Leaderboard

He most certainly evolved from something. If in fact BF exists then they and we have a common ancestor somewhere back there. No species is what it has always been even HSS isn't what it was at one time. We are changing, and not necessarily for the good. (our brains are shrinking and we're physically weaker)

What ever the Big Guy is ...and yes I know they exist.... he didnt evolve into any thing.... he is today what he has always been....just been around along long time.....there is so much science says they know about the history of mankind....but really they mostly are just speculating about what they "think" might have been.....IMO its their (the scientist) main hang up on the existence of Omah, Sasquatch Big Foot

So if I'm understanding you correctly? Most people see nothing and simply lie about their experience to get noticed? And the only way to get noticed is if they "conform" to Bigfoot mythology? If this is your hypothesis then I see one glaring problem with it. People report seeing all sorts of strange things, such as werewolves, thunderbirds, mothmen, the Jersey devil, etc. Why would seeing a large hairy monster with a tail and pointy ears lessen their exposure? And why is it that places like North Dakota have five sightings and places like Washington and Oregon have thousands? If people are simply participating in mythology surely a couple of thousand acres of woodland will suffice. They don't need the whole western wilderness to participate correct? I mean Finding Bigfoot and Jack's links commercials are beamed into every household in America. So this must mean then that people in Oregon and Washington are more prolific liars than people in the mid west. I'm not convinced in the least that most reports are simply people spinning a yarn. I agree with that, most species discovered are very small and certainly represented by closely related species we do know about. But I could be wrong but I see the fossil record as much more of a crap shoot. Many species from the fossil record are represented simply by teeth or small bone fragments. Hopefully there are still many creatures from the Pleistocene yet waiting to be discovered. (Whether or not Sasquatch is real or ever was real)

Mudler I have always had the same issue with the Sykes study as you have mentioned above. With that being said I am sure he is privy to MK's mtDNA/ nuDNA leaked information and would surely have to test this scenario as well ,otherwise he would look quite foolish and incompetent if MK's work was repeated down the road and found to be correct. Also, don't you think a light bulb would go off in regards to the Sierra tissue sample (if a part of of the Sykes study) if the mtDNA profile was determined to be human. First from purely a anatomical perspective, as the picture of the purported sample does not look human at all. Secondly the hair purported is morphologically different from a human hair, it does not add up as human. If I were in his shoes I would definetely go the extra yard and perform nuDNA testing in selected samples. Let's hope for the best.

It seems like we've been down this road many times before. From Merriam-Webster.com: Definition of EVIDENCE. 1. a : an outward sign : indication. Anyone interested in this subject might want to grasp the difference between Evidence and Definitive Proof (or, not.) In my experience, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot and there are more 'excuses' as to why the evidence is 'all bad' than anything else.

Yup......you are on the right track, there are the 'big ones' and 'smaller ones' down here in Texas, but probably even more BF Races worldwide. I like to use the word 'Race' over 'Species', and just like the different human races, they come in all sizes, colors, and social characteristics.