Bigfoot Cross Breeding?

[Guest]

Flashman2.0

You use the term "southern booger". Have you researched southern booger and skunk ape? I am far away from Florida but I have wondered if there is any connection to escaped circus animals?

Ringling Bros. & Barnum and Bailey over wintered their circus at Sarasota Florida starting in 1929.

BTW, what do you flash?

 

There have been reports of a colony of chimps in Florida somewhere, along with another area with another primate, I want to say macaques but it's some years since I read about it. However, people are able to identify these, as "I saw a Chimp" rather than "Something that looked a bit like a large chimp".

 

At the moment, I am mentally lumping the southern boogers and skunk apes as one, they seem to be reported a lot larger than any feral populations of circus escapees might plausibly be. The Myakka skunk ape photos achieved some notoriety a decade or more ago, but the trusted PNW researchers were saying "Not a Sasquatch" and the similarities to Orang seemed too close to ignore. However, I have since heard discussion of the photo by some east Texas, Georgia and Florida researchers and they're basically saying "Yup, that's what's out there alright". For ref... http://www.lorencoleman.com/myakka.html

 

Now, the Orang's ancestors include the branch that led to the Giganto lines.... and they're in Asia, even northeast Asia when the Bering strait land bridge was there... (Which was boreal forest habitat for thousands of years) so, IMO, it looks a lot like and Orang because it's from the same line, it's a modern Giganto, or development from Giganto. This makes Meldrum "sorta right" but only in the case of the southerners.

[Guest]

I had a theory for some types of "dogman" looking BFs... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/42033-snouted-bigfoot-why-appearance-of-snout-in-a-population-of-hominims-might-be-likely/

 

Given that that could happen to "Patty type", "Southern booger" or "neanderthal type" it would lead to some variations in reports on those.

 

The true dogman with long snout, high up doggy ears, and walking on toes, has to be something different though.

 

^^^

There is a fairly large number maybe 25-50 such reports describing if you will, of a Bigfoot type creature with a long snout, meaning just as large in stature but with a pronounced protruding snout in many reports. Some of the descriptions vary in likeness from a kangaroo, to a baboon, or even a German Shepard K-9. They alternate from bipedal to quadriped.  I do not make any pretense to knowing what it is other than many people have reportedly seen them and reported them.  Kentucky and Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin seems to garner most of those reports. A fair majority of those particular reports by witnesses that offer descriptions point to yellow or red eyes more than anything else.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest]

I don't want to offend anybody, of course, but I just wanted to raise a small point. I worry that speaking with such confidence about various "types" of Bigfoot and, um, Dogman might be a bit....unhelpful? I just think that, given that the existence of Bigfoot in general isn't officially recognized yet, isn't it going to put off the skeptics even more when people are expanding on the topic so voraciously?

 

Everyone has their own theories, from trans-dimensional super-beings to a different species of great ape to a sub-species of human, and it's great that people are thinking about it, but surely we shouldn't be speaking in certainties at this stage?

 

Having said that, according to Ketchum (admittedly not the best source, I know) these creatures have genetic recombination of physical traits due to being a hybrid species. Consequently, according to her, Bigfoots will vary wildly in appearance from looking more "ape-like" to more "human-like".

 

Again, I'm not saying she's the best source but that would account for different "types" of Bigfoot without going too far with pre-emptive categorization......

[Guest]

Perhaps bf aren't restricted by whatever mechanism it is that prevents cross breeding? Which would lead into that angel dna stuff.

Perhaps they're so old that the evolution which ceased cross breeding missed them. It would explain the Genesis of sightings of various creatures. Dog man - a bf bred with some type canine. Lizard man - bf bred with a gator. Etc.

You can go two ways with this: Traditional science that they evolved without the blocking protein. Or, journey into the whole angel/nephilim thing.

[Guest]

I don't want to offend anybody, of course, but I just wanted to raise a small point. I worry that speaking with such confidence about various "types" of Bigfoot and, um, Dogman might be a bit....unhelpful? I just think that, given that the existence of Bigfoot in general isn't officially recognized yet, isn't it going to put off the skeptics even more when people are expanding on the topic so voraciously?

Again, I'm not saying she's the best source but that would account for different "types" of Bigfoot without going too far with pre-emptive categorization......

 

However, we have had quite some wars in the past with "knowers" in one area being attacked by "knowers" in another area simply because their critters don't have whatever gold standard characteristic that they assume all of them to have, because that's what they are seeing there. Also we might be having quite important differences in behaviour and aggression, thus "experts" in what may be one type, could be endangering researchers in another area by suggesting practices that are unsafe with their type.

 

Maybe we are premature in trying to nail down what those types actually are, but at least trying to raise awareness that there could be differences is a constructive step I feel.

[Cotter]

Badger and Flash - both good points!

 

I think it is to the level of confidence that one proclaims the 'types' as fact they are different species that can be a turnoff.

 

Just look at humans, if we were discovered by some other group, imagine the debates that would rage if they couldn't catch one of us for testing!
 

[Guest]

Er...I thought you maintained that you had seen one?! 

I saw a Dogman, not the type with doglegs and the head of a wolf. Mine looked like "Patty" but had a snout. No breasts visible so I believe it was a male. Whatever it was, it was HUGE. 

I don't want to offend anybody, of course, but I just wanted to raise a small point. I worry that speaking with such confidence about various "types" of Bigfoot and, um, Dogman might be a bit....unhelpful? I just think that, given that the existence of Bigfoot in general isn't officially recognized yet, isn't it going to put off the skeptics even more when people are expanding on the topic so voraciously?

 

Everyone has their own theories, from trans-dimensional super-beings to a different species of great ape to a sub-species of human, and it's great that people are thinking about it, but surely we shouldn't be speaking in certainties at this stage?

 

Having said that, according to Ketchum (admittedly not the best source, I know) these creatures have genetic recombination of physical traits due to being a hybrid species. Consequently, according to her, Bigfoots will vary wildly in appearance from looking more "ape-like" to more "human-like".

 

Again, I'm not saying she's the best source but that would account for different "types" of Bigfoot without going too far with pre-emptive categorization......

I totally understand where you are coming from. 

 

However, I cannot ignore what I know exists, and since the creatures can be and often are dangerous, I want the world to know the truth to help save their lives.

 

These creatures exist, and they can be very dangerous.

[jayjeti]

There have been reports of a colony of chimps in Florida somewhere, along with another area with another primate, I want to say macaques but it's some years since I read about it. However, people are able to identify these, as "I saw a Chimp" rather than "Something that looked a bit like a large chimp".

 

At the moment, I am mentally lumping the southern boogers and skunk apes as one, they seem to be reported a lot larger than any feral populations of circus escapees might plausibly be. The Myakka skunk ape photos achieved some notoriety a decade or more ago, but the trusted PNW researchers were saying "Not a Sasquatch" and the similarities to Orang seemed too close to ignore. However, I have since heard discussion of the photo by some east Texas, Georgia and Florida researchers and they're basically saying "Yup, that's what's out there alright". For ref... http://www.lorencoleman.com/myakka.html

 

Now, the Orang's ancestors include the branch that led to the Giganto lines.... and they're in Asia, even northeast Asia when the Bering strait land bridge was there... (Which was boreal forest habitat for thousands of years) so, IMO, it looks a lot like and Orang because it's from the same line, it's a modern Giganto, or development from Giganto. This makes Meldrum "sorta right" but only in the case of the southerners.

 

Yes, I agree, that photo you linked to looks like something else besides a sasquatch.  I believe sasquatches are from man's linage, not apes.   I also feel skunkape is just another name for sasquatch, that its just a sasquatch in Florida.  Now, descriptions of dogman are totally different from regular sasquatches.

Edited January 30, 2015 by jayjeti

[MIB]

Yes, I agree, that photo you linked to looks like something else besides a sasquatch.  I believe sasquatches are from man's linage, not apes.   I also feel skunkape is just another name for sasquatch, that its just a sasquatch in Florida.  Now, descriptions of dogman are totally different from regular sasquatches.

 

I don't think so.   Something doesn't fit.   I think there are 2 different "things" in the SE / south central US.    

 

The Pac NW style bigfoot is present.   Those guys do not typically travel quadrapedally.   DO NOT.    We don't find quadrapedal track lines in mud and snow, we find bipedal track lines.     However, we have people like the folks from NAWAC and Tom Burnette reporting something that is relatively likely to travel on all 4s part of the time.   Behavior is different, one being suggestive of primitive human, the other much more animal-like.

 

A lot of the inconsistency / contradiction in the report data seems to vanish if you allow for the possibility of two distinct sources rather than arbitrarily insisting there can be only one unknown.    People would be applying the term "skunk" ape to either or both adding to the confusion.

 

Maybe in the end it will prove to be just one and whoever reported the other kind is delusional or lying, but I see no basis other than personal bias for assuming that at this point in the search.   Instead, I'll go down the path that allows for the possibility the witnesses are right.   Silly me, huh?

 

To take this a little farther, perhaps there really is a hybridization going on.   It might be that bigfoot really is a hybrid between humans and that more animal like "thing".    MAYBE.   A question worth looking into IMHO but not one that will be answered by opinions from the 'net.

 

Dogman ... if truly canine and not merely canine-looking, is not going to be related to any primate, not us, not bigfoot, not chimps, not even monkeys.   Seems unlikely.   Parallel evolution is possible to fill an empty niche, for instance, the patagonian hare or cavy, a rodent which filled the niche in South America which was filled by rabbits / hares in Europe.   However ... the niche was not empty.    It is more likely to be a modified or mutated primate unless there is something even weirder going on.

 

MIB

Edited January 30, 2015 by MIB

[Woodslore]

I sometimes wonder if the idea of dog man is not more of a baboon like creature. I mean baboon's were once called dog apes, or dog faced apes. 

[Guest]

I sometimes wonder if the idea of dog man is not more of a baboon like creature. I mean baboon's were once called dog apes, or dog faced apes. 

 

I've wondered exactly the same thing. 

 

Here's a question for the Americans: if Bigfoot (and, indeed, Dogman) were to be officially discovered by science and all the rest of it, what would the public's reaction be? Would there be a desire to go out into the woods with all those guns and get rid of them, for example?

 

I only wonder if this might be a factor in the state of sasquatch science. Maybe it would be dangerous for people and sasquatch if science did get hold of some serious evidence. And, as a Brit, I don't know much about US gun laws and general attitude to something like this...

 

I mean, it would be dangerous if people went into the woods looking to shoot human-looking creatures, wouldn't it? Mainly for people! So perhaps this is why information might be happily placed in the "conspiracy theory" box by science and government.

[guyzonthropus]

Until this whole thing is sorted out, its only logical to maintain the possibility that multiple species exist in light of the variation within the reports. To do otherwise is to bias ones inquiry , and prevent potential understanding of phenomena at hand, which is not how science works.....

[jayjeti]

 

Given that that could happen to "Patty type", "Southern booger" or "neanderthal type" it would lead to some variations in reports on those.

 

The true dogman with long snout, high up doggy ears, and walking on toes, has to be something different though.

 

Don't forget the inverted ankles like dogs and other four footed animals, long fangs, and claws on short stubby fingers.  You would not think all the differences are some kind of birth defect or hereditary disease, although on another forum someone said they had read about a regular looking sasquatch female seen with a young juvenile that had the triangular shaped head of a dogman.

[Catmandoo]

Badger Parade,

Sasquatch and 'other' yet to be catalogued animals will fall under the protection of a country wide organization known here as United States Fish & Wildlife Service. Hunting/shooting them would be illegal. There are 2 areas in Washington State that have laws prohibiting the shooting of Sasquatches. Been on the books for decades. I am not sure how a barrister would handle a case since the charge may be homicide.....we do not know yet. Another reason to not pull the trigger.

Currently, groups of men already roam Sasquatch areas with large caliber weapons. As you have noticed, they have not been successful.

Flashman,

Sometime in the past you had posted a link to the 'Beast of Seven Chutes' ( who thinks up these names? ). I though that the Beast was debunked to have been a stump.

[Guest]

I never saw that debunk, I thought I had seen a photo from same vantage point where it wasn't there. 

 

 

Shooting them is illegal in Ontario here, in as much as they're not listed as a game animal or pest and you can't get a tag for them. Can't remember if that's Federal, all of Canada, or provincial hunting regs.