Hairy Man Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Hairy Man, Thanks. I gather that you have a relationship with the BLM. Next time I go out to the Bay Area I'll try to get over to the Phoebe hearst Museum of Anthropology. It would be interesting to have a DNA analysis of the Lovelock remains done. They clearly were much taller than the average Paiute, or other ethnic human of the time, and averaged somewhat taller than most Americans today. The excavation of the Lovelock cave revealed arrows, but no bows, and the arrows were from the topmost layer, consistent with the Paiute account that they trapped the Si-Teh-Cah in the cave then fired arrows into the cave and set a fire at its entrance. There were, however, pleanty of both darts and atlatl from the upper layers on down. The fact that the Si-Teh-Cah were still using atlatls when the Paiutes transitioned to bows is interesting and consistent with their name, the stick-thrower people. It also indicates that racially, they probably were taller and longer armed than the Paiutes. An atlatl dart, thrown by a 6'6" Si-Teh-Cah with long arms would certainly have greater force and distance than one thrown by a 5' Paiute, and would likely compete well with a Paiute bow. For the Si-Teh-Cah to retain the atlatl when others were using bows indicates that they must have perceived some advantage to doing so. I am an archaeologist with the US Forest Service. You can always check the NAGPRA database to see what remains/artifacts have been repatriated. It can be found here: http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/ . Lovelock Cave Smithsonian number is NV-Ch-18. I'm fairly certain that the human remains were studied and the results published. Just as an aside, Sarah Winnemucca supposedly had some Si-Teh-Cah hair woven into one of her dresses. We have looked in several musuems trying to find that dress but it appears to be the one that she was buried in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Interesting about the Lovelock Caves skeletons! I had heard of the story but didn't know there were still remains out there. I found this on a search: http://www.sydhav.no/giants/lovelock.htm No idea if there indeed are remains left at the Humboldt Museum, someone could check on that. The picture of the normal mandible cast next to the giant mandible is quite eye-opening. Not that it gives us any idea on height. Also, 8 ft. is within normal human variation though quite far up the bell curve of probability. 7 ft. is much more likely even, and that is pretty remarkable and would show an impressive mandible size as well. So...who thinks that Ketchum, Meldrum et al are up against a paradigm shift in the scientific community? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift Also, just a note that genetic variability does not necessarily cause physical or phenotypic variability. In fact genetic bottlenecks which diminish genetic variability are a cause of phenotypic variation, some indeed can lead to speciation events if there are changes in mating availability or behaviour, chromosome number, fertility etc. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1978547/ Wikipedia has a great write-up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation Great discussion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Not to derail the most recent topic but I had it noted, somewhere in the back of my mind, that this is the week for the unveiling of the study from Dr. Ketchum. I'm sorry if this is old news and already discussed and tossed aside but I can't bring myself to sort through all of the discussions in this record setting thread. Any updates about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 This is the week??? Awesome, I am going to tell everybody this is the week for sure. That's how rumors get started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 About a week ago in this very thread someone wrote the paper would be out "B 4 2 long", obviously meaning the second of April. I'll have to look up who said that if nothing comes out today. Who said eating crow was only for skeptics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 2, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) Nope, you got the wrong code on that...... SORRY, crow pie on hold, lol (good try on the potential force-feeding though.......) Edited April 2, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 No, really. Explain. Did I read it or remember it wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 2, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted April 2, 2012 It was a play on bingo and on text-abbrev's only, had nothing to do with months, dates, times etc. See, ain't posting fun. Now I have a number in mind for the next megamillions but I ain't telling.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Hehe, color me silly then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 I think you read it wrong WTB1, it was short for "before too long", a sarcastic joke made in part from Ketchums words and context about a ticket stub, everyone caught that but you I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Speed reading not my strong suite, thus - color me silly. Everyone caught it but me. 'Guess they're smarter than me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 I've shared this link several times on the BFF; here it is again: Brian Dunning's investigation of strange skulls and giant skeletons from North America. I can't recommend reading Dunning's work on this topic strongly enough. There's some interesting conflict of information on the Star Child in that link Saskeptic.. I cut and pasted these statements below. The primary strike against them is the 2003 DNA analysis. The child had normal human DNA and was male, having both X and Y chromosomes, proving that it had a human female mother and a human male father. Current Dna Analysis of the Star child skull shows that the mother was human but the fathers DNA came back as no known species, the Nuclear DNA was placed against those of known species in a data base of millions of known species and there was no match. None! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 April 5th This single date was posted 22 February and happens to fall on a Thursday. Not to make trouble... RE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Pick every thursday or hazard a guess...you'll be right atleast once you must profess.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Current Dna Analysis of the Star child skull shows that the mother was human but the fathers DNA came back as no known species, the Nuclear DNA was placed against those of known species in a data base of millions of known species and there was no match. None! SY, Do you have any references on that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts