All Activity

Its not a “fake” it’s a scientific approximation based on what the skeleton of a Sasquatch looks like by Dr. Jeff Meldrum. Based on his observations of the PGF. What are your credentials? And Huntster posted the link to Khwits skull above. It’s a Homo Sapien skull. Patty from the rear looks very similar to a western lowland gorilla. Her head is peaked and she has no neck. And her jaw sits lower than shoulder line and she is forced to turn her whole body during the “look back” sequence.

I can't believe that you posted the image of the plastique fantastique fake. That species is 'ABSfakeus maximus'. Unique to Idaho. Programming to 3-D print a Sasquatch skeleton does not exist in the public domain. Looks like they printed a western lowland gorilla and the head is very bad. Somewhere in my files, I have the source of the skull. If you don't have skeletal details, cartoons don't work. Anyone have a skeleton of Zana? Zana's son(s)?

eDNA results are evidence (like footprints, calls, and most pics and video), but are not PROOF, as there are always alternate explanations (humans with the same rare mutations, faked footprints, hoaxed calls, man in a suit, respectively). Agree a body part is needed for analysis and ultimate proof.

"Unknown markers", if by that you mean unique mutations from human, it's what I have found.

No disagreement from me

Humans ARE primates. Humans ARE apes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human I feel like half the time we talk past one another. It’s good to at least agree on the terms we use in debate. Science is a great place to start. Imagine scientific classification as a rifle target. Species being the bullseye, then genus is the 10 ring, then tribe, then subfamily, so forth and so on until you get to order. That’s primates… There are over 500 species of primates on the planet. Humans being one of them. Where a Sasquatch falls into this classification is anyone’s guess. But with them also being bipedal? Chances are they are between humans and chimps, who are our closest living relative. But there are tons of smaller differences between Homo Sapiens and Sasquatch that we do not share. Which is why I am confident in saying they are not the same species as us.

Another point that I would like to make: The scientific name of gorillas is classified under the genus Gorilla. There are two species of gorillas: Western Gorilla: Gorilla gorilla ......................Eastern Gorilla: Gorilla beringei. Someone on the forum already made this point but I'd like to reiterate it. A Sasquatch and a gorilla in my opinion do not seem to be very closely related and humans seem to be more distant. Therefore, the creature could be identified as a Sasquatch sasquatch which makes it closer to a gorilla than a human Due to its size, Hair covering, and its habits . However, the Sasquatch seems to be very intelligent and maybe closer to a human than a gorilla. For example, Bigfoot may be labeled with a genus and species name such as Homo sasquatch that puts it closer to a human. Maybe bigfoot will be classified as partially human, and an endangered species which could disrupt the entire logging operations on BLM and Forest Service lands. Again, if Bigfoot is identified as a Sasquatch sasquatch then if will it need the endangered species label? The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management most likely have already gone through this scenario. They are collecting evidence such as DNA That could Bigfoot in one of two scientific classifications such as Homo sasquatch or Sasquatch sasquatch. Can you surmise on how the federal government would manage its forest with either classification of Bigfoot. How would the management practices be the same and how would they be different?

AP story published in the Concord (NH) Monitor on February 28, 1978.

Time to over simply things for a bit. The best thing that could happen for Bigfoot and Bigfoot DNA is bigfoot being a primate ape and not at all human. If an encounter (and sample) occurred in a region where no known primates exist, any DNA result saying "primate" would be pretty hard for a skeptic to explain. If these results continued in places with no primates, I have to think the 'Bigfoot is real' case would keep getting stronger and stronger. If Bigfoot was human (and let's put aside the moral implications) the results should say, "human" If the science and public's expectations have bigfoot being an "ape" such a result would be seen as proof it wasn't' bigfoot. More testing yielding the same result would not give them the monkey they expected. This would be the DNA equivalent of not just giving them a Body on a slab. They would demand a PRIMATE DNA body on a slab.

This is the problem with discovering Bigfoot since there are many hunters like yourself that have never run across a Bigfoot. Thank-you for being honest, and I appreciate your frustration. I was born in Oregon in 1947 and I spent quite a bit of time in the outdoors and never saw a Bigfoot and didn't even know they existed until I was about 60 years old. When a person is deer hunting and carrying a high-powered weapon, somehow Bigfoot knows this and evacuates the area. Many-times those people who see Bigfoot are simply camping held in very remote areas, and they're cooking over a fire and the odor from cooking food brings in Bigfoot around the camping area. Recently on one these threads somebody posted a video story about 3 or 4 state workers were out in the wild forest taking notes. Anyway, their activity brought in a curious and territorial Bigfoot that was witnessed by one of the workers who was terrified and the other men did not believe him. These workers were not hunting, and this Bigfoot knew it, and followed them around for several days while they did their government work. The Native Americans have a word that applied to people or animals that were very aware of their surroundings and probably had Extrasensory perception that allowed them to sense when danger was nearby. Another point that I would like to make: The scientific name of gorillas is classified under the genus Gorilla. There are two species of gorillas: Western Gorilla: Gorilla gorilla ......................Eastern Gorilla: Gorilla beringei. Someone on the forum already made this point but I'd like to reiterate it. A Sasquatch and a gorilla in my opinion do not seem to be very closely related and humans seem to be more distant. Therefore the creature could be identified as a Sasquatch sasquatch which makes it closer to a gorilla than a human Due to its size, Hair covering, and its habits . However, the Sasquatch seems to be very intelligent and maybe closer to a human than a gorilla. For example, Bigfoot may be labeled with a genus and species name such as Homo sasquatch that puts it closer to a human. Maybe bigfoot will be classified as partially human, and an endangered species which could disrupt the entire logging operations on BLM and Forest Service lands. Again, if Bigfoot is identified as a Sasquatch sasquatch then if will it need the endangered species label? The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management most likely have already gone through this scenario. They are collecting evidence such as DNA That could Bigfoot in one of two scientific classifications such as Homo sasquatch or Sasquatch sasquatch. Can you surmise on how the federal government would manage its forest with either classification of Bigfoot. How would the management practices be the same and how would they be different?

... or just say the people doing the testing somehow contaminated the sample :-)

Ok. So compare her son’s skull with this skeleton? They are not the same species. They possibly could both belong to the same genus. Maybe. https://sasquatchchronicles.com/3d-printing-a-bigfoot-skeleton/

Disagree with A. B+ perhaps.

There is no standard whatsoever for an ideological skeptic to accept anything. Such a person will dimply shift their skepticism to the next stage or step. For example, if the dna suggests a Homo genus, they might argue another genus, or a homo sapien race. The dna (science) must be the base of the argument. Thus, if Neanderthals/Denisovans are different species than homo sapiens, sasquatch dna must be similarly different.......and no more different........in order to be of the genus Homo. Skepticism must be defeated. It cannot be negotiated, or it simply morphs. If sasquatches are of the genus Homo, there should have been unique genetic markers within the human race that would have shown up by now. That's why the term "mystery markers" or "unknown markers" is a huge phrase for me. I have read of that quietly mentioned on rare occasion, but they don't seem to be referenced to the New World.

I don't believe die hard skeptics would accept a DNA result (of ANY standard) following the Ketchum debacle. It would take more .. probably a combination of DNA and a body. Others less entrenched might accept a lower standard but of that, I'm the skeptic! I believe to prove existence you've got to have a body, nothing less will do. Other evidence might help but none, alone or in combination, will be sufficient to force skeptics to change their positions. MIB

^^^ Thanks for the insight. I am mostly following you but the pass your class I still may have to copy off someone MIB's paper :-) I guess what I am trying it further understand is DNA certainty. If under some lab conditions they take my bloods they will be able to tell me the DNA matches in the case of paternity. Maybe they say this with certainty when they mean the odds are 99.9999999999999% positive but not 100%. Close enough. In spite of DNA being a promising investigative tool, with Bigfoot it seems there are considerations with collecting or that is the story of the nay sayers. (they might be right as a clean sample would be needed). But even assuming a near perfect collection chain of custody I have to think the results have nothing to match to. When we say the DNA is X % some primate or Y % some person and so on that tells me it's not a bear, deer, or whatever. It suggests to my comfort zone what else could it be but an unknown primate? Gotta think it is a more complicate issue if Bigfoot was more human than ape. What standard of DNA result would it take for a skeptic world accept a conclusion Bigfoot is real via the DNA?

Good posts. The search results are a list of the closest matches, with match stats like the % of bases which matched exactly and a base by base comparison, so that you know where the mismatches occur. If you get result "Animal Z" - no match at all (too many mismatches) then either the animal is not unknown, but just not in the database or it is indeed unknown. If the search parameters are not tight the in either case you will get closest matches in the database. In the case of an unknown primate, you will get it's closest extant species. Bigfoot will match human and/

Local researchers MagniAesir and Thomas Steenburg have met at least one of the hoaxers involved, and have seen the suit on display. Definitely a hoax.

Upstate NY Town Embraces Its “Bigfoot Capital” Title With Annual Festival 104.5 The Team ESPN RadioView the full article

^^^^ I don't think it is quite like that, not a simple yes or no, rather, I think you get back a probability-of-match score. Low probability can be interpreted as either non-match, degradation, or contamination, so it doesn't necessarily mean you've come across something novel just because it doesn't match. (I may be mistaken .. hopefully HV Hart or others with much deeper knowledge will chime in.)

DNA Q: It seems when they test for DNA they already know what a Black Bear, Wolverine, or Bobcat's DNA looks like. In this way I would think it is easy to look it up in comparison on a sample vs known DNA. After a lighting fast check the match would be in the Database. That might not be the exact way it works but essentially it has to work somewhat that way. What happens in the event of the DNA of an unknown animal? Clearly I am talking about Bigfoot. Say they have scat, hair, blood, or whatever from a Bigfoot. They test it. There is not Bigfoot in the database. Result? Animal A is known to exist Animal A is in the data base. Animal A leaves traces at a camp site. The sample is tested. "Hey guys, the sample is Animal A" Animal Z is unknown to exist Animal Z is not in the data base. The Sample left by Animal Z is tested. What is the result at the lab? What does that tell us?

I don't know if "da gub'ment" allows Sasquatch to "harvest" people in National Forests....but I would certainly allow for the possibility that DotGov is aware of incidents where humans have been taken and possibly consumed in the same way that any other predator would if presented with an opportunity for an easy chunk of toothless, clawless, slow moving protein and for economic and political reasons keeps it quiet. Then the question of WHY? I have a theory that as the logging, outdoor, tourist, and camping (equipment) business is nearly a TRILLION dollar per year business and all the tax revenue FROM those businesses TO the government would be in the area of $300 BILLION. Roll that into all the special interests, lobbyists, and money flowing into the coffers of politicians, then there's one hell of a motive for silence on the part of DotGov and the politicians who benefit. Look at the timber industry....if Sasquatch was undeniably proven to exist...body, live capture, roadkill...whatever, the ensuing protection of the species in prime timber areas would halt that industry and cost billions alone. So, there's another billion or so reasons why a lid would be kept on the whole subject as far as DotGov is concerned. "Oh no, nothing to see here, pay no attention to the hairy biped behind the tree". Why would a National Park be a "center of exploitation" for the Sasquatch? Guns and hunting are generally prohibited in National Parks and I am convinced that they are well aware of what a gun or a bow can do EVEN if they have no cognitive ability on par with a great ape, just by seeing a BOOM stick drop a deer they would accrue a fear of guns or bows....I know plenty of dogs, horses, and even coyote that are scared to death of guns and they are not on par with a primate or relict hominid. So...easy pickins in the National Parks. Let me just sum up my personal opinion with "Hell, I wouldn't be the least little bit surprised" at anything DotGov would do.

https://sites.google.com/site/noxgigasstudy/zana-and-the-black-plague

Publication information is in the clipping. This Associated Press article is also on Bobbie Short's (RIP) Bigfoot Encounters website under "Hoaxes." Not because the driver or passengers were pulling a hoax, but because 3 people came forward claiming to have pulled off the hoax. It is hard to see how a bus driver - himself 6' 2" tall - would confuse the 5' 11" hoaxer who claimed to be wearing the suit for a 7-foot tall smelly ape.