Leaderboard

Here. I fixed again, just for you........

I find that bonkers... They knew that their quarry is bipedal, with a foot that lacks a divergent big toe. We do not have the Gigantopethicus genome cracked. So have no real idea of our relation with it. Ape camp? Non ape camp? These are just words.... Patty’s limb proportions are some where between an Ape and a Human. So logically it’s between a Ape and a Human. Add to that confusion that science considers Humans as Apes? We are really really splitting hairs here. Its all a dang crap shoot. Run the damn test. If what your saying is true? That tells me just how confident these guys were in their own DNA samples. Not much!

That's actually a pretty good idea. Why haven't any of the "primate" labs so far done their work? Degraded samples seems to be a common excuse even though Human DNA can be obtained along with just about everything else. Yes, I understand about "markers" and all but I also think more samples can be obtained from the nesting site at any time until next May 2020. In truth I think that ha already been done because it's inconceivable to me that anyone would simply close the door on any additional chances to get a good sample. I mean, what? Five samples and that's it? No revisits? Makes no sense. I'm pretty serious when I say that the process is still ongoing.

I would think that it would be very obvious from a DNA labs perspective that if your testing a supposed bipedal ape mans DNA? That you may have to chase it all the way out to rule out modern human. Unless of course it’s a Bear sample or some glaring unrelated species from the get go. We have no idea what Bigfoot is. But it’s almost guaranteed that it will be between Chimps and Humans. If the lab is just throwing out samples based on the preliminary first look that it’s a modern human? Then we should be sending Bigfoot samples to 23 and me.... a lab that’s going to tell you exactly what it is or what it is not.

I'm not convinced that is true. Might be, but most DNA testing which is intended to distinguish one species from another looks at a specific subset of gene locii where we know we can distinguish one known species from another. Since modern humans are distinct from other species, we only have to check one of those known locations to tell us from chimp from gorilla, etc. In other words, when we are doing species identification, we do not look at the entire mitochondrial gene set and we do not look at the nuclear DNA at all. All we are trying to do is show the sample is human by eliminating KNOWN alternatives. If Homo erectus is 99.5% identical to us and chimp is 98% identical, it stands to reason that the "earmarks" for human DNA are shared by Homo erectus. After all, those tests are looking for things all humans have in common, not the differences one human has from another. It is only when you get beyond species ID testing that differences between H. sapiens sapiens and H. erectus should show up. That means the only way we see the oddity in the DNA is if we ignore the appearance of human contamination in the initial testing and forge onward "wasting money" testing seemingly contaminated samples. If we were to do the level of testing necessary to prove paternity or something of that nature, I think we'd begin seeing incredible differences that the species identification tests gloss over. During Sykes study, if I recall right, there was one sample tested which came back as a very rare eastern European genome found in the US desert SW. Ok, maybe it was a rare human migrant. But maybe it wasn't. It was noted as an oddity and to my understanding no further followup was done. Should have been if it was that odd and seemingly that out of place. Yet another opportunity squandered to assumption. That's why I want that good enough sample .. probably have to see the thing bleed on something and KNOW, through observation, rather than just hope, that it is bigfoot, then go ahead and spend the money for full mtDNA and nuDNA workup no matter how irriational and wasteful it seems to anyone who wasn't there to see what left the blood. Or, y' know, in your case, have the body on a slab and know that the sample you're paying to have tested IS ... ****IS**** ... bigfoot, 'cause there he is right there. When you have that certainty, not just a hope, then you do the test despite all the logical reasons why you shouldn't because whatever the test says, it is going to be the truth. MIB

I have to believe most of the aggressive BiGFo0T encounters are due to emaciation, human encouragement on their territory (including protecting young), and there are probably just psychopath BiGfo0T too

As only an an armchair observer, my take is undocumented relic homo, based on plausibly (fits with existing scientific president), and my gut take on frame 352, with my perception being there is no way that is a costume (the expresion is halfway between concern and being ticked off), and to me, that is not an Ape. My opinion also excludes all woo, with any perceived odd activity being explained as human misinterpretation of highly adapted stealth (and intelligence), and please note I don't perceive the possible use of infrasound as woo. But, again, all I have is opinion and an affinity for the scientific method.

And you seem to be someone that lacks any bushcraft knowledge and worries about supposed problems that really do not exist at all. Are you simply trying to throw up road blocks in some sort of knee jerk emotional response!? If I quartered a 1000 lbs bull elk and gave 1 quarter of that animal to a scientist? And they could not tell me where that animal resides in the tree of life? They must have gotten their degree out of a Cracker Jack box. But that’s OK..... because I have 3/4’s of a 1000 lbs animal left to go! If I cut small tissue samples off of each quarter and sent them off to a lab? THEN I would be worried about contamination. A giant head of a Bigfoot is going to be morphologically distinct from ANY known animal. And would give them thousands and thousands of DNA samples. But morphologically speaking alone it would be a home run. I could make out with the head or use it as a footstool and a brain tissue sample would not be contaminated by little ole me..... You mean unlucky? I see a lot of big scat in the woods. I assume it’s bear unless I find ole squatch bent over a log.

I'm not even reading the rest of this thread, just going to answer your question from my opinion after hearing him speak at Salt Fork a few weeks ago... He talked about how much he was ridiculed by his local people. His wife went to the bank teller and she refused to wait on her. He said that the next day after they came back, he was so exhausted from staying up all night to hike back a long way over rugged terrain, then having to get the truck and horses out of the river that rose up, that he crashed out to sleep when they got home. The next day, Patterson announced it to the public, and Gimlin caught some grief for not being there when it was announced. After all these years, it seemed like he was still ticked off about that. He also said that he didn't get any money from the rights to that film. As I say this, I want you to know that he was very cool about it and didn't get nasty or accusatory, he was just stating the facts as they were. And this is just my opinion from what I took away from it. He doesn't talk much but when he did, it was powerful. He had the audience eating out the palm of his hand. Listening to what it was like for him personally to get to Bluff Creek was just captivating. Patterson asked him to go because he really wanted the research and to get prints from there. Gimlin was free that day and went with him. Gimlin did a LOT OF WORK to make that trip happen. He's just a low key country rodeo guy that was good with horses and was up for an expedition. One of the coolest things that he said, was that "I saw it with these two blue eyes. I was not looking at it from behind a camera. I saw it make it's move and watched it the whole time. Patterson was rushing to get the camera." They only had 1 minute left on the reel because Patterson had been filming other things. Gimlin said that while Patterson was rushing to get the shot while looking through the camera lens, he tripped on a rock or something which is why you see the shot jumble for a few seconds. Because he saw it from start to finish with his two blue eyes, he feels that he got the best look at it. It's burned into his brain and at 82 years old, he tells the story like it happened yesterday. He also said something about the horses getting spooked off when it showed up and they had all the gear and extra film on them. I'm not sure when exactly that happened with the horses running off, but I think that's how it goes from what he said. It was just one of those moments. They went up there to document and track prints and fortunately had less than a minute left in the can to capture the event. I did hear from a very close friend of his that there were a few times when he would give a talk and people were just milling about and not paying attention to him. I can't even imagine that. When he was at Salt Fork, he was treated like a hero. He said many times that we were the best group he had ever spoken to. We were just so grateful that he came all the way from California to talk to us, and we are grateful to Tom Yamarone for bringing him to us safe and sound! So what are his regrets? I don't know. It seems like there were a few snags along the way, but honestly, from how genuine and nice he was to each and every person that he met, he's just enjoying life now. I got to actually spend some time with him, as did anyone that wanted to. He was so available and I don't know how he kept his energy up. I thanked him for being here and for everything that he has done, and he turned it around on me, and said I thank all of you people for carrying it on. What a guy. So sweet, so cool, tough on the inside, but soft on the outside. He speaks the truth as far as I'm concerned and no one will EVER convince me that that film wasn't real. I challenge a skeptic to listen to him talk about it if he ever does again. I was just one of the lucky few that heard it.

I would be interested to hear these clips that are said to sound like frogs voices or the researchers voices as described in the original post. This chatter or possible language is not a made up phenomenon { though some may be faking stuff or even unknowingly recording them selves at a distance }, I have personally heard { and recorded } these sounds in the field. I use to think it was a bunch of garbage tossed into stories to make them fun or exciting as Terry suggested above but this simply is not the case. There is a considerable amount of this type of audio that is not public and only shared among private groups.

I'm sure there is, but resistance is a tenet of the scientific method, as well as most other human endeavors. In order to prove something, one must destroy all resistance. Within sasquatchery, the only way to do that is to provide a specimen, and frankly, I don't think a sliver of finger bone (a' la Denisovan Man) would cut it. It would need to be drop-dead convincing, like a near complete skeleton or fresh carcass.

I have some more non sequiter bigfoot haiku for you. ’'''''’'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' It was late at night and Hunster was passed out Bigfoot rocked his camper which caused him to shout He grabbed his gun and flashlight as well his jaw dropped at a vision from hell Bigfoot stood barely a few feet away a stunned Hunster had nothing to say In one mighty step, Bigfoot ran for the trees It was only then that Hunster realized he had peed