Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Interesting title, Drew. Why did you select it? Not quite in line with the theme though. Operation Tenacity might work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 It just came to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I know to apply, you have to use a TBRC member as a reference. I assume they do background checks, but I am not sure. Upon acceptance, you become an associate member for at least a year, during which time you have several action items to complete. You can only move into status of a member upon vote of the BOD. Thank you, this is all very fascinating to me, I wish you all the best of luck sooner than later. Someone mentioned dogs earlier in regards to the DNA issue. Yes, they are genetically the same but the genome has been artificially manipulated for thousands of years to express certain qualities in the different breeds. This would not be the case with humans and bigfoot. Bigfoot seems to thrive in all of the same environments that we do so it is unlikely that you could say "Bigfoot is human but the environment forced those evolutionary adaptations." Based on what Hairy Man describes these creatures as looking like in their area, they don't sound like they would appear human even if they had no hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Based on what Hairy Man describes these creatures as looking like in their area, they don't sound like they would appear human even if they had no hair. CTfoot, when you said that an image of a hairless cat came to mind...LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) CTFoot,go back and look at the genes that where leaked about the Ketchum report, there where three specific ones, I cannot remember them a hundred percent accurately right now,but check them out,they where related to the type of mutations that could very well lead to the sort of difference in appearance we see between the two. It is not a reach, at all, that there could be that much variance in appearance. I spent a fair amount of time discussing it with qualified people, and including a very good genetics expert at a good university, and people that think a human,cannot look like that, are simply wrong. I quit being so lazy. "one ( FoxP2) which is involved in language and speech and the other ( RUNX2) was one that showed variation in skeletal structures between humans and neanderthals . The MC1R gene is involved in hair and skin color variations." I snipped that out of a conversation I was having in e-mail, thats the three "leaked" genes, and could easily account for the difference in appearance, strength etc. The FoxP2 gene has a lot of interesting characteristics it seems somewhat associated with. Does this make them human? No, does this make them able to be human, and still be Bigfoot? It is within the realm of scientific possibility. Thats from real scientist btw CT, not internet scientist, do some research on it, its enlightening and fascinating. Edited October 7, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Thank you John C, I remember reading about those genes but a refresher wouldn't hurt. The issue you are talking about in regards to bigfoot being human would involve atavism. Atavism is a throwback to a prior pattern that hasn't expressed in millions of years so would not be compatible with the modern version of the other human genes. That many traits expressed at once would be incompatible with life as they are not controlled by a single gene, but multiple genes that also control other functions in the body. You alter one thing and part of those genes would affect another system's development that isn't a throwback. If you can believe what you read in reports there are similar themes that reoccur regarding appearance that do indicate things about bigfoot's morphology.It may be like the Bonobo and be 99.6% similar to us, as far as the sequence looks, but where only 70% of those genes function in the same way that ours does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) Unless of course its not a prior pattern CT, just a unique one. Do some reading on the FOX2P and its potential link to autism, and the possibility that its actually the next stage of evolution. Nothing proven of course, just a lot of conjecture, but still some interesting reading. It just struck me that the "leaked" genes had the potential they did, if the leak is a lie, its a well researched one. I will stay on topic now, sorry guys Edited October 7, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 And...the point being...? None of those animals have the intellect of a primate. Funny thing is, I just saw a couple of them this summer, so it seems like they're still around. By your own words you said you saw a "black ball" moving in the distance and eyeshine. Sorry, this is not seeing "a couple of them,"i.e., a couple of apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I think he was referring to the animals Drew was talking about Jerry, not the "wood apes" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I wonder if we should even be using the term 'human' on the forum as it means different things to different people. Maybe everyone on the forum should do a little 'entrance exam' so we can be sure of some common basic comprehension of what BF could actually be, e.g. HSS 'variant', Cro-Magnon descendant, Home Neanderthalensis descendant, HSS-HN 'hybrid', feral HSS, Giganto ... etc. Just because something doesn't act like you and I doesn't mean it can be genetically classified as an ape. I agree.....even modern humans deprived of our normal culture during developmental years as children can have drastic effects. It's a forbidden experiment but occurs with feral children. I think there is genetic and behavioral differences between us and bigfoot, but that wouldn't necessarily make them more ape than us or less human biologically. They aren't using words. Those are sounds Words are sounds. How do you know they aren't words? We call them wood apes because that is what they are. We don't call them that because we want to make ourselves feel better about obtaining a specimen. So bigfoot doesn't carry the right descriptor or has it been anthropomorphicized? Why invent a new name but remain the the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy? Why make things more confusing? Do you believe there are other types besides the ones with human faces? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Even the most primitive of human beings wear clothing, build shelters, and live in multi-family tribes, using stone tools. Almost all use fire. Do you attribute all of these characteristics to sasquatches? IMO, we would have found far more extensive evidence of their presence if 8-ft tall 500 lbs. + creatures were building cabins, making spears, and starting fires. Even other members of genus homo have been shown to use most if not all of these shared characteristics. That, coupled with the incredible size difference, reports of eyeshine, etc. the midtarsal break theory, etc. make them too far removed from us genetically to be considered "human". @HairyMan: I think bip answered a question similar to this before, but in either last year's operation or this one, did anyone witness anything that would suggest the wood apes were on par with early hominids? Use of self-made tools, fire, shelter, clothes, etc.? And does the TBRC have an official position on where these creatures might fall genetically in comparison with us and the other hominidae species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Spoken like a true urban industrialist who portrays their own version of humanity on the rest of humanity........not that there is anything wrong with that,everyone does it. That is why corvus was right in post #699. There are no primitive humans, just different cultures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 That, coupled with the incredible size difference, reports of eyeshine, etc. the midtarsal break theory, etc. make them too far removed from us genetically to be considered "human". That depends on what the actual genetics are, and we can know they are there without a specimen. The act of making fire, using a tool, or throwing on an animal hide won't change a single gene in your body, at least not for a really long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I think the next mission should be called Operation Endeavor. Given the ultimate goal of the mission, perhaps Operation Bodybag might bring more luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patty3 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 There's no doubt in my mind that you guys are persistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts