Jump to content

Dr. Ketchum's Report And Explanation Of Sykes Dna Study


Guest

Recommended Posts

Bigfoot isn't proven to be anything, unless it is human. Human is ape, and is the only result we have that is remotely close to what bigfoot must be, if it exists.

 

If the other evidence for bigfoot didn't also have the same ear marks, I would find it pointless to debate the DNA findings.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Darrell

Didn't know chimp, orang, or gorilla DNA results come back as a positive hit for modern human. They don't of course, but you go ahead and believe what you need to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And BF is not Chimp, Gorilla or Orang. That would be easy enough to tell from videos and they would have been documented like a hundred years ago.  If BF were a hairy human, well that might be too much for some to handle wouldn't  it? That old perception that anything that lives in the wild and is covered in hair must be a beast or freak of nature, which should be feared , exterminated or denied all together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans come in all shapes and sizes from pygmies to Shaquille O'Neal, that we know of. What if there's some more versions of human that haven't been proven? We could compare Great Danes to Chihuahuas and say they're both dogs, which were, somehow, bred from wolves. Things are not always what they appear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we list some (semi) agreeded upon characteristics of Bigfoot? I feel like there are going to be a lot of things we just don't see in humans. It seems pretty unlikely that a creature could be that different, yet have the same exact DNA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Darrell

Mbh, you are right. The phenomena as a whole is grasping at straws to validate their belief system. Big foot ain't just a giant hairy human with huge feet. Bigfoot isn't anything real based on any evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we list some (semi) agreeded upon characteristics of Bigfoot? I feel like there are going to be a lot of things we just don't see in humans. It seems pretty unlikely that a creature could be that different, yet have the same exact DNA.

 

The same exact DNA so far is only shown in the mitochondria on purported samples, which is just a tiny "seperate from the nucleus" , "inherited fully intact without recombination", piece of an organisms genetic make up.  Our genetics in the mtDNA could not be in bigfoot unless they could mate with us and produce fertile offspring. If it can mate with us and produce fertile offspring, then it is human. This is inescapable whatever the differences might appear to be. 

 

So the only thing to debate is whether these results will continue, even with a specimen,  or will we ever find the holy grail "unknown primate" mtDNA sequence. I simply won't hold my breath for the later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Darrell

So tell me this, what does bigfoot becomes next year when you have to redefine what it is again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same exact DNA so far is only shown in the mitochondria on purported samples, which is just a tiny "seperate from the nucleus" , "inherited fully intact without recombination", piece of an organisms genetic make up.  Our genetics in the mtDNA could not be in bigfoot unless they could mate with us and produce fertile offspring. If it can mate with us and produce fertile offspring, then it is human. This is inescapable whatever the differences might appear to be. 

 

So the only thing to debate is whether these results will continue, even with a specimen,  or will we ever find the holy grail "unknown primate" mtDNA sequence. I simply won't hold my breath for the later.

which one us is willing to test the idea of mating with a BF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So tell me this, what does bigfoot becomes next year when you have to redefine what it is again?

 

It will be ape no matter what, if it's there at all, and if it's not technically human, I'll just admit that I'm wrong and still watch the definition of human be changed, because BF is pushing it to the limits right now.

which one us is willing to test the idea of mating with a BF?

 

I would put it this way mbh, homo sapiens have the sexiest women on the planet and there is no evidence there is a BF male that would disagree with me. :biggrin:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

which one us is willing to test the idea of mating with a BF?

 

I have 2 conditions: she's gotta take a bath and she can't eat crackers in my sleeping bag.   From there on ... it's negotiable.   Beauty is only skin deep and her personality would have to be preferable to that of some of the scoffers around here.  

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...