Leaderboard

This is where you are wrong. MtDNA doesn't recombine and remix. It takes time and it mutates over time, but it only comes from the mother to her children and her fertile daughters will pass it on virtually unchanged for hundreds or thousands of years. As part of this theory, the hybrid offspring would have to be fertile or mostly fertile and would have to have been preferred mates among the other species of hominins. This could explain the disappearance of their own mtDNA (maternal) lineage. The nuDNA would remix every generation and would dilute quickly like what we see with Neanderthal nuDNA in modern Europeans. They added a little something to our makeup but there is no trace of Neanderthal mtDNA in human populations, perhaps because those female offspring were infertile or were not preferred mates among male cro magnons ( as you would propose about Patty) or were outcasts and went to stay with the Neanderthals. Native Americans do tell the stories about abducted women and children, and if true, it could be rare, but ongoing. As I said, it would be a satellite piggy back species that only crosses with us in one direction and keeps the offspring to themselves. This wouldn't be a comforting thing to unleash on the world, I realize, but unless something in the evidence changes drasticly, like finding Sasquatches true maternal lineage, this is what I have to work with which explains the most evidence in hand.

The Bigfoot mystery is interesting on so many levels. I often have to wonder why I'm so interested in the subject because I tend to question most things and never just take things at face value. I've never seen a Sasquatch, nor has anybody close to me seen one. I'm a hunter and fisherman but prior to becoming interested in the subject, had never noticed anything that would indicate the existence of a bipedal North American ape. I can't say that I believe in the existence of them because I have not seen enough evidence. However, I strongly believe in the possibility of one. In my mind, there's enough great evidence to prove the possibility of existence but not enough to prove the existence as conclusive. Either way, it's really fascinating and I hope one day they're proven to be real. In the mean time, the process of discovery, good or bad, is entertaining as hell!

^^ The page prior to your link, post 293 is the first mention of this photo's source. http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=27514.285

I don't think you understand that mtDNA is inherited from the mother only and does not combine with the fathers mtDNA. Therefore new species can have the mtDNA of another and speciate through hydridization. This fact could explain the differences and the likeness to humans that sasquatch has and a metric ton of the evidence to date.

Sasquatch would push 700 lbs, that's alot of bambi protien it needs. Did we not eat deer during our invasion of this continent? I don't even have to rely on Ketchum. Her methods though of testing the mtDNA is just what any other scientist would do and Disotell has actually found nothing different regardless of who sent in the sample. The results....."No Divergence" from us..... I don't expect that to change.....But it should be a serious question where the real sasquatch samples are, since they can visit people who stay in cabins in SE Oklahoma regularly, but never leave a nest or scat or hair sample to be found. Those sapiens told us of Squatch taking fish from their nets too. There are also more contemporary reports of Squatch taking the deer we shoot and kill. Europeans just decided they could just take what they wanted, it wasn't about niche competition, it was about control of the land and it's use. Who would know and call it a squatch if it just gave human DNA? Strangely, this has happened with hair samples in archaeological digs and the DNA was European. They also dismissed the result as possible contamination.

It makes sense that other skeptical scientists would first seek to discredit Sykes, after all they probably have little good to argue against his hypothesis in the first place. Whether or not you buy the hypothesis, Dr. Sykes is certainly a credible geneticist by any definition, you can't pull the Melba strategy here, though it seems that will be attempted once again. Sykes interpretation of Zana as a subspecies, if true, should be a earth shattering discovery, instead it is being treated as tabloid fantasy. Once again highlighting the difficulty of getting the scientific world off its conflated throne, and moving it sorry little gears to get to the bottom of something real. I have no faith in the established scientific world to awaken to this subject, once again pointing to the need for a specimen, and that should not have to be the case.

i dont think horses are quieter I think humans are. BUT, the noise they make is that of a quadraped and not a biped......and I think that is key. Its noise camouflage.

Of 424 encounters where a Bigfoot has been seen and I've classified the witness (or witnesses) activity, 149 are driving (and a few walking) on a road or are engaged in normal activities at home. That's 35% of my encounters that I've classified. You don't have to be deep in the woods to have an encounter, although, the odds of having an encounters are still in line with the odds of winning the lottery whilst simultaneously being hit by a fatal bolt of lightning.

It's a good thing for you that you weren't a member here six or eight years ago... Roguefooter made a legitimate observation and then still managed to ask a respectful question after you responded to him (merely voicing his opinion that the figure in your photo resembles a broken stump) with this dismissive and condescending post: You post a picture of a supposed bigfoot on a bigfoot discussion board and then complain when someone tries to critically discuss it. You refuse to answer questions or give a detailed account of the incident. Why would you expect everyone to simply fall into line and only post in agreement with you? Can we assume that during your long and storied law enforcement career you always accepted the word of suspects and witnesses without any asking any amplifying questions and without hearing a complete account of the incident in question? Did you believe it was beyond the pale to question a suspect's truthfulness or a witnesses' recall of an event? That is what you are expecting those of this forum to do: to accept your word alone while you obstinately refuse to disclose the full context of the incident or answer respectful questions. Does that not strike you as unreasonable?

it's back on youtube if anyone hasn't seen it yet... Survivorman Bigfoot - Legend of Klemtu Hill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw8986Fm9To

I agree to a degree, and definitely think what you wrote has something to it. The biggest thing for me is arrogance though, a very human trait and one that so many have in abundance. We as a species, especially in the civilised world, are extremely arrogant in general and we think we know it all, we think that anything we don't know is a nonsense etc. You'll see it virtually daily on this forum too if you look hard enough. Every day we, myself included, would dismiss a whole host of things simply because we don't know enough about them. The same happens with this subject. And I wholeheartedly agree about the actual name "Bigfoot" and I actually made a point a few years back to try to always refer to these things as Sasquatch and Sasquatch only..

Honestly, I don't even wonder anymore - I KNOW they would be better off without us "discovering" them officially. Some say - We can protect their habitat. What indication do we have that that is even necessary? Some say - We can protect them. They can protect themselves - they have so far. Besides how can we protect them by proving them. That will bring the previous non-believing trophy hunters out of the woodwork searching for that ultimate trophy. Not to mention the money hungry crazies and what they might do....including TV producers. I can't think of one realistic thing we could do that would better their lives- that they would want from us. They don't want/need our help, or they would have made contact by now and asked for help. But I still want to know. Which is very selfish. But I am just human and the curiosity is killing me!