Guest Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I'm glad those two aren't mutually exclusive! Hugs to you Sas, You are too cute... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) Hey Susi... I think maybe the confusion is there are two camps (maybe more) when it comes to Bigfoot. There are those who believe it is related more closely to apes and therefore yes would fit the genetic scenario that your husband suggested. But there are also those (myself included) who feel (for one reason or another ) that "they" are much closer to human genetics than any ape... for that reason I suppose that it might keep us wondering if some form of cross breeding was possible.. As always, im more interested in finding definitive proof their existence than I am of some of these tangental questions.... Hope that helps explain why some people still might resist what seems like "common sense".. Art To our knowledge BF does not have a spoken language. They seem to be able to communicate with signs using trees and sticks to mark their territories. They do not use fire. They eat their catches raw, and seem not to have the ability to make words and do not have any written language. They are not humanoid. They are an *unknown* upper primate species of the great Apes and scientifically unacknowledged. Locating a skeleton will change the world's view of this amazing species. They cannot reproduce with humans. Edited because Susiq2 can't spell...nor write coherent sentences either. Edited March 25, 2011 by Susiq2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 To our knowledge BF does not have a spoken language. They seem to be able to communicate with signs using trees and sticks to mark their territories. They do not use fire. They eat their catches raw, and seem not to have the ability to make words and do not have any written language. They are not humanoid. They are an *unknown* upper primate species of the great Apes and scientifically unacknowledged. Hey no offense, but you know all of this how ??? Guess, theres no more need for research, you've answered years of questions with just one post... Im sorry, but none of what you've stated as "fact" is actually known information. There are scientists who've dedicated years of their own time, that still cant say with certainty what you've stated above.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Hey no offense, but you know all of this how ??? Guess, theres no more need for research, you've answered years of questions with just one post... Im sorry, but none of what you've stated as "fact" is actually known information. There are scientists who've dedicated years of their own time, that still cant say with certainty what you've stated above.... I can state the facts I observed and understand that came from viewing the PGF, and dozens of legitimized pictures and films of various BF, and from respected researchers and scientists. Also, I have a college education specializing in the sciences. I understand reproduction. Bf is unique,and awe inspiring. BF is *not* human. These are *my* opinions. However, My opinions are based on science and what I believe to be legitimate evidence. Do understand, It is okay for you to disagree. These are my ideas and the result of years of following this topic, and knowing totally trustworthy people who quietly shared their terrifying encounters they had with this creature. I will respect your opinion. I'm not going to try to change your mind. It's okay to have different opinions. My own hubby won't admit to believing in BF, but he smiles when he says that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) Hey Susi... I think maybe the confusion is there are two camps (maybe more) when it comes to Bigfoot. There are those who believe it is related more closely to apes and therefore yes would fit the genetic scenario that your husband suggested. But there are also those (myself included) who feel (for one reason or another ) that "they" are much closer to human genetics than any ape... for that reason I suppose that it might keep us wondering if some form of cross breeding was possible.. As always, im more interested in finding definitive proof their existence than I am of some of these tangental questions.... Hope that helps explain why some people still might resist what seems like "common sense".. Art Hey Susi... I think maybe the confusion is there are two camps (maybe more) when it comes to Bigfoot. There are those who believe it is related more closely to apes and therefore yes would fit the genetic scenario that your husband suggested. But there are also those (myself included) who feel (for one reason or another ) that "they" are much closer to human genetics than any ape... for that reason I suppose that it might keep us wondering if some form of cross breeding was possible.. Art, You are such a sweetie. You are so sweet with your post so that you would not hurt my feelings.Thank you for being so thoughtful. I'm probably not explaining myself well enough. You see, I truly think that BF is only one step down from human. But it is a rather large step. They are not real apes, but above that species, but they are not fully human either. They are something else. I don't know what they are. This is part of what makes BF research so fascinating. These are just my opinions. No one has to nor should feel compelled to agree with me. It is okay to have different ideas. It makes the world better to have thinkers making things better and clearer for us. *I just finally made up my mind* Edited March 25, 2011 by Susiq2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) I'm sorry Susie, but without knowing what the genetic sequence is for a bigfoot your husband is just stating an opinion like the rest of us. Now personally, I think it's not likely because of the problem they have with combining human and other primate egg/sperm. The sperm can not penetrate the egg. That is exactly why they cannot reproduce with us, IMHO. Jodie, I respect your opinion. I could easily be wrong. I have come to this decision after years of thinking and wondering about these creatures, and for me, I am now at peace with it. I believe in BF. I believe that BF is an unknown species. Jodie, I totally respect your opinion. Hopefully one day we will have a BF body discovered, and we will all know the truth. Personally, I will sort of miss the mystery... The skeleton or a dead body will be needed to prove any of our ideas right or wrong. I almost forgot the topic title. Yikes, I don't want to get in trouble for taking us off topic! YIKES! Edited March 25, 2011 by Susiq2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) Susi, just for clarification, none of those who say BF are human are thinking homo sapiens (to my knowledge). We're talking about another species in the genus homo, like, for example, homo erectus or Neanderthals. (Sorry if you knew that anyway) Personally, I'm a fencesitter on the issue. I really can't judge it because I've never seen one (unless Patty is one). If my impression is correct, it seems like some people on here had previously been in the non-human camp until they saw one for themselves, then changed their opinion. - Shake Edited March 25, 2011 by gershake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Well, I certainly don't know what it is. What my father saw was more animal seeming to him. They don't act like any ape or human I know about just based on the reports we have, even those that claim habituation. Even divergent human societies or divergent primate societies have more similarities than differences. Bigfoot doesn't seem to fit in either category based on appearance or behavior. I'ld be real surprised if a skeleton was found if anyone could claim it as an ancestor. So if it is something new the immediate reaction might be something like this: I imagine the Westboro Baptist Church would find a reason to protest the university or organization doing the sequencing. Dr. Meldrum would probably make a statement on CNN looking like the cat that ate the canary. Somehow Biscardi would figure out some kind of publicity stunt to pull in order to draw some of the limelight his way. Once the sequencing is done and we have some idea of what it is, it will depend on what they find. If it is found to be close to human then a lot of people are going to be upset. If it is a new ape, that might go down better with human society overall. Regardless of what it turns out to be I bet we are told it's an ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 These are just my opinions. Ok, this helps alot.. I wasnt trying to pick a fight with you or anything, now that i know where your coming from it clears up alot.... I often have to stop on here (and other forums/ non-BF) to make sure i insert words like "i think" or "i believe"... that way i make it clear its an opinion- not me stating a fact. I would have responded differently had you said " I dont believe they are humanoid" =vs= "They are not humanoid".. I know im nit-pickin just a little, but i have a very literal way of reading stuff much of the time, so it helps me if people are specific. The truth is- until we get a corpse, or some tissue/ fluid/ (something substantial) to do relevant testing, its all kind of opinion. Ok- hey thanks for clearing that up and keep up the good posts...! Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) Ok, this helps alot.. I wasnt trying to pick a fight with you or anything, now that i know where your coming from it clears up alot.... I often have to stop on here (and other forums/ non-BF) to make sure i insert words like "i think" or "i believe"... that way i make it clear its an opinion- not me stating a fact. I would have responded differently had you said " I dont believe they are humanoid" =vs= "They are not humanoid".. I know im nit-pickin just a little, but i have a very literal way of reading stuff much of the time, so it helps me if people are specific. The truth is- until we get a corpse, or some tissue/ fluid/ (something substantial) to do relevant testing, its all kind of opinion. Ok- hey thanks for clearing that up and keep up the good posts...! Art Art, Dear One, I gave you a point for being so sweet and smart. Hugs to you my friend! BTW, That post and statement were not aimed at anyone, especially you! and Hugs .... Edited March 26, 2011 by Susiq2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Ok, this helps alot.. I wasnt trying to pick a fight with you or anything, now that i know where your coming from it clears up alot.... I often have to stop on here (and other forums/ non-BF) to make sure i insert words like "i think" or "i believe"... that way i make it clear its an opinion- not me stating a fact. I would have responded differently had you said " I dont believe they are humanoid" =vs= "They are not humanoid".. I know im nit-pickin just a little, but i have a very literal way of reading stuff much of the time, so it helps me if people are specific. The truth is- until we get a corpse, or some tissue/ fluid/ (something substantial) to do relevant testing, its all kind of opinion. Ok- hey thanks for clearing that up and keep up the good posts...! Art BTW, I was not saying everyone or everything was concert proof. I have just made up my mind with the reality of the species. I respect everyone's opinion. Hugs again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rskenan Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 THERE IS A LONG TRADITION OF FINDING GIANT SKELETONS IN NORTH AMERICA. I BELIEVE SOME OF THEM MAY HAVE BEEN BIGFOOT SKELETONS. BELOW IS JUST A SMALL LISTING OF SOME OF THE GIANT SKELETONS FOUND OVER THE YEARS. IF YOU SEARCH FOR NORTH AMERICAN GIANTS IN GOOGLE YOU'LL GET OVER 39 MILLIONS HITS. Historical North American Giants 1792 New York, Buffalo: Turner’s History of the Holland Purchase reports that 7 and 8 foot skeletons were found at an earthen fort in Orleans county with broad flat topped skulls. 1800 Ohio, Conneaut: Among the normal size skeletons found in the remains of mounds were found gigantic bones. Some of the skulls and jaws were large enough to fit over the head and face of a normal man 1821 Tennessee, White County: An ancient fortification contained skeletons of gigantic stature averaging at least 7 feet in length. 1825 Ohio Valley: David Cusick, a Tuscorora by birth, wrote that among the legends of the ancient people of the stock, there was a powerful tribe called Ronnongwetowanca. They were giants, and had a "considerable habitation." When the Great Spirit made the people, some of them became giants. After a time, and having endured the outrages of these giants, it is said that the people banded together, and through the final force of about 800 warriors, successfully annihilated the abhorrent Ronnongwetowanca. After that, it was said that there were no giants anywhere. This was supposed to have happened around 2,500 winters before Columbus discovered America, around 1000 BC. 1829 Ohio, Chesterville: In digging away a mound where a hotel was to be built, a large human skeleton was found, but no measurements were made. It is related that the jawbone was found to fit easily over that of a citizen of the village. The local physicians examined the cranium and found it proportionately large, with more teeth than the white race of today. The skeleton was taken to Mansfield, and has been lost sight of entirely. 1833 California, Lompock Rancho: Soldiers digging at Giant Lompock Rancho, California, discovered a male skeleton 12 feet tall. Carved shells, stone axes, and other artifacts surrounded the skeleton. The skeleton had double rows of upper and lower teeth. Unfortunately, this body was secretly buried when local Indians became upset about the remains. 1835 Illinois, Lake County: In the numerous mounds in the county, skeletons ranging between 7 and 8 feet are discovered. 1845 Virginia: A human jaw bone of great size was uncovered in a burial mound on which the teeth stood transversely in the jawbone. 1849 New York: From "Illustrations of the Ancient Monuments of Western New York" comes the report that an elliptical mound above near the Conewango Valley held eight big skeletons. A thigh bone was found to be 28†long. Exquisite stone points, enamelwork, and jewelry were found. Also discovered in the area were a number of other large skeletons one almost 9 feet in height. 1850 New York: From the History of Allegany County in 1879 a report that very large human bones were uncovered during excavation for the railroad 1851 New York: A skull rib bone, and shinbone were found that indicated the height to be over 8 feet tall. 1856 West Virginia, Wheeling: A human skeleton was discovered by labourers while ploughing a vineyard measuring almost 11 feet tall. 1858 Ohio, Vermillion Township: Skeletons of a race of beings much larger than the local inhabitants were discovered. 1870 Ohio: In Brush Creek Township a large mound contained skeltal remains of several humans up to nine feet tall. A large stone tablet with unknown insriptions similiar to Greek writing was also found. 1872 Ohio, Seneca Township: When the "Bates" mound was opened the remains of three skeletons, whose size would indicate they measured in life, at least, eight feet in height, were found. A remarkable feature of these remains was they had double teeth in front as well as in back of mouth and in both upper and lower jaws. 1873 Ohio, Seville: An Ohio Bicentennial Commission historical marker serves as a reminder that the Giants of Seville, Captain Martin Van Buren Bates and his wife, Anna Swan Bates, lived in the village of Seville in Medina County. Anna stood 7 feet 11 1/2 inches tall and weighed 413 pounds. Martin was 7 feet 9 inches tall and weighed 480 pounds. 1873 Washington DC: "The objects here collected which have not been given, or acquired by exchange, have been purchased for the use of the museum by order of the surgeon-general... There is a skeleton of a giant, who, in life, measured seven feet, prepared by Auzoux and mounted by Blanchêne's method, which, if I may use that term, is really a beauty. It is as white and clean as new fallen snow, and the brass joints and screws which keep it together are bright, and of the latest style and finish." From the article "The Army Medical Museum in Washington" by Louis Bagger, Appletons' Journal: A Magazine Of General LiteratureVolume 9, Issue 206 1875 West Virginia, Rivesville: Workmen constructing a bridge near the mouth of Paw Paw Creek uncovered three giant skeletons with strands of reddish hair clinging to the skulls. The skeletons had supported people approximately 8 feet tall. 1876 Wisconsin: Mounds were excavated containing a giant skull and vertebrae. 1877 Missouri, Kansas City: A giant skull was unearthed when mounds wore opened and giant man tracks belonging to humans 25 to 30 feet tall were discovered. 1877 Nevada, Eureka: Prospectors found a human leg bone and kneecap sticking out of solid rock. Doctors examined the remains and determined they were from a human being, and one that stood over 12 feet tall. The rock in which the bones were found was dated geologically to the Jurassic Period, over 185 million years old. 1878 Ohio, Ashtabula County: While excavating the ground for graves, bones were exhumed, which seemed to have belonged to a race of giants. A skull and jaw were found, which were of such size that the skull would fit easily over a large man’s head like a loose fitting helmet, even with the jaw in place. The number of these graves has been estimated to be between two and three thousand. 1879 Indiana, Brewersville: A skeleton almost ten feet tall was excavated from a mound. 1880 Ohio, Zanesville: A skeleton was reported to have been of enormous dimensions found in a clay coffin, with a sandstone slab containing hieroglyphics. 1880 Minnesota, Clearwater: Several giant skeletons were found with double rows of teeth. 1881 Ohio, Medina County: A jawbone of great size belonging to a human being was discovered, which contained eight jaw-teeth in each side, of enormous size; and the teeth stood transversely in the jawbone. It would pass over any man’s face with entire ease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 (edited) Found this awhile ago....love the scale! It's to a 14ft something or other...not sayin BF. Edited March 27, 2011 by grayjay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 THERE IS A LONG TRADITION OF FINDING GIANT SKELETONS IN NORTH AMERICA. I BELIEVE SOME OF THEM MAY HAVE BEEN BIGFOOT SKELETONS. BELOW IS JUST A SMALL LISTING OF SOME OF THE GIANT SKELETONS FOUND OVER THE YEARS. IF YOU SEARCH FOR NORTH AMERICAN GIANTS IN GOOGLE YOU'LL GET OVER 39 MILLIONS HITS. Historical North American Giants Hello rskenan, and welcome to the BFF. From time to time people will post here about a hypothetical link between bigfoot and "all those skeletons of giants." If there were such skeletons, I'd agree that they should be closely examined (genetically) to provide additional insight about what they might be. The problem, however, is that such skeletons appear to not actually exist. In other words, people wrote stories of finding giants buried in Indian mounds, but there remains today not a single one - or even photographs - in a museum anywhere. The more parsimonious explanation seems to lie in a 19th Century literary fad of publishing accounts of remarkable archaeological finds as a way to . . . sell newspapers. Check out Brian Dunning's investigation into the phenomenon. (Scroll down past the "starchild" and "Peruvian conehead" stuff.) Have fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Found this awhile ago....love the scale! It's to a 14ft something or other...not sayin BF. Holy ****! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts