Leaderboard

This is the point that our species is on a branch of it own, related to a single trunk of this mighty oak. This is why I have said that we are on our own branch and that we are only related to the great ape through a single ancestor. This does not make us apes or we would not be where we are at today as far as intelligence. There was a reason why we split away from apes and chimps especially chimps some 5 ~ 6 million years ago. I believe it is due to us evolving where apes and chimps stayed in a limbo state where they are at today. By calling our self an ape or a chimp is like calling or making our selves dumber then apes and chimps, and this is not true. We are above apes and chimps which makes us Humans, hence Human erectus . Our capabilities to walk with a straight back and to have a larger brain, and the ability to make tools as well as fire. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/our-origins2/ch/10/answers.aspx So we are separate only because we branch of from that tree unto our own branch only being related by a single trunk. Not very hard to understand , yet for some of us would prefer to be called that of a lesser primate. This is why we are not ape, since nature has made us to be superior to all creatures on earth. It is also why our DNA does not completely match between Ape and Man. If we were ape then there would be a match with in our DNA, but no there is no match. So this makes us unique from all creatures on earth and makes our make up as Human. But as much as you said that this could not be debated , it is being debated. The problem is , how is this connected to these creatures that some of us know exist? Some where in evolution these creatures evolved and they evolved by either us or have branched of on their own. This is what needs to be figured out? We ARE an Ape. OUR Ape genus HOMO diverged from our closest relatives of the Ape genus PAN roughly four million years ago...... BOTH Chimps and Humans ARE Apes. NOTHING about us being an Ape holds us back from walking upright or having a large brain. We are just one species of MANY now extinct upright walking large brain Apes in the Ape genus HOMO. Your folly is your comparing two seperate SPECIES of APE and calling one APE and the other HUMAN. Both species are APE and one is a CHIMP and the other is a HUMAN.

Really? More anti-science. Look out for the Men in Black.

Staking out a recent kill solves the problem of having a camera at the right place and time. You can have the camera a reasonable distance away because I think you mentioned a telephoto lens for your Plotwatcher. I hear elk are most dangerous during calving season but perhaps that is for good reason as the calves are most vulnerable to BF and cougar attacks. Be careful out there.

I think it's just oversimplification by a group who are too lazy to get into details. You have a group all given different scientific names, and then you have an all inclusive, language specific name applied to dissimilar organisms. Why even bother to use other names for Hominoidea if we're not going to differentiate? Everything else has 48 chromosomes, and only one has 46 chromosomes, but some are just too sorry to account for the one that's much, much different from all the rest. Much easier to throw them all in the same bucket and use a general term. 99.9% of all species that have ever existed - are extinct. That's what I call science. Oh. That's right. The first complete skulls found at Dmanisi, all significantly different, but all H. Erectus, will eliminate previously approved, sanitized, and published - but mistakenly misidentified species of H. ruldolfensis, H. ergaster, H. gautengensis, and even the big boy, H. habilis. Come to find out - they're all H. erectus. That's not what I call human evolution science. That's what I call jumping to conclusions from a lack of sufficient knowledge and the rushing pursuit of fame. And I'm supposed to rely on this stuff without question? I'd have to be dumb as dumb can be. Or ignorant. Ignorance goes a long way. To rely on this "science" currently proposed under the broad heading "evolution," might as well believe the sun, stars, and planets revolve around the earth. FA, IMO, what your running into is the self-anointed forum oracles taking issue with the factual information you referenced because it somehow casts their scientific gods (Meldrum, et. al.) into a less than stellar light. They then attack the messenger as the message stands upon it's own and the factual basis is just too much for them to bear. What they've truly done is demonstrate for all to see how truly irrelevant their self-induced hubris actually has become.

Science invites you to prove them wrong. Probably too much trouble for you, but they await your profound, sweeping, marvelous insights. Go for it. Or blather away. I've a guess which you'll choose.

Great, more Men in Black nonsense.

It is easy to attack the poster rather then the issue, when there is no anti science going on , But science at it's best since this invites debate. Science is about learning and this is what we are doing. No arguing but learning things that have been on our minds but never have been said. This is what these creatures have done, they have brought out what we should have been debating in the first place. If these creatures are a part of the evolutionary tree then we are getting to understand it. This is what will get us closer to the truth of them and what we need to do to get close to them. Other wise we are always going to be at a stand still. Science is going beyond understanding to understand what we do no not understand. These creature are them that we do not understand, even though some believe that they do not exist. We cannot debate in a scientific manner because you and far archer reject science concerning human evolution. Your reasoning as to why you reject it is "just because". Therefore we are playing tennis with the net down. Your entitled to your opinion. But at this point saying Humans are not Apes is like saying the Earth is flat.

Let me guess: You're not an ape, either. I've got news for you, pal.

The reduced number of chromosome argument is a nonstarter, for here is the take-home: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

This is silly. A poster doesn't care for English words. Engages in anti-science. Hey, everyone is welcome to their opinion, silly as it might be. Maybe the world is 6K years old, too.

Back on topic, yes, I think with all the reported sightings almost everywhere except the Great Plains, there must be a significant number in existence. Around 70,000 years ago, there was a supervolcanic eruption in Indonesia known as the Toba Event, and some scientists who have examined the data believe that this resulted in a massive global cooling event that lasted some ten years, killing many plants and animals, which in turn reduced the human population to fewer than 20,000 humans. And they were spread out fairly thinly, as conditions would likely not support many in one location. There were other studies of the human genome that point to a genetic bottleneck at the time of the Toba Event, but can't discern yet whether there is a direct cause-and-effect to the two separate indicators. Population sizes are frequently limited by availability of food, water, security from predators, and capacity to range within whatever size territory an entity would require. I must suggest these things are masters of camouflage. Masters.

No salad. Maybe you're just hungry. Comparing apes to humans, I'd say there's an improvement. One group has no real self-determination. The other group has a significant amount of self determination.

Not really, as I've seen American voters of the past two decades clearly demonstrate a tanking of our species. I do find interest in the suggestions that in the presence of a high voltage static DC field, that limited experimentation indicates that organisms will significantly change to a more primitive manifestation of its antecedents from progeny to occur. No mutation - only gene expression is altered. Almost like the biological entity has reverted many generations back to its more original format. Per data by others, even species previously extinct were regenerated. But in all fairness, I'd have to do some work on that myself before I'd believe it. I believe the original patent was filed by a Ebner G UIDO [CH] // Schuerch Heinz [CH] , applicant CIBA GEIGY CORP (US). I get some time, I'd really like to play with that for a few months. I only mention this as it's apparently possible to cause a biological entity to recall and then revert back many generations to its original state - minus the interim mutations. If I lived a thousand years, I'd never be bored.

Wait. We don't have any certainty that BF has a midtarsal break. That's where I seriously differ with Meldrum. They may have a midtarsal break, they may not. If there were a midtarsal break, you'd think it would show up in at least a significant majority of prints - and we don't see that. I'd not say that no witness has ever seen a Squatch packing a weapon. And the first thing that comes to mind is the Woodwose in Europe - frequently depicted with a club or healthy looking stick. The DNA is not indicative, until we have a body, get a DNA profile to compare with, and only then can make some determinations. You'd think that humans, being more complicated, more intelligent, and more creative would also be more complicated - and yet we have only 46 chromosomes while the apes, monkeys, etc., have 48 chromosomes. Obviously, we did not descend from monkeys - no higher animal reduces chromosomes and simultaneously improves. We don't even know how many chromosomes these things have - unless you know something I don't. You know how many pairs of chromosomes the Neanderthal has? That's right. No one does. Yes we do. Neanderthals had the same number of chromosomes as we do. Why? Because remember from my article the female hybrids survived and bred back into the Homo Sapien population? This proves it. If the number of chromosomes were different then either the mating would not have been successful or the offspring would have been sterile. And if you deny human evolution then there is not much more we can discuss. Divine creations do not need to follow any sort of rule book....they can just appear. If thats your feelings on human history.....thats ok, its just not mine. Didn't deny human evolution. Stated you don't reduce variables numerically, and get a more complicated, more capable creature. If we came from apes, who have 48 chromosomes, you'd think we'd have to have at least 50 chromosomes, at least something to account for our somewhat superior intellect, creativity, and self awareness. Not less chromosomes. And another thing. I'm not convinced that the fossil record has been fully discovered or determined. And I'd further suggest that is obvious.

(BTW: the witness who supplied the artist the description resulting in my avatar said he couldn't use the word "ape" to describe what he saw. "Scarily human," for what that's worth, he also said. OK, fine, he saw it - and I am convinced, having both read the report many times and heard him retell it in person, that he did see it - and I didn't. But that's not taxonomy. That's an opinion based on a brief childhood encounter. Science knows what to do with those.) Yeah, I met that witness and know him. I also saw his posts on this forum when he wanted to talk to other witnesses and ask for their impression of the humaness of the facial characteristics. You see, the whites around the eyes is a human trait, and it actually conveys a lot about the beings emotional state. We "read" the eyes as a body language so when we see it , it will give a human impression. Something you may not know is that that image was also formulated from photo's taken in Oklahoma from another witness, who also gave a very similar description to sketch artist Harvey Pratt, and was published in Paulides' book Tribal Bigfoot. That gives us these two guys. Hair on the brows= human hooded nose= human whites around the eyes= human lips= more human but wide chin= looks prominent in frontal view This isn't all that makes me think human, but I don't have to tell you that that other witness from Oklahoma has the same impression. The witness from Texas, the one you are talking about, also told me that the sketch in your avitar, should have shown the eyes farther apart and a wider face, so next time you talk to him, ask him if Pratt's drawing is a little closer to what he saw.

But it takes engineers to create the instruments that scientist need to make their measurements, so in a way it works out both ways as a team effort. Not one is more important then the other when both are needed. It takes the effort of both and this why we have been able to accomplish the things we have. I cannot discount what Dr, Meldrum written about the mid-tarsal break, But I agree with Faracher. Why would you take a specimen to someone who has already set their mind on some thing only to prove their point. It would be best to have the specimen inspected by some one who is neutral on the subject and let that institution make the decision. This would be the route that I would take if I was to find a dead specimen and I would keep it a secret until the results were done. As much as I would want to scream it out I would shut down tight and keep on doing what I am doing.

How long did it take to get you at this stage with the options that you have placed? They are all possible and yet can be wrong, but how long did it take to get to this point in time? You have never had a sighting and there is no fossil record out there to prove that these creatures came from the three extinct linage you have mention? Two of the extinct linage we do know about which are Paranthropus or Gigantopithecus. We know them since there is some fossil record of them and yes if they were alive today they could fit the bill of them being these creatures. But DNA of them would be in the gene bank would it not be? and if DNA is in the gene bank then these creatures would have shown up by now with what ever DNA has been collected. The one common theme that keeps coming up within the DNA of these creatures is Human but the sample gets thrown out for contamination. The Giganto is a possibilities and I believe that what they found of this creature was a tooth and a lower jaw. So it would be hard to conclude what the capabilities of this creature would be with what has been found. Mostly all speculative and suggestive. But what has been observed by many witnesses is not suggestive of a monkey, Ape, Gorilla, Bamboo. I do not say Primate since primate is a wide spectrum and I want to narrow this down to a Human behavior then what we see in Jungles and mountains. I respect your answer and I agree that there is still a fossil specimen that has not been found that may very well be living in our back yards. I would call them a living fossil that has evaded us, while every so often letting us know it's out there. This is not ape like nor does it act ape like, if apes were like these guys we would have never have found apes or gorillas. Yet here we are with apes and gorillas in zoos locked in cages, but not one Bigfoot in a zoo. So does this show some thing of a higher intelligence? If we as humans are the only ones on earth with high intelligence and it is in grained with in our DNA, then is it not possible that they might share the same DNA that we do? It can be the only explanation for how well they have adapted to live around us rather then live among us. Do you have any other explanation for this other then they do not exist? The do not exist excuse is getting old and to many people have seen these creatures up close or close by. Science needs to except that we might not be the only homo erectus still alive. That there might be a mixed breed of Homo erectus still alive living in our wilderness a man beast.

Wait. We don't have any certainty that BF has a midtarsal break. That's where I seriously differ with Meldrum. They may have a midtarsal break, they may not. If there were a midtarsal break, you'd think it would show up in at least a significant majority of prints - and we don't see that. I'd not say that no witness has ever seen a Squatch packing a weapon. And the first thing that comes to mind is the Woodwose in Europe - frequently depicted with a club or healthy looking stick. The DNA is not indicative, until we have a body, get a DNA profile to compare with, and only then can make some determinations. You'd think that humans, being more complicated, more intelligent, and more creative would also be more complicated - and yet we have only 46 chromosomes while the apes, monkeys, etc., have 48 chromosomes. Obviously, we did not descend from monkeys - no higher animal reduces chromosomes and simultaneously improves. We don't even know how many chromosomes these things have - unless you know something I don't. You know how many pairs of chromosomes the Neanderthal has? That's right. No one does.

Odd that the leading authorities have no close, personal observation of any kind or duration. Never seen them run. Never seen how fast they run. Never seen their stride. Never seen the odd knee and ankle structures that cause the odd way they run - or should I say "ski." Never seen them running toward them, never seen them passing by them, never seen them running away from them. Never seen their face. Never seen their eyes. Never seen how they lean forward, never seen their unbelievable mass, and never seen their skin and hair. But they're the experts. I want my aircraft mechanic to have never turned a wrench, never wired anything, and whose only experience is considering reports of planes flying over others. How many scientists have been to Mars? And yet they can land a rover on the surface and take soil samples, and send back the data.Ive watched shuttle launches too.....but that doesnt make me an aeronautical engineer. I'm not attempting to belittle your experiences, far from it. But we should be rejoicing that scientists like Krantz and Meldrum take your sighting seriously and are attempting to understand it. Versus discrediting them because they are not eye witnesses. (Krantz - RIP) Actually, scientists don't land rovers on Mars, engineers do. That equipment that sends back data - engineered by engineers. You may have watched a shuttle launch, but at least you saw one and can describe the event. Those who haven't had up close experiences, in the open sightings up close, and had them screw with you in the dark seem to discount, or at least minimize the totality of the experiences - the cognizance, the privity, the comprehension, the insight, the discernments that manifest during the experiences. And it's odd, but most sightings and close encounters seem to occur with folks like myself who were just minding their own business - and had no interest in these things whatsoever. And yet, their lives are changed forever. I don't know anything about this Kranz, but if I had a carcass, I can guarantee that Meldrum won't be getting a look unless he's in a museum tour along with the rest of the general public. Meldrum assumes too much, postulates too much, and would be better served to simply state he's open minded to the possibility of these critters due to the weight of the narratives and footprints, and for those reasons is interested in pursuing the subject. He's already assumed it's a total ape, he's assumed it has a mid-tarsal break as those are ape characteristics. I think he's wrong. So if I had one - I'll go to someone who isn't interested in reinforcing his previous position, and like me, has never given them a thought.

Odd that the leading authorities have no close, personal observation of any kind or duration. Never seen them run. Never seen how fast they run. Never seen their stride. Never seen the odd knee and ankle structures that cause the odd way they run - or should I say "ski." Never seen them running toward them, never seen them passing by them, never seen them running away from them. Never seen their face. Never seen their eyes. Never seen how they lean forward, never seen their unbelievable mass, and never seen their skin and hair. But they're the experts. I want my aircraft mechanic to have never turned a wrench, never wired anything, and whose only experience is considering reports of planes flying over others.

I have always thought our opinion on what is sapien, or not, is informed much more by our own self-serving criteria than anything else. Do winners get to write the history? Well, in all probability we sure did. So, the definition of all non-sapiens as "anything not us" is a handy but completely useless classification, in my book. The first casualty of a BF confirmation is going to be this idea. We can't help it though. We do it by classification of our own superficial racial characteristics and convince ourselves such a division is meaningful. I suppose it makes us feel some better, on some level, but it sure gets in the way of seeing things clearly.