNA of modern human. (i don't know what it would be, not my field, but it wouldn't be homo sapien, it would prolly be Homo neanderthalensis, is that right?....if not sorry). Which wasn't mentioned by the folks here that supposedly know the results. Edited February 8, 2012 by Wookie73 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I was just using Neanderthal as an example, its Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, there was some debate for a while to drop the sapiens part,but I do believe that ended when they discovers we actually had some Neanderthal DNA in us, something about interbreeding. So apparently Neanderthal is human, a good example maybe of Bigfoot could be Human to, yet still look and behave differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Why would that be a sad state of affairs? He only has room for 25 papers! He can't conjur up more space! It's not like the rejected quality papers will never be seen. They will move on to other journals and eventually they will be published. Plus, regardless of publishing they will be discussed at symposiums and other scientific meetings. Good data isn't ever left behind. That has been Bigfootery's problem, the lack of good data. Well unless you are Saskeptic, remember he gave up on his great paper. Maybe it just wasn't good enough or every journal he submitted to didn't have the room, each of them with their cup running over. Discussing at symposiums won't cut it for bigfoot proof and you know it. Good data starts with unhoaxable biological samples and that is what we are discussing. Like this right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 But according to Mulder, it could be Homo sapiens and NOT be human!! RayG I wonder if he meant 'anatomically modern human', i.e., homo sapiens sapiens. And I see that "human nature" can be both affirmed and denied within a couple of posts, depending on its rhetorical use. It this isn't mendacity, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I am still not getting the gist here I think Parn. Just because it came back Human, how does that indicate what your saying? Neanderthal is Human, yet very different from us. Radically different if Danny Vendramini is correct in his depiction of them.( I am just using them as an example here). Could there not be that kind of variance, yet, still genetically test Human? I understand we could get into the whole definition of Human from the aspect of tools,cultural organization,etc. But speaking strictly from the DNA, would Ketchum and the crew really be inaccurate in calling the DNA Human? Excluding fantastical claims, just sticking to bigger, stronger,hairier, and what ever interesting evolutionary changes may or may not have occurred. They did not say it tested Homo sapiens, just that it tested Human......or am I just messing this all up? I just wanted re-post this,in case it got lost in the crowd, I am seriously wondering on it,if we can tell the difference between us and Neanderthal(radically different looking), then we should be able to tell the difference,between us and Bigfoot, even though Ketchums results would apparently indicate we are all human. JohnC: if there are a few places where, in referring to Ketchum's stuff, I accidentally left off themodern in modern human, mea culpa; but in reference to her studies, that is what I always have meant, and do mean. Modern human, H. sapiens sapiens.... Perhaps I should start using the abbreviation Hss, that way I won't forget the "modern". She has never referred to neanderthals, that I know of, nor has Paulides, nor has she or Stubstad given any evidence that the mtDNA or nuDNA is neanderthal or other primitive Homos, nor has anyone else given any evidence that I know of; so I don't believe that "confusion" should be very confusing. If so, I apologize. If I ever want to refer to neanderthals, etc, I will make that plain. thanks, p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlurryMonster Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Just in case anyone is wondering what I am talking about, this video is also a depiction of Human. No it isn't. It's one person's opinion of what a subspecies of human could have looked like, and that opinion doesn't seem very good to me, as it's based on very flawed conclusions that come from a person who isn't an anthropologist (or other kind of scientist) of any kind. His website even admits these ideas are based on "imagination and creativity". There's absolutely no reason to think that Neanderthals would have looked like that, and the evidence he presents is pretty bad. For example: Neanderthals didn't have protruding faces, just look at a Neanderthal skull compared to a chimp's (notice how he only shows a drawing of a chimp and not an actual skull) - there's a big difference; they also had noses like we do, and we know that because their jaws don't protrude like a chimp's, but are flat, like ours; and those are just the most glaring fallacies he presents. It's bad science, and it seems to me like he's throwing out wild speculation to make a name for himself (or money). By the way, that guy's point of view isn't as groundbreaking as he's trying to make it seem. Since they've been discovered, and especially in the late 1800s, some people have always tried to portray Neanderthals as apeish, savage brutes that we conquered over; think about the ape men in Doyle's The Lost World, for example. Think about it, though: they had 99.7% of the same genes we do (way too close to look that different), we interbred with them, they cared for their injured, and they buried their dead. That opinion just doesn't hold up. As far as your question on why bigfoot can't have human DNA, as others have said, the issue is that the DNA is supposedly modern human. Something with the same DNA as us wouldn't look as different as bigfoot is supposed to, and the conclusion that bigfoot produced the samples in the first place is flawed, since it would be likely that an ordinary human left the DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts