Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[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. 

 

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.

 

Ok, So this explains one side of the theory of the hunter gathers, but how is it connected to these creatures . Now I am not sure about this but , let say some 10000 years ago the clovis people roamed the North Americas ( http://science.sciencemag.org/content/315/5815/1122.short) . Well In order for two species to breed their DNA must match so that their strands will bond. Am I correct on this? Can this creature be a part of this extinct people?  Now these people must have been fearless to accomplish what they did. There was a difference between the hunter gathers and the clovis people and it was by their spears. But there is not sign of this by them so that gets signed off.

 

This just leaves them in a catagory of their own until it can be isolated from our human strand. What ever strand is left after is the stranrd that should be the marker and matched with other known markers until you are left with an unknown. Is this not how DNA should work but not so easy. All it takes is Blood ,hair roots with skin, flesh, a corpse ( one that has passed of natural cause).Getting DNA is getting to know this creature as though you raised it as a baby nowa days. As the book says " like the days of old " We are playing with things we should not be playing with and that is DNA. It is the building blocks to life.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

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

Exactamundo. 

PS: Clovis are also hunter gatherers but you are just seeing the hunting phase.

 

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

Exactamundo. 

PS: Clovis are also hunter gatherers but you are just seeing the hunting phase.

 

For a Bigfoot you should be looking for digging sticks (or diggin bones) as that would proof tool use that early humans could use but Australopithecus did not. It would also be at the appropriate divergence from humans (Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus) that hairy nutcracker skull people (pinheads) with monkey hands and feet, would have had. And again the sagital crest was for chewing vegetables, not a meat eating adaptation.

This divergence is millions of years old, the only mystery for science would be how pinheads would be able to breed with humans after that long a separation. So look for more very early (Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus) hybrids with an Australopithecus root stock. 

Edited February 28, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Yuchi1]

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

 

Exactly! Especially in those GEICO commercials!

[SWWASAS]

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.

Gobekle Tepe predates Jerico by 4000 years.    Massive stone columns,  complex carvings,   stuff thought impossible that long ago.   Only a small percentage has been excavated.    It seems to have been buried on purpose to hide it.   http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/06/the-mystery-of-gobekli-tepe/

 

Much of human history has to be under coastal ocean waters.  Recent discoveries are of large cities under water off the coast of India.      Civilization seemed to explode just after the last ice age.   And rising oceans have put much of the evidence during the ice age and just after under 10s or 100s of feet of ocean water.   Ice age BF would have hugged the shore line and utilized the temperate zone near water like humans at the time did.    So along with evidence of human habitation at the time, evidence of their existence is hidden by the same water.   As the temperature moderated, water levels rose,  and humans moved further inland,   BF would have been forced into the forests inland.   

[BigTreeWalker]

For a Bigfoot you should be looking for digging sticks (or diggin bones) as that would proof tool use that early humans could use but Australopithecus did not. It would also be at the appropriate divergence from humans (Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus) that hairy nutcracker skull people (pinheads) with monkey hands and feet, would have had. And again the sagital crest was for chewing vegetables, not a meat eating adaptation.

This divergence is millions of years old, the only mystery for science would be how pinheads would be able to breed with humans after that long a separation. So look for more very early (Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus) hybrids with an Australopithecus root stock.

I'm not trying to prove what branch of the family tree bigfoot belongs. I'm trying to show that there is Primate feeding behavior going on in the field as opposed to Carnivora. Since we are finding dental evidence and feeding behavior, we will continue to look for that. But if I see any digging sticks I'll let you know.

I have to pose the question. Who is better off when it comes to everyday survival in the outdoors, us who have to carry our tools with us or bigfoot that can utilize what is already there? From what we have found they may use rudimentary tools. Sticks to remove marrow, rocks to break bones. We know they reportedly throw them. Those kinds of tools are picked up from the ground and discarded when no longer needed.

I will let the DNA determine where they belong on the family tree when the body comes in. Otherwise, it's all just speculation. Fun to talk about, but not of much scientific use. Most of what has been proposed for bigfoot's lineage, except Gigantopithicus, aren't giants. Sighting reports don't even agree on the sagittal crest issue. Although Patty appears to have one.

[ShadowBorn]

I'm not trying to prove what branch of the family tree bigfoot belongs. I'm trying to show that there is Primate feeding behavior going on in the field as opposed to Carnivora. Since we are finding dental evidence and feeding behavior, we will continue to look for that. But if I see any digging sticks I'll let you know

BigTreeWalker

 

The problem that I see with this in Dental evidence is that it can be easy to deny with out the actual teeth being present that bit the bone fragment. Just like DNA the body has to be present, it can be easy to deny the DNA evidence just like the bones.IMO. But DNA can still hold up with out a body if it is done right and can prove a new species, and my argument is that they (the establishment) already knows what they are. So are willing to stall what ever evidence is put forth so that the truth does not come forward. It is not hard to destroy peoples careers to keep silent of some thing that should be brought to light. If this is not true then stop with the contamination and can be filtered to find a match or a new species.

 

If they are humans then they have markers, just like we all have markers that tell us apart from others but says we are humans.

 

SouthernYahoo

 

There has to be more to your sample then what was discovered in that DNA. It just cannot stop with Europe, there has to be more linage and genetics to your sample then what was discovered. This is just my opinion but I would like to know. 

[BigTreeWalker]

ShadowBorn,

You are right it can be denied. But this is science being done. I posted this in the bones thread. But for those that missed it and want to take the time to investigate further, I will post it here.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.olduvaiproject.org/wp-content/uploads/taphonomy-of-ungulate-ribs-and-the-consumption-of-meat-and-bone.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiQreWJ7pnLAhVCy2MKHY-dB5IQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNHx0uCSAzb9jA_d483xCqb7O6eE4w&sig2=inqnZ5ZYx6F_ZtljoZbUIw

Yes it can be denied. Anything can be. But if you're interested science is happening. My point is we are finding comparisons with hominid feeding behavior. Comparing it with science that has been done. You want to dig deeper look at some of their reference materials. If we can get some of those same researchers interested in what we are doing it could give a kickstart to getting mainstream science involved. Backdoor so to speak.

The biggest problem with DNA right now is, even if it isn't human, full scale correct testing needs to be done on every sample of supposed bigfoot DNA. Somebody have deep pockets here? As soon as it gets even close to human the goto is contamination. So what is anyone's suggestion on how to get around that? I do have one idea that just might work. If you are absolutely sure it is a bigfoot sample. Turn it in as yours for a genome project. I wonder what would happen when they began seeing some odd markers?

[norseman]

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.

I'm not shouting down the evidence, you are the one that has painted yourself into some sort of conspiracy corner. I'm simply pointing out the flaws in said evidence.

And for the record if Melba Ketchum was saying that her flawed DNA study proved that Bigfoot was an upright walking ape?!

I would still be running in the opposite direction.

She does not have a complete genome SY......and it has zero to do with black helos and MIB's.

As a friend I say this to you.....dont give up. If you had a life threatening illness, how many professional opinions would you want? And would you go with the first one that told you what you wanted to hear? Or would you vet the crud out of each of them and choose the doctor who has proven themself?

If I thought I had a legit sample DNA sample of Sasquatch? I'd find the best primate geneticist on the planet and I would tell him or her on a recent trip to the amazon i collected a sample of a rare monkey i want tested. No B word. This is actually Disotell's advice.

[southernyahoo]

I think you need a close friend that works in a crime lab, with a friend that identifies fibers and hairs, and another that does the DNA work. The experience with the process, sorting contamination, familiarity with ape hairs and genetics would be a plus, but you'll need a way to screen the samples yourself to some degree before you start bothering a geneticist. You'll exhaust their generosity and patience too quickly.

 

There is a large gap between hoping or thinking the sample you found is bigfoot and actually seeing the morphology matching up, along with other observations in how they were deposited, and how that differs from human behavior, morphology etc.

[Yuchi1]

IIRC, didn't she (Ketchum) run the complete genome?

[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'....

 

You might also consult with Loren Coleman (formerly, of Cryptomundo) as to what type response such publications can elicit and/or the current BFF member with a $1.2 million defamation judgment now levied against him. 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

For a Bigfoot you should be looking for digging sticks (or diggin bones) as that would proof tool use that early humans could use but Australopithecus did not. It would also be at the appropriate divergence from humans (Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus) that hairy nutcracker skull people (pinheads) with monkey hands and feet, would have had. And again the sagital crest was for chewing vegetables, not a meat eating adaptation.

This divergence is millions of years old, the only mystery for science would be how pinheads would be able to breed with humans after that long a separation. So look for more very early (Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus) hybrids with an Australopithecus root stock.

I'm not trying to prove what branch of the family tree bigfoot belongs. I'm trying to show that there is Primate feeding behavior going on in the field as opposed to Carnivora. Since we are finding dental evidence and feeding behavior, we will continue to look for that. But if I see any digging sticks I'll let you know.

I have to pose the question. Who is better off when it comes to everyday survival in the outdoors, us who have to carry our tools with us or bigfoot that can utilize what is already there? From what we have found they may use rudimentary tools. Sticks to remove marrow, rocks to break bones. We know they reportedly throw them. Those kinds of tools are picked up from the ground and discarded when no longer needed.

I will let the DNA determine where they belong on the family tree when the body comes in. Otherwise, it's all just speculation. Fun to talk about, but not of much scientific use. Most of what has been proposed for bigfoot's lineage, except Gigantopithicus, aren't giants. Sighting reports don't even agree on the sagittal crest issue. Although Patty appears to have one.

 

If they use digging sticks they are nearer to Homo Habilis that Australopithecus.

Look for microscopic grooves on the digging bones business end.

Also look for hand axes, a flattish rock that can be hefted in the hand with a chipped edge, good for cutting meat, fibrous vegetable matter, other hominids, etc.

For tool use you probably want a hand with a thumb for grasping, like we have.

Otherwise Squatch are reported to twist things apart which can be achieved by an apelike hand.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[SWWASAS]

 

^^^ 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'....

 

You might also consult with Loren Coleman (formerly, of Cryptomundo) as to what type response such publications can elicit and/or the current BFF member with a $1.2 million defamation judgment now levied against him. 

 

Not a lawyer thank heavens,  but I keep trying to warn forum members about that sort of thing.     Some here call anyone and every one various defamatory names,   as if their anonymous status here, will protect them from legal action.     Something said that may reflect on a professionals reputation and livelihood is dangerous ground.     Additionally since this forum crosses international boarders,   the US Constitution Free speech protections may not prevent some Canadian from suing you.   

Edited February 29, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[southernyahoo]

 I'd find the best primate geneticist on the planet and I would tell him or her on a recent trip to the amazon i collected a sample of a rare monkey i want tested. No B word. This is actually Disotell's advice.

 

 

Why on earth would Disotell tell you to lie about where you got your sample? Do you realize what that does to your credibility? Do you realize that you and or Disotell is fueling belief in a conspiracy against bigfoot samples found in the US?  I think most geneticists are like Sykes, but you either have to pay them to do the testing, or be able to provide good reason to test them based on existing study and potential for discovery. Of coarse, if the geneticist is aware the samples are testing human, they might shy away.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

 

^^^ 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'....

 

You might also consult with Loren Coleman (formerly, of Cryptomundo) as to what type response such publications can elicit and/or the current BFF member with a $1.2 million defamation judgment now levied against him. 

 

Not a lawyer thank heavens,  but I keep trying to warn forum members about that sort of thing.     Some here call anyone and every one various defamatory names,   as if their anonymous status here, will protect them from legal action.     Something said that may reflect on a professionals reputation and livelihood is dangerous ground.     Additionally since this forum crosses international boarders,   the US Constitution Free speech protections may not prevent some Canadian from suing you.   

 

You could just put in the disclaimer "in my personal opinion".