Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[Incorrigible1]

 

 

There are recent reports of bigfoots mating with Native American women as horrid as it sounds. A Russian writer claims that Russian men have mated with Almasty or the Russian bigfoot. Zana was supposed to be half human and half bigfoot.

 

 

http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/was-russian-bigfoot-actually-an-african-slave

 

But the big surprise in Sykes' results was that Zana's DNA is not Caucasian at all, but African. Khwit's tooth sample confirms her maternal African ancestry and the saliva tests on the six living descendants show that they all contain African DNA in the right proportions for Zana to have been genetically 100% sub-Saharan African.

“The most obvious solution that springs to mind is that Zana or her ancestors were brought from Africa to Abkhazia as slaves, when it was part of the slave trading Ottoman Empire, to work as servants or labourers,†says Professor Sykes. “While the Russians ended slavery when they took over the region in the late 1850s, some Africans remained behind. Was Zana one of them, who was living wild in the forest when she was captured?“

[Yuchi1]

 

 

Better talk to Disotell about that, he says some species of primate are speciated through hybridization. Meaning they have a maternal lineage from another species.

I don't know where you get the idea that one or the other has to go extinct, but it's apparent that mitochondrial testing wouldn't work to distinguish species in the scenario above.

Its possible that bigfoot would retain certain mutations adapted for their environment and have an equally small contribution in nudna from us, while the rest is virtually identical for other ancestral reasons.

If the crossing never stopped, the mitochondrial DNA is constantly being updated, and would confirm the native tales.

Except for the fact of course that the majority of the mitochondrial DNA is European and not Native American.

Thats a big swim for a Bigfoot in NA 13000 years ago.

 

 

I don't think Ketchum wanted to be too alarming and I think you are still missing what I'm saying. We Europeans arrived here roughly 400 years ago, and the natives are or were saying their women were taken by BF. If that had been the norm past and present, then it didnt have to happen 13,000 years ago, no swimming necessary. Haven't you wondered why Paulides became so interested in missing persons 411? She gave an (no earlier than ) date.

 

That doesnt give much time for the Native maternal line to be vanquished, but looking at the proportion of native maternal lines vs European in this country today, it might not need much time.

 

 

I seriously hope you find some samples Norse, and I hope you've taken some notes on what you should do with them. I just hope you can share the results as they are available. I'll try not to be too snarky as you walk down Ketchum avenue.

 

 

What if there were others coming to north America (from the west) thousands of years before 1492?  Dr. Covey at WFU found the Yuchi language (an isolate language) root base was predominately Egyptian along with other Mediterranean and north African language components.

 

Also, if "serious" scientific interest is desired, perhaps we should refrain from attempting to demonize the subject matter by labelling them with archaic european terms that conjure up a bovine thought pattern along with the images of peasants armed with pitchforks & torches.

[SWWASAS]

That release was in 2013.   More recently Sykes believes she is from an ancient sub saharan African strain which may or may not support the imported as a slave theory of how she got there.      It could be that they migrated, remained genetically isolated by not interbreeding with what became the Russians in the local area, until she was forced to by her captivity.    My own genetic makers had a similar migration out of Africa but traveling through what is now Russia into Western Europe.      Perhaps Zana's ancestors lived wild and had no genetic contact with the more main stream Russians.    So in a way if that theory is correct she is more unique than if she was pure Neanderthal, who like all the rest of us ancestors came out of Africa at some point interbreeding with whomever along the way.   

[LeafTalker]

 

 

Better talk to Disotell about that, he says some species of primate are speciated through hybridization. Meaning they have a maternal lineage from another species.

I don't know where you get the idea that one or the other has to go extinct, but it's apparent that mitochondrial testing wouldn't work to distinguish species in the scenario above.

Its possible that bigfoot would retain certain mutations adapted for their environment and have an equally small contribution in nudna from us, while the rest is virtually identical for other ancestral reasons.

If the crossing never stopped, the mitochondrial DNA is constantly being updated, and would confirm the native tales.

Except for the fact of course that the majority of the mitochondrial DNA is European and not Native American.

Thats a big swim for a Bigfoot in NA 13000 years ago.

 

 

I don't think Ketchum wanted to be too alarming and I think you are still missing what I'm saying. We Europeans arrived here roughly 400 years ago, and the natives are or were saying their women were taken by BF. If that had been the norm past and present, then it didnt have to happen 13,000 years ago, no swimming necessary. Haven't you wondered why Paulides became so interested in missing persons 411? She gave an (no earlier than ) date.

 

That doesnt give much time for the Native maternal line to be vanquished, but looking at the proportion of native maternal lines vs European in this country today, it might not need much time.

 

 

I seriously hope you find some samples Norse, and I hope you've taken some notes on what you should do with them. I just hope you can share the results as they are available. I'll try not to be too snarky as you walk down Ketchum avenue.

 

 

Woohoo!!!! I don't look in on the science threads very much, but it's always a relief to see you here, southernyahoo. So glad you're still posting. SO glad.  

[southernyahoo]

So let me ask you this southern yahoo...if your right and Bigfoot cannot be classified through DNA?

What are you doing here? Whats the point of any of this for you now?

 

It can be classified, but I doubt in an official manner. Plus it wouldn't be a proper name of their kind to just call them bigfoot, it will be hard to erase that term. If they can mate with modern sapiens with fertile offspring then they would be human with human rights and also subject to our laws governing us. It would not work out for them. That's a major road block.

 

FWIW, I've been on the genus homo coarse from day one on this forum and going on 9 years ago. far before Ketchum came along. The evidence has always spoke the same things to me, "human" but different enough to not fit in our society. It may be that the differences can be found in the nuclear DNA and that would classify it as technically another species, but there would be a political correctness problem in doing so should it be proven they have modern sapiens mitochondria.

 

I want to know what they are for sure, and it can be done with DNA, but most likely only on a personal level, due to all the second guessing that goes on about provenance of samples. It takes multiple independent results from a sample that tests human and which you know should not be, to accept they are human without seeing the creature.

 

I know my sample should not be from an ordinary modern human based on all observations at the time of collection, the morphology etc. Yet it has tested human once. This is why I wanted it tested again and again.

 

Based on other testing of samples outside Ketchum's study, it's clear that no nonhuman ape DNA has ever come from the samples, so I'm not expecting that to change.

 

The descriptor of " wild human" is dominant when experts and witnesses relate their experiences and impressions of the evidence. The collective of that is not likely wrong in my opinion.

 

If I add the tracks and morphology there, plus the audio recordings from people I think are legit and which contain the speech sounds, my hypothesis gets even stronger, while yours requires you to try and shout all the evidence down leaving you with little to none, for a creature that is so well dispersed across the country and should be much easier to find without human intelligence.

[Guest freelygiven]

Just starting to get tuned into this, I marvel at you with so many years of experience. There's a way to get this done.

[ShadowBorn]

SouthernYahoo

So in a way you are saying that your sample that you are holding is the true and purest form of human DNA of our past in our present.  If this is what you are saying then is this not proof enough that these creatures have existed way before the ice age. Any how I am just trying to figure out how to place this article that was released back in (2004) that has evidence of man in North America 50,000 years ago.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm

 

Who to say what could have survived these total extinction eras, but us humans and some thing else that was meant to be killed in the extinction process but survived. But DNA will tell us all with a good sample and explain how they work.

[yowiie]

southernyahoo

 

I have missed something. what sample do you have?

[SWWASAS]

The extinction level events are probably more common that once thought.    It took head banging and a comet hitting Jupiter to get science to reluctantly admit the the dinosaur event was likely a comet or asteroid.   Now the Younger Dryas event is thought to have decimated the Clovis Peoples.    Until recently the earth was thought to have been too hot for billions of years for life to develop in the oceans.    Now new evidence indicates that it could have cooled to nearly present ocean temperature levels as early as 3.5 billion years ago.  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091111130952.htm     In 3.5 billion years life could have evolved and gone nearly extinct many times.   Certainly the most primitive life does not leave much evidence behind.      Human habitation in North America 50,000 years ago would not surprise me at all.     The Clovis peoples could be relative new comers to the continent.    If you wait long enough what you know about time lines and species development will be proven wrong.    It is nothing like what I learned in college now.      

Edited February 27, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Oonjerah]

I agree with SWWSP.^ 

 

Wikipedia: "With fortifications dating to at least 6800 BC, Jericho appears to be the oldest

known walled city."

 

For sake of argument, let's suppose it is the oldest City ... in this particular era of continious

civilization.

 

What happened before, 15,000, 50,000, 200,000 years B.C? 

 

Men back then were building towns, commercial areas, cities, very likely. Boats. Ships.

There might have been cities 50,000 years ago.

 

Perhaps no one walked the land bridge to the Americas. They took a big boat.

[Yuchi1]

^^^ Probably built and sailed by Phonecians.

Georgerm;
In my opinion you and Norse have carried on a very civil and informative discussion that's moved the science clock forward. Seems like Norse would appreciate Ketchum more since she is trying to get a grip on bigfoot like the rest of us. We are all on the same team.
------------------------------

We dont need the likes of her on the team. She gives the whole subject a bad name, because of fraud, incompetence and being downright crazy. Dogmen? Alien Star Child? Hello?

If we want to be taken seriously by the scientific community? Then we need to flog the Melba Ketchum's away from our midst. We need solid professional people in our corner. If we think Sasquatch is a primate? Then we need geneticists who work with primate DNA every day. And we need scientists who build a hypothesis based on the evidence and test it vigorously. Instead of tweaking the evidence to support their pre conceived notions.

Southern Yahoo and others on here have swallowed a bunch of Ketchum kool aid. This isnt the first time I've encountered this mindset. It makes no sense to me but I suppose this whole subject makes little sense. To say that an animal cannot be placed on the tree of life through DNA is very odd to me. I know SY contributed to the Ketchum DNA study and I respect him for that. It's the people doing the hard work in the field that keeps this thing alive. But lets not double down on a rotten hand......lets ask for a new hand.

 

I would recommend you acquaint yourself with the legal definition of defamation, per se'....

[southernyahoo]

SouthernYahoo

So in a way you are saying that your sample that you are holding is the true and purest form of human DNA of our past in our present. 

 

No not exactly, my sample had a human mitochondrial haplotype T2b which exists among people today and going back to around the end of the last Ice age. It's European, and was found to be among hunter gatherers and some of the first in agriculture.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

So let me ask you this southern yahoo...if your right and Bigfoot cannot be classified through DNA?

What are you doing here? Whats the point of any of this for you now?

 

It can be classified, but I doubt in an official manner. Plus it wouldn't be a proper name of their kind to just call them bigfoot, it will be hard to erase that term. If they can mate with modern sapiens with fertile offspring then they would be human with human rights and also subject to our laws governing us. It would not work out for them. That's a major road block.

 

FWIW, I've been on the genus homo coarse from day one on this forum and going on 9 years ago. far before Ketchum came along. The evidence has always spoke the same things to me, "human" but different enough to not fit in our society. It may be that the differences can be found in the nuclear DNA and that would classify it as technically another species, but there would be a political correctness problem in doing so should it be proven they have modern sapiens mitochondria.

 

I want to know what they are for sure, and it can be done with DNA, but most likely only on a personal level, due to all the second guessing that goes on about provenance of samples. It takes multiple independent results from a sample that tests human and which you know should not be, to accept they are human without seeing the creature.

 

I know my sample should not be from an ordinary modern human based on all observations at the time of collection, the morphology etc. Yet it has tested human once. This is why I wanted it tested again and again.

 

Based on other testing of samples outside Ketchum's study, it's clear that no nonhuman ape DNA has ever come from the samples, so I'm not expecting that to change.

 

The descriptor of " wild human" is dominant when experts and witnesses relate their experiences and impressions of the evidence. The collective of that is not likely wrong in my opinion.

 

If I add the tracks and morphology there, plus the audio recordings from people I think are legit and which contain the speech sounds, my hypothesis gets even stronger, while yours requires you to try and shout all the evidence down leaving you with little to none, for a creature that is so well dispersed across the country and should be much easier to find without human intelligence.

 

A "wild" human could simply get a haircut and rejoin modern society, as there would be no difference of any note.

 

Unless, of course, it was Homo Erectus and farther back, in which case language would be an issue and at that point you are only talking about the same Genus not the same species.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[BigTreeWalker]

I think bigfoot would stand out like a sore thumb. Even with a haircut.

[JDL]

I agree with SWWSP.^ 

 

Wikipedia: "With fortifications dating to at least 6800 BC, Jericho appears to be the oldest

known walled city."

 

For sake of argument, let's suppose it is the oldest City ... in this particular era of continious

civilization.

 

What happened before, 15,000, 50,000, 200,000 years B.C? 

 

Men back then were building towns, commercial areas, cities, very likely. Boats. Ships.

There might have been cities 50,000 years ago.

 

Perhaps no one walked the land bridge to the Americas. They took a big boat.

 

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/