gigantor Posted April 10, 2011 Admin Share Posted April 10, 2011 (edited) According to Adrian, he is timing his film to coincide with Melba's anticipated 'results', where I have no doubt .... NONE, that she is going to tell us they are HUMAN and what exits that distinguish their human outcome from ours. I'm taking this one to the bank, so to speak. LOL BP, you crack me up! :lol: You are all over the place dude, choose a position and stick with it, at least for a couple of days... Edited April 10, 2011 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoot Proof Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 BP, you crack me up! :lol: You are all over the place dude, choose a position and stick with it, at least for a couple of days... LOL well I'm glad you find me amusing... how am I all over the place? I believe they are genetically human and that's what I think Ketchum's findings are going to show (explained in full details)... and if by chance that's not the case and I'm wrong... it doesn't matter, I just want the truth.... 'what they are' is more important to me than having one over for dinner ++++ And that Leila female in Erickson's camp was the one I was asking what her role was (did she see Adrian's SAS in person?) I hope thats clear enough? If not I can try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Well this post of mine was referring to Leila. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 And that Leila female in Erickson's camp was the one I was asking what her role was (did she see Adrian's SAS in person?) I hope thats clear enough? If not I can try again. Yes, I think she saw them. The female and also a male. John Bindernagel saw the female. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 If that's the case, she'll have a hard time convincing skeptics of her results. They'll take it as proof that Sasquatch don't exist and are misidentified humans/animals or hoaxes. But humans? What kind of humans? Feral humans that grow to inhuman proportions, lost tool and fire use? Don't believe it. Well, I believe that this could be the result of Ketchums DNA analysis but I don't believe that Sasquatch are Homo sapiens. My bet is that the results come back as unknown primate, not a Homo species, but just an unknown great ape. There would be miniscule chance of Sasquatch being Homo Sapiens, nobody has ever inferred that. But instead that they are in the same genus as Homo something. Same as Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Heidelbergensis are not Home Sapien. Over the last few years, there has been a growing segment in the bigfoot community who feel they are Human, but we're not saying Human like us. This growing group is now significant in size and able to maintain this position at least in equal balance to those who feel they are ape. As for the wider masses, there is an analogy here that many will be able to grasp. It is inevitable that some portion of the media will use the term 'missing link'. This term is something that the general public has little trouble coming to terms with and it will catch on just as it has in the past. As to whether Sasquatch are actually a 'missing link', that's will to be debated because the 'missing link' concept is the basis for connecting our evolution with early apes, and that theory in itself is debated by a large segment of the population. Still its a nomenclature that is able to settle in and often becomes an accepted terminology. There have been a few Sasquatch DNA analyses in the past that came up as Human, and so they were passed off as somehow being contaminated. Well, it may be that they weren't contaminated at all if corroborated in this project. Everyone should try to keep in mind, when someone says they look like a human, its not being claimed that they are just like us! Instead its simply being distinguished that human can mean a broader species at different stages of development and even appearance. So shake away that pre-conceived notion that human only means Homo Sapien, it never has meant only Homo Sapien from an anthropological view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Yes, it's the big question, right? They really seem to be some sort of "Missing Link". I thought of Homo sapiens because of different things I've heard about the Project. I think there's a chance that they encountered not real Sasquatch in Kentucky, but feral humans. If you remember the pancake footage: There's the creature with the enormous head. It seems that the creature suffers from Hydrocephalus. I've never heard that this condition occurs in nonhuman great apes. I think that Sasquatch are great apes. But surely the line between ape and human is so thin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 So shake away that pre-conceived notion that human only means Homo Sapien, it never has meant only Homo Sapien from an anthropological view. Yes! I'm not just talking about what Biggie may actually turn out to be, but this is going to be a very "sticky wicket" in a few (or many, but not as many as we think now ) years when we really get rolling with AI and really nail down this genetic thing. Are they human? We define that word as being self aware and intelligent. This may be the first real "test case" as to what is human and what is not. If it becomes apparent that the Big Guy isn't Giganto or something similar. Not that it should matter, not if thinking is going on. But it would be a stronger test case if that was the reality. I personally am in the camp of if you can get your questions answered by the subject in a language you can understand then....homo something something or something else... So that could potentially cover Giganto as well. I personally like the term "Sapiens" to cover all the what have yous... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoot Proof Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 It's all going to be very interesting when it plays out, very exciting. As far as NOT being homo sapiens, don't be too sure, all it takes is one tiny fluke in a gene to make the worlds tallest man, or one speck off a band to cause 3 eyes. It's all a very delicate balance. Obviously we have some noticeable differences but that doesn't necessarily make them any less homo sapien than us... but I'm sure when Melba's finding are published it will be very detailed (what-ever it is?) and give us the answers... this is the most thrilling thing for me. I too suspect that the previously examined DNA which was presented and found to be human was not contaminated, it was just what it is... human. So going by that, what kind of human could they be? Well I have 2 ideas BUT maybe someone has another they could present? I'm thinking they are either just our cousin, no less homo sapien than us, with some sweet enhancements we lack, or ... they are the original and we are their branch off which became domesticated. Its anyone speculation right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 or... they are the original and we are their branch off which became domesticated. Oh that should go over well from a certain can't talk about point of view. If that theory were to be proposed, um, BFF guidelines might need to be amended some or we'll be unable to discuss one of the most significant ramifications of the findings. I've often speculated that they were 'here first' and that they could be related somehow. Hence some NA's 'Big Brother' reference. Maybe they REALLY did mean that literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Well, it is actually rather well established that sometime about 2.4 million years ago, the human lineage came to an evolutionary splitting point. Specifically, the choice between a robust or gracile body plan and life style. This split occurred at roughly the Australopithecus - Homo split, or possibly Australopithecus - Paranthropus - Homo split, where the gracile Homo line continued and the robust Australopithecus - Paranthropus line supposedly died out (about a million years ago). Another possibility is that this split occurred in the very early days of H. habilis (which may actually be two different species). This was also roughly the point at which rudimentary speech and body hair loss began to occur. There is absolutely nothing fundamentally unsuccessful about the robust body plan. It was obviously successful for a long time, and could easily have moved into the forests of Europe and Asia as Africa dried up. Although likely to have a smaller brain size than a human, these would be muscular creatures capable of eating a forest like a bowl of salad. Descriptions of bigfoots would fit very well with them being a robust creature originating from the later Paranthropus or early Homo lines. Keep in mind, that just as humans had 2.4 million years to evolve from the robust-gracile split, so did bigfoots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Right now what is on my mind, is what went down at that conference? Wonder what Erickson had to say...the facebook page for bigfootology.com says it has it all recorded and will be uploading shortly. Anyone know more? Anyone care to expound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted April 12, 2011 Admin Share Posted April 12, 2011 There is absolutely nothing fundamentally unsuccessful about the robust body plan. It was obviously successful for a long time,.... Descriptions of bigfoots would fit very well with them being a robust creature originating from the later Paranthropus or early Homo lines. Keep in mind, that just as humans had 2.4 million years to evolve from the robust-gracile split, so did bigfoots. That is a lucid and well thought out observation. I agree, they could be divergent species from long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoot Proof Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Then would Genetic Drift (of our earlier homo sapien species/populations) be the morphology road outward and then a split? That would stand to reason; as we grew, and morphed so did they. Obviously barring any man-made toys, physically one-one-one they rule the earth. Just amazing. We are lucky to be in this time-frame of exciting things to come, we will know what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 There's a hint: Leila Hadj-Chikh wrote a lenghty foreword in Bindernagels "Discovery of the Sasquatch". Bindernagel is a proponent of the "nonhuman great ape hypothesis". It's speculation but I assume that she wrote the foreword after the first results of the DNA analysis came back. Would she really have written a foreword to a book that supports the Ape theory if she didn't support the overall claim of the book? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Â Also, ***Âd*mn is the trailer dramatic. :|Â I've looked and looked and looked! Where is the trailer? I'm so sorry, I have little to no computer skills. But I would love to see the trailer if someone could help me find it. Thanks so much for any help...Hugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts