Anthropologist Kathy Strain Suggests That Native Americans And Even Early English Settlers Voluntarily Bred With Bf

[TD-40]

Two animals cannot just come together and procreate. Semen is and can be rejected if the female species doesn't want it. If human semen were artificially inseminated into a silverback gorilla, would we see a humanoid-gorilla born? No. The semen would be rejected, and I wonder if homo erectus semen would be rejected by sasquatch females and likewise the other way around?

[Guest]

Two animals cannot just come together and procreate.

Oh really?

Here is an interesting article on human/animal procreation throughout history.

Edited January 13, 2013 by AaronD
to remove link to article containing religious material

[Guest]

Two animals cannot just come together and procreate. Semen is and can be rejected if the female species doesn't want it. If human semen were artificially inseminated into a silverback gorilla, would we see a humanoid-gorilla born? No. The semen would be rejected, and I wonder if homo erectus semen would be rejected by sasquatch females and likewise the other way around?

The female can't just decide to reject fertilization otherwise the unintended pregnancy rate among teens and adults wouldn't be out of the roof in the United States for lack of using a birth control method correctly, or at all. There are physiological reasons that fertilization doesn't occur between humans and other primates although recent research is beginning to indicate otherwise in chimps, still no hybridization case is known to exist whether planned or by accident between HSS/chimps.

It can be artificially created in the form of chimeras via in vitro fertilization techniques, and is done regularly for the purposes of medical research, but those creatures are destroyed while still at the cellular level and there is no indication that they would survive past that point if not destroyed and reimplanted in a host mother.

Edited January 13, 2013 by CTfoot

[Guest]

Stalin thought it was possible. Remember the Monsterquest documentary?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfa7PAdSZKc

[Guest]

If you are interested in this, then read about "Zana".

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/zana.htm

Edited January 13, 2013 by Angie2B

[AaronD]

Hearing you speak on Coast-to-Coast, or reading about it in a book just doesn't have the same impact as it being published in a peer-reviewed reputable journal.

RayG

I'll take your point a bit further. Even peer reviewed reputable publications CAN be wrong, and do not guarantee absolute truth.

[Guest RayG]

Or it could be that the events happened as described and it was accepted by the people at the time because it was a fact of life.

Given the lack of any proof for either scenario, my hypothesis is just as valid as the other. Produce a squatch, or a rug made from sasquatch hide, or a necklace made with sasquatch teeth, and my hypothesis disappears faster than the melting snow in my front yard.

Or recording an accurate account of historical knowledge passed down orally through the generations.

Yes, because we know that people re-telling stories never waver from the original story, and get everything exactly accurate. Think back to a week ago. Can you accurately describe everything you did during that day? What did you have for breakfast, lunch, and dinner? What clothes were you wearing? That's only a week ago, but I'm supposed to accept a story that's been retold over and over from 100 years ago?

Nor does the alleged falsity of those legends make the aboriginal accounts of interbreeding with BF false.

Agreed, but it doesn't make them true either. That's the problem with legends and stories, it's hard to tell if they're true or not.

By the way, Ray, you should have looked at the Grendel entry before you linked to it...note the featured illustration of the thing...

I did look at it. Grendel appears to be wearing a kilt of some sort and has a man-bag. It's one of many depictions. Do an image search for Grendel and you'll see many variations. In one he sort of looks like a giant Gollum from the Lord of the Rings movies. Could it be that the fictional Grendel, written down and recorded as a poem, is as real as the sasquatch of North America?

RayG

[TD-40]

The female can't just decide to reject fertilization otherwise the unintended pregnancy rate among teens and adults wouldn't be out of the roof in the United States for lack of using a birth control method correctly, or at all. There are physiological reasons that fertilization doesn't occur between humans and other primates although recent research is beginning to indicate otherwise in chimps, still no hybridization case is known to exist whether planned or by accident between HSS/chimps.

It isn't a rejection that is conscious; it is a rejection that is biological. If the body of one animal doesn't recognize the semen, it can reject it. Even a human female doesn't get pregnant from every ejaculation that occurs, either, so a wild animal mating with a human female would seem to be even more astronomically improbable. (yuck, this is getting disgusting!)

My whole point is to bring into the discussion the idea that human or animal semen are not automatically going to hybridize and create some cross-bred offspring. Maybe scientists could make it happen in a laboratory, but not without some extremely improbable and difficult management handling outside the womb?

Obviously, closely aligned animals such as canines and felines have mated. I was referring to mating between any two animals far apart, be it humans with horses or apes. Is there any record of cross-breeding between humans and apes? I would like to hear about a more modern experiment, if there have been any. Neanderthal man, maybe?

It can be artificially created in the form of chimeras via in vitro fertilization techniques, and is done regularly for the purposes of medical research, but those creatures are destroyed while still at the cellular level and there is no indication that they would survive past that point if not destroyed and reimplanted in a host mother.

I think we may see DNA taken from a Siberian woolly mammoth and planted inside a pachyderm during our lifetimes. Scientists think the two animals might be close enough to make it happen.

The OP in this thread showed a video where a graduate student hypothesizes that Native Americans mated with Sasquatch. I'm not saying that there wasn't ever any attempt to mate--I am merely saying that I doubt if any offspring could have occurred.

Edited January 13, 2013 by TD-40

[Guest]

S

Stalin thought it was possible. Remember the Monsterquest documentary?

Stalin thought a whole lot of other discredited bollocks too.

[Guest]

I personally know two guys who had sex with their dog. I know one woman who did.

Gives new meaning to the exp<b></b>ression, “It's bark was worse than its'...†{well, you know....}

In the Army I met a number of guys from rural areas who had no problem sharing that their first experiences were with farm animals.

Uh, whose Army?

[Guest]

Reminds me of....

[Guest]

exp<b></b>ression

That is what can happen when you post from a 'notsosmartphone'....

[Guest]

why does it have to be bf mating with a human woman. How about a lonely man trying to stay warm in the winter and meets up with a female bf? lol

Just saying........

Also, are humans the only animals with exaggerated mammary breasts.( mostly females ) I know some animals breasts get swollen during pregnancy, but wouldn't that mean BF is closer to humans because their females also have exaggerated mammary breasts? Just a thought.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/14/breast-size-evolution

[Guest]

It isn't a rejection that is conscious; it is a rejection that is biological. If the body of one animal doesn't recognize the semen, it can reject it. Even a human female doesn't get pregnant from every ejaculation that occurs, either, so a wild animal mating with a human female would seem to be even more astronomically improbable. (yuck, this is getting disgusting!)

My whole point is to bring into the discussion the idea that human or animal semen are not automatically going to hybridize and create some cross-bred offspring. Maybe scientists could make it happen in a laboratory, but not without some extremely improbable and difficult management handling outside the womb?

Obviously, closely aligned animals such as canines and felines have mated. I was referring to mating between any two animals far apart, be it humans with horses or apes. Is there any record of cross-breeding between humans and apes? I would like to hear about a more modern experiment, if there have been any. Neanderthal man, maybe?

I think we may see DNA taken from a Siberian woolly mammoth and planted inside a pachyderm during our lifetimes. Scientists think the two animals might be close enough to make it happen.

The OP in this thread showed a video where a graduate student hypothesizes that Native Americans mated with Sasquatch. I'm not saying that there wasn't ever any attempt to mate--I am merely saying that I doubt if any offspring could have occurred.

The body doesn't simply choose to reject anything, either there is a mechanical reason fertilization doesn't occur i.e. in the chimp's case, the HSS sperm won't penetrate the egg and vice versa. Or there is an auto immune response to prevent fertilization or successful gestation. A human female does not reject her mate's sperm, she simply hasn't ovulated and the egg isn't available when the sperm is present.

After ovulation the human egg can live up to five days in the reproductive system, likewise, sperm can remain alive for up to five days in the female reproductive track. If copulation occurrs during that window of ovulation, or right before, pregnancy is likely to result if all systems are go. It only takes one sperm out the million to make it happen.

Invitro fertilization across species is not difficult at all when all you want is the cellular stage for testing and research, and no, it is very unlikely that anything will hybridize if not related genetically. You will never have a Centaur or a Pegasus unless they are artificially created. Personally, I think it was unlikely that hybridization between Neandertal and HSS was very successful but there is no way to know with any certainty what factors were involved.

They are trying to create a wooly mammoth by taking the genetic material and creating a chimera artificially by recombining the DNA in stages with an elephant's. The first goal is to create an elephant mother that can carry the mammoth egg created through invitro fertilization. It will take a couple of elephant generations through artificial hybridization to get it to a genetically compatible state. Like you, I'm very doubtful about all of this sasquatch hybridization, but for the sake of discussion, I entertain the notion to spin the "what ifs" .

Edited January 13, 2013 by CTfoot

[Guest roblester]

In the 1920s the Soviet biologist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov carried out a series of experiments to create a human/non human ape hybrid. At first working with his own sperm and chimpanzee females, none of his attempts created a pregnancy.^[6] In 1929 he organized a set of experiments involving nonhuman ape sperm and human volunteers, but was delayed by the death of his last orangutan.^[6] The next year he fell under political criticism from the Soviet government and was sentenced to exile in the Kazakh SSR; he worked there at the Kazakh Veterinary-Zootechnical Institute and died of a stroke two years later.

In 1977, researcher J. Michael Bedford^[7] discovered that human sperm could penetrate the protective outer membranes of a gibbon egg. Bedford's paper also stated that human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of non-hominoid primates (baboon, rhesus monkey, and squirrel monkey), concluding that although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea.

In 2006, research suggested that after the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees diverged into two distinct lineages, inter-lineage sex was still sufficiently common that it produced fertile hybrids for around 1.2 million years after the initial split.^[8]

However, despite speculation, no case of a human-chimpanzee cross has ever been confirmed to exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee