Siberian "yeti" (not) Erectus - maybe

[Steve Kane]

Nobody noticed this while I was away

It seems to have vanished - either its an awesome hoax (dates
at "several thousand years) or its "The really big one" tyhe
"iceman" of paleontology.

Comment please - especially those more informed than me.

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/siberia.htm

Steve

- NB original news was from BBC and russian agencies - not
"nutters anon"

[Mib529]

pieradoslobos@yahoo.com.br (Steve Kane) wrote in message
news:<53a93675.0401280536.63d93640@posting.google.com>...
> Nobody noticed this while I was away
>
> It seems to have vanished - either its an awesome hoax
> (dates at "several thousand years) or its "The really big
> one" tyhe "iceman" of paleontology.
>
> Comment please - especially those more informed than me.
>
> http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/siberia.htm
>
> Steve
>
> - NB original news was from BBC and russian agencies - not
> "nutters anon"

I thought erectus was shorter, still within HS range, of
course. IIRC, the yeti's supposed to be a big creature.

MIB (Silly jackalope. Trix are for kids.)

[Steve Kane]

We don't "know" how tall erectus was - just how tall the very
few samples we have found were - also how tall they could be
under different conditions of nutrition - hom sap are only now
showing how tall they can be and perhaps once were - pre
agriculture.

You're falling into that dangerous old trap again.

Does anyone "know" anything truly about this undoubted find?

Please

Steve

[Val Lentz]

"Steve Kane" <pieradoslobos@yahoo.com.br> wrote in message
news:53a93675.0401290229.7487ac2f@posting.google.com...
> We don't "know" how tall erectus was - just how tall the
> very few samples we have found were - also how tall they
> could be under different conditions of nutrition - hom sap
> are only now showing how tall they can be and perhaps once
> were - pre agriculture.
>
> You're falling into that dangerous old trap again.
>
> Does anyone "know" anything truly about this undoubted find?
>
> Please
>
> Steve

Bigfoot theory has just not received the vigorous scientific
treatment that it deserves! ;)

There have been many discoveries of unknown animals, new
species, and rediscovered species throughout the years. This
animal could be an unknown, but they say at the top of the
article that they have already identified the animal as a
bear. I would tend to agree with that because...

The photo of this animal shows that it has claws. Only the
very most primitive of the primates (and some don't consider
them to *be* primates) have claws, the rest have nails.
Erectus would have had nails. If bigfoot, or yeti, were
primates, they would also have nails, not claws.

http://www.bfro.net/

Val

[Mib529]

pieradoslobos@yahoo.com.br (Steve Kane) wrote in message
news:<53a93675.0401290229.7487ac2f@posting.google.com>...
> We don't "know" how tall erectus was - just how tall the
> very few samples we have found were - also how tall they
> could be under different conditions of nutrition - hom sap
> are only now showing how tall they can be and perhaps once
> were - pre agriculture.
>
> You're falling into that dangerous old trap again.
>
> Does anyone "know" anything truly about this undoubted find?
>
> Please
>
> Steve

I was relying on the size of the skeleton. In any case, its
height is clearly in HS range. The lower end of HS range.
Certainly not a yeti.

[Firstjois]

"Val Lentz" <vlentz@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ctcSb.330645$ts4.148625@pd7tw3no...
:
: "Steve Kane" <pieradoslobos@yahoo.com.br> wrote in message
: news:53a93675.0401290229.7487ac2f@posting.google.com...
: > We don't "know" how tall erectus was - just how tall the
: > very few samples we have found were - also how tall they
: > could be under different conditions of nutrition - hom sap
: > are only now showing how tall they can be and perhaps once
: > were - pre agriculture.
: >
: > You're falling into that dangerous old trap again.
: >
: > Does anyone "know" anything truly about this
: > undoubted find?
: >
: > Please
: >
: > Steve
:
: Bigfoot theory has just not received the vigorous scientific
: treatment
that
: it deserves! ;)
:
[snip]

So you are saying that it is right up there with AAR?

Jois

[Lorenzo L.]

MIB529 wrote:

> pieradoslobos@yahoo.com.br (Steve Kane) wrote in message
> news:<53a93675.0401290229.7487ac2f@posting.google.com>...
>
>>We don't "know" how tall erectus was - just how tall the
>>very few samples we have found were - also how tall they
>>could be under different conditions of nutrition - hom sap
>>are only now showing how tall they can be and perhaps once
>>were - pre agriculture.
>>
>>You're falling into that dangerous old trap again.
>>
>>Does anyone "know" anything truly about this undoubted find?
>>
>>Please
>>
>>Steve
>
>
> I was relying on the size of the skeleton. In any case, its
> height is clearly in HS range. The lower end of HS range.
> Certainly not a yeti.

Actually, many of the Yeti sighting report a slightly smaller
then human creature, quite different from the large North
American Bigfoot type creature. There is also the Almas or
Russian wildman and similar Yeren or Chinese wildman which is
different from both the Yeti and Bigfoot. Given where this was
found, it would be an Almas if it wasn't inconveniently a
bear's foot. Almost every region has it's own wildman legend.
Even Australia has it's Yowie. No convincing hard evidence for
any of them.

Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

"Reports that say something hasn't happened are always
interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns;
there are things we know we know. We also know there are known
unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do
not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we
don't know we don't know." Donald Rumsfeld

[Steve Kane]

I got the impression from the bbc article that the bones were
plainly human except for an extra small bone in the big toe.

Re Erectus height etc - if you read my article lower down on
corpse dispersal decompositio - a skeleton in a mineral
(calcium in particular) deficient area will go fast as all
critters chew on it -also groundwater tends to be acid in
these parts.

These means that the bone we have will tend to be
disproportionately from mineral rich areas - where folk
grow taller.

We don't need prof Lomberg to remind us how deceptive
"data" can be

[Pete]

Steve Kane wrote:
>
> I got the impression from the bbc article that the bones
> were plainly human except for an extra small bone in the
> big toe.

The paw has claws. It's obviously not even a primate.

--
pete

[Steve Kane]

pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<401A39B1.AF4@mindspring.com>...
> Steve Kane wrote:
> >
> > I got the impression from the bbc article that the bones
> > were plainly human except for an extra small bone in the
> > big toe.
>
> The paw has claws. It's obviously not even a primate.

Those two statments are not necessarily connected - the
statement was from the siberian vetenary institute. We have no
evidence either way as to whether humanoids had claws or
toenails at any stage - there is little difference. The X ray
pic are indistinct.

With things like this we - who've little data can make few
statements
- just ask if there is more data as I am now. "I don't know"

Now does anyone else have data instead of mere opinion?

Thankyo Steve

[Rick Wagle]

"pete" <pfiland@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:401A39B1.AF4@mindspring.com...
> Steve Kane wrote:
> >
> > I got the impression from the bbc article that the bones
> > were plainly human except for an extra small bone in the
> > big toe.
>
> The paw has claws. It's obviously not even a primate.
>
Oh, I dunno.....does sasquatchology allow for giant marmosets
roaming around in ancient Siberia?? :-)

Rick Wagler

[Steve Kane]

If I'm going to get an intelligent reply I'm going to have
to jump this back over the timewasters - ignore them for
god's sake - they and their "antagonists" are frequently the
same person.

[Lorenzo L.]

Rick Wagler wrote:

> "pete" <pfiland@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:401A39B1.AF4@mindspring.com...
>
>>Steve Kane wrote:
>>
>>>I got the impression from the bbc article that the bones
>>>were plainly human except for an extra small bone in the
>>>big toe.
>>
>>The paw has claws. It's obviously not even a primate.
>>
>
> Oh, I dunno.....does sasquatchology allow for giant
> marmosets roaming around in ancient Siberia?? :-)
>
> Rick Wagler
>
>

Would a giant ground sloth do? Google ' mapinguari
"David Oren" '. Wrong continent but these big guys seems
to get around.

Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

“Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything
remotely true.”
Homer Simpson

[Pete]

Steve Kane wrote:
>
> If I'm going to get an intelligent reply I'm going to have
> to jump this back over the timewasters - ignore them for
> god's sake - they and their "antagonists" are frequently the
> same person.

The x-ray clearly shows claws and color photo of the paw right
next to it, clearly shows claws.

Do you know what a primate is ?

--
pete

[Phillip Bi]

pieradoslobos@yahoo.com.br (Steve Kane) wrote in message
news:<53a93675.0401301041.7e2783a9@posting.google.com>...
> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<401A39B1.AF4@mindspring.com>...
> > Steve Kane wrote:
> > >
> > > I got the impression from the bbc article that the bones
> > > were plainly human except for an extra small bone in the
> > > big toe.

> > The paw has claws. It's obviously not even a primate.

> Those two statments are not necessarily connected We have no
> evidence either way as to whether humanoids had claws

Your statement is not strictly true. If we use cladistic
bracketing, we can conclude that no "humanoid" would have
carnivoran-like claws. The reasoning goes like this:

Modern humans lack claws and chimpanzees lack claws. Therefore
it is reasonable to conclude that the common ancestor of
modern humans and chimpanzees (and all of its descendants)
also lacked claws.

Using the same reasoning, we can go further down the
Anthropoid "tree" and conclude that the common ancestor of
modern humans and gorillas (and all of its descendants) also
lacked claws.

The clawed paw in the photo appears (to me) to be from a
carnivoran similar to a bear or a wolverine. Possibly
from a badger.

<pb>
--

[Steve Kane]

I'll translate that into english from the "american
without tears"

"I'm sorry mate but we don't know and cannot be bothered
to find out"

Morphologically it strikes me that there is little difference
between a toenail and a claw - claws are very adaptive for icy
environments - but that's just my opinion.

Either this is "Homo Piltdownovitch" and an embarrassment
hence given to the dog to play with.

Or its something "real" in which case someone is preparing a
paper and having it peer-reviewed in conditions of
confidentiality. This is what real scientists do (like in
the siberian vetinary institute) - precipitate press
releases are for kids.

But like I said I don't know - and I KNOW that I don't know -
but am TRYING TO FIND OUT. "Thanks for your help (NOT)"

Steve.

[Rick Wagle]

"Steve Kane" <pieradoslobos@yahoo.com.br> wrote in message
news:53a93675.0402020210.564ade81@posting.google.com...
> I'll translate that into english from the "american
> without tears"
>
> "I'm sorry mate but we don't know and cannot be bothered to
> find out"
>
> Morphologically it strikes me that there is little
> difference between a toenail and a claw - claws are very
> adaptive for icy environments - but that's just my opinion.
>
Hominoid apes are characterized, as are all higher primates by
having digits that end in nails not claws. Claws on an ape are
as likely as antlers on a wolf. Whatever this foot belongs to
and I should think it will not be that difficult to figure out
it is not a hominoid ape and that is how all yeti-sasquatch
tales describe the beast. End of story. However adaptive you
think claws might be an ape could not just evolve them. That's
not how things work.

> Either this is "Homo Piltdownovitch" and an embarrassment
> hence given to the dog to play with.
>
> Or its something "real" in which case someone is preparing a
> paper and having it peer-reviewed in conditions of
> confidentiality. This is what real scientists do (like in
> the siberian vetinary institute) - precipitate press
> releases are for kids.
>
It's quite likely real just rather unexceptional as to
identity. How this interesting curio gets slung into the
morass of sasquatch-yeti lore is beyond me.

> But like I said I don't know - and I KNOW that I don't know
> - but am TRYING TO FIND OUT. "Thanks for your help (NOT)"
>
You now have your answer. Claws mean its not an ape.
Sasquatches etc as described are apes.

Rick Wagler

[Phillip Bi]

pieradoslobos@yahoo.com.br (Steve Kane) wrote:

> Morphologically it strikes me that there is little
> difference between a toenail and a claw

You can, if you like, make up your own rules and definitions
(unfortunately, making up things is done frequently on this
newsgroup). But to a scientist, a claw and a toenail are
different things. The carnivoran paw in the photograph/X-ray
has claws. A claw is a recurved ungual bone that is covered,
top and bottom, in a keratin sheath. No Anthropoid primate
possesses recurved unguals.

> But like I said I don't know - and I KNOW that I don't know
> - but am TRYING TO FIND OUT. "Thanks for your help (NOT)"

My goodness, you *are* an angry little man, aren't you? You
have been given some good answers. Re-read the thread. You
must learn to listen.

<pb>
--

[Steve Kane]

I think its obvious that I wanted to hear if somebody had some
new info on this specific case - not a dogmatic statement as
to what constituted "homo" in some agreed definition.

Just because we have no examples of hominids with claws and
thus have defined them as such - does not mean that the gene
is not latent and capable of re-expression. If you have worked
in a maternity hospital and seen the "mistakes" you can see
that nature can go back into the rag-bin and have a go.
Generally these tries don't even take their first breath. But
evolutionary biology depends on that old rag-bag. Now if I was
proposing that a humanoid has wingsor hooves - something that
did not exist in its lineage at all - then your undergrad
sarcasm might be in place.

Name me a primate with physical and behavioural adaptations to
live meat capture and digestion.

We don't need claws - we had flint.

We have possible aquatic adaptions like subcutaneous fat - if
they had not proved useful later we would have lost them -
then you would have ridiculed them as a possible short-term
adaptation. As sub-cuaneous fat was retained you have to
accept it. Claws might be the same.

Like I said - does anyone one have some actual information on
THIS CASE rather than received orthodoxy?

If not - shut up. (PS I tip the scale at 100kg Little? the
other number when last measured by the military was 162 -
experience has compensated for decay since then) "Rigorous"
and not easily impressed by guff - was the description you
were reaching for.

[Steve Kane]

Oh by the way - no anthropoid primate has a tail. (Not)

If you had x-ray eyes you'd see (especially outside the US
where this "deformity" gets "corrected") you'd spot a
respectable tail or several most days in a big city. If this
was strongly adaptive it would flourish.

But homo does not have a tail!! you cry.

Now let's struggle for facts and understanding of those facts
- not very local status - OK?

SPURIOUS ASIDE "Scientists" are herbivours as that David Kelly
guy found out - they live very domesticated lives in the main,
and should'nt try and mess with the carnivours. (They should
have a care for their place in their familes too - rather than
just a place with their "peers" - but that's yet another
issue. "Egotistical" is not equal to "strong" - though it can
produce dominance in certain closed societies.) ASIDE ENDS
(don't respond in this thread please)

I am not a scientist - but I use science in my craft with
great rigor
- sadly that involves interaction with second rate
scientists at times.

No I am not a yeti believer - I believe in nothing. Belief is
unnecessary - only scientific rigour. And balanced enquiry.
More Occam
- less Commonroom please folks.

For "opinion" to be "informed" it must be embued with hard
information
- not just more opinion. That stuff we call "prejudice" - or
"narrow mindedness" (of an angry little man?)

Now - as I was saying.

Does anyone have more information - or stunningly
well-informed opinion on this specific matter?

I'm not looking for yetis - I'm possibly looking for "homo
erectus subspecies ice-adapted". The trouble is that
journalists (technophobe coprophages in the main) treat this
sort of thing just like "man finds potato shaped like homer
simpson" as if the potential for science was equal - and "gee
wizz" was all that mattered.

(Oliver Stone is making a documentary on the secret Nevada
storage facility where the government keeps thousands of
potatos shaped like cartoon characters - preserved since the
nineteen fifties. Donald Rumsfeldt was [it is claimed]
formerly a director of this facility - and possibly a potato
himself) ( not in this thread fer gawd's sake - the link was
slow - I got bored!!)

Thankyou Steve

[Lorenzo L.]

Steve Kane wrote:

> I think its obvious that I wanted to hear if somebody had
> some new info on this specific case - not a dogmatic
> statement as to what constituted "homo" in some agreed
> definition.
>
> Just because we have no examples of hominids with claws and
> thus have defined them as such - does not mean that the gene
> is not latent and capable of re-expression. If you have
> worked in a maternity hospital and seen the "mistakes" you
> can see that nature can go back into the rag-bin and have a
> go. Generally these tries don't even take their first
> breath. But evolutionary biology depends on that old
> rag-bag. Now if I was proposing that a humanoid has wingsor
> hooves - something that did not exist in its lineage at all
> - then your undergrad sarcasm might be in place.
>
> Name me a primate with physical and behavioural adaptations
> to live meat capture and digestion.
>
> We don't need claws - we had flint.
>
> We have possible aquatic adaptions like subcutaneous fat -
> if they had not proved useful later we would have lost them
> - then you would have ridiculed them as a possible
> short-term adaptation. As sub-cuaneous fat was retained you
> have to accept it. Claws might be the same.
>
> Like I said - does anyone one have some actual information
> on THIS CASE rather than received orthodoxy?
>
> If not - shut up. (PS I tip the scale at 100kg Little? the
> other number when last measured by the military was 162 -
> experience has compensated for decay since then) "Rigorous"
> and not easily impressed by guff - was the description you
> were reaching for.

Or what? You going to beat us up? THIS CASE has claws.
Hominoids do not have claws. Hominoid ancestors have not had
claws for at least 34 million years, maybe much longer.
Therefore THIS CASE is not a hominoid. Is that clear?

Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

"Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when he
is called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of
reason." Oscar Wilde

[Phillip Bi]

Steve Kane wrote:

> http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/siberia.htm

> SPURIOUS ASIDE "Scientists" are herbivours as that David
> Kelly guy found out - they live very domesticated lives in
> the main, and should'nt try and mess with the carnivours.
> (They should have a care for their place in their familes
> too - rather than just a place with their "peers" - but
> that's yet another issue. "Egotistical" is not equal to
> "strong" - though it can produce dominance in certain closed
> societies.) ASIDE ENDS (don't respond in this thread please)

I see that you came here with an anti-scientific establishment
agenda, hmmm? Strike #1.

> I am not a scientist - but I use science in my craft with
> great rigor
> - sadly that involves interaction with second rate
> scientists at times.

See my response, above.

> No I am not a yeti believer - I believe in nothing. Belief
> is unnecessary - only scientific rigour.
>
> For "opinion" to be "informed" it must be embued with hard
> information
> - not just more opinion.

The "hard information" you sought was provided to you here on
a silver platter. No living anthropoid has claws. No known
fossil anthropoid has claws. These observations are also
backed-up by cladistic bracketing, based on character analysis
of crown species.

> Does anyone have more information - or stunningly
> well-informed opinion on this specific matter?

You received a lot of good information here in this thread.
The paw in the photographs (above URL) is from a carnivoran of
some type. Probably of a bear, badger, or wolverine. Yet, you
claim that our responses provide useless information.

Strike #2.

> I'm not looking for yetis - I'm possibly looking for "homo
> erectus subspecies ice-adapted".

Ahhh.... Now we come to your *specific* agenda. For some
reason (unknown to the rest of us), you are looking for a
"homo erectus subspecies ice-adapted" [sic] animal. Probably a
living species. And you are searching for evidence to prove
your preconceived idea. So you latched onto the photos in the
above URL and now you are too stubborn to let go.

Strike #3.

Plonk!

<pb>
--
http://www.scn.org/~bh162/net-loon_index.html

[Steve Kane]

bh162@scn.org (Phillip Bigelow) wrote in message
news:<d5c1ba7b.0402042257.7923219a@posting.google.com>...
> I see that you came here with an anti-scientific
> establishment agenda, hmmm? Strike #1(not).
>
> Ignores tails - inserts "establishment" I think I was
> referring to individuals here - including you. No beef with
> "establishment" in this thread. Perhaps we have an
> establishment wannabe here? Me I know plenty profs - on good
> terms with them all.

Especially if they pass the Lomberg Test (Scientific
American did not
- subs cancelled) science is science - not a belief system.
>
> > I am not a scientist - but I use science in my craft with
> > great rigor
> > - sadly that involves interaction with second rate
> > scientists at times.

Read on for proof - of above (normally I delete all and write
a real response - this is different) - carry on Mr
"s.r.scientist"....
>
>
> See my response, above.

- I detect no relevence here -Phil
>
>
>
> > No I am not a yeti believer - I believe in nothing. Belief
> > is unnecessary - only scientific rigour.
> >
> > For "opinion" to be "informed" it must be embued with hard
> > information
> > - not just more opinion.
>
>
> The "hard information" you sought was provided to you here
> on a silver platter. No living anthropoid has claws. No
> known fossil anthropoid has claws. These observations are
> also backed-up by cladistic bracketing, based on character
> analysis of crown species.

Tails ehrm - tails ... - you clipped all that - proving your
game entirely - better shut up - you're bullshitting beyond
your weight and not even slightly interested in shedding any
light on the question. - In my humble opinion.
>
>
>
> > Does anyone have more information - or stunningly
> > well-informed opinion on this specific matter?
>
>
> You received a lot of good information here in this thread.
> The paw in the photographs (above URL) is from a carnivoran
> of some type. Probably of a bear, badger, or wolverine. Yet,
> you claim that our responses provide useless information.
>
> Strike #2(Not).

bear and wolverine are far enough apart to shed doubt on your
observation - cite "obvious" features APART FROM CLAWS that
might preclude humanity (for god's sake don't mention fur.
>
>
> > I'm not looking for yetis - I'm possibly looking for "homo
> > erectus subspecies ice-adapted".
>
>
> Ahhh.... Now we come to your *specific* agenda. For some
> reason (unknown to the rest of us), you are looking for a
> "homo erectus subspecies ice-adapted" [sic] animal. Probably
> a living species.

PROBABLY A LIVING SPECIES!!!!!???? wheredid I say that -
the article says "thousands of years old" ??? I also state
that "belief" is not my game - seems to be yours - I detect
some befief-system mediated "stick-ction" in the mental
process here.

And you are
> searching for evidence to prove your preconceived idea.

Where do I sue Milud - show me the evidence for that
statement.

So you
> latched onto the photos in the above URL and now you are too
> stubborn to let go.

Speak for yourself chum

>
> Strike #3.(not)

I don't play ball - but if I asked if anyone had seen the game
and heard the result I'd be cheesed off to hear from folk who
never saw the game nor heard the result but just knew for
shure that the blues could never beat the reds because
statistics showed they never had beat them on a wednesday in
June in an away game.

You didn't see the game - you never heard the score - you just
have to say something because you're on some childish
turf-wargame. Please abandon this thread you have said all you
have in your head. Thankyou.

NOW DOES SOMEONE HAVE SOME FACTS ON THIS CASE BEYOND WHAT WE
CAN READ IN THE ARTICLE?

Phil does not.
>
> Plonk!
>
> <pb>

Sorrry for this irritating posting folks - Some folk just
cannot hear "Don't impress me much" - but then not all folk
are "country and western folk" are we folks!? Steve

[Steve Kane]

Posted under a very non-bear/mustelid etc x-ray image on
the bbc site.

"It looks very human," Yuriy Malofeyev, vice-president of the
Russian association of veterinary anatomists, told the TV
after examining the X-rays.

Obviously this guy bought his qualifications mail-order. (not)

Steve.

Now let us have some intelligent debate.

[Pete]

Steve Kane wrote:
>
> bh162@scn.org (Phillip Bigelow) wrote in message
> news:<d5c1ba7b.0402042257.7923219a@posting.google.com>...
> > I see that you came here with an anti-scientific
> > establishment agenda, hmmm?

> > You received a lot of good information here in this
> > thread. The paw in the photographs (above URL) is from a
> > carnivoran of some type. Probably of a bear, badger, or
> > wolverine. Yet, you claim that our responses provide
> > useless information.
> >
> > Strike #2(Not).
>
> bear and wolverine are far enough apart to shed doubt on
> your observation - cite "obvious" features APART FROM
> CLAWS that might preclude humanity (for god's sake don't
> mention fur.

Bears, badgers, and wolverines are all in the same order,
Carnivora. You really don't know what a primate is, or what
Kingdom Phylum and Order mean, do you ?

--
pete

[Steve Kane]

http://www.nsummit.k12.ut.us/pages/yellowstone2002/day5-
.html bear

http://www.prehistorics.com/arctodus.htm That guy looks fun.

But I reckon the vice president of the russian academy of
vetinary medicine - knows better than you mate. (sorry "Oh
great and massively gifted one - just a wisker from a nobel
I'm sure")

Thanks for links to "roadkill" etc

[Steve Kane]

There's a lot of beasts in "carnivora"

One's with front facing five toes/claws in my experience are -
bears - but they seem shorter toed than our chap - or weasel
family (mustelidae) which includes badgers and wolverines.

I have no experience of wolverines but polecats, otters and
badgers of which I have plenty of first hand experience - yes
they have the five claws almost in line but their pads are if
anything broader than they are long - unlike the specimen.

Now I have given full consideration to your conceit

Kindly leave the thread (seeing that I accept your point but
do not consider it to "kill" the issue) and let others discuss
the rest of
it.

Yes this find might well have a banal explanation - "Iceman"
might have been a lost climber - but on the other hand it
might be a real paradigm-realigning find - in which case its
worth monitoring sceptically but hopefully perhaps.

The Russian acad of vet anatomy are sufficiently august to be
considered "establishment". - this has already left the
lunatic fringe. (Who's putting americans into space? before
you make a zenophobic retort)

Now please go away Phil - you are being rude and hectoring and
are only addressing a very small part of the factors at issue
- AGAIN and AGAIN.

I started this thread in order to find information - I've
continued it to prevent people like you scaring other folk off
from looking further into this. Being called "Phil" does not
give you power of veto in this place - this is a valid
discussion - you are filibustering it ("phil"ibuster?)

I have heard that one point made by you and others -- for me
there are other facts we need. Also you have ignored points
that would not submit to your chainsaw debating style. eg
"tails" and "the russian academy of vet anat"

"Well Done Phil (et al)" you definitely know SOMETHING and can
tell it ad nauseam - now go away please.

Steve

Now "where's the beef?"

Whats that thing in siberia?

[Pete]

Steve Kane wrote:

> "the russian academy of vet anat"

No explanation was given by the Russian for the opinion of
just exactly what about it, looked human.

Why do *you* think it looks human ?

--
pete

[Pete]

Steve Kane wrote:

> Also you have ignored points that would not submit to your
> chainsaw debating style. eg "tails" and "the russian
> academy of vet anat"

The tail is a good point, but you're the one ignoring it.

Tails are not a distinguishing characteristic of primates.
Some primates have tails, some don't.

That's why you've seen a photo of a human with a tail, and why
you've never seen a photo of a human with claws.

--
pete

[Steve Kane]

You're failing the (Dr Alan)Turing Test yourself Pete.

What evidence can you show of being human? - constantly
repeating the same statements - ignoring all truly pertinent
data - you might be a "device" similar to that which creates
"subject" lines for internet "worms".

I'll come back to this if anything new pops up of its
own accord.

Steve

ENDS

[Steve Kane]

You are a dog that chases hubcaps pete.

They don't "run away and conceed your dominance"

On the contrary - to have the close attention of a "hubcap
chaser" on a group with high activity is a sign of high
status. I am "the big truck"

The rule is to ignore dogs like you - neither to swerve to
avoid them nor to try and squash them. They are not human -
the responsablity of whoever grants them internet access ($)

If one day you hear "thud -thumpety thumpety" - don't worry -
hubcap chasing is non-adaptive. It exists because it simulates
the "buzz" of ancient adaptive activity. (in this case
territorial defense)

Many successful belief-systems work this way and attract
hub-cap chasers according to their needs.

"I'm off for a bit" - Last time I said something like this
(last summer) somebody saw the chance to stealthily get me
banned. There's a lot of "it" about. "thud - thumpety......."

[Pete]

Steve Kane wrote:

> What evidence can you show of being human?

I have finger nails and I can think for myself.

If somebody saying that a Russian said something, was enough
to make me think that a furry paw with claws looked human,
then I wouldn't be able to think for myself.

Here's a Kane Quote: "The X ray pic are indistinct." Now, in
that quote, you're talking about a jpeg at a URL, right next
to another color jpeg of the paw, clearly showing claws. Not
only are The X ray pic distinct, but the fact that you think
it matters whether or not the X ray pic is distinct shows that
you can't see the claws in either picture.

You couldn't see what was clearly shown in the color jpeg. You
were starstruck by second hand information from an unknown
Russian. You saw The Emperor's New Clothes, just because
somebody said that a Russian said something.

--
pete

[Steve Kane]

That's better - substance.

(By the way we auction the status of "village idiot" on a
timeshare basis here - I suggest you guys auction car-chasing
on a similar basis)

We see tails because - culture apart they are
adaptive-neutral.

Hominids "do not have tails" (I never said "primates")

If in post "revealed religion" times someone had been born
with claws they'd have real trouble passing on their genes.

Also we DON'T KNOW much about what earlier hominids had on the
end of their last digits. Finger and toe bones are likes hen's
teeth in the fossil record for many types of hominid.

What we do know is that some earlier branches of homo seem to
have been very carnivorous. Generally we just have a few
fragments of the most durable bones (google me earlier on what
happens to a pony corpse in my landscape - a landscape with
fauna and geology similar enough to that many early hominids
died in perhaps.)

I AM NOT SAYING THAT

#This find is ABSOLUTELY anything at all

#Early humans had claws, fur, tails or anything else for which
data is insufficient

#Hominids could possible have hooves, wings, scales or any of
the other things for which the "genetic gradient" would be
"steeper than vertical"

#That some of you folk post better when sober.

I AM JUST SAYING THAT

###These things are worth considering - particularly for
##people with
their "fur-trimmed claws" on better data.

GOOD SCIENCE HAS NO BELIEF SYSTEMS - ONLY ETHICS

You guys make statements that are "probably true" on the
balance of minute sample - as if they were "absolute facts" .
You're starting a religion. (cf Lomberg and the
"environmentalists")

Steve (thanks for getter slightly more "real")

[Rick Wagle]

"Steve Kane" <pieradoslobos@yahoo.com.br> wrote in message
news:53a93675.0402071258.a29b832@posting.google.com...
> You are a dog that chases hubcaps pete.
>
> They don't "run away and conceed your dominance"
>
> On the contrary - to have the close attention of a "hubcap
> chaser" on a group with high activity is a sign of high
> status. I am "the big truck"
>
> The rule is to ignore dogs like you - neither to swerve to
> avoid them nor to try and squash them. They are not human -
> the responsablity of whoever grants them internet access ($)
>
> If one day you hear "thud -thumpety thumpety" - don't worry
> - hubcap chasing is non-adaptive. It exists because it
> simulates the "buzz" of ancient adaptive activity. (in this
> case territorial defense)
>
> Many successful belief-systems work this way and attract
> hub-cap chasers according to their needs.
>
> "I'm off for a bit" - Last time I said something like this
> (last summer) somebody saw the chance to stealthily get me
> banned. There's a lot of "it" about. "thud -
> thumpety......."

This is all very nice but it still doesn't get claws onto
a hominoid ape. And what the hell is a 'veterinary
anatomist' anyway?

Rick Wagler

[Lorenzo L.]

Steve Kane wrote:
> You are a dog that chases hubcaps pete.
>
> They don't "run away and conceed your dominance"
>
> On the contrary - to have the close attention of a "hubcap
> chaser" on a group with high activity is a sign of high
> status. I am "the big truck"
>
> The rule is to ignore dogs like you - neither to swerve to
> avoid them nor to try and squash them. They are not human -
> the responsablity of whoever grants them internet access ($)
>
> If one day you hear "thud -thumpety thumpety" - don't worry
> - hubcap chasing is non-adaptive. It exists because it
> simulates the "buzz" of ancient adaptive activity. (in this
> case territorial defense)
>
> Many successful belief-systems work this way and attract
> hub-cap chasers according to their needs.
>
> "I'm off for a bit" - Last time I said something like this
> (last summer) somebody saw the chance to stealthily get me
> banned. There's a lot of "it" about. "thud -
> thumpety......."

Your village is calling. Their idiot is missing.