All Activity

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?

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?