Guest fenris Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 You can look at a Sasquatch head and tell the skull won't even remotely resemble a human's, unlike that other skull found which was a version of human. Since they have Sasquatch in their legends I don't see how they could claim him as an ancestor since they referred to them as stick indians, in other words they recognized sasquatch as other-human. You've seen a sasquatch head, or more to the point a skull? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) Edited March 23, 2011 by Susiq2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) What could they do about it? If BF is discovered in woods here in Kentucky, can an Indian tribe take the skeleton away from science by claiming it belongs to them and their history? That's kinda why I raised the topic Susiq2, so that some of the ramifications of this and other laws might be flushed out a little more. Everyone is going to be faced with responsibilities and questions we haven't even thought of yet. Part of the basic issue may hinge on whether the find was on public land or not. But I suspect some factors may even override that, like if its a known burial ground or sacred ground. To further what Vilnoori raised in post #47, what if we do learn from DNA testing that Sasquatch have interbred with humans (to include NA's), over the millennia? There has been plenty of claims of this happening, even from native peoples. I think its covered in Paulide's book. Would that prerequisite DNA mix, make them part indian and therefore provide standing by tribes? I would suspect that might be all it takes for a tribe to have some standing here. It sure qualifies in making the rest of us part indian. At the same time, there is the 'other' biological part that might give science the right to limited study too. That's just one example of how a legal argument may volley. I think there's a whole myriad of non-considered issues that could surface. Hairyman likely presents what the general US Govt position on it would be. But like with any historically & biologically (both) convoluted new developments, there is likely going to be other parties that come into the picture, and they will have their own points of view that would likely be established in court too based on who they are. Problem is, as civilization has progressed and the old ways disappear more and more, there could be a cost for being too protective of some things. There may even be a time when certain mysteries should be shared with the rest of the world so that it might help set everyone on a straight path again once we've almost destroyed the planet. The funny thing is, I've wanted to talk to a group of Elders about certain topics for a few years now, but that's easier said than done since I'm not NA. Having some unrecognized Native Mexican Indian in me doesn't qualify either. lol Anyway, having encountered Sasquatch as many times as I have, there are just some concerns I have that I don't think even the tribes have considered, being they are very protective of such issues. And for good reason given what's happened in history. But everyone is guilty of tunnel vision too so I fear there may be some unexpected fallout when and if bigfoot is proven to exist, should tribes just decide to conceal what they know. There's a lot of stuff I don't want to open up here either because its really considerations for NA's & First Nations first. But I do think the overall question of proving their existence does have a number issues nobody has even contemplated yet. I think it would be great if some thoughts on this came from them too. Probably won't happen but yeah the door is open. As for copying before posting, I normally do but the few times I said to myself 'it'll be fine', well it wasn't. lol Edited March 23, 2011 by FuriousGeorge per author request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 More on the Stick Indians from the BFRO: http://www.bfro.net/legends/penutian.htm Saskeptic my own personal experience was of a single child voice humming to itself down by a creek. But it sounded odd, exactly as they describe these kids, like it was coming out of a culvert. Very resonant, carrying further and louder, with multiple overtones of some type. More of a buzz sound to it. Not just a human kid, unless he or she was playing in a culvert? But there was no culvert there that I know of. Just a creek. And this was where I also found footprints of a big and small sort, and piled up river stones, exactly as if something WAS playing in the creek--with stones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 You've seen a sasquatch head, or more to the point a skull? Yep, look at Patty's, which I happen to think is a sasquatch and not a hoax. I also have my Dad's sighting to base that observation. The point is the skull is pointy, unlike a human's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Further, going back to one of your points: The presence of the genetic markers is not "theory". The markers are THERE. That is physical fact. The spear points are THERE. That is also physical fact. Source! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) To further what Vilnoori raised in post #47, what if we do learn from DNA testing that Sasquatch have interbred with humans (to include NA's), over the millennia? Th then + = and then.... Edited March 24, 2011 by Art1972 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Saskeptic my own personal experience was of a single child voice . . . So did you go check it out to see what was making the sound? Incidentally, I spent many happy days of my childhood playing down in "the creek." I would pile up stones, make little dams, etc. Sometimes I would follow our creek upstream and onto our neighbor's land, all the while keeping an eye out to make sure his bull didn't chase me. Why did I take that risk? Upstream on the neighbor's land the creek ran through a really long culvert at the bottom of a steep hill. That culvert was the closest thing we had to a cave in the area, and it was fun to challenge myself to see how deep I'd be willing to explore before getting freaked out and retreating back to the daylight. Anyway, I don't know what you experienced, but I can assure you that kids do play in creeks and culverts. I'm also fully confident that the only place "stick Indians" live is in the minds of the superstitious. They're just another example of a bit of folklore used over generations (and all over the world) to keep children from wandering too far from home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Okay Art, we all felt the LOVE but the throwing up part, I don't know... Saskeptic, there's a lot of people who would also say that bigfoot lives in the mind of the superstitious. You might even say that. Thing is, there are many mysteries on this planet that are passed off as originating from superstitions... But that doesn't necessarily make it so. I see it as there are still things we don't understand. I don't personally think stick indians are our average bigfoot in the case of the above stories either. Sounds to me more like some mischievous littlefoots. But you never know. Now there are likely different interpretations of what stick indians are too, as viewed from different tribes, some of which could be more superstitious then others. Certainly that may leave ambiguity. And if a lone individual were abducted by them, who really is going to know what they are? Could even be a gang of adolescent bigfoot out sewing their oats? Or its just the imagination of the human mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) If I found a partially decomposed BF, Would it belong to me as the finder of the soon to be skeleton, or to the US government, or to the tribes who once lived in this area? I live in Kentucky. Edited March 24, 2011 by Susiq2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 BTW, I truly do not think that *any* human DNA will be found in the skeleton due to mixed breeding. BF may have some DNA shared with us, but a male BF mating with a human female would result in death for the female. I truly do not think that BF would be sexually attracted to human females. Any human type DNA would just be a part of their original species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Who said it would require the human female to be the one to contribute the DNA? But there are stories of females being abducted. Zana being one of them. It would seem that one of the prerequisites for this particular Act would require the remains to be over 50 years old. But that doesn't mean there aren't other laws on the books that could be brought up if a newer decedent. Gotta run... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 So did you go check it out to see what was making the sound? Incidentally, I spent many happy days of my childhood playing down in "the creek." I would pile up stones, make little dams, etc. Sometimes I would follow our creek upstream and onto our neighbor's land, all the while keeping an eye out to make sure his bull didn't chase me. Why did I take that risk? Upstream on the neighbor's land the creek ran through a really long culvert at the bottom of a steep hill. That culvert was the closest thing we had to a cave in the area, and it was fun to challenge myself to see how deep I'd be willing to explore before getting freaked out and retreating back to the daylight. Anyway, I don't know what you experienced, but I can assure you that kids do play in creeks and culverts. I'm also fully confident that the only place "stick Indians" live is in the minds of the superstitious. They're just another example of a bit of folklore used over generations (and all over the world) to keep children from wandering too far from home. Hmmm...did you pile up rocks 7 or 8 high in the middle of the creek? Did you make perfect bigfoot prints in the mud? Did you weave sticks into structures, and climb the sides of the gully above the creek straight up? Never mind, knowing you, maybe you did. LOL Trust me, it did not sound right to be a kid. It was too resonant, too loud. And too much breath control. It was just odd. Really it was most eerie sounding. I got out of there quietly and left them alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) If I found a partially decomposed BF, Would it belong to me as the finder of the soon to be skeleton, or to the US government, or to the tribes who once lived in this area? I live in Kentucky... BTW, I truly do not think that *any* human DNA will be found in the skeleton due to mixed breeding. BF may have some DNA shared with us, but a male BF mating with a human female would result in death for the female. I truly do not think that BF would be sexually attracted to human females. Any human type DNA would just be a part of their original species. I would think that if they are less than 50 years old law enforcement would have to be contacted. Hopefully they are someone you know and trust. Edited March 24, 2011 by vilnoori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Jodie, on the subject of pointy heads, Human skulls seem to be mallable as they develope, something as simple as how a sasquatch sleeps could potentially acount for their skull shape. http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_6.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts