Comments on: Is Bigfoot a Homin?

By: brettparry

brettparry — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:49:38 +0000

How weird … I was doing a google image search for orangutans and saw that photo of Puan from Perth Zoo … and thought ‘that looks familiar’. It was one that I took in 2003 and must have had it posted on Picasa or some such. You are very welcome to use it and if you need any more let me know as I now have a much better camera and a LOT more photos of the orangutans in Perth Zoo. Cheers.

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 06:33:06 +0000

thanks for clearing all that up. I’m kinda new to reading about sightings and the such and it was getting kinda confusing. I think I will save this page for future reference.

By: cypress

cypress — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:47:25 +0000

Before there ever was DNA, scientists identified and classified fossilized bones to various species of the genus Homo, and to varioius of the ape genera. Nothing precludes one from taking various identifiable characteristics of sasquatch, and juxtaposing then against known scientific data for either man or the great apes. In doing this, one can come to some startling hypotheses regarding our bigfoot friend. Waiting until someone gets DNA is a cop-out.
Yes, we can classify with amazing specificity just what bigfoot may be. You just may not like the results.

By: Jeremy_Wells

Jeremy_Wells — Wed, 24 May 2006 22:11:51 +0000

the etymology nerd in me is all aquiver…

By: sschaper

sschaper — Mon, 22 May 2006 17:17:24 +0000

I suppose we are left with cryptid hominoids, though I dislike the ‘oid’ ending which seems to have been taken up by b-grade science fiction.

But this article suggests to me that we don’t want to limit ourselves to the term ‘hominin’ which ‘sounds better.’

We certainly don’t want to leave out the pongids, as we are in no position yet to specify genera let alone species. The Bonobo are bipedal when they want to be – usually when carrying tools. Orang Pendek may conceivably be to the orang utan what the bonobo is to the chimpanzee.

Until we have clear DNA sequencing, and possibly skeletons or MRIs, we are really not in a position to classify with much specificity. They are, after all -uncatalogued- creatures, which if I understand correctly, is what makes a cryptid a cryptid — they’ve been seen, may be well-known to locals, but are not yet catalogued by academia.

By: jayman

jayman — Sat, 20 May 2006 15:29:22 +0000

How about humanoid+homin = “humin”?

By: Doug

Doug — Sat, 20 May 2006 03:04:23 +0000

Very interesting article. It does make my head hurt to think about it.

By: twblack

twblack — Fri, 19 May 2006 22:28:56 +0000

Adominable Swamp Slobs Sorry everytime I hear that it just cracks me up gotta love a term like that.
Loren: After reading all that I sure as heck have no idea who is on first! But thank you for putting this article out their I think it gets a lot of people wondering just what BF should be classified as. For me he is still a cryptid then when proved and DNA testing we can put him in the proper class he deserves and who knows he just may be in a class all to him self.

By: DWA

DWA — Fri, 19 May 2006 21:37:53 +0000

Our Russian homin guys have always seemed to me just a little too Bigfoot/UFO nexus-y. Can’t say why; maybe it’s all this congratulations-on-the-unconfirmed-mawas and ESP stuff that seems to infuse their “research.” But there it is.

Bigfoot could be an ancestral whale. I mean, how much evidence do we have, you know? Lots, yes, but enough to classify the thing(s) already? Bats look kinda birdish-y, but they AIN’T BIRDS. Whales (speaking of Bigfoot ) look kinda fish-ish-y. BUT THEY AIN’T FISH.

Homin, shmomin. Bigfoot’s an anthropoid ape until science sez different. :-p

But thanks for the trip through the semantic minefield.

By: jayman

jayman — Fri, 19 May 2006 20:31:27 +0000

I don’t think “homin” brings anything to the table. And “humanoid” is a popular, not anthropological term, and has come to have science-fiction connotations.