All Activity

If behavior is required for entry into the genus Homo, then Zana was not human. She used no tools, didn't live in a tribe or village (until under captivity), didn't wear clothes, no fire, etc. She could not be human. But both Sykes and Margaryan claim she was human. You can't have it both ways.

Mmmmmm….. It’s true that the fossil record is spotty. But I think you’re ignoring one glaring fact. Everything within the genus Homo is extinct except Homo Sapiens? Why? Because Homo Sapiens don’t play well with others. Now we kill each other with impunity. Every cousin we have alive today? Isn’t a member of the genus Homo. They owe their existence to the fact they occupy a different niche than us. They don’t compete with us for resources directly. Sasquatch reportedly doesn’t occupy the same niche as Homo Sapiens. They are nocturnal, they don’t manufacture stone tools, they don’t live in tribes, they don’t make villages, they don’t wear clothes, they don’t make fire, etc, etc. So an anthropologist would ask us why something we claim to be human? Exhibits no attributes that would make it human. The Homo Erectus hand axe is 1.8 million years old after all. Where is Sasquatches hand axe? And being pro kill I am often accused of trying to sway peoples opinions away from human classification because of the moral dilemma of killing one. But it’s a chicken vs egg argument. We won’t know what one is positively until it’s laying on a slab. Only after one is killed can we have some moral debate over the right or wrong of it. Until then? They are Pixies and Gnomes. Make believe.

The issue I see with those compared to Homo is there is nothing in the fossil record more recent than 1.2 million years ago for them yet Homo exists today as .. us. So while not completely impossible, Occam's Razor points pretty strongly to BF being Homo .. at least among those 3 options. There are also no LARGE monkey fossils in the new world, nothing known over 50 pounds. In any case other than Homo "something" we have a big gap in the fossil record to account for. That doesn't make it a certainty but it does make it the most likely. Further, if BF is a very close cousin, the DNA would hide in plain sight most likely being discarded as human with quirks by science. We have a good fit answer. It might or might not be right but it doesn't seem rational to me to keep trying to focus the search away from the most probable answer rather than investigate it as exactly that, the most probable. I think there are some people who trying to drive an artificial wedge between BF and human and are deliberately ignoring what science tells us is most probable. MIB

I think Science is made up of humans, and thus is no more ethical than any other group of people. Once sasquatches are "discovered", some with power within Science will attempt to take control of the new discovery or its future (Darwin). Meldrum will be remembered as much as Du Challiu, Savage, Wyman, and Beringe. <<<<<< Yeah. Look 'em up............... ANSWER (unfortunately and disgustingly): D) Jeff Who?

There is a precedent: Zana. But I also do not believe Patty was homo sapien. But I believe that she was of the genus Homo.

I think it remains to be seen what legalities are in effect if she is not Homo Sapien. Which I believe she is not. There simply is no precedent.

This is precisely what I believe her to be. Very possible, but a different genus does not pose the legal challenges that another human does.

When I ran across the first cartoon, my reaction was, "cute, but not important." But I followed it while looking for other articles and realized that the cartoonist had done some homework. While Roger Patterson's film was shown widely in 1970, it probably had a more limited reach than a comic strip running in daily newspapers. Anyway, here's the end of the story. Sadly, Priscilla does not get to keep Bigfoot as a pet.

5) To sharpen #3….. She could be an unknown species in the genus Homo. Which in and of itself is a bushy tree. Or she could be an unknown species that is not in the genus Homo but maybe the Australopithecus genus? Or the Paranthropus genus? All bipedal upright walking hominids. Closely related to Homo Sapiens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus

I'm terrified of venomous snakes, so when the Army sent me to Alaska, and I learned that there are no snakes here, I knew I'd found home (no lions here, either). And (so far), I've never been harmed by a bear, either!

I actually have had a sasquatch experience, but not here in south-central Alaska where I've lived since 1975. My experience was in the southern Sierra Nevada mountains of California in 1972.

If sasquatches are of the genus Homo, they are human, and they would would have basic human rights by international law. This would mean they have political rights. Thus, they would have the right of representation in the political process to determine natural resource extraction, road access, infrastructure construction, etc in their home region just like everybody else. If they are not of the genus Homo, they would have no basic human rights, and their fate would be determined by human advocates, such as environmental groups and government wildlife management agencies. Thus, government would very much want sasquatches to remain mythical in either event, but if discovered, and if they're of the genus Homo, the political nightmare explodes exponentially.

Patty's existence is evidenced (not proven) by the PG film. We don't know what she is, but there are only four possibilities (listed by highest probability): 1) She was a homo sapien in a suit 2) She herself was a freak homo sapien 3) She was an unknown primate species 4) She was a visiting extraterrestrial

We have "mystery markers". And we have no DNA evidence of a native primate in North America other than Homo sapiens. That makes the evidence (not "validity") lean toward homo genus, especially since all evidence that should come back as "sasquatch" comes back as "human", which is then dismissed as "contaminated". See the Eric Muench case (Raincoast Sasquatch, pgs. 239-244).

Physical differences are not irrelevant. Morphology is the physical manifestation of DNA. And I have never ever seen a woman that looks like Patty. Never. Nor do I know of a human woman that can live in the wilderness 12 months out of the year in the Cascade mountains. Nor do I know of a woman who has bigger feet than Shaq and walks barefoot in snow and mud. Yes, we don’t have DNA proof of anything. But I do have eyes. Patty isn’t a Homo Sapien female.

That is precisely what I meant. I knew you had found some, and I believe others have, as well. I also understand that, if a match is found at a site where a sasquatch was seen frolicking about by a dozen witnesses and videoed by three witness, it would still not constitute "proof" of the existence of sasquatches. Such is the power of skepticism.

It can simply be a chimp, like the one in the Kentucky forests. And, of course, it could be, because people obtain chimps as pets illegally, which then get away. How likely is that? A whole lot more likely than a 6'6" African woman with hypertrichosis running around (faster than a horse) feral in Abkhazia............

I think this has to be considered carefully. What does "species" mean? Technically, it refers to the ability to produce a viable (ie fertile) offspring. The physical differences are irrelevant in that context. The only evidence we have for or against comes from Native American lore, the rest is mere preference / belief system, not even data. I don't put a lot of weight on the Native American lore but neither do I discount it out of hand. And so far as the belief system .. that's very circular: I don't believe it because I don't believe it, therefore I don't believe it. And that's truly all the substance available. I recognize circular arguments when I see them. I recognize evidence so weak as to be questionable as evidence. We have .. nothing .. to say of any validity regarding whether they are or are not of the same species, technically speaking, that we are. I don't have an investment in the outcome of the discussion, nothing to prove, no ground that I've foolishly staked that I need to defend, so I can enjoy simple curiosity without ego worrying about being wrong.

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?