Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Who says it's a discovery? The hair samples with unknown primate morphology that possess modern human DNA (except with a few minor differences) are what hint at the possibility. If you're aware that Sasquatch exist, then there's reason to suspect that the results aren't contamination. If those hairs are really from Sasuatch and the DNA results are accurate, then the only two possibilities are that Sasquatch are either hybrids or human beings that had their genome modified. A hybrid can be ruled out, which leaves only one possibility. The theory relies on both Bigfoot existing and those hair samples being from actual Bigfoot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Hmmm...well, why go all exotic here? After all, nobody is (I don't think) making the case of modern H.Sapien being the product of an alien hybridizing a Neanderthal and a human. Garden variety biology, anthropology and evolution are more than adequate to explain that. Why not this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 What I see in most of the DNA fretting is the inevitable result of a scientific vacuum begging to be filled. The evidence says that whatever this is it's not likely to be us or anything near Homo. I personally and I acknowledge it's personally don't care one bit about DNA; without a type specimen to compare to, the skeptics will always have an out. Now, if a DNA finding got the mainstream excited and led to stronger involvement, that's a different story. I'd bet the ranch against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 ^^^But you not being a skeptic DWA....the DNA results to date must intrigue you. What do they say about your theories of origins/classification of the species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) Well actually I *am* a skeptic, just not a bigfoot skeptic. To me DNA has said nothing, really; I don't know of a DNA result that leads me in a direction that other evidence isn't already doing that job. I have heard that "primate, unknown" has been the result of more than one test, but that could mean "not enough information to type out completely." Circumstances of some finds that apparently got that treatment are eyebrow-raising, plus, you know, coughMinaretSkullcough. My theories tend to stick to what I do know: 1) the proximity of genus Gigantopithecus remains to known possible migration routes to the Americas (i.e., the "Bering Land Bridge") during (or close enough) the periods during which such a transit could have taken place; 2) Jeff Meldrum's assertion that Paranthropus genus bears some morphological similarities to Patty, along with adequate time for that genus to have spread and adapted similarly (never mind that Paranthropus fossils not having been found in Asia or NA simply means "not yet"); 3) My personal bet that we just haven't found the fossil antecedents yet; 4) A primate fossil record in the Americas - never mind primate diversity in Central and South America - that raises tantalizing questions. Edited May 12, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted May 12, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) Well if the Ancient Alien people are correct and the Sumerian clay writings are not fiction, the Anunnaki came to earth, bioengineered a giant people (bigfoot?)to mine gold and left when the gold was gone. Leaving the BF here with a penchant for living underground and no purpose. Every time you turn around science finds out these ancient writings are based on historical fact. Science used to claim the flood histories in numerous old writings were legend but now considerable geologic evidence of large scale flooding is being found all over the Old World. Edited May 12, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 The same could be said for HSS, we have more evolutionary changes reflected in our DNA over the past 10,000 years that shouldn't have happened so quickly. However, there is a reason, you can blame it on agriculture rather than on ancient aliens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion Who says it's a discovery? The hair samples with unknown primate morphology that possess modern human DNA (except with a few minor differences) are what hint at the possibility. If you're aware that Sasquatch exist, then there's reason to suspect that the results aren't contamination. If those hairs are really from Sasuatch and the DNA results are accurate, then the only two possibilities are that Sasquatch are either hybrids or human beings that had their genome modified. A hybrid can be ruled out, which leaves only one possibility. The theory relies on both Bigfoot existing and those hair samples being from actual Bigfoot... In the first place, the term unknown primate is a misnomer. There is no such result to be had from DNA testing. With that said, it makes all of your other if's irrelevant. Cheap labor. I doubt something as big as bigfoot would be cheap to feed. We can't even get a good picture of the creature. How are you going to get something with bigfoot's reputation for reading minds, invisibility, rapid speed, high level of intelligence, ripping people's heads off, etc....to chop wood for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Homo sapiens fit right into the fossil record and match what one could expect to see from a living population, so it'd be reasonable to assume that we're entirely the result of natural selection. The DNA of alleged Sasquatch hair samples has a pattern of showing Homo sapiens DNA. If it's true that the results aren't due to contamination, then it'd be reasonable to assume that Sasquatch aren't the result of evolution because 100,000 years isn't enough time for humans to lose the dexterity that was so critical to their survival, grow 2 feet in height, develop night vision and adapt to harsh cold weather conditions all at the same time. It's just not possible. In a way, one could say that Sasquatch are practically straight out of a science-fiction book. The idea of them not being human, but instead being apes that are just outside the Homo genus, sounds more believable to most and it's what most people expect to find. The things that suggest otherwise are the DNA results and the description of the animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted May 12, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted May 12, 2015 I doubt something as big as bigfoot would be cheap to feed. We can't even get a good picture of the creature. How are you going to get something with bigfoot's reputation for reading minds, invisibility, rapid speed, high level of intelligence, ripping people's heads off, etc....to chop wood for you? Promise them all the deer and hikers they can eat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) In the first place, the term unknown primate is a misnomer. There is no such result to be had from DNA testing. With that said, it makes all of your other if's irrelevant. When I said "unknown primate morphology", I meant the morphology of hair samples that have been examined under a microscope. Those have shown to be from an unknown near-human primate. I'm well aware that there's no such thing as unknown DNA. Edited May 12, 2015 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/hair.htm Scroll down to the fourth paragraph for Bindernagel's take on hair analysis. Promise them all the deer and hikers they can eat? I know you're kidding, but that wouldn't be a good incentive since bigfoot could get those without our help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 This is what seems to happen with DNA from hair samples, but honestly, it really shouldn't when DNA from hair is used routinely in criminal investigations. http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/dnatests.htm After lengthy deliberation, we (W. H. Fahrenbach, J. A. Poe, and P. Fuerst), co-authors of the intended article on the Eastern Washington hair found in August, 1995, have decided to withhold submission of the manuscript of the analysis until more DNA from tissue, preferably with attached hair, is obtained. Our studies have not yielded a sequenced mitochondrial gene fragment to determine the phylogenetic affiliation of the creature. The ambiguous results at the present time can, on the one hand, generate misplaced enthusiasm and be quoted as "proof", or, on the other hand, can be used by the opposite camp to criticize and denigrate the results unfairly. One has to be careful in interpreting this quote with what was meant by proof, but one could assume the results resembled great ape DNA by some measure but perhaps contamination by humans or something other couldn't be ruled out. That or the fragments were too short to be reliable. Anyways, I suspect there was a result too close to human. Henner F. always asserted BF was not human, but acknowledged that the hair morphology was indistinguishable from blonde human head hair with exception of not having cut ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) If the hair is almost indistinguishable from human hair, it would make sense that the DNA would be roughly the same. This quote is from the article I linked to on the first page Hairs found on the Skookum cast were sent to Dr. Fahrenbach, and he confirmed that some of them were consistent with the profile he has established for sasquatch hair. The hairs were then sent for DNA analysis and the results were that human contamination or a human source could not be ruled out. One puzzling aspect of the entire sasquatch issue that may contribute to hair confusion is the apparent differences in descriptions of the creature. They range from “tall, hairy human†to “gorilla-like.†Some descriptions are so human-like that what was seen does not appear to be anything to do with a sasquatch. Hair from one of these candidates would probably be indistinguishable from that of regular humans. Nevertheless, in one case hair from what does not appear to have been a sasquatch (i.e., tall, hairy human) reasonably matched hair that we believe came from a sasquatch. I recall Dr. Meldrum's opinion on Sasquatch hairs being that they have their own unique profile, but the overall impression I'm getting is that both the DNA and hair morphology of Sasquatch are so close to today's humans, that they are almost indistinguishable and therefore don't qualify as good scientific evidence. The DNA needs to be distinguishable from humans for it to be any good. The fact that it probably isn't is an issue. IMO, Sasquatch defy conventional theories and ideas in biology, which seems to be why so many people are skeptical of the phenomenon. Edited May 13, 2015 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Well if the Ancient Alien people are correct and the Sumerian clay writings are not fiction, the Anunnaki came to earth, bioengineered a giant people (bigfoot?)to mine gold and left when the gold was gone. Leaving the BF here with a penchant for living underground and no purpose. The ancient aliens folks based their show on the writings of Zecharia Sitchin. There is a lot of material online explaining why he was wrong. ancientaliensdebunked.com is a good place to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 IMO, Sasquatch defy conventional theories and ideas in biology, which seems to be why so many people are skeptical of the phenomenon. Wouldn't a more likely explanation be that it was just plain human hair? I guess I'm not getting it. Hair morphology isn't reliable and the genetics for hair is pretty complicated. It's a weak platform to build any kind of theory regarding sasquatch hair and what that might indicate about the rest of the creature's DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts