N A W A C - Field Study Discussion (2)

[jayjeti]

 

 

Most video's I've seen, just about all, have the same locomotion and movements, only minor differences in proportion resulting in a slightly different bend angle at the knee, and simply larger by some degree. There is the hair and their agility might well be on another level. I see the smooth glide, and their 4X4 mode may be exceptional, but I always look back to the better vids like the Freeman footage, Patty and now I look at this new one.

 

 

I don't necessarily agree with the facial detail this guy gets into, but what else should I see in them?

 

 

Hello Southernyahoo,

 

Here is a link to the original video of the one you posted that thinker thunker enhanced.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8zv4WCCtrY

 

This is an interesting video.  It shows what looks like an adult male holding an infant.  A lot of people were calling this video a hoax shortly after it came out.  I'm not saying someone faked this. It could be real. But here are some things to note:

1. There does not seem to be any independent movement from the baby at all. It doesn't turn it's head or anything. The infant's right hand is attached to the chest of the adult.  The adult moves the infant backwards and forwards causing the arm to extend and retract since the hand never detaches from the chest of the adult.

2. There is a definite break between the hair of the head and body at the neckline. It almost looks like someone put a head piece on.  Notable videos of Saquatches that seem to be real show a continuous flow of hair from the head to the body. This one has a division.  Look at the 1:07 minute mark at the above link.

3. it seems unnatural. We don't know Bigfoot culture well enough to say it's odd, but a lone male carrying an infant doesn't seem natural. And the way it handles the infant: moving it forward and back and turning it some doesn't seem natural; it almost seems like someone is trying to display the arm that is attached to the chest. It could be a real infant, but you could do the exact same thing with a doll since you see no actual life in the infant.  The infant is static.

4. Looking at the Patterson/Gimlin film to compare this one to Patty, Patty has a bigger buttocks, and the rear on this one looks odd. At the above link stop the video on the 1:25 mark and again at the 1:35 mark and it looks like the torso chops off and legs come out beneath. With Patty the buttocks and legs go together as a unit, but this one looks different.

The one thing going for it is the gait, as shown in the video by "Thinker Thunker" that you posted, which is not human but matches Patty in the PGF film. But it should also be considered that if someone did do this extraordinary of a job in creating a fake Bigfoot and child they should be aware of the different nature of how it walks, which has been discussed much on the internet, and thus could have, and really should have mimicked it.

I'm not saying it is faked. The problems I note might not be problems at all. But as I've had time to take a closer look I'm just not 100% on board with this.

 

The infant never lets go of the left chest of the adult.  The adult holds the infant out and brings it back in to it's body three times as it hurriedly flees away.  What is up with that?  Is someone trying to show the arm attached to it's chest which it makes move by moving the baby in and out or is that normal behavior for a Sasquatch as it flees the scene? 

 

 

 

 

The Baby's head is squared with the shoulders, never once moving even though at times he tilts the child forward.  Look at the 0:45-46 second mark of the video.  Just as the adult starts to flee from behind the rock he tilts the infant far forward away from him and the infant's head stays square with the shoulders.  It doesn't lift it's head to compensate.  Is the Sasquatch real?  Could this be a real Sasquatch that is carrying a prop.  We know so little about their behavior.

[Guest]

jayjeti,

 

Very interesting...I've never seen this clip before..Thanks for sharing

[southernyahoo]

Still wondering if gorillas, chimps, and orangutans have human DNA. What other animals on the planet have the DNA of which other animals yet look nothing like the animals from which they get their DNA? Any birds? Insects? Marine mammals? This is a field of DNA expertise totally unfamiliar to me.

I mean, are we talking *genomes*? Or just some DNA. Of course, all life shares massive amounts of DNA, but a tree is not a person is not a mollusk. Do wood apes share some DNA with humans? Undoubtedly. Just as all the great apes do. Does that make them human? Certainly not.

You're arguing that they will have so much "human DNA" that they will be considered human. Consider that chimps and humans share up to 98% of their DNA. Each individual person shares about 99.5%. So you're suggesting that wood apes are somewhere between 98 and 99.5 percent. Right? And that, and not their actions or behaviors or any other observable trait, is what makes them human. So are chimps "human?" If not, why not?

 

Chimps , Gorilla's, Orangs surely don't have modern human mtDNA, atleast not down to the point you are splitting haplogroups. If that is what it comes down to with your specimen, then it will be human. That's not hard to understand is it? We have about 2000 differences between us and chimps in the mtDNA and about 400 between us and Denisovans ,and  about 200 between us and Neanderthals. We can't assume just on appearances what exactly it's DNA will be, but , if it were not human, it would be as obvious in the testing of so many samples as it would be testing chimp , gorilla and orangs. I look at the previous attempts at this and use the results to predict what we will find and you look at the creature and it's uncouth yahoo-like behavior and say it can't be.  Track record vs perception. That's what we are down to.

[Guest]

I look at the previous attempts at this and use the results to predict what we will find and you look at the creature and it's uncouth yahoo-like behavior and say it can't be. 

 

Previous attempts? At DNA analysis? Are you aware if just one valid study of bigfoot DNA? Because I'm not. It's never been done. 

 

You're assertion that they're human is based on flawed and bogus science and a misinterpretation of their behavior as somehow intrinsically human. As we've already established, there is literally nothing about their existence that suggests humanness. Zero parallels. However, there are dozens of parallels with ape behavior. 

 

Track record vs. perception. You have no track record. 

[Guest DWA]

Anthropomorphizing = using phrase "uncouth yahoo-like behavior" to describe ape behavior.  Couth is a human construct, wrongly imposed on anything else.

Edited June 18, 2014 by DWA

[southernyahoo]

Previous attempts? At DNA analysis? Are you aware if just one valid study of bigfoot DNA? Because I'm not. It's never been done. 

 

You're assertion that they're human is based on flawed and bogus science and a misinterpretation of their behavior as somehow intrinsically human. As we've already established, there is literally nothing about their existence that suggests humanness. Zero parallels. However, there are dozens of parallels with ape behavior. 

 

Track record vs. perception. You have no track record. 

 

Your attempt to discredit the analyses so you can say they've not been done is the tactic you must cling to because there is no record of any unknown ape DNA. You first argue that we can't tell the difference between ape and human then say we haven't done the testing.on purported BF samples. This is false, we have, and are historicly either human or known animal (other / non-primate).

 

 

This is from Ray Crowe's Track Record, and studied by NABS.

 

http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfoot_dna.html

 

Results

The results of our research found that over 95% of the DNA on purported bigfoot specimens returned as “Humanâ€. NABS found this as an extremely puzzling result considering the “BIG†names in the bigfoot world that consider themselves researchers proclaimed that bigfoot was a type of ape. Many of these “researchers†claimed that the DNA showing “human†was compromised or contaminated and the results should be disregarded. We saw this same discussion time after time, discount the results, they are wrong. Again, almost every moderately famous researcher known for investigating bigfoot issues proclaimed the studies and results were flawed, every one!

 

 

 

You might think that if you keep the status quo montra of "we have no valid studies" the results will change eventually. I think it will just keep repeating itself and therein is your proof.

[southernyahoo]

Anthropomorphizing = using phrase "uncouth yahoo-like behavior" to describe ape behavior.  Couth is a human construct, wrongly imposed on anything else.

 

Don't be so sure I'm just anthropomorphizing DWA, I didn't invent the terms, particularly the Yahoo and it is well grounded in Bigfoot history.

 

http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfoot_dna.html

 

Do you know what the original "Yahoo" behaved like DWA?

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Yahoo&searchmode=none

 

"a brute in human form," 1726, from the race of brutish human creatures in Swift's "Gulliver's Travels." "A made name, prob. meant to suggest disgust" [Century Dictionary]. "Freq. in mod. use, a person lacking cultivation or sensibility, a philistine; a lout; a hooligan" [OED]. The internet search engine so called from 1994.

[Guest DWA]

That doesn't change what I said.  That's still anthropomorphizing.  (Swift didn't study primates, other than the species posting here.)

 

You didn't invent the terms;  someone else did.

 

If one takes the behaviors and does the point-by-point with no imposing of viewpoint or quoting from 1726:  ape behavior.

Edited June 18, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

The results of our research found that over 95% of the DNA on purported bigfoot specimens returned as “Humanâ€.

 

Fascinating! So chimps are *more* human than bigfoot. Right?

 

 

For a study or observation of any kind in any field to be valid, it must be repeatable. Therefore, there has been exactly zero valid/reputable studies done of bigfoot DNA. For you to cling to this paltry record so as to maintain this myth of bigfoot humaness says more about you than them. 

[Guest DWA]

I'm not letting Jonathan Swift do my tanonomy for me.

Fascinating! So chimps are *more* human than bigfoot. Right?

 

Well, some wag did call us the third chimpanzee.  [run/duck]

In the end, based on the evidence we have so far, to call these animals 'human' - or humans 'chimps' - would obviate pretty much everything we now understand about that term.

[southernyahoo]

Fascinating! So chimps are *more* human than bigfoot. Right?

 

 

For a study or observation of any kind in any field to be valid, it must be repeatable. Therefore, there has been exactly zero valid/reputable studies done of bigfoot DNA. For you to cling to this paltry record so as to maintain this myth of bigfoot humaness says more about you than them. 

 

You are pretty good at misunderstanding statements Bipto.

 

I take this statement to mean that 95 % of all tests done on purported BF samples returned a 100% human result.

 

The results of our research found that over 95% of the DNA on purported bigfoot specimens returned as “Humanâ€.

 

 

He's talking about all the individual results from seperate samples in the track record he aquired from Crowe. Some samples logically would be known animals or not produce at all.

[southernyahoo]

That doesn't change what I said.  That's still anthropomorphizing.  (Swift didn't study primates, other than the species posting here.)

 

You didn't invent the terms;  someone else did.

 

If one takes the behaviors and does the point-by-point with no imposing of viewpoint or quoting from 1726:  ape behavior.

 

If you ever read Swifts writings of the Yahoo's, you'd know he describes much ape behavior, even throwing #2. The Problem is it paralells human behavior just as much.

 

Scientists are telling us how much apes are like us and how it is due to our relatedness. You say woodapes behave like apes, presumably because they throw objects, hoot and holler, and push tree's over but how is this not also human behavior?   

 

They are still out there screaming their own name DWA, they are Yahoo's. That's not just a point of view. 

[Guest DWA]

Apes and humans are primates; some human behaviors (tossing stuff when you're angry) have common roots.

 

But Yahoos aren't described in terms befitting the average man on the street in Swift's time.  And apes throw branches and rocks and things lying around.  Humans throw golf clubs and pens and notepads and laptops and stuff our sophisticated technological bent created.  We live largely in an environment we built.  They do not, any more than gorillas, chimps, orangs or monkeys do.

 

To call these human, again, is to make the term virtually meaningless as it's currently defined.  Dolphins could qualify just as well.  (And no, the morphological characteristics of these animals aren't near as much like ours as they are like gorillas'.  It's significant, as Bindernagel points out, that "upright gorilla" quickly replaced "wild man" as the template when gorillas were made known to the Western world.

[norseman]

You are pretty good at misunderstanding statements Bipto.

I take this statement to mean that 95 % of all tests done on purported BF samples returned a 100% human result.

He's talking about all the individual results from seperate samples in the track record he aquired from Crowe. Some samples logically would be known animals or not produce at all.

Which I take to mean that 100% human test results coming back are because of contamination. And not because a 8' tall hairy forest giant is 100 percent human.......

[Guest]

To call these human, again, is to make the term virtually meaningless as it's currently defined.  

 

Nicely summarized. As usual.