Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[Yuchi1]

^^^ Stating an opinion is usually copesetic however, making declaratory statements that speaks to a person's health, mental state or business, trade or profession* w/o being legally qualified to do so is another story.

 

 

*  http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-defamation-per-se-.html

Edited February 29, 2016 by Yuchi1

[SWWASAS]

I can just see some people reading Yuchi1's posting about defamation and frantically looking at all the trash talk they have posted about someone in a profession like Meldrum.    You don't have to read very far to find stuff people have posted that could get them in court.     You can disagree with someone but when you start declaring them to be liars, fabricators,  and hoaxers you have crossed the line.   

[Oonjerah]

Todd Standing Finally Exposed?

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/52459-todd-standing-finally-exposed/?hl=standing

 

So this topic which ran to an 8th page ... Many of the posters are liable to be sued?

 

Act so outrageous, that others can't help making fun of you ... then Sue?

Perhaps one can make a living at that. Trouble is, the lawyers get the bulk of it.

[Yuchi1]

^^^ Even in defamation, as in many other facets of life, at the end of the day, the factual truth is the ultimate defense and prevails.

 

Talking out your arse and making unsubstantiated allegations that fit the theory of per se' defamation is where the fertilizer usually intersects the ventilator shaft.

 

The most common exceptions to a defamation cause of action are for people that hold themselves out to be public persons, such as authors, celebrities, media personalities, politicians, etc. wherein malice and/or reckless disregard have to be established.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Yuchi1

[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.

 

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.

 

 

Well you see, I don't discount some of the differences. One of those is the profuse hair covering, and the lack of cuts on the individual hair strands that are found is one of the tells, that it lives in the wild........ isolated from the barbers. By most other appearances, they would correspond well to human hair with some difference in pigmentation and medulla width if present.

 

You should consider that it would be a dangerous game to declare there is another extant member of homo, yet not considered to be human. Our legal system likes things to be black and white with no grey.

[georgerm]

When does DNA become close enough for two primates to be considered to be of the same species? The American Museum of Natural History explains.

 

If human and chimp DNA is 98.8 percent the same, why are we so different? Numbers tell part of the story. Each human cell contains roughly three billion base pairs, or bits of information. Just 1.2 percent of that equals about 35 million differences. Some of these have a big impact, others don't. And even two identical stretches of DNA can work differently--they can be "turned on" in different amounts, in different places or at different times.

 

Same Genes, Behaving Differently

Although humans and chimps have many identical genes, they often use them in different ways. A gene's activity, or expression, can be turned up or down like the volume on a radio. So the same gene can be turned up high in humans, but very low in chimps.

The same genes are expressed in the same brain regions in human, chimp and gorilla, but in different amounts. Thousands of differences like these affect brain development and function, and help explain why the human brain is larger and smarter.

 

Slightly Different Genes

The chimpanzee immune system is surprisingly similar to ours--most viruses that cause diseases like AIDS and hepatitis can infect chimpanzees too. But chimps don't get infected by the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum, which a mosquito can transmit through its bite into human blood. A small DNA difference makes human red blood cells vulnerable to this parasite, while chimp blood cells are resistant. .........read more ............  http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/human-origins-and-cultural-halls/anne-and-bernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps

 

So one question is when does a primate become a human? If chimps and humans have 35 million different genes that are turned on to different degrees, then what is the magic number when a primate is considered a human? 

 

One test is when two different primates can interbreed, produce offspring, and the offspring can produce more offspring. This means the genes are close enough to allow this to happen. This seems to be the case with Zana. Are there any other reports?

 

The two primates that look different are considered the same species. They still have genetical differences but not 35 million different genes but maybe 1 million genes.

 

Usually individuals of the same genus and species look basically the same. Sometimes in nature, subspecies occur that are still part of the offspring producing species.  Is bigfoot a subspecies? 

Edited March 1, 2016 by georgerm

[SWWASAS]

Georgerm:   "One test is when two different primates can interbreed, produce offspring, and the offspring can produce more offspring. This means the genes are close enough to allow this to happen. This seems to be the case with Zana. Are there any other reports?

 

 The two primates that look different are considered the same species. They still have genetical differences but not 35 million different genes but maybe 1 million genes."

 

Is that statement correct?    A Neanderthal is not the same species as homeosapiens.   It not only looks different but is considered a different species or at least a subspecies,  but still can reproduce with homeosapiens.    If Sykes is correct with his DNA analysis,  Zana was human and had less relationship to Neanderthal than I do (1.2%)   

[southernyahoo]

That's a good article Georgerm. It should help people understand that while the genetic sequence can be identical it can behave and do things differently.

 

Species identity, which is typically done in a particular gene in the mitochondrial DNA may not behave this way because they target a gene that does virtually nothing, but still accumulates mutations at a steady rate. This makes it like a time clock counting the years since an organism split and became isolated from it's closest related species. If there is no difference there, it's because it hasn't been very long since the split, or because two species are hybridizing.

[hiflier]

Hello southernyahoo,

I still propose that even if a sample returns as Human or mostly Human one should STILL search for a repressed S opsin or a repressed M/L opsin gene which would be a sign of having good nocturnal vision or a tapatum lucidum. Maybe geneticists did look and there were normal genes present such as Humans or Apes would have- so no night vision and therefore those genes get no mention? If the samples come back Human with weak or mutated opsin genes? That would be a flag to note and more members shout be writing to these geneticists and inquiring about this.

Edited March 1, 2016 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

Well add another line to the homo human line.     I need to find me a BF burial cave.   

 

Scientific American:   "In the brand-new fossil vault at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in South Africa, shelf space is already running out. The glass-doored cabinets lining the room brim with bones of early human relatives found over the past 92 years in the many caves of the famed Cradle of Humankind region, just 40 kilometers northwest of here. The country's store of extinct humans has long ranked among the most extensive collections in the world. But recently its holdings doubled with the discovery of hundreds of specimens in a cave system known as Rising Star. According to paleoanthropologist Lee Berger and his colleagues, who unearthed and analyzed the remains, they represent a new species of human—Homo naledi, for “star†in the local Sotho language—that could overturn some deeply entrenched ideas about the origin and evolution of our genus, Homo."

[ShadowBorn]

You should consider that it would be a dangerous game to declare there is another extant member of homo, yet not considered to be human.

 SouthernYahoo

Why is this? why would it be dangerous to declare another species of homo that has lived side by side with us since the day we were conceived. See this is what I do not understand , and yes it is much simpler to declare contamination then to say that there could possibly be another branch of homo. Just like all those stories of old of those who have been shot what has there been known of those? now look at the point at where we are at. Every thing has been in place for discovery and it has all stalled and been ridiculed.

 

It is like Hifler and his ideas and what to look for with in the genes of the DNA sample and if it has been discovered with in the DNA sample. All these are markers that can be matched with known animals like lemurs or others like those that roam at night, but maybe there could be genes that show markers of their eyes that glow unlike other animals. A switch that can turn there eyes on/off like a light switch, where there is a light source from inside of the eye. Like I said I have video of this but I do not have the means to transfer this from VHS analog to my computer so that I can download it. It really shows there eyes and you people will be impressed with this researchers efforts at getting good footage.

 

But then again about DNA I am no expert but am trying to learn what I can about it so that if I even do come across a dead one , I'll know  how to handle it.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

You don't need DNA for this, anyhow there is not much in fossils.

Its based on skeleton analysis.

There is a debate about whether it is Homo or Australopithecus type.

Seems like a good candidate for Bigfoot research.

I see it has a foot skeleton so perhaps you can tell if it has the famous metatarsal break?

This is the type of thing that Bigfoot will wind up being.

The only disclaimer is that maybe Bigfoot reports also incorporate other "types" such as Archaic humans, or Early Homo types. 

Edited March 2, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[southernyahoo]

I meant that in a legal sense. As per the definition below, a human is any extant member of the genus homo, which would be determined by DNA, biology, anatomy, taxonomy etc.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human-being

 

If you prove that another member of homo exists, it's human, and has all the rights of a human, yet this one is currently allowed to roam free, trespass, take live stock, potentially hurt people or kidnap. People wouldn't tolerate it from any human. You also can't just call it and treat it like an animal because it's human, and there would be litigious people who would consider it gross discrimination to not give them their rights.

 

So therein lies a problem, it's dangerous for us legally, and dangerous for them because we might choose to eliminate them if they can't behave or if they're ever proven to have taken women or children.

 

There are some humans who would love to be able to get away with what bigfoot gets away with, and we don't have two sets of rights for members of our genus.

 

This is just a gap in our categorization because we've never considered what to do with a population of wooley wildmen other than turn a blind eye to the whole thing. I'm not even going to touch what it would do to religious beliefs connected to human origin beliefs. So yeah, proving bigfoot is a member of homo would be a volatile endeavor.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

We give dolphins, whales, apes, elephants, and chimps special status. 

Anything that is self aware and with a big brain.

It's a lonelier universe if you jeopardize the few animals that might understand as much as you do.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[BigTreeWalker]

If proven they will probably end up with more rights than we have. There are people who would make sure of that. I won't mention which group.

Bigfoot can't be controlled now. What's going to change about that?... But we can be!