Quoting: "And scientists just keep changing the rules. Were they human or were they not? But I'm willing to keep an open mind..."
Ah, the fundamentalists mind. Everything has to be either all black or all white, nothing grey.
1. Maybe they were transitional? That is, maybe they have some characteristics of apes at that time and some characteristics of Homo sapiens. That would make them true transitionals--which creationists deny exist.
2. Maybe they were a sub-species, a branch on the tree that did not continue, and this little branch died out, while other branches continued. Evolution is not a straight-line process, it has many zig-zags.
So the question, "were they human or not?" does not have to have a simple yes-no answer. Classification is a matter of drawing a line, for the purpose of descriptions.
As you are known on crevo threads, you should review the excellent postings of Ichneumon, Patrick Henry, Coyoteman, and others, who have shown the science underlying our present understanding of human evolution.
I have read a lot of their posts. That's why I found this article so interesting.