Leaderboard

The human mind wants answers to questions that do not come easy.....its our nature. But we must guard against ever more fanciful notions to explain away our unknowns. The Bear family is on a similar evolutionary path with Apes to an extent. They are omnivores, they climb well, they are intelligent. But there are vast vast differences as well. They are not bipedal, they lack opposable thumbs, and they do not possess hominid sized brains. Dedicated feet gave rise to fully opposable thumbs, thumbs gave rise to.bigger and bigger brains. One feeds the other. We see none of this...no inkling what so ever of any bear species moving that direction at any time in history. If sasquatch truly is a bear....its because of misidentification. And not because there is a bipedal human looking bear out there completely evolved in isolation for tens of millions of years. Quite frankly another great ape species is much closer to giving rise to a Sasquatch like species than any bear that ever lived. And mag is right....dolphin dna does not look like shark dna despite both species resembling each other on the surface.

This discussion reminds me of Rumsfeld's quote: “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time” Likewise, whining about the flaws of current databases or wishing for the perfect database won't help. Flawed databases is what we have and folks are making the best with what they have, knowing full well its limitations, strengths and weaknesses.

But to clarify...I know of no north American bigfoot dna samples that came back as "unidentified" bear. I am aware of dr. Fahrenbach`s "unknown primate" hair morphology studies. The bottom line is, is there is no need to come up with solutions to problems that do not exist. If we ever end up with unknown bear dna? Fine. But I still do not think Sasquatch is a type of bear.

There were in fact hair samples where the DNA somewhat stumped researchers. A geneticist stated that the Himalayan Yeti (like a BF) was a subspecies of an extinct Polar bear thought to have died out 40,000 years ago. Further studies indicated that the Yeti was a hybrid of a Polar Bear and Brown Bear. Then later, additional DNA studies indicated the hair indicated the Yeti was more likely a subspecies of a Polar Bear and Brown Bear native to high mountain ranges, as determined by Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at the University of Oxford. He found a 100% match with a jawbone from an ancient polar bear that dated some 40,000 to 120,000 years ago, and was found in Svalbard, Norway. Then they added that the Yeti was unlikely to be a previously unknown Primate. I stand by my original statements and postulation.

Yeah, that's not likely to happen if you're relying on volunteer enthusiasts. Might if you had paid professionals. The data I see is good enough. Line of best fit rather than all exactly on the curve. That's about as good as it gets in field biology. If you ever get data so perfectly predictable there is no variation, you're being hoaxed. MIB

I have a former son-in-law who's gone from partial ******* to total *******. I think I may have witnessed an accelerated genetic drift.

I've not spent much time on the general board in a very long time. Hiflier, I always appreciate your contributions, but I just think you are taking the easy way out on this one. To suggest that BF is somehow the human embodiment of a bear is simply taking two well-known things and smooshing them together to conveniently explain one truly unknown thing: BF. An apple and and orange might be familiar and understandable, but smashing them together does not make an exotic star fruit. Bad analogy, buy you get the idea. Why can't the unexplainable Bigfoot be just that--a creature completely unknown and currently beyond our comprehension? For myself, other than its size and hair, I don't see any correlations of BF to a bear. To a human, yes. But I don't watch the Patty film and see any resemblance to a bear. None. And, the "Ohio howl" that boomed down the valley at dawn one morning in N. Californa (Penn Valley area) was both primate-like and other-worldly. Nothing bear-like about that thunderous wail. Sheri's post was as far as I could go in this thread. I think she nails it. And her comment about "if it walks and quacks like a duck, it's a duck" is spot on. I just feel that trying to explain the BF phenomenon with two well-known creatures is too simplistic, and too convenient. No. Just no.

I"m glad to see you guys getting out there and enjoying the wild country. Great shots from you outing, Dave. No recent reports from me lately, as I had some very major surgery a month ago, and it looks like I'll be in recovery mode for at least another 6-8 weeks, and on top of that, my TrailBlazer is in need of repairs to the front drive disconnect, so no rough trails till that's looked after. One of our group is organizing a weeklong camp at the end of Oct., so I hope I'm ready to go for that, and will of course report here. I have cabin fever big time! BTW, Dave, it looks like you and I have the same hair stylist. ;-)

For the difference in physical appearance from a normal bear that you are talking about, there would be a major difference in DNA 3% or more would be my guess solely based on the difference between man and chimp You are talking major differences in body structure as well as parallel evolution You are talking physical changes to all long bones, skull, pelvis just to name a few, that requires a lot of genetic changes Your theory does not hold water once you get into the genetic sequence G. Blacki seems to have had a diet similar to a giant panda perhaps you are looking for one of its decedent's

Exactly, sheri. These guys keep finding hair and sending it in - and boom! Bear! Because a bear left it. That thing I saw wasn't even in the bear universe. What I saw was not a man, but maybe a primitive type/hybrid of man. Bears don't throw rocks.

The testing does not say bear. The bear hair was from a bear, not a bigfoot. There's nothing bear about it. Your idea is silly and unfounded. Ever hear the phrase, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, ITS A DUCK. this is an absolute truth.

Well I was one to put hope in many of these type of things, including the Falcon Project, I even interviewed William Barnes, but what I have come to understand is that until we can produce hard evidence, say a body dead or alive, or perhaps an extended HD video beyond anything we have seen, well nobody is going to take it seriously. It is just as you say, video is no longer going to prove anything. I think that even if you produced the extended HD video it would be labeled hoax, perhaps starting with the Bigfoot Community. We tend to be harsh on evidence, which for the most part is needed, but It can lead to skepticism, as many who have been here for some time evidence, myself included.