Hybrid Hypothesis Dead, Done, Stick A Fork In It....

[Guest DWA]

One thing I don't have way too much patience with is people citing their experience of seeing one as superior to what scientists have done with the evidence.  Somebody seeing a turkey vulture and calling it an eagle doesn't have greater weight than an ornithologist who wasn't there; who asks her for the description of what she saw; and says:  based on that, lady, you saw a turkey vulture.

 

Just sayin.

 

The proponent scientists have contributed much to our understanding of the gait reported by eyewitnesses.  Their expertise is critical to our understanding so far.  It is definitely critical to my opinion of what the evidence represents.  It does no good to belittle it.  But bigfooters do have this tendency to scare off the people who could contribute most.

Edited April 19, 2016 by DWA

[ShadowBorn]

BTW:  the witness who supplied the artist the description resulting in my avatar said he couldn't use the word "ape" to describe what he saw.  OK, fine, he saw it - and I am convinced, having both read the report many times and heard him retell it in person, that he did see it - and I didn't.  But that's not taxonomy.  That's an opinion based on a brief childhood encounter.  Science knows what to do with those.)

 

^^Like what throw it in a waste basket and have no discussion of it? this seems to be the norm. This is why science has reach no further then it has in research since we believe that we are the only ones who can walk on two feet and behave the way we do. They do not want to open the Pandora of all boxes that will make them look bad at what they know. They are a freak of nature that is above explanation and science has no way of trying to figure out on how this is possible. Can you explain what he saw without saying that it was in his imagination? That would be a insult to his sighting and to his integrity and to the integrity to all of us who have seen these creatures. We need to find a valid explanation and so far there are non, but the closes is that they are some how related to us. The only thing that science has done is shut down those who have spoken up or have been discredited. Which also seems to be a norm now days as well since the truth is now being hidden and needs to be brought forth to public view.

[Guest DWA]

 

BTW:  the witness who supplied the artist the description resulting in my avatar said he couldn't use the word "ape" to describe what he saw.  OK, fine, he saw it - and I am convinced, having both read the report many times and heard him retell it in person, that he did see it - and I didn't.  But that's not taxonomy.  That's an opinion based on a brief childhood encounter.  Science knows what to do with those.)

 

^^Like what throw it in a waste basket and have no discussion of it? this seems to be the norm. ...

No, that's what people calling themselves 'scientists,' who might actually be but have temporarily forgotten the operating instructions, might do.  (And yeah, it appears the norm.)

 

What *science* the *discipline* does with it is:

 

First, ask:  is there any good reason we have to consider the witness mistaken?

Second, ask:  is that strong enough to discount the report?

Third, say:  file the report, if warranted, and continue to probe for more data.

 

This guy is a reliable witness. (No discernible reason to think otherwise.) Which means not that you consider bigfoot proven, but that you take this report and rack it and stack it against the rest.  No reason not to.  No reason to deny this guy his experience; every reason to consider it potentially illuminating.

[ShadowBorn]

It is definitely critical to my opinion of what the evidence represents

So in your honest opinion of what the evidence represents, what is it do you believe that these creatures might be? with out discrediting everyone who has seen these creatures.

[Guest DWA]

They're a primate, I'd expect.  They might be a representative of what we now consider an extinct lineage, e.g., Paranthropus or Gigantopithecus.  They might be a lineage for which we don't have any fossil representatives yet.  I'd doubt they're Homo based on what we have so far, but I rule nothing out.

[FarArcher]

 

 

Meldrum, Green, Byrne, Krantz & Dahindren all have/had one thing in common....no encounter with this entity, yet they are generally regarded as voices of authority. No wonder BF is still an enigma as (rhetorically speaking) the inmates are running the asylum.

Odd that the leading authorities have no close, personal observation of any kind or duration.

Never seen them run. Never seen how fast they run. Never seen their stride. Never seen the odd knee and ankle structures that cause the odd way they run - or should I say "ski." Never seen them running toward them, never seen them passing by them, never seen them running away from them. Never seen their face. Never seen their eyes. Never seen how they lean forward, never seen their unbelievable mass, and never seen their skin and hair.

But they're the experts.

I want my aircraft mechanic to have never turned a wrench, never wired anything, and whose only experience is considering reports of planes flying over others.

How many scientists have been to Mars? And yet they can land a rover on the surface and take soil samples, and send back the data.

Ive watched shuttle launches too.....but that doesnt make me an aeronautical engineer.

I'm not attempting to belittle your experiences, far from it. But we should be rejoicing that scientists like Krantz and Meldrum take your sighting seriously and are attempting to understand it. Versus discrediting them because they are not eye witnesses.

(Krantz - RIP)

 

 

 

Actually, scientists don't land rovers on Mars, engineers do.  That equipment that sends back data - engineered by engineers.

 

You may have watched a shuttle launch, but at least you saw one and can describe the event.

 

Those who haven't had up close experiences, in the open sightings up close, and had them screw with you in the dark seem to discount, or at least minimize the totality of the experiences - the cognizance, the privity, the comprehension, the insight, the discernments that manifest during the experiences.

 

And it's odd, but most sightings and close encounters seem to occur with folks like myself who were just minding their own business - and had no interest in these things whatsoever.  And yet, their lives are changed forever.

 

I don't know anything about this Kranz, but if I had a carcass, I can guarantee that Meldrum won't be getting a look unless he's in a museum tour along with the rest of the general public.

 

Meldrum assumes too much, postulates too much, and would be better served to simply state he's open minded to the possibility of these critters due to the weight of the narratives and footprints, and for those reasons is interested in pursuing the subject.  

 

He's already assumed it's a total ape, he's assumed it has a mid-tarsal break as those are ape characteristics.

 

I think he's wrong.  So if I had one - I'll go to someone who isn't interested in reinforcing his previous position, and like me, has never given them a thought.

[norseman]

He does not assume its a "total ape". If by that you mean chimps, bonobos, orangs and gorillas.

Bigfoot lacks a divergent big toe, but has a midtarsal break.....something between man and ape (homo vs pan) is Meldrum's position and yours as well yes???

Regardless of where exactly we place Bigfoot on a scale between man and ape, the purpose of this thread was to displace the notion that Sasquatch is the product of a recent mating of a unknown primate and a human woman.....and somehow became its own distinct species.

I think its safe to say that idea is dead, with the news of the dna research done.

What it is I dont know, but no witness Ive ever talked to has claimed sasquatch was wearing animal hides, packing a spear or a stone tool. Nor was he seen starting a fire. So as far as our scientific knowledge of the Homo genus? Sasquatch does not fit in that regard.

Orangs are called "wildmen of the woods" for good reason, they look human and are very smart. I do suspect Sasquatch to be even closer to us than Orangs. Its a incremental discussion.

BTW, and off topic....who works out the hard stuff for the engineers? Stuff like atmopsheric pressure on Mars, its gravity? distance to the red planet, etc, etc? Scientists do. Do not think for two seconds that without scientists? Engineers would be blind. No different from the Engineer to the Welder. Without a set of blue prints the Welder is blind.

Scientists calculate things that their eyes will never see and their hands will never touch. From a electron to a black hole and every thing in between.

Edited April 20, 2016 by norseman

[FarArcher]

He does not assume its a "total ape". If by that you mean chimps, bonobos, orangs and gorillas.

Bigfoot lacks a divergent big toe, but has a midtarsal break.....something between man and ape (homo vs pan) is Meldrum's position and yours as well yes???

Regardless of where exactly we place Bigfoot on a scale between man and ape, the purpose of this thread was to displace the notion that Sasquatch is the product of a recent mating of a unknown primate and a human woman.....and somehow became its own distinct species.

I think its safe to say that idea is dead, with the news of the dna research done.

What it is I dont know, but no witness Ive ever talked to has claimed sasquatch was wearing animal hides, packing a spear or a stone tool. Nor was he seen starting a fire. So as far as our scientific knowledge of the Homo genus? Sasquatch does not fit in that regard.

Orangs are called "wildmen of the woods" for good reason, they look human and are very smart. I do suspect Sasquatch to be even closer to us than Orangs. Its a incremental discussion.

 

Wait.

 

We don't have any certainty that BF has a midtarsal break.  That's where I seriously differ with Meldrum.  They may have a midtarsal break, they may not.  If there were a midtarsal break, you'd think it would show up in at least a significant majority of prints - and we don't see that.

 

I'd not say that no witness has ever seen a Squatch packing a weapon.  And the first thing that comes to mind is the Woodwose in Europe - frequently depicted with a club or healthy looking stick.  

 

The DNA is not indicative, until we have a body, get a DNA profile to compare with, and only then can make some determinations.  

 

You'd think that humans, being more complicated, more intelligent, and more creative would also be more complicated - and yet we have only 46 chromosomes while the apes, monkeys, etc., have 48 chromosomes.

 

Obviously, we did not descend from monkeys - no higher animal reduces chromosomes and simultaneously improves.  We don't even know how many chromosomes these things have - unless you know something I don't.

 

You know how many pairs of chromosomes the Neanderthal has?  That's right.  No one does.

[ShadowBorn]

They're a primate, I'd expect.  They might be a representative of what we now consider an extinct lineage, e.g., Paranthropus or Gigantopithecus.  They might be a lineage for which we don't have any fossil representatives yet.  I'd doubt they're Homo based on what we have so far, but I rule nothing out.

How long did it take to get you at this stage with the options that you have placed? They are all possible and yet can be wrong, but how long did it take to get to this point in time? You have never had a sighting and there is no fossil record out there to prove that these creatures came from the three extinct linage you have mention? Two of the extinct linage we do know about which are Paranthropus or Gigantopithecus. We know them since there is some fossil record of them and yes if they were alive today they could fit the bill of them being these creatures. But DNA of them would be in the gene bank would it not be? and if DNA is in the gene bank then these creatures would have shown up by now with what ever DNA has been collected.

 

The one common theme that keeps coming up within the DNA of these creatures is Human but the sample gets thrown out for contamination. The Giganto is a possibilities and I believe that what they found of this creature was a tooth and a lower jaw. So it would be hard to conclude what the capabilities of this creature would be with what has been found. Mostly all speculative and suggestive.

 

But what has been observed by many witnesses is not suggestive of a monkey, Ape, Gorilla, Bamboo. I do not say Primate since primate is a wide spectrum and I want to narrow this down to a Human behavior then what we see in Jungles and mountains. I respect your answer and I agree that there is still a fossil specimen that has not been found that may very well be living in our back yards. I would call them a living fossil that has evaded us, while every so often letting us know it's out there. This is not ape like nor does it act ape like, if apes were like these guys we would have never have found apes or gorillas. Yet here we are with apes and gorillas in zoos locked in cages, but not one Bigfoot in a zoo. So does this show some thing of a higher intelligence? If we as humans are the only ones on earth with high intelligence and it is in grained with in our DNA, then is it not possible that they might share the same DNA that we do? It can be the only explanation for how well they have adapted to live around us rather then live among us. Do you have any other explanation for this other then they do not exist? The do not exist excuse is getting old and to many people have seen these creatures up close or close by. Science needs to except that we might not be the only homo erectus still alive. That there might be a mixed breed of Homo erectus still alive living in our wilderness a man beast.         

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

We came from monkeys.

Or at least monkey uncles.

[ShadowBorn]

Scientists calculate things that their eyes will never see and their hands will never touch. From a electron to a black hole and every thing in between

But it takes engineers to create the instruments that scientist need to make their measurements, so in a way it works out both ways as a team effort. Not one is more important then the other when both are needed. It takes the effort of both and this why we have been able to accomplish the things we have.

 

I cannot discount what Dr, Meldrum written about the mid-tarsal break, But I agree with Faracher. Why would you take a specimen to someone who has already set their mind on some thing only to prove their point. It would be best to have the specimen inspected by some one who is neutral on the subject and let that institution make the decision. This would be the route that I would take if I was to find a dead specimen and I would keep it a secret until the results were done. As much as I would want to scream it out I would shut down tight and keep on doing what I am doing. 

[ShadowBorn]

We came from monkeys.

Or at least monkey uncles.

Is there any monkey in our DNA? or is our DNA pure Human? Cause, I sure am not a monkey and there is no monkey DNA in my blood as far as I know. I am pure Human.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Think basket sponge - fish - lemur - monkey - ape - man.

[southernyahoo]

 

 

(BTW:  the witness who supplied the artist the description resulting in my avatar said he couldn't use the word "ape" to describe what he saw.  "Scarily human," for what that's worth, he also said.  OK, fine, he saw it - and I am convinced, having both read the report many times and heard him retell it in person, that he did see it - and I didn't.  But that's not taxonomy.  That's an opinion based on a brief childhood encounter.  Science knows what to do with those.)

 

 

Yeah, I met that witness and know him. I also saw his posts on this forum when he wanted to talk to other witnesses and ask for their impression of the humaness of the facial characteristics. 

 

You see, the whites around the eyes is a human trait, and it actually conveys a lot about the beings emotional state. We "read" the eyes as a body language so when we see it , it will give a human impression. 

 

Something you may not know is that that image was also formulated from photo's taken in Oklahoma from another witness, who also gave a very similar description to sketch artist Harvey Pratt, and was published in Paulides' book Tribal Bigfoot. 

 

That gives us these two guys.

 

 

 

Hair on the brows=         human

hooded nose=                 human

whites around the eyes= human

lips=          more human but wide

chin=         looks prominent in frontal view 

 

This isn't all that makes me think human, but I don't have to tell you that that other witness from Oklahoma has the same impression. The witness from Texas, the one you are talking about, also told me that the sketch in your avitar, should have shown the eyes farther apart and a wider face, so next time you talk to him, ask him if Pratt's drawing is a little closer to what he saw.

[norseman]

He does not assume its a "total ape". If by that you mean chimps, bonobos, orangs and gorillas.

Bigfoot lacks a divergent big toe, but has a midtarsal break.....something between man and ape (homo vs pan) is Meldrum's position and yours as well yes???

Regardless of where exactly we place Bigfoot on a scale between man and ape, the purpose of this thread was to displace the notion that Sasquatch is the product of a recent mating of a unknown primate and a human woman.....and somehow became its own distinct species.

I think its safe to say that idea is dead, with the news of the dna research done.

What it is I dont know, but no witness Ive ever talked to has claimed sasquatch was wearing animal hides, packing a spear or a stone tool. Nor was he seen starting a fire. So as far as our scientific knowledge of the Homo genus? Sasquatch does not fit in that regard.

Orangs are called "wildmen of the woods" for good reason, they look human and are very smart. I do suspect Sasquatch to be even closer to us than Orangs. Its a incremental discussion.

 

Wait.

 

We don't have any certainty that BF has a midtarsal break.  That's where I seriously differ with Meldrum.  They may have a midtarsal break, they may not.  If there were a midtarsal break, you'd think it would show up in at least a significant majority of prints - and we don't see that.

 

I'd not say that no witness has ever seen a Squatch packing a weapon.  And the first thing that comes to mind is the Woodwose in Europe - frequently depicted with a club or healthy looking stick.  

 

The DNA is not indicative, until we have a body, get a DNA profile to compare with, and only then can make some determinations.  

 

You'd think that humans, being more complicated, more intelligent, and more creative would also be more complicated - and yet we have only 46 chromosomes while the apes, monkeys, etc., have 48 chromosomes.

 

Obviously, we did not descend from monkeys - no higher animal reduces chromosomes and simultaneously improves.  We don't even know how many chromosomes these things have - unless you know something I don't.

 

You know how many pairs of chromosomes the Neanderthal has?  That's right.  No one does.

Yes we do.

Neanderthals had the same number of chromosomes as we do. Why? Because remember from my article the female hybrids survived and bred back into the Homo Sapien population? This proves it.

If the number of chromosomes were different then either the mating would not have been successful or the offspring would have been sterile.

And if you deny human evolution then there is not much more we can discuss. Divine creations do not need to follow any sort of rule book....they can just appear. If thats your feelings on human history.....thats ok, its just not mine.