The Oldest Dna Evidence Yet Of Humans With An Interesting Twist

[Guest DWA]

I was at a lecture last night by The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics on geomicrobiology and how it relates to astrobiology. It was quite interesting. Since you mentioned life on other planets The presenter mentioned that maybe we should start looking below the surface for life since our own geomicrobes can withstand some pretty extreme environments then perhaps there may be some geomicrobes on other planets that have survived. In one case an organism survived essentially in suspended animation for 10,000 years below the surface. She even went so far as to speculate that maybe even Mars is the source of life and not Earth since we regularly have matter transfers between Earth and Mars and perhaps way back when some microbes came from Mars hitching a ride below the surface of a large meteorite.  Fascinating speculation. Nothing more, at this point, of course. But it was an interesting lecture.  

 

Sorry for OT derail...

 

Things just point in so many places in so many ways to us not knowing what we think we know that, as far as I'm concerned, no "origins of life" theory is utterly off the table at the moment.

 

Personally?  Not off-topic at all.  I think the whole thread is really about that.  I plussed you, buddy!

 

I'm going to go looking for the YouTube video from the citizen scientist who thinks that tardigrades - "water bears" - might in fact be extraterrestrials who have adapted to Earth.  I forget his rationale, but I think it's in the video, and as I recall there was nothing woo-woo about it.

 

We don't know anything about where and how the "twist" in this find came from, and might be best reserving judgment 'til we know more.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2013 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

Well, given that noboday can find one, take a pic of one, or even collect a hair from one, maybe you are right. Or maybe, just maybe, they just dont exist.

Well, actually:

 

1.  Thousands of people have found one (that we know of):

 

2.  We have a movie of one, and more than one other movie and photo that could be one (and people might have stuff they aren't sharing, for what I think are obvious reasons);

 

3.  More than one hair sample has come back "primate, unknown" but wasn't tested by somebody high-profile like Sykes;

 

4...and I'm just not thinking all those footprints are from technical savants, and all the sightings are hallucinations of a biologically-correct bipedal primate that just happens to sync well with the prints.

 

I'd like to know what all that represents before making a conclusion.  I mean, look at the topic of this thread.  Scientists are "lost" to use their own words, which is what happens when you "know" stuff you don't, and don't pay attention overly well.  Which, well, they just haven't.  This find doesn't surprise me, not a little bit.

[dmaker]

3.  More than one hair sample has come back "primate, unknown" but wasn't tested by somebody high-profile like Sykes;

 

 

That claim does not hold up to scrutiny. 

[Guest DWA]

Well, that's kind of a Catch-22.  "Show me the proof," and they tossed the sample.  Reported often enough that I'm not willing to discount it until somebody can prove to me it doesn't happen.

 

For the same reason scientists don't spend money on basic bigfoot research, they aren't going to spend much time on one of the more expensive analysis procedures when they are convinced a priori that it's nothing worth doing.

[dmaker]

^^ I'm not willing to count it, nor should you, until someone can support the claim. So, since it is your claim that it is "...reported often enough..".  Could you please provide substantiation for that claim? Please provide evidence of unknown primate hair results being reported accurately just once, much less often enough...

[NathanFooter]

Well, given that noboday can find one, take a pic of one, or even collect a hair from one, maybe you are right. Or maybe, just maybe, they just dont exist.

 

  All of the things you have listed have been done .

 

  Reports show that people do find them but most of the time by random chance.

 

  People do get photos of them , just blurry, shaky and out of focus because encounters are most of the time fleeting, obscured.  Not to mention cell phone cameras up to very recently have been pure junk for taking photos, most of time by the 10 to 20 seconds it takes to turn on the phone, go through the menu and then select the camera option the creature is long gone or at least out of view.

 

  There have been hair samples collected in North America that do belong in the primate category that do not match the known species. 

 

  There is not a negative in the categories you mentioned.

[Guest Darrell]

^just because somebody says they saw one doesnt equal finding one. And really, "People do get photos of them , just blurry, shaky and out of focus because encounters are most of the time fleeting, obscured. Not to mention cell phone cameras up to very recently have been pure junk for taking photos" is just another footer excuse. And please direct this old skeptic to where this earth shattering bigfoot hair evidense is located!!! Who classified it as unknown primate and why didnt it make to Sykes? So bigfoot is seen in 49 states, all times of year, day and night, thousands of times a year, but nobody can collect one, film one in the last 50 yrs, take a pic of one, or even find one when actually looking for one. So either they are the most advanced and elusive creature to ever walk the earth, some paranormal being, or a legend/myth that has morphed into a social phenomina.

 

Edited December 5, 2013 by Darrell

[Guest]

Darryl,

 

I 'll take "most elusive creature to ever walk the earth" for BF

 

and US as "the most advanced creature to ever walk the earth"

 

 

People do find them when looking for them when they know where to go ...doesn't mean there is a photo opportunity though as it is usually night and obscured by foliage but they (we) do find them from time to time.

 

Why are you here ?

[NathanFooter]

 The point I brought up is not an excuse, excuses are invalid and do not hold water.  The above is a vary fair and accurate point.

 

 Now in the trail camera department the above is not of the same case, there is a big hard to answer question there.

 

 Please, by all means be skeptical, it is the best stance for one to take.

 

 The hair samples I had mentioned where briefly discussed in the Nat Geo show ,, The Truth Behind Bigfoot ,,.   If I recall correctly Meldrum and Mionczynski put up hair snags and collected the samples that yielded the results.  I will do some further digging on this. 

 

 Your mention of advanced is of interest to me, I have to wonder if they maybe a type of human or at the very least very human like in thinking and articulate thought processes.  { my thought here is not in relation to any of paranormal aspect some believe is connected to bigfoot }

Edited December 5, 2013 by NathanFooter

[Guest Darrell]

^if they are real and if what is attributed to them is correct, then they would have to be advanced beyond humans. Or, they are not as distrubuted as thought and most of the attributes footers like to attribute to them isnt true. Thats where the social phenomina comes in, at least for me.

 

 

Why are you here ?

Because now that Im retired from the Army I cant take pot shots at Iraqis anymore. Lucky you

[Guest]

LOL, hey I truly believe their full human level intelligence potential is used completely for wild animal survival skills  to the max plus better problem solving than the other animals. Technology is us but at the lost of our wild survival skills over the centuries. They are Alpha outdoors we are Alpha indoors or day and night ....same difference

[Rockape]

^if they are real and if what is attributed to them is correct, then they would have to be advanced beyond humans. Or, they are not as distrubuted as thought and most of the attributes footers like to attribute to them isnt true. Thats where the social phenomina comes in, at least for me.

If they are real, we don't know what to attribute to them. Unless they are proven to exist, cataloged and studied, we'll never know if what some say is true or not. I think it is pretty easy to dismiss that they are psychic, can disappear at will, etc., But if they exist they are really just another animal. I'd say smarter than your average bear, but not as smart as humans, mechanically/technically as smart anyway.

[Guest Darrell]

^Agree, if they even exist. So much attirbuted to them is total speculation and fantacy.

[norseman]

I find it funny as screaming hell that every time scientists find something it's "there, we're done, the complete picture looks like this" instead of "hmmmmm. Here's one more piece of the puzzle. Let's see, that's 55 pieces...of a 55,000-piece puzzle..."

Give or take a few dozen thousand, of course...

By no means would I say that.

Many scientists wouldn't either. As a matter of fact, some of them have wondered:

Why is it that we're not finding signs of other 'intelligent' life in the universe? Hmmmm. We're 'intelligent', by our own definition of course....and we're threatening our home, and ourselves, with extinction...maybe when you get 'smart' enough, and are too stupid to handle that....?

Wrong.

This rock is headed for extinction. The fate of our species rides on our ability to leave. earth is like an incubater with a timer........ Either we learn to fly and leave the nest or we go extinct. We are just one asteroid or comet away from the timer going ding.

So extracting resources from earth and building space travel technology isn't dumb it's smart..... But a deer or a bear? Their fate is tied with earth......or us if we decide to make an ark.

But they do not control their fate.

Edited December 5, 2013 by norseman

[NathanFooter]

 I am of the mind to believe that their mind is almost entirely devoted to survival and stealth,  I would dare think that they are just as intelligent as we are but in a different field, we are advanced in technology and social development, we have lost the need for being woods wise. We shape the environment to fit our needs not the other way around.

 

 I believe the sasquatch is totally designed physically and mentally for the single most raw and common drive, survival.