The Ramifications Of Proving Its Existance

[Guest]

Try this one, the newest version of Lucy... http://news.sciencemag.org/paleontology/2013/09/scienceshot-lucys-svelte-look

 

Also, Science Friday on NPR featured John Hawks today, discussing the Densiova and Neandertal genome,  fossils and his role. 

He said a newer genome of Neandertal is due out soon, from several additional fossils and it will be much more complete than what we have now.  (maybe that was RL's predicition about something coming out for the archeology world...?)

Edited September 28, 2013 by apehuman

[dmaker]

^^^ Well that certainly cured me apehuman. Thanks

[hiflier]

Hello dmaker,

I don't know.....something about those eyes.....hmmm....

[norseman]

Dang Norse, you seem to have a penchant for posting pics ( remember the hair covered breasts discussion?) where I get this odd reaction of instant, ewwwww..hmmmm, maybe.

Stop doing that!

 

I could hook you up with a woman that chews snuff?

[southernyahoo]

There were a couple grandmothers on my wifes side of the family that dipped snuff. Grandmothers! Yes they were country folk.

[Hammer102492]

   I'm wondering if anyone out there has really put any thought into what may /will happen if Bigfoot's existence is proven? By this i mean its affect on the economy, politically, scientifically, and etc. If it were proven to be an actual living creature, would it halt America's logging industry in order to prevent its extinction since we would not have any actual numbers on how many are living? If that would occur, would it send our economy and housing back into another recession ? On a side note, I feel that IF the government does know the truth about Bigfoot I feel that this would be one of the main reasons to keep it a secret from the general public. 

 

  Politically, would it be considered human if DNA testing presented this? Does it mean that "human" laws would be shared with Bigfoot? Would it be legal to have relations with a Bigfoot (sick thought I know), Would killing a Bigfoot be considered murder by law? I feel that it would cause quite a stir and a lot of ethical and moral chaos among states, lobbyists, and politicians defining where Bigfoot stops being animal and starts being "human".

 

   These are just some of my thoughts and was really curious as to what others thought regarding this matter. Maybe raise further issues that have not been thought of also.  I think a lot of people are hell bent on proving its existence but not much thought has been given to what happens afterwards.

 

Food for thought.

 

 

 

 

I think it will continue to live on in local lore, like ghost stories, UFO sightings and anything else like that.  Proof will be difficult to get.  Even when you have the proof, it will still be doubted.  You can look at the Shroud of Turin.  They have the cloth but still cannot get a totally accurate date of origination.  There is mystery around it.

 

Very credible people have said that they saw it, for centuries.  And many more just laugh and say that it's all baloney.  That's how it is.  But we could be close.  Everyone is talking about it now because of the TV and other media forums like this.  Now all the stories are coming out and being shared.  Is it happening more than it did 100 years ago?  Probably not, it is all just getting reported now. 

 

Pictures can be faked, sounds, costumes are better.   But as I read on the BFRO site on how they classify sightings...eye witness reports can be very valuable.  Sure people can lie well too.  Ask a policeman or judge, they can tell when someone is lying.  When you have extraordinary things happening to regular people, it rings true to my ear.

 

Yes, the logging industry would be shut down, but you have to prove that it is there.  That is hard.  Even then, evidence can be buried too depending on who doesn't want it out. 

 

I have thought about that myself.  While I welcome the investigators here that I trust, I'm not so sure that I want a TV show to broadcast where it is down here.  Other forum members say that I have to protect this situation. 

 

The only reason why I want to set up a camera or mics is to prove to my husband and family that it's hanging around our back yard! 

 

There is a farm about 4 miles from here that looks like they are splitting up into plots.  So if that all goes, we may have some more development here.  That might squeeze them over here.  Around here, it's looked about the same for about 150 years. 

 

Anyway, I just hope that there can be some sort of balance between scientific discovery, and preserving habitat. 

[Guest]

IMO they don't like mature single canopy forests much. Logging should not be affected much... maybe they should modify how they cut, just take out strips or something, but there's plenty other reasons to be doing that anyway (Soil erosion prevention, other species conservation)

[Guest]

   I'm wondering if anyone out there has really put any thought into what may /will happen if Bigfoot's existence is proven? By this i mean its affect on the economy, politically, scientifically, and etc. If it were proven to be an actual living creature, would it halt America's logging industry in order to prevent its extinction since we would not have any actual numbers on how many are living? If that would occur, would it send our economy and housing back into another recession ? On a side note, I feel that IF the government does know the truth about Bigfoot I feel that this would be one of the main reasons to keep it a secret from the general public.

 

You would need more information. The American Black Bear is not endangered so if a hypothetical bigfoot needed similar habitat then there wouldn't be a problem. I can't see any reason though why it would have much effect on logging. Most logging today is renewable. I guess you could say that  H. Beam Piper considered this idea in his sci fi story, Little Fuzzy in 1964. Piper suggested a scenario much like you are probably thinking of where a powerful corporation plots against this indigenous species so that they can go ahead with exploitation of the environment. Piper's ideas were naiive (to the point of being insulting) since he viewed them rather like children, but this is probably where George Lucas got his Ewoks from.

 

Politically, would it be considered human if DNA testing presented this? Does it mean that "human" laws would be shared with Bigfoot? Would it be legal to have relations with a Bigfoot (sick thought I know), Would killing a Bigfoot be considered murder by law? I feel that it would cause quite a stir and a lot of ethical and moral chaos among states, lobbyists, and politicians defining where Bigfoot stops being animal and starts being "human".

 

For bigfoot to be close to human, it would require a very near ancestor. The scenario you are describing is actually quite similar to the situation with Neanderthals which were not human but were close enough to have fertile offspring. In fact, unless you are of pure African descent, you should have 1-3% Neanderthal genes. This is likely where caucasian characteristics originated. In other words, until dark skinned humans crossbred with fair skinned Neanderthals, human populations could not move north because of the vitamin D barrier.

 

Probably any relative of Homo Ergaster (or Homo Erectus) would work. Unfortunately, this doesn't fit with bigfoot. Any creature as intelligent as Homo Ergaster would leave evidence of its existence such as the Acheulean tools. Bigfoot would need to have intelligence more like a chimpanzee and be limited to found tools rather tool creation. If you move further back to a descendant of Homo Habilis or another Australopithecine then you wouldn't have fertile offspring. Chimpanzees have nineteen pericentric inversions compared to human DNA which is why we cannot produce human/chimp hybrids. You would need something closer than chimps to have hybrids at all.

 

These are just some of my thoughts and was really curious as to what others thought regarding this matter. Maybe raise further issues that have not been thought of also.  I think a lot of people are hell bent on proving its existence but not much thought has been given to what happens afterwards.

  

Very little would happen. Since bigfoot could not be more intelligent than other great apes they would be studied in a similar fashion. It really wouldn't be that disruptive. Suppose you found a population of woolly mammoths, sabertoothed cats, or giant ground sloths. It would certainly be interesting but it wouldn't be disruptive to society.

[Guest]

If we suddenly acknowledged it's presence in nearly every state, then it would be hard to say that it's habitat is in great danger as it would be obvious they are very adaptable to different environments.

 

This isn't possible. I can say with great certainty that there are no bigfoot in Indiana, Illinois or Ohio. I can say with equal certainty that none exist on the Great Plains and there are none on the Arctic tundra.There are other problems too. For example, black bear hibernate in the winter when there is no food. If bigfoot do not hibernate then this would restrict their northern range. In other words, bigfoot are unlikely to live anywhere that black bear do not live, but a hypothetical bigfoot population would have to be considerably smaller than the black bear population.

[sheri]

 scienta. please elaborate more on your knowledge of bigfoot for the rest of us who have only seen them and had some interaction's.

[Branco]

 scienta. please elaborate more on your knowledge of bigfoot for the rest of us who have only seen them and had some interaction's.

Yes, I would be interested in that elaboration as well. (Makes me wonder if all the Ohio Boogers swam the Ohio River over into WV. Sure are a lot on that side.)

[Guest TexasTracker]

Scientia,

 

To claim you can say ANYTHING about these creatures "with great certainty" does nothing but set off alarms for everyone here.

 

I think I can say THAT, with great certainty !!!!

 

CG

[BobbyO]

 

 

This isn't possible. I can say with great certainty that there are no bigfoot in Indiana, Illinois or Ohio. I can say with equal certainty that none exist on the Great Plains and there are none on the Arctic tundra.There are other problems too. For example, black bear hibernate in the winter when there is no food. If bigfoot do not hibernate then this would restrict their northern range. In other words, bigfoot are unlikely to live anywhere that black bear do not live, but a hypothetical bigfoot population would have to be considerably smaller than the black bear population.

 

 

You simply can't say that for certain when you don't add States either side of where you don't think they are.

 

Unless they fly.

[norseman]

This isn't possible. I can say with great certainty that there are no bigfoot in Indiana, Illinois or Ohio. I can say with equal certainty that none exist on the Great Plains and there are none on the Arctic tundra.There are other problems too. For example, black bear hibernate in the winter when there is no food. If bigfoot do not hibernate then this would restrict their northern range. In other words, bigfoot are unlikely to live anywhere that black bear do not live, but a hypothetical bigfoot population would have to be considerably smaller than the black bear population.

I agree that the population is probably smaller....but I disagree that lack of hibernation would restrict them in the northern range.

This is a pretty typical talking point of people who draw heavily from extant apes. Who are for the most part vegetarian. We are an ape and we are a very successful omnivore.......and at points in our history almost exclusively carnivore.

I don't think it's a great leap of faith to speculate that other archaic ape species may have been on similar evolutionary paths.

[MIB]

I say it like this .. the apes that left the tropics don't act like tropical apes.   It seems like a no-brainer when you look at it that way.

 

MIB