Modern Researchers Are Bypassing Traditional Academia

[Guest]

Parnassus, I hope they don't try to pass off Native American DNA as belonging to Bigfoot. If they do, I'm not buying it and I'll volunteer to be the first one to yell "Fraud!"

What I've seen with my own two eyes was not an American Indian in any way, shape or form. Chris B.

Chris, I'd like to see if I can add a little different perspective here. I don't want to turn this into a human or not human thread, but this seems to be a crucial issue to resolve in advancing discussion pertaining to Ketchum and Paulides.

Remember when MK Davis first said that they were human? Well, the entire field just came unglued because all everyone could do was look in the mirror and recognize that bigfoot were not like us. But 'human like us' wasn't what MK meant either. And yeah, he then used a term that erroneously got him into trouble. But I doubt he meant that in any way disrespectfully. He was saying that bigfoot were a Native People, but no, not even the American Indian we are used to. And no, not at the same human lineage marker as us either. As we know from the fossil record, there have been many humans that came before Homo sapien sapien. So what if they are bigger, more hairy. more primal, and still wild? They could still be an early form of human.

So when Paulides says they are Native American, consider that what he means is that they are 'A People' first. Hairy yes, but still a big wild people. Then consider the probability that they were here before us modern humans, even before the stereotypical Native Americans whom we have long considered the first aboriginal. That's not so difficult to ponder right? So if bigfoot lay somewhere early along the Homo lineage, and they were here before traditional NA's, would these two prerequisites not make them a true Native American as well? We are the newcomers here, they are primal and came with the land that we occupied.

How many alleged hair strands have been tested that seem to come up human? They say, the hair was probably contaminated so its written off. Well, how often will we accept this when the people collecting said evidence actually took ample care in handling? Maybe they come up human for a reason, but we simply have trouble accepting it because it goes against that paradigm of what science says are the rules. Well, we know that modern science is wrong in its denial of bigfoot right? We already know that bigfoot's existence will rock everything science itself believes. Well, why not one step further?

I saw the human side of the one whose eye's I looked into and who looked back into mine some 34 years ago. If the science shows that sasquatch are of human ancestry, well it wouldn't surprise me in the least cause I accept that we're the naive ones here. We have to let go of our entrenched perceptions about our existence and place if we are to validate any new progressive ideas. So when there are arenas of science that are moving forward, we should be commending and supporting it. Frankly I don't care what happened between Paulides and a few people. While it may have been wrong what he said to a certain individual, I'm guessing there may be more to the story too, there usually is. I do remember that Paulides was being pushed pretty hard and so something was bound to happen. Nevertheless, it should have nothing to do with the ultimate goal. There needs to be higher standards, but there also needs to be a fair consideration of the evidence, and that too often doesn't happen. When some of us aren't skilled in specific areas, we should be honest about it. There are topics in this forum that I won't touch on because they aren't were I have skills or knowledge. Likewise there are some subjects that I do have such skills. Most of us try to follow that self responsibility. But blogs and forums can really be a poor platform sometimes for dissecting evidence for a variety of reasons, and it becomes unfair to the evidence itself. We aren't in a lab here with all the sophisticated equipment such as for DNA testing. Sometimes we need to rely on the findings of others, but do so with an open mind too. And when there is evidence that can be addressed on a forum level, well then the evidence should be made available. Of course when its held back, there could be valid reason for it or it could just be because the evidence can't withstand the scrutiny. Reasons for which become plain to see. So while deep discussion of DNA evidence is above my skill level, for others it won't be. So hopefully the DNA stuff won't be held back and patented, or something that keeps it out of the hands of science. Its too important. We need to encourage that evidence forward and not give cause for withholding it.

My 2¢

[Guest gershake]

Chris, I'd like to see if I can add a little different perspective here. I don't want to turn this into a human or not human thread, but this seems to be a crucial issue to resolve in advancing discussion pertaining to Ketchum and Paulides.

Remember when MK Davis first said that they were human? Well, the entire field just came unglued because all everyone could do was look in the mirror and recognize that bigfoot were not like us. But 'human like us' wasn't what MK meant either. And yeah, he then used a term that erroneously got him into trouble. But I doubt he meant that in any way disrespectfully. He was saying that bigfoot were a Native People, but no, not even the American Indian we are used to. And no, not at the same human lineage marker as us either. As we know from the fossil record, there have been many humans that came before Homo sapien sapien. So what if they are bigger, more hairy. more primal, and still wild? They could still be an early form of human.

So when Paulides says they are Native American, consider that what he means is that they are 'A People' first. Hairy yes, but still a big wild people. Then consider the probability that they were here before us modern humans, even before the stereotypical Native Americans whom we have long considered the first aboriginal. That's not so difficult to ponder right? So if bigfoot lay somewhere early along the Homo lineage, and they were here before traditional NA's, would these two prerequisites not make them a true Native American as well? We are the newcomers here, they are primal and came with the land that we occupied.

How many alleged hair strands have been tested that seem to come up human? They say, the hair was probably contaminated so its written off. Well, how often will we accept this when the people collecting said evidence actually took ample care in handling? Maybe they come up human for a reason

Anybody correct me if I'm completely wrong, but from my understanding, if tested allegedly bigfoot DNA comes up as "human", that means it comes up as homo sapiens sapiens, right? And from the rest of your post it doesn't sound as though you think bigfoot is sapiens. I would be very surprised if human in this context meant anything different than sapiens, because even if the DNA examined wasn't bigfoot, surely it would be very important and draw attention if DNA of a different species of homo had been found? (Especially if the source for the DNA wasn't a fossil but, p. e., hair)

- Shake

[Guest]

Thanks for committing your favorite logical fallacy, yet again. If Meldrum was that 5th dentist I bet you'd be chewing sugary gum all day long. . .

The only one committing logical fallacies here, Sas is YOU. In this case argumentum ad majority. The Majority once taught that the Earth was flat. The Majority once taught that man would never fly. The Majority teaches things all the time that turn out to be wrong.

And it doesn't change the simple, logical, inescapable FACT that it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss proponent scientists out of hand and embrace "skeptic" scientists without question.

[Guest]

Yahoo

The hair of tribal people is much thicker than that of Anglos. It is well known that some tribal people do not cut their hair. Tribal practices regarding disposition of the dead and self mutilation may have allowed for the current availability of relic human bones. There are a few isolated tribes several of whom in different places were visited by Paulides. Paulides has a questionable ethical history. Really all of a sudden Ketchum is affiliated with Paullides and is receiving specimens that she thinks is Bigfoot fom several places around the country. Paulides went on talk radio and described his idea of Bigfoot interbreeding with tribal peoples. On the same show Ketchum asked Paulides if she could talk about the bone and he told her no. Ketchum has been running suspected Bigfoot specimens for years and didn't believe it existed.

Those seem to be the facts, along with fact that tribal DNA has a few unique features. I put it all together this way:

Paulides is clearly the instigator of this surge of specimens that have changed Ketchum's mind. He seems to be running the show.

So where and how how did Paulides get these specimens? Did he just tell tribal people that he would pay for hair or other relics from Bigfoot? And the tribal people brought him some old relic tribal hair or bone and said it was from a Bigfoot? Or did he see the Snelgrove Lake DNA fiasco and figure that he could fool a vet by just collecting specimens from living tribal members? My sense is that Paulides is the culprit, that he knows what he's doing and thinks he can get away with it. I think he has fooled Ketchum, tho that will probably change when she shows the sequences to a primatologist or population geneticist. I certainly think that it is possible he is being played by tribal people who are laughing at the dumb Anglos ...did anyone else notice that the sketches in Paulides' book resemble Paulides?

At this point it's all just educated guesswork as to what Paulides is orchestrating. Or trying to.

Thank God that DNA results or DNA results...one way or the other. Once they're released, we can see what is and what is not instead of listening to ongoing diatribes casting aspersions on various researchers' character.

[southernyahoo]

I'd say that if you see results that say "human" you should seek understanding and clarification.

[Guest]

Anybody correct me if I'm completely wrong, but from my understanding, if tested allegedly bigfoot DNA comes up as "human", that means it comes up as homo sapiens sapiens, right? And from the rest of your post it doesn't sound as though you think bigfoot is sapiens. I would be very surprised if human in this context meant anything different than sapiens, because even if the DNA examined wasn't bigfoot, surely it would be very important and draw attention if DNA of a different species of homo had been found? (Especially if the source for the DNA wasn't a fossil but, p. e., hair)

- Shake

I guess that brings up a good point for clarification Shake. And no I wouldn't see them as sapiens per se.

But for instance, if the DNA turned out to be that of Homo Heidelbergensis, would we consider that Human? We should, because we can't limit our thinking of what human IS simply based on our present evolutionary point of development. We know 'humans' were around long long ago and some looked more robust then the present 'us'. Homo Heidelbergensis probably looked far different then us of today. So yeah, I guess we need to be open minded about this concept of 'what is human' too.

[Guest]

Anybody correct me if I'm completely wrong, but from my understanding, if tested allegedly bigfoot DNA comes up as "human", that means it comes up as homo sapiens sapiens, right? And from the rest of your post it doesn't sound as though you think bigfoot is sapiens. I would be very surprised if human in this context meant anything different than sapiens, because even if the DNA examined wasn't bigfoot, surely it would be very important and draw attention if DNA of a different species of homo had been found? (Especially if the source for the DNA wasn't a fossil but, p. e., hair)

- Shake

That is correct. "Human" means H Sapiens. "Hominid" is the proper designation for non-human members of the genus Homo.

The question still on my mind (that I haven't seen a good answer to yet) is whether or not simply sharing traits with us makes the putatitive sasquatch truly a hominid. To wit: that our shared genetic traits stem from coming from the same ancestral line as opposed to being the result of convergent evolution.

[Guest]

Except that 'Science' has long considered subspecies such has Homo Neanderthal and Homo Heidelbergensis as 'early humans'. Do we presume to know that they didn't consider themselves 'human' too? We can't view our present existence as so finite a place in history, without considering those that came before us being of equal in their own right. Science has different meanings sometimes me thinks.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Pragmatic Theorist, Those are very good observations. Maybe someone misquoted someone else about the American Indian or first American as related to Bigfoot. In that regard I guess Bison and white tail deer could be considered as First Americans too. I know I don't have all the answers for sure and I'm certainly not an expert on DNA patterns. But I also know what I've seen personally. The male creatures I've seen would be about as close to human as the Mountain Gorilla. So to me and my opinion, it would be impossible to compare them with the Native American Indians. In saying that I want to make my opinion perfectly clear that I do not believe Bigfoot to be related to an Apache Indian or Sioux or any of the other known tribes of human beings. The creatures will certainly have a new classification to be determined of course, but I don't believe it will be human nor Gorilla, we're likely in for a new definition of type when everything hits the fan. It will remain my opinion that any DNA study that tries to suggest the creatures are Apache or any other known tribe of American Indian will be personally considered as bunk. Some folks seem to report they have witnessed a very human like creature. Some folks report they have witnessed a very ape like creature. So, maybe there are different looking critters roaming around elsewhere. All I know is my Grandma was full blooded Native American and she wasn't hairy or big. Chris B.

[Guest]

Hey Chris,

I think this is certainly of those conundrums. I mean with respect to the one you saw that looked more like an ape. Yeah I think this gets back to the same old issue of there being at least two different types. The 'human' looking and the 'ape' looking. Maybe there is an evolutionary jump going on within the species itself? Maybe that is where human interbreeding comes in here and there that we occasionally hear about? No doubt we already have enough mysteries surrounding this being as it is. So I wonder this now, what IF modern human DNA is found? But what if its the result of interbreeding? Just a thought, so nobody shoot the messenger. lol It just means we have to leave room for unexpected possibilities as we move forward. If there are Human characteristic TYPE and Ape characteristic TYPE, accepting that may even help in explaining things. Obviously there's more mystery that we haven't even fathomed yet as well. I dunno, I just try to look at these kind of things with an open mind for ways of explaining. Doesn't always work tho.

[Guest Sallaranda]

Except that 'Science' has long considered subspecies such has Homo Neanderthal and Homo Heidelbergensis as 'early humans'. Do we presume to know that they didn't consider themselves 'human' too? We can't view our present existence as so finite a place in history, without considering those that came before us being of equal in their own right. Science has different meanings sometimes me thinks.

Human isn't a scientific term and, in my opinion, is a term that is irrelevant in the study of Bigfoot and other ancestors/relatives of modern "humans" (homo sapiens of course).

People can argue until they're blue in the face as to what is the definition of human - but when it comes down to it the public will not except any definition that includes a species other than our own.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

PT, I think there will definitely be some sort of new classification when all is said and done. I won't say they're ape but I won't say they're human either. I think they're something else we haven't typed yet. There have been so many different reports of both human and ape looking critters being sighted. Who knows, you have a point, there could be a cross breeding thing going on, or as you mentioned an evolutionary thing. If that's the case, don't worry , we still got some of the full blooded registered Giganto looking critters walking around out there too. If the cross breeding theory comes to pass, I feel sorry for the human that gets dragged away by one of those. Yikes. No chance of divorce either.

Chris B.

[Guest parnassus]

I've been in touch with Dr. Ketchum, and Paulides. I've submitted samples to her myself, so not all of the samples are submitted by Paulides, he is not running the show where the analysis is concerned, and I do have good provenance of the sample I submitted. I'll be bedazzeled if the DNA is 100% sapiens sapiens, but if so , yes that will change my thoughts about what bigfoot is, but only slightly.

Technically , if bigfoot were human it would be a Native, I'll concede that, but I don't believe Native American (sapiens sapiens) are the hairy ones whom are seen and are depositing the hairs in the same places.

I think you are believing your own speculation too much, you should verify things first. To those of us who have submitted samples, you are sounding alot like a conspiracy theorist.

We shall see. I have also dealt with Dr. Ketchum by the way. I don't see this as a conspiracy theory, which are characterized by the involvement of the government and a necessary silence by large numbers of people. I think this now-delayed DNA project is primarily the brainchild of a single man, with the scientists probably in the dark about the true origins of the evidence. Not at all like blaming the government, timber companies, scientists, and wildlife agencies for the absence of biologic evidence of Bigfoot.

Edited March 2, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

Except that 'Science' has long considered subspecies such has Homo Neanderthal and Homo Heidelbergensis as 'early humans'.

Admittedly I'm out on the edge of my education here, but the various Homo line variants (Nedanderthal, et al)all trace their ancestry to a common "root" creature, much like all the current subspecies of chimpanzee or gorilla trace their ancestry.

The point I'm making is that I am wondering if the DNA testing will reveal that sas is truly a member of the Homo family tree of species, or a member of another great ape tree, such as Giganto that shares genetic traits with us due to evolutionary adaptivity along similar lines without coming from a common "root" source.

Do we presume to know that they didn't consider themselves 'human' too?

Human as in sentient? Who knows? But the fact that they ARE genetically and physiologically distinct indicates that they are in fact NOT H Sapiens Sapiens (ie human).

We can't view our present existence as so finite a place in history, without considering those that came before us being of equal in their own right.

Certainly we can. Other great apes (and some other forms of animal) have shown us evidence that they too possess at least a rudimentary sentience. Does that make them humans too? Does it make them our equals? I'm not proposing an answer yea or nay at this time. I'm just pointing out that it is fuzzy logic to simply lump everything into one category.

[Guest]

Admittedly I'm out on the edge of my education here, but the various Homo line variants (Nedanderthal, et al)all trace their ancestry to a common "root" creature, much like all the current subspecies of chimpanzee or gorilla trace their ancestry.

That's one theory anyhow. Heck, we may all be from another planet for all we know.

The point I'm making is that I am wondering if the DNA testing will reveal that sas is truly a member of the Homo family tree of species, or a member of another great ape tree, such as Giganto that shares genetic traits with us due to evolutionary adaptivity along similar lines without coming from a common "root" source.

That's one of the big questions we're all wondering...

Human as in sentient? Who knows? But the fact that they ARE genetically and physiologically distinct indicates that they are in fact NOT H Sapiens Sapiens (ie human).

I agree that they are most likely NOT H sapiens sapiens, but I don't believe 'Human' is confined to Hss alone. Neanderthal were considered human. There were others. Again, just because we see ourselves as human, doesn't mean that excludes our direct predecessors. Not talking about chimpanzees either.

Certainly we can. Other great apes (and some other forms of animal) have shown us evidence that they too possess at least a rudimentary sentience. Does that make them humans too? Does it make them our equals? I'm not proposing an answer yea or nay at this time. I'm just pointing out that it is fuzzy logic to simply lump everything into one category.

I'm not including great apes in my comparisons. I'm talking predecessors in our own Homo line as above. There may be humans that come after us too if we evolve. They could be more intelligent and highly advanced, or have gone through who knows what kind of evolutionary changes. I sure hope they think of us as being human when they look in the mirror and see how different we were.