Guest Theagenes Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 ^Apehuman, there are three species of Paranthropus identified so far: P. boisei, P. robustus, and P aethipicus. The most recently dated fossils are aroung 1.2mya so yes, they would overlap with the earliest H. erectus. There are several appealing things about Paranthropus spp. (or a taller descendent) as a BF candidate, including the fact that they have a sagittal crest, but it would be harder to reconcile that with MK supposed interbreeding results. There is also no evidence they ever left Africa (though that doesn't mean that they didn't) ^Apehuman, there are three species of Paranthropus identified so far: P. boisei, P. robustus, and P aethipicus. The most recently dated fossils are aroung 1.2mya so yes, they would overlap with the earliest H. erectus. There are several appealing things about Paranthropus spp. (or a taller descendent) as a BF candidate, including the fact that they have a sagittal crest, but it would be harder to reconcile that with MK supposed interbreeding results. There is also no evidence they ever left Africa (though that doesn't mean that they didn't) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Regarding the reaction to habituation as part of the Ketchum Study: I can only speak for myself...I am NOT a researcher, I am the ultimate armchair squatcher. I have been on this board for many MANY habituation stories. Most were concocted by lonely, needy people, who wanted attention. And we gave it to them. Sometimes, their reported encounters went on for many months. On at least ONE occasion (CreekFreak), a member of this board went to the location, to try and help the habituator out. My point: We have seen/heard many habituation stories that turned out to be nothing...So, I think we tend to be dismissive of them, until there is an extraordinary level of trust or evidence. Bipto comes to mind...Bipto is known to many of us, and I can make an argument that the even handed nature of this board is because of his early guidance, and creation of that culture. Maybe we have been TOO dismissive of habituation stories...Perhaps, after the 'day', we will have to re-evaluate most of them. I am okay with that, and will take it on the chin if it turns out we turned away some folks who really DO have sasquatch living in close contact with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 (edited) I have said this before about habituation and habituators, but it bears saying again: 1) If you publish a book, and expect me to pay money for it, the proof better be in it, and I better know that is true before the money hits the counter. 2) If you are coming here to share with other habituators, you are no more required to produce proof to anyone pushing for it than bipto is for the doings in Area X. In fact, feel free to tell them that DWA said they should pay. Then work out a price. I reserve a special exception for those who are just cooking up a story, and make it plain that what they are shooting for is reaction from people they can sass back. Edited January 15, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 (edited) It might not surprise you that I don't disagree with either of you. For balance however, one might also point to the over blown claims of hunters/trackers, their bogus history as rich, if not more so, until more recently? Thanks for that info as well on the fossil lines, the real question for me (lol) is the possibility that those lemur genes remained active in either line but not expressed in denisova, neanderthal or us..or gorillas and orangs? Edited January 15, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 If you publish a book, and expect me to pay money for it, the proof better be in it, and I better know that is true before the money hits the counter. I guess you don't own any BF books then DWA? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I guess you don't own any BF books then DWA? Only serious ones.My problem with things like the Carter Farm/Enoch shenanigans: they are saying things are true that are at odds with evidence, of which I have read much. When you are doing that, you better have better than your say-so. (You too, Melba. I hope this isn't going to be something you got out of a peanut butter jar, or off a bagel or a stack of flapjacks. No bigfoot, no type specimen.)The books I have, I have because they are compelling compendia of and analysis of evidence. They don't say, here's the proof. Habituators' books do. If you are going to have the big guy hanging out at your house, and you don't get pictures, video and audio up the ying, you can talk about it here all you want. But I'm not paying for a book of that talk when I can do it here, for free. I guess you don't own any BF books then DWA? Only serious ones.My problem with things like the Carter Farm/Enoch shenanigans: they are saying things are true that are at odds with evidence, of which I have read much. When you are doing that, you better have better than your say-so. (You too, Melba. I hope this isn't going to be something you got out of a peanut butter jar, or off a bagel or a stack of flapjacks. No bigfoot, no type specimen.)The books I have, I have because they are compelling compendia of and analysis of evidence. They don't say, here's the proof. Habituators' books do. If you are going to have the big guy hanging out at your house, and you don't get pictures, video and audio up the ying, you can talk about it here all you want. But I'm not paying for a book of that talk when I can do it here, for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 ^I honestly can't say on lemur nose issue. But the sagittal crest and hairiness could be a similar thing---dormant traits that re-emerge when you have a population living for a longtime in an enviroment or under substinence conditions that require them. In other words if you had a population of H. erectus that migrated into eastern Siberia and lived there for tens of thousands of years eating tundra grass or something they might regain their body hair and sagittal crests. Might they also regain a lemur-like nose? It seems like a stretch, but who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 (edited) I continue to have random formatting problems with random posts. Sorry. I guess you don't own any BF books then DWA? Only serious ones.My problem with things like the Carter Farm/Enoch shenanigans: they are saying things are true that are at odds with evidence, of which I have read much. When you are doing that, you better have better than your say-so. (You too, Melba. I hope this isn't going to be something you got out of a peanut butter jar, or off a bagel or a stack of flapjacks. No bigfoot, no type specimen.)The books I have, I have because they are compelling compendia of and analysis of evidence. They don't say, here's the proof. Habituators' books do. If you are going to have the big guy hanging out at your house, and you don't get pictures, video and audio up the ying, you can talk about it here all you want. But I'm not paying for a book of that.And this should be obvious, but here goes.The longest habituator book that doesn't have proof is a sighting report, essentially. Why would I pay for those when I can eat them like candy off free databases? Edited January 15, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 (edited) Lemur like seems a stretch, and yet apparently of the 10,000 lemur species many have uncanny resemblance to human faces, even the down turn nose....so it's not that it is "lemur like" in like a snout, but like a human's..or erectus or any down turned nostril ape, but that does have this functional feature.....it's a mystery. I am so antsy to see some paper, or publication of anyone's work on this besides the past DNA results reported...which sans the "bear" have all been seen, or reported on TV (where else?), as "human" (contamination or misidentification) or some known animal? Edited January 15, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Only serious ones.My problem with things like the Carter Farm/Enoch shenanigans: they are saying things are true that are at odds with evidence, of which I have read much. When you are doing that, you better have better than your say-so. (You too, Melba. I hope this isn't going to be something you got out of a peanut butter jar, or off a bagel or a stack of flapjacks. No bigfoot, no type specimen.)The books I have, I have because they are compelling compendia of and analysis of evidence. They don't say, here's the proof. Habituators' books do. I like evidence analysis too and to cut right to the chase. I don't think the habituator books (not many of them) claim to have proof. They do however have alot of information they want to share. The fifty years book did have some pics of either what Janice thought was their sign or a pic of one, but not claimed as proof. I'd be interested in specifics on what claims are at odds with the evidence. You know very well by now that Melba's evidence is mostly from hair samples. I'll let you in on a secret here, I'm ex-TBRC and I've investigated a number of the same places they have. In fact, my sample in this study was collected under 2 miles from where AH (Chairman of the TBRC) had his sighting, (minus any at area X). So you could say this study might corroborate his sighting, plus others in that area, including the photo's shared with him by a witness there, (also shown on Finding Bigfoot) Oklahoma episode. If you are going to have the big guy hanging out at your house, and you don't get pictures, video and audio up the ying, you can talk about it here all you want. But I'm not paying for a book of that.And this should be obvious, but here goes.The longest habituator book that doesn't have proof is a sighting report, essentially. Why would I pay for those when I can eat them like candy off free databases? Some of those sightings make clusters near homes and can span a decade. Does this sound similar to an habituation, yet with more witnesses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 <p> I like evidence analysis too and to cut right to the chase. I don't think the habituator books (not many of them) claim to have proof. They do however have alot of information they want to share. The fifty years book did have some pics of either what Janice thought was their sign or a pic of one, but not claimed as proof. I'd be interested in specifics on what claims are at odds with the evidence. For one thing, the claims of human-like intelligence and reasoning ability. For another, that they would habituate in the first place. Again, I'm not paying good coin of the realm for that. It could be true. It's just that I'm not indulging in one person's story to the tune of $$$$$$, when I can read many many people's stories - which seem to describe a different kind of animal, and thus are at odds - for free. You know very well by now that Melba's evidence is mostly from hair samples. I'll let you in on a secret here, I'm ex-TBRC and I've investigated a number of the same places they have. In fact, my sample in this study was collected under 2 miles from where AH (Chairman of the TBRC) had his sighting, (minus any at area X). So you could say this study might corroborate his sighting, plus others in that area, including the photo's shared with him by a witness there, (also shown on Finding Bigfoot) Oklahoma episode. Some of those sightings make clusters near homes and can span a decade. Does this sound similar to an habituation, yet with more witnesses? If Melba does not have a bigfoot, Melba does not have a type specimen, ergo no proof. Simple as that. Science will not acknowledge something that doesn't have an animal attached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I like evidence analysis too and to cut right to the chase. I don't think the habituator books (not many of them) claim to have proof. They do however have alot of information they want to share. The fifty years book did have some pics of either what Janice thought was their sign or a pic of one, but not claimed as proof. I'd be interested in specifics on what claims are at odds with the evidence. SY, What, then, is the difference between "true" habituation stories that "have alot of information," although nothing "claimed as proof," and false habituation stories that "have alot of information" but no "proof?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 You know very well by now that Melba's evidence is mostly from hair samples. I'll let you in on a secret here, I'm ex-TBRC and I've investigated a number of the same places they have. In fact, my sample in this study was collected under 2 miles from where AH (Chairman of the TBRC) had his sighting, (minus any at area X). So you could say this study might corroborate his sighting, plus others in that area, including the photo's shared with him by a witness there, (also shown on Finding Bigfoot) Oklahoma episode. and to back this up more I have something I won't share. Also I got someone close to the study say this week or next week today....but its here on another thread. LOL Over and out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 and to back this up more I have something I won't share. These types of statements should be banned. Nice to see you all learned from the whole Ed Smith debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I have a bigfoot in my backyard, ladi freakin da!! Under and In Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts