Yuchi1 Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 ^^^ Choose wisely, grasshopper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 As part of the litigation discovery process you could request a psychiatric evaluation, perhaps? Likely the burden of proof will be on you, though, as it is civil and not a criminal liability. PS: now that the topic has been broached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Considering her benefactor is a trust fund baby.....litigation costs might not be a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 (Alien hybrid skulls from south America? Maybe not.) Purposely done on human infants ... to enhance social status. At least that's one theory that's been around since before I was born. "Artificial cranial deformation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted March 4, 2016 Author Share Posted March 4, 2016 If I have from 1 to 4% Neanderthal DNA ... does that not prove that the offspring did reproduce and continued to reproduce carrying the Neanderthal DNA to this generation? They were (or are) Homo neanderthalensis. Maybe someone can explain this since there must be exceptions to the rule. Two distinct species interbreed and the off spring is able to reproduce is an exception to the rule. Well, two very closely related species have to have the same number of chromosomes to be able to reproduce. I agree with oonjerah that we would have no DNA contributed from Neanderthals if the offspring from a cross could not also reproduce with either species. The fact we have so little from them could be because the traits from Cro Magnon was still heavily favored and perhaps the female offspring from a cross were less fertile, because the Neanderthal maternal lineage didn't survive in us. If their contribution was primarily from the paternal side, it could gradually dilute in the nuclear DNA which is a remix every generation. The fact that we might consider two species to be separate species, doesn't necessarily mean they can't interbreed if they haven't been isolated from each other long enough. It is not like ancestral humans all lived at the same place at any given time unless you go really far back to human origins in Africa. The fact that some humans have little or no Neanderthal DNA is that a large part what became modern humans migrated away from the area where Neanderthals were located in Europe. You cannot interbreed if you are geographically separated. I have no Neanderthal on my mothers side of my DNA, it is all on my paternal side. The migration vectors out of Africa some human ancestors moved straight North then West. Neanderthals developed in Europe. Other early humans, headed East into central and SE Asia and would never have encountered a Neanderthal who were in Europe. Some Asian humans were very nomadic and moved back and forth from East Asia to the Urals. They know all of this stuff by presence of genetic markers typical of people who settled or had a presence in certain areas and studying ancient human DNA in different localities. Good points. I know the fossil record has many gaps. How did bigfoot enter the into the development process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I would dare to say that if a serious BF researcher were to ever find a skull looking like this on the north American continent, the temptation to have it's DNA tested would be through the roof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 If I have from 1 to 4% Neanderthal DNA ... does that not prove that the offspring did reproduce and continued to reproduce carrying the Neanderthal DNA to this generation? They were (or are) Homo neanderthalensis. Maybe someone can explain this since there must be exceptions to the rule. Two distinct species interbreed and the off spring is able to reproduce is an exception to the rule. Well, two very closely related species have to have the same number of chromosomes to be able to reproduce. I agree with oonjerah that we would have no DNA contributed from Neanderthals if the offspring from a cross could not also reproduce with either species. The fact we have so little from them could be because the traits from Cro Magnon was still heavily favored and perhaps the female offspring from a cross were less fertile, because the Neanderthal maternal lineage didn't survive in us. If their contribution was primarily from the paternal side, it could gradually dilute in the nuclear DNA which is a remix every generation. The fact that we might consider two species to be separate species, doesn't necessarily mean they can't interbreed if they haven't been isolated from each other long enough. It is not like ancestral humans all lived at the same place at any given time unless you go really far back to human origins in Africa. The fact that some humans have little or no Neanderthal DNA is that a large part what became modern humans migrated away from the area where Neanderthals were located in Europe. You cannot interbreed if you are geographically separated. I have no Neanderthal on my mothers side of my DNA, it is all on my paternal side. The migration vectors out of Africa some human ancestors moved straight North then West. Neanderthals developed in Europe. Other early humans, headed East into central and SE Asia and would never have encountered a Neanderthal who were in Europe. Some Asian humans were very nomadic and moved back and forth from East Asia to the Urals. They know all of this stuff by presence of genetic markers typical of people who settled or had a presence in certain areas and studying ancient human DNA in different localities. Good points. I know the fossil record has many gaps. How did bigfoot enter the into the development process? From Africa as it evolved along side our own ancestors, which it had ceased being able to interbreed with. It continued to evolve after it left the plains of Africa and adapted to high mountainous forests. It's a cousin, just a much closer cousin than apes or chimps. At one time it may have continued to be able to reproduce with very early links to our own line as the two branches diverged and developed subsidiary branches as many evolution of early and subsequent Homo may not have left fossil evidence it they left Africa. Although modern man is thought to have come out of Africa 120,000-80,000 years before present other Genus left much earlier as very old remains have been found in Eurasia, Java, and Indonesia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 4, 2016 BFF Patron Share Posted March 4, 2016 Todd Standing Finally Exposed? http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/52459-todd-standing-finally-exposed/?hl=standing So this topic which ran to an 8th page ... Many of the posters are liable to be sued? Act so outrageous, that others can't help making fun of you ... then Sue? Perhaps one can make a living at that. Trouble is, the lawyers get the bulk of it. Plussed. Why should we treat Ketchum with any more respect than Standing or Biscardi??? She has way bigger problems than any of us nobodies on this forum.....like the Houston chronicle that published an independent study on her work. That she claimed was just propoganda to discredit her.... I have great disdain for the whole business of sueing people. And I would never consider sueing any of you for talking bad about me especially if my grandiose claims of proof never bore fruit. I view it as a citizens right to do so. Nobody should be able to gag you for speaking the truth. Where is the proof Ketchum? Standing? Biscardi? No where. As alluded to, "nobody would have to gag you" they could just bleed you dry with litigation that never ends. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I would dare to say that if a serious BF researcher were to ever find a skull looking like this on the north American continent, the temptation to have it's DNA tested would be through the roof. Corbis-CJ005526.jpg One thing about this skull deformation. The Chinook Indians lived in what are now the states of Oregon and Washington. Skulls like that probably have been found in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I think Bigfoot is controlling the interaction. What that means philosophically is anyone's venture. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Todd Standing Finally Exposed? http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/52459-todd-standing-finally-exposed/?hl=standing So this topic which ran to an 8th page ... Many of the posters are liable to be sued? Act so outrageous, that others can't help making fun of you ... then Sue? Perhaps one can make a living at that. Trouble is, the lawyers get the bulk of it. Plussed. Why should we treat Ketchum with any more respect than Standing or Biscardi??? She has way bigger problems than any of us nobodies on this forum.....like the Houston chronicle that published an independent study on her work. That she claimed was just propoganda to discredit her.... I have great disdain for the whole business of sueing people. And I would never consider sueing any of you for talking bad about me especially if my grandiose claims of proof never bore fruit. I view it as a citizens right to do so. Nobody should be able to gag you for speaking the truth. Where is the proof Ketchum? Standing? Biscardi? No where. Just a quick point. I agree with you regarding lawsuits but I would mention that just because we dislike the idea doesn't mean we should disregard the potential liability risk. There is a specific rider which one may apply to ones homeowners liability insurance to cover claims of libel/slander/etc. as regular homeowners liability policies do not offer those protections. Because, like it or not, we live in a litigious society and posting on a forum opens us up to legal actions. Heck, posting a bad review on yelp has resulted in damage awards going into the millions. We don't have to participate in the ugliness but we shouldn't be blind to the potential risks either.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 ^^^ Agreed, and being obtuse isn't likely much of a defense either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted March 5, 2016 Author Share Posted March 5, 2016 This forum and its members are on the cutting edge of bigfootery in my opinion. Many of us are frustrated and when someone aspires to nail down proof and fails, it is a big let down. At this point members act out in different ways. We do want to express our disappointment but at the same time avoid going past the line in the sand known as libel. When we start infighting then bigfoot science not only stalls but slips backwards. When it slips backwards, bigfoot families will continue to have their family groups abused by reckless humans and their habitats degraded. Staying focused is critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 I would dare to say that if a serious BF researcher were to ever find a skull looking like this on the north American continent, the temptation to have it's DNA tested would be through the roof. Corbis-CJ005526.jpg One thing about this skull deformation. The Chinook Indians lived in what are now the states of Oregon and Washington. Skulls like that probably have been found in this area. Maya practiced this and that is likely what this skull is. It was done to the children of the elites and signified status. Done by binding the head of the infant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 This forum and its members are on the cutting edge of bigfootery in my opinion. Many of us are frustrated and when someone aspires to nail down proof and fails, it is a big let down. At this point members act out in different ways. We do want to express our disappointment but at the same time avoid going past the line in the sand known as libel. When we start infighting then bigfoot science not only stalls but slips backwards. When it slips backwards, bigfoot families will continue to have their family groups abused by reckless humans and their habitats degraded. Staying focused is critical. We have to be critical of our own evidence, because the skeptics are not going to cut us any slack. And its not infighting that makes us slip backwards, its shoddy work and crack pot claims. And that goes for any of us, including you and me. The BFF is hard on people making unsubstantiated claims, it was tradition long before I got here. And its been a long hard road for me myself to embrace it at times. It's not an easy thing watching someone you consider a friend get eviscerated on the BFF and leave. But the reality of the situation in that if you make an extraordinary claim you best be ready to back up that claim with proof.......no one gets a free pass here. If in the future Melba Ketchum's study is vindicated by science? I'll gladly offer my apologizes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts