Huntster Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago 3 hours ago, Backdoc said: .........I still say bigfoot would be essentially an ape........... Homo sapiens are also apes, although if you call somebody an "ape", they will almost certainly be offended.
georgerm Posted 4 hours ago Author Posted 4 hours ago 9 hours ago, Huntster said: The feral homo sapien also explains why DNA analysis comes back as "human". But, then, a human relative and/or hybrid might also do that. I don't believe that feral Homo sapiens fully explain the phenomenon, but I do claim that it almost certainly explains some reports and is part of the overall explanation. The Zana story clearly "proves" that "scientifically". Humans evolved from other hominins in Africa several million years ago. Although some scientists equate humans with all members of the genus Homo, in common usage it generally refers to Homo sapiens, the only extant member. Homo sapiens emerged around 300,000 years ago and migrated out of Africa, gradually replacing local populations of archaic humans. Early humans were hunter-gatherers, before the invention of agriculture and domestication of animals led to permanent settlement in the Fertile Crescent and other cradles of civilization. We Homo sapiens emerged 300,000 years ago and we replaced archaic humans. I suppose the Neanderthals are the archaic humans and bigfoot is probably some kind of advanced primate and not human. Bigfoot is short of being an archaic human but seems to be highly intelligent for avoiding capture for this long? Does bigfoot have a spoken language?
Huntster Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 2 hours ago, georgerm said: .........bigfoot is probably some kind of advanced primate and not human........... Homo sapiens are primates, too. Quote ..........Does bigfoot have a spoken language? There is evidence that they do, and if so, that would pretty much narrow them into the genus Homo. 1
xspider1 Posted 50 minutes ago Posted 50 minutes ago These recent posts got me to wondering. As an analogy: Suppose a UFO landed and weird beings were seen emerging from the craft (could happen). Suppose then that they set-up camp and proceeded to explore Earth, basically minding their own business. Would the prudent thing to do be A.) immediately try to kill them so that Science can prove that extra-terrestrial beings are visiting Earth?, or B.) At least attempt to contain them (alive) and make contact? The correct response seems obvious to me (B.) We could be prepared to attack if necessary although attacking might not work out so good, proactively or, reactively. As with Bigfoot, we could end up with a much better understanding of what they are and perhaps what benefits to us they might provide. We could at least try to take the high-road, no?
norseman Posted 17 minutes ago Admin Posted 17 minutes ago 21 minutes ago, xspider1 said: These recent posts got me to wondering. As an analogy: Suppose a UFO landed and weird beings were seen emerging from the craft (could happen). Suppose then that they set-up camp and proceeded to explore Earth, basically minding their own business. Would the prudent thing to do be A.) immediately try to kill them so that Science can prove that extra-terrestrial beings are visiting Earth?, or B.) At least attempt to contain them (alive) and make contact? The correct response seems obvious to me (B.) We could be prepared to attack if necessary although attacking might not work out so good, proactively or, reactively. As with Bigfoot, we could end up with a much better understanding of what they are and perhaps what benefits to us they might provide. We could at least try to take the high-road, no? The scenario has allegedly already happened. We shot down their saucer in 1947 and collected and dissected their bodies.🤷🏻♂️ Roswell New Mexico Science isn't going to take any high roads. The Military isn't gonna take any high roads either. They will take the most expedient route to the maximum data dump that can be seized and controlled.
Recommended Posts