BobZenor Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I gave up on using hominin when some tried to make chimps also belong to it. Anthropology still commonly uses the definition of hominid as an upright walking ape assumed to be closer to a modern human than a chimp. That is still common usage. That was me paraphrasing the definition. It is just confusing when they change the name hominid and don't have a suitable consistent replacement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Can't wait until all of the links work and the whole site is up and running. <sigh> I agree with JDL, "Hominoid" gives lots of wiggle room when results (if any) may come in from ongoing research, on top of the fact that the stated mission of the org is research about creatures from around the world. This suggests to me that they know that might be dealing with varying degrees of homo, i.e. creatures that are close AND those not so close to modern humans, genetically speaking... Has Bindernagel swung more towards the "more humanlike" camp of late? I have not read his newest book, and the rumor is that he has seen a Sas from the Kentucky Project, right?...Meldrum, though obviously leaning toward ape hypothesis has been pretty careful in how he crouches his words, even leaving himself wiggle room in LMS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted September 6, 2011 Admin Share Posted September 6, 2011 Impressive editorial board, but I just have to at this pic. Nice hair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 He could go either way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Given the forthcoming release of the BF genome by Dr. Ketchum’s group, which may include DNA from some form or other of relict Homo, they seem to be hedging their bets in using the all inclusive, wide open, term, 'hominoid', as opposed to hominid. .... - Dudlow I didn't realize she was making that claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dudlow Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Nice hair! I don't think that's hair, 'gigantor', I think that's the plug. - Dudlow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dudlow Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) I didn't realize she was making that claim. 'parnassus', I think it was one of Dr. Ketchum's former, disgruntled, anti-NDA team members who posted here for a while who implied something to that effect; or it was one of the other so-called insiders. It's buried somewhere in the over 1000 posts on those threads dealing with the whole DNA\shooting debacle. I guess we won't know the truth until either Ketchum's October 1st address at the Honobia Conference (if that is where she is speaking) or following her official release down the road some time. Someone else also recently posted that David Paulides over at the OP is bursting at the seams, so to speak, anxious to spill the 'shocking' beans concerning the nuclear DNA findings, which apparently, for some reason or other which I am not aware of, he is supposedly somehow privy to; another leading and tantalizing prospect which we'll just have to wait for, if there's anything to it. Lots of smoke and mirrors. Lots of sizzle. I'm tired of asking where's the steak. - Dudlow Edited September 7, 2011 by Dudlow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 "I think that's the plug." Good one, Dudlow. I don't count on anything coming of the Ketchum business. No point discussing it until it's really published one way or another. Is there a DNA analysis vanity press? BobZenor, I think your avatar has some kind of infestation. GIF mites, maybe. Gold Bond might help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) I don't think that's hair, 'gigantor', I think that's the plug. - Dudlow Best laugh in the last three months. If you want to bring attention to your effort, include an attention-seeker. Edited September 7, 2011 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Is it possible Dr. Meldrum is just finally moving towards the Russian theories? The Almas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Dr. Meldrum coined the title with Dimitri Bayanov several years ago. It's unrelated to Ketchum's study. It makes sense to cast your net wide with the word "hominoid" (all apes, including modern humans). You never know if something interesting like Orang Pendek turns out to be a convergently bipedal gibbon. They'd probably hate to have that one fall out of their bailiwick. But not so wide that you include the less sensational discoveries of "just" another monkey species, which happens from time to time without much fanfare unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I gave up on using hominin when some tried to make chimps also belong to it. Anthropology still commonly uses the definition of hominid as an upright walking ape assumed to be closer to a modern human than a chimp. That is still common usage. That was me paraphrasing the definition. It is just confusing when they change the name hominid and don't have a suitable consistent replacement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini Yeah, Bob, I agree. That's a bit much. We've been separated from Pan for about 6 million years (ignoring a fair amount of interbreeding in the beginning) AND we have a pretty major morphological suite of differences in our bipedality. Compared to other mammalian families, including other primates, that would rate as a subfamily difference IMHO, much more than a tribe (which is the hominin level you and I took so long to learn anew). That Wikipedia article is the first I've come across Pan included in our tribe. We'll see if it takes. These new groupings don't always. When discussing these things, in order to be precise and understood, names matter and so does nomenclature stability. All our rankings above species are arbitrary anyway, just so long as they clearly represent our best hypothesis on true relationships. Scientists often argue against changing groupings purely on stability grounds. Not being clear on definitions is 50% of the ruckus seen on the BFF concerning whether Sasquatch is an "ape" or a "human." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 'parnassus', I think it was one of Dr. Ketchum's former, disgruntled, anti-NDA team members who posted here for a while who implied something to that effect; or it was one of the other so-called insiders. It's buried somewhere in the over 1000 posts on those threads dealing with the whole DNA\shooting debacle. I guess we won't know the truth until either Ketchum's October 1st address at the Honobia Conference (if that is where she is speaking) or following her official release down the road some time. Someone else also recently posted that David Paulides over at the OP is bursting at the seams, so to speak, anxious to spill the 'shocking' beans concerning the nuclear DNA findings, which apparently, for some reason or other which I am not aware of, he is supposedly somehow privy to; another leading and tantalizing prospect which we'll just have to wait for, if there's anything to it. Lots of smoke and mirrors. Lots of sizzle. I'm tired of asking where's the steak. - Dudlow D It seems to me that Paulides knows the results of his samples. He is a very aggressive individual and was in this thing early on. I think he is the one who really got the ball rolling. He may not know the results of all the samples, but he must know his own; and from what he has said, they are human Native American. As far as I know, none of this "part ape" stuff has come out of his mouth. IMO he is going to use eyewitness testimony with affidavits to link these samples to a big hairy creature, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) I want to say that the neanderthal,caveman,missing link view is just a myth.They never existed.Not trying to get into religion but the first man and woman were completely human.Scientist used their imagination to come up with what a neanderthal or caveman was supposed to look like.So since a relict homonoid never even existed,bigfoot definitely couldn't have originated from such. Those relic humanoids could have been created from some of the BF species bones.Since The bones are probably not regular human looking bones, they came up with "pre-human" ancestors to explain them. Edited September 7, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dudlow Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) D... He may not know the results of all the samples, but he must know his own; and from what he has said, they are human Native American. As far as I know, none of this "part ape" stuff has come out of his mouth. IMO he is going to use eyewitness testimony with affidavits to link these samples to a big hairy creature. I agree with your analysis of Paulides' stated position, 'parnassus'. But since he hasn't published the DNA results of his own specimens submitted, I am wondering if he is simply bound by the blanket nondisclosure agreement everyone else originally signed with Ketchum concerning the 'shooting incident' specimens, which he seems to have sponsored, so to speak. So, at least tentatively, I am making a distinction between his and the shooter's specimens, as I think you are as well. Perhaps the complete genome was not available from his own pre-shooter specimens and he is deferring, instead, to Ketchum's coming announcement of the complete genome findings from the shooter's sample. As for promoting his widely known agenda that BF are Native American, or 'people', as he usually refers to them, I would expect a difference between what the scientifically verifiable Bigfoot/Sasquatch DNA will show and what the word 'people' generally infers. 'People' sounds pleasingly warm and fuzzy but tends to overdo it, IMHO, as being far too anthropomorphic, insofar as BF are concerned. From the point of view of my own sightings and encounters, I agree with those who say BF are not animal but, rather, 'manimal', as the Russians like to put it. Their faces look far too similar to humans to be simply animals and their inferred intelligence sets them equally apart. Additionally, because Squatchy seems not to be present in the anthropoidal fossil record, I have therefore long considered them to be a hybrid of ape or relict Homo + human. But again, personally, I will let the DNA genome speak for me when that train comes in. - Dudlow Edited September 7, 2011 by Dudlow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts