norseman Posted April 9, 2015 Admin Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) You have to think that legally, if any part of them is 100% human, then they are 100% human, even if they have crazy stuff in their DNA, which would explain their differences, because we just don't allow monsters in this world.Crazy doesn't bode well between two species trying to reproduce.How bout practicality? How does a Sasquatch male keep a female human alive long enough to produce and rear offspring? Clothes tattered, no fire, no shelter? Edited April 9, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Yeah, I know about the crazy, it may or may not be there. How bout practicality? How does a Sasquatch male keep a female human alive long enough to produce and rear offspring? Clothes tattered, no fire, no shelter? I know right? I've read a few tales about it. They'd have to do the same for themselves though. so maybe they have it somewhere. We don't even find bedding areas we can be sure about, so it would possibly be caves or a hole in the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 9, 2015 Admin Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 I'm thinking a teepee, crackling fire and a buffalo robe would not be in the maidens future..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 You'd probably need to have some lengthy observations of them in everyday life just to have any idea, but Ostmans account might give some clues. I'm thinking a hunter gatherer sort of diet and lifestyle. She might have to go Vegan for a spell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 10, 2015 Admin Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 Except we have no evidence they start fires or cook.....and Ostman saw no evidence of this. So essentially their diet is no different than a Grizzly bears. That would be rough on a modern human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 It might be raw veggies for a while...........If you find yourself living with one. Yeah it would be rough If they didn't let you cook your meat. On another note Norse, anyone who shoots a Sasquatch will have to wade through all the doubts in their mind that they've done the right thing, and in case you think they won't get the "human" impression you should watch this video about the Smeja shooting. Try as you might, I think it's futile to try and erase the impression one gets when face to face with one. I believe this happens a lot in those critical moments, before and after taking the shot, and if you hope to convince people that it's going to be okay, you'll need a DNA sequence that say's so before it all goes down. @31 to 32 minutes http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/39855-sierra-shooting-from-a-z-continued/page-4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 11, 2015 Admin Author Share Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) technically ive seen one right? as everyone says that Patty is real........ if thats a real Bigfoot? Im shooting! If she looks like Bo Derek? then all bets are off.... but seriously? if we have confirmation that the species exists? Then Im pulling my hat out of the ring. If Dna can pull it off....... Edited April 11, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 13, 2015 Admin Author Share Posted April 13, 2015 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O0a5eaoR1U0 This is probably one of the best studies (Munns) that convinces me that we are not dealing with a human hybrid or even a Archaic Homo line. Around 8 minutes Brian is asked to don a composite head Munns made by studying the PGF. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. We cannot argue that there is no way Patty could be a man in a suit and then turn right around and claim Sasquatch is a man. Doesn't work...... Morphology isn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 I wish I knew what exactly they are, but I'm stumped. Their physiology suggests that our common ancestor with them would date back 2-4 million years ago, but then we have promising samples that continue to show modern human DNA, which doesn't make sense. Either way, one thing I'm sure they can't be is hybrids because that would require a large number of human females mating with something that's very non-human and somehow raising the offspring? Plus, if it were the case that there are so many hybrids being produced, we should have their DNA mixed in with our own and that's clearly not happening. It's possible that they are neither relicts or hybrids, but instead the products of genetic modification, but that doesn't seem too likely either because we didn't have the technology for that hundreds of years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted April 13, 2015 Moderator Share Posted April 13, 2015 ^^^^ well, true if WE are the ones doing the genetic modifying. If genetic testing showed the DNA **had** been modified at a time we were incapable of doing it, then we're dealing with a situation far more significant than the presence of a relic hominid sharing the planet with us. If we find that, while we're looking, we better take a closer peek at our own DNA. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 I don't know that necessarily follows Norseman, although it is a valid point to raise. You of course can give me lots of details of differences in the morphology of mules vs. horses, or mules vs. donkeys, I'm sure. Those donkey eyeballs that make mules so surefooted, for starters. Nobody who considered the comparison seriously would confuse a mule with a horse, although they both have four feet, hooves, a mane and a tail. Is a miniature horse anything like a Clydesdale's morphology beyond those things? When playing genetic roulette like this, there is no accounting for how the dominant and recessive genes will recombine. I think all we can say is such a combination could surprise us. We've got lots of experience breeding mules. Human hybrids are only the stuff of Scifi so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 ^^^^ well, true if WE are the ones doing the genetic modifying. If genetic testing showed the DNA **had** been modified at a time we were incapable of doing it, then we're dealing with a situation far more significant than the presence of a relic hominid sharing the planet with us. If we find that, while we're looking, we better take a closer peek at our own DNA. MIB I'm trying really hard not to speculate too much on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 technically ive seen one right? as everyone says that Patty is real........ if thats a real Bigfoot? Im shooting! If she looks like Bo Derek? then all bets are off.... but seriously? if we have confirmation that the species exists? Then Im pulling my hat out of the ring. If Dna can pull it off....... Am aware of two (2) men that had one in their scope(s) for extended periods (~10+ minutes) and each refused to pull the trigger, citing the same reason..."their faces looked too human". Therefore, if you are presented the option, would hope you exercise the same level of due diligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Norse has said if it looks like Patty hes shooting. Do they look like Patty, Yuchi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 14, 2015 Admin Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 I don't know that necessarily follows Norseman, although it is a valid point to raise. You of course can give me lots of details of differences in the morphology of mules vs. horses, or mules vs. donkeys, I'm sure. Those donkey eyeballs that make mules so surefooted, for starters. Nobody who considered the comparison seriously would confuse a mule with a horse, although they both have four feet, hooves, a mane and a tail. Is a miniature horse anything like a Clydesdale's morphology beyond those things? When playing genetic roulette like this, there is no accounting for how the dominant and recessive genes will recombine. I think all we can say is such a combination could surprise us. We've got lots of experience breeding mules. Human hybrids are only the stuff of Scifi so far. We cannot breed Mules. So as you say we have two species very similar to each other that cannot produce viable offspring. Mules are a dead end. Ive read too that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens were at the cusp of compatability genetically. So I think its safe to say that older Homo lines are not contenders and any other species of Ape is completely out of the question. Yes, Ive read the Indian stories about women stolen and returned pregnant. All I can say is that IF the PGF is real? Then all the info we have gleaned from the film is that something else is out there, that only superficially looks human. But maybe the PGF is a hoax, and whatever is out there is much more human like? Dunno........ i guess ill know if the moment ever comes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts