Leaderboard

EX-ACT-LY. I've yet to understand this mentality and near obsession with the "need" to "prove this" or "present one to the scientific community to study". You can surely tell my position is that it would be the eqivalant of a moral sin to intentionally kill a sasquatch for any other reason that immediate, personal self-defense.

Shoot it with a camera instead, there's no need to kill one. If you do see one you'll finally know they're real and you won't care about proving it. It's a rewarding feeling to know you're one of the few lucky ones that was given this chance sighting.

Not if the believer in question could give a crap what anyone believes, he doesn't. That kind pf person may just be here to share their experiences with other like-minded people and really owe no one anything in my humble opinion. If you don't like their posts or attitude and can't handle what they say in a polite fashion. Use the ignore button. Fire and forget. This is not directed at you Stank...unless you are the type. Ketchum on the other hand has made extraordinary claims. People forget it wasn't her idea to announce anything until she had something solid in her hands though. It was a bunch of whiny people who didn't like she was going to get all the credit and spilled the beans in the name of "disclosure and science" when really it was only about bruised ego. Now Ketchum is caught playing damage control (and maybe not saying all the right things) when she really has no idea when/if this paper will pass peer review. It may be so shocking a find it takes years more to study before anyone wants to put their name on something that could end careers if it is wrong. Over and over...and really, it is the same old thing. We get it. Point taken. 40 pages and and 20 different iterations of "she has nothing" or "she's confused by the results" or "it's all a hoax". OK already... One last time critics: Read the whole thread (yes, all 40 pages) before you post. Not only will you see what you are thinking somewhere in there. It may have been that you posted it already yourselves...twice even.

Taking a cue from him: the former.

Well I see no reason why you couldn't say whether you sent them some hairs for ID, you could test the lab to see if they can ID something that is known. If you happened to have hairs from something of interest to them, it might put you on the inside. You've got nothing to lose here.

Your turn. What kind of test did DNA Diagnostics offer for species ID? Are they going to sequence the entire mtDNA , just the SGM test, or what?

Try reading the post you quoted. SGM is likely to have been done in my opinion. Sample submitted in april 2010. My NDA says I own no results and can't give you any specifics, I agreed to participate in the study, which means Dr. Ketchum is authorized to publish the results. The sample was sent for the simple ID of a known if it was,initially. It was determined by her team that it should go into the study from there.

Aren't Humans Animals too G ?? & for the record, i have never been in the " They are Humans " Camp, i don't know enough about " them " to say that with any confidence or real meaning..

Saying there is no fossil evidence without even knowing how close a bigfoot is to a modern human isn't valid. Is it supposed to be a valid argument that because they were labeled as erectus that they therefore aren't bigfoot ancestors? That is assuming way too much information from a few fragmentary bones in the majority of cases. It is also assuming way too much about what people think they know about bigfoot. Even in the best cases you don't know how "human" any of the erectus were. That is a subjective opinion and much of it in the past like why they were all called erectus has been recently shown to have been invalid. They weren't likely the first to leave Africa. New fossils have demonstrated that the ancestry and therefore what Asian erectus were is not certain. Not only is it not certain, it was pretty obvious from the evidence even several years ago that some Asian "erectus" were not likely very closely related to modern humans. They had features like enormous jaws, reduced frontal lobes, double occipital crests on top of their heads... Some from the last million years seem to be much closer and probably related to the group that includes early heidelbergensis. There were apparently others in Asia though.(ancestors of floresiensis for example) Lack of recent fossils doesn't mean they went extinct. I have to assume from some attitudes that some people think lack of fossil means they went extinct. Did they in reality suddenly expand into several new species in the last several years or were we just ignorant before. There is no reason to expect that science now has all the species nailed down. It begs the question, what would a bigfoot fossil ancestor a million years ago look like? Assuming that it has to be 8 feet tall doesn't even exclude all "erectus" if you accept the physical anthropologist Krantz's estimation of some of their heights. Inhuman features? I already covered some of that. A better question is which of the erectus in the group called meganthropus, for example, isn't a bigfoot ancestor. I expect the answer to be in the form of "because it is erectus" and "they have fire and tools because they are erectus". People need to reorient their beliefs to incorporate the reality that multiple species/populations existed in the past and how that makes it probably unlikely that they were all technological. They weren't all on some mission to become modern humans and assuming they acted like or had the same niche as modern humans is just wishful thinking and not a logical assumption from the point of view of simple biology. Radiations of new species generally involve new niches and some form of isolation. People really shouldn't assume that common perceptions of what any of the hominids were actually like is necessarily correct. That especially applies as you go back before a million years ago and when there are multiple species. Since there have always been multiple species until fairly recently, it should logically add doubt to how they lived since you can't usually assign tools to ancient bones with much confidence, for example, if there are multiple species. That concept is not simple. For example, it breaks down what people think they knew about habilis as being technological. You wouldn't know if another like rudolfensis made all the tools. That spills into the uncertainty of some Asian erectus since you can't differentiate which lineage they belong to. That is just assuming that you, for some reason, think they can't lose technology.