Leaderboard

Late to this, but here's my two cents. 8-9 million years ago, dryopithecines in Africa split into two lines - one that led to gorillas and the other to humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos. At 7 million years ago, another split happened between chimpanzees and bonobos from early ancestral hominins that became humans. I've heard during the Miocene epoch, there were at least 50 types of great apes. I think bigfoot originated somewhere back around there, probably interbred with early humans (it seems we slept around a lot, since we also have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA), and became a new species. It self-selected to become nocturnal and gigantic size, which is our opposite. They and us are similar, but we share this world by occupying opposite niches - we are tool users, hairless and live our lives in communities, being out and about primarily in the daytime. They don't need tools, rely upon their strength and speed, are hirsute and are primarily nocturnal, living singly or in small family groupings. They are also very intelligent, but in different ways. So, yes, in the great ape family, but similar to how we are great apes, but more.

I don't know what bigfoot is, but whatever it might be, I think it's on its way out (extinction) , otherwise, the species wouldn't be so elusive.

I'm not surprised by the results, which seems legit (part human, park unknown) but I find the cast of characters involved to not be credible. The financier should have just kept it to a very small circle of the best people he could find. Hiring Ketchum was a mistake. She became the target of all the criticism but there were lots more people involved. What sunk things was how they presented the data. They fired their PR person and replaced her with the blueberry bagel habituator lady (she had no experience at all in that sort of thing or anything scientific). Igor Burtsev was a loose cannon and installed himself as the voice of the group, making premature announcements on facebook that confused everything (which people blogged about and got all the crazy theories connected with the data). Burtsev decided that his opinion was what the study should reflect. He's not arrogant about it, just a sham scientist. He still hangs out with the blueberry bagel lady AND janice carter coy. It's on his FB pages.

Well, I would say that if something took their firearms, it has to be something with hands. That leaves humans or BF. Given the fact that you can be shot and killed for $20 in most big cities, could it be that some less than lazy criminal is killing humans for close to $2000 in hunting rifle, scope, and handgun? The serial killers that have roamed the woods of the NW for the most part have rarely had a victim found. Usually that is only because they have helped law enforcement find where their victims were buried. Without that, most of their victims would never be found, buried in shallow graves in the woods. Maybe we have some serial killers that find it even more thrilling to kill an armed hunter than someone unarmed. Certainly the firearms involved are something of value and worthy of being collected and sold illegally. Of course perhaps some killings are accidental. See movement and shoot, only to find someone dead. By just burying the victim, avoid the legal hassle, and either take the guns or bury them with the victim. Several possibilities. Certainly I have been shot at more than once. Once the person knew I was there, the second time I don't think they did, and the bullets from their target shooting were whizzing over my head. In both cases I withdrew rather than have a gun battle. I was outgunned in both cases and decided the best choice was to get away.

Fossils are by definition organic material that has been replaced with inorganic minerals. A genuine fossil would contain zero organic material and its associated DNA. Bone or teeth in various states of preservation may contain DNA because of being encased in hard material that protects it from being destroyed by bacterial action.

worth looking into but my recollection is the giganto fossils had zero salvageable DNA.

I think they view themselves as part of nature, a kind of "back to the garden" type type of thinking. They seem to resist technology more than not being capable of it. They seem to understand how camera traps function. They are just different tribes of us.

I think this is most likely correct. Something so close to us that the DNA tests used for species identification mistakes it for us, contamination or slightly degraded. That points to something much much closer than chimp. There are, however, some anomalies of behavior / apparent ability which should not be ignored. There is something to the picture we don't understand yet. MIB

Flesh and blood, with a little something else mixed in. I don't know what that something else is, just got the feeling there is more to it than what meets the eye.