Bigfoot Dna Update

[Guest]

Please, please, please demonstrate how anything you refer to has actually been authenticated as evidence of a bigfoot. Just because Meldrum mentions something in his book doesn't mean it's authenticity has been verified.

Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al are the scientists...they did the work and put forth the results. Unless and until the Skeptics have actual scientific data to refute their findings, the results stand as verified.

[Guest]

Hominins yes, but not Homo sapiens. They have anatomical features of nonhuman great apes. For example the brow ridge, prognatism, sagittal crest, short fingers, wide chest, short neck. Most of the evidence speaks for the great ape hypothesis. I just can't believe that there could be such a variation within Homo sapiens. Anatomical differences are the main aspect to distinguish species.

Wouldn't you expect to find some "bigfoot" features in people that live in the wild like some tribes still do in Papua New Guinea, if bigfoots really were Homo sapiens?

But I believe that they could have bred with humans. Then the DNA would show Homo sapiens marker...

I don't know. But I like to stick to the evidence and to scientific opinion. Bindernagels and Meldrums conclusions that it's probably a great ape make a lot of sense to me.

It seems type obvious to me what has been happening.

BF is a species that is/was separate from the traditional homo sapiens at some point. It can be as some NA's tell that they were natives who were separated from the other humans during a ice age for a couple hundred years. Since they're human, they can and have been breeding with modern humans.

[Guest]

Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al are the scientists...they did the work and put forth the results. Unless and until the Skeptics have actual scientific data to refute their findings, the results stand as verified.

Okaaay . . . so anything a scientist writes is verified unless refuted by "actual scientific data." I'm a scientist. There has not been one alleged piece of physical evidence of a bigfoot that has been authenticated as such. My statement is, by your logic, verified if you cannot refute it with actual scientific data.

For that matter, I'm a scientist, and my analysis of hairs and footprints indicates that a remnant population of unicorns persists in in the boreal forests of eastern Russia. Refute my statement using actual scientific data.

[Guest]

It can be as some NA's tell that they were natives who were separated from the other humans during a ice age for a couple hundred years. Since they're human, they can and have been breeding with modern humans.

Really? You think you're just a "couple hundred years" of genetic drift away from an 8' tall hairy wild man with prodigious speed and strength and a drastically modified foot structure?

As for breeding with modern humans, think about it. Let's say you want to keep the young people of your village from wandering too far on their own. You could tell them that there are bears or mountain lions out there that represent a threat, but your culture is one that places great value on tremendous acts of bravery. Run of the mill wildlife is not going to cut it. You need something bigger, smarter, and more sinister. You need something smart (that can't be outsmarted), something tremendously strong (that can't be overpowered), and for that added bit of fear something that is ambiguously part of the spirit world, e.g., a shape-shifter or some such. For that added punch to scare the snot out of your young girls, be sure to tell them that it will take them as its wives.

So what makes more sense (I fear I'll regret asking this): actual creatures that are notably different from us though still capable of interbreeding or mythical creatures to which that ability is ascribed?

[Guest LAL]

Why do I think of Creekfreak when I see a poster from Florida mentioning the Nephalim?

[southernyahoo]

For that matter, I'm a scientist, and my analysis of hairs and footprints indicates that a remnant population of unicorns persists in in the boreal forests of eastern Russia. Refute my statement using actual scientific data.

I think a glaring difference lies in the fact of having evidence and data that you can analyse and support your assertion. Lets exclude phony pictures form the equation since science won't be accepting the words " I think this picture is real".

[Guest]

I think a glaring difference lies in the fact of having evidence and data that you can analyse and support your assertion. Lets exclude phony pictures form the equation since science won't be accepting the words " I think this picture is real".

Sure, but explore the scenario a bit. Someone could collect ambiguous hairs from Russia, claim them to be unicorn, analyze them and have them come back as "unknown ungulate." Someone could cast hoofprints that don't quite fit the mold for other described species and proclaim "Aha, my analysis shows these prints to be unique." These claims could grow substantially with a resurgence in "unicorn culture" in which people promote the existence of such creatures through eyewitness accounts, whether legitimate misidentifications of known animals, hoaxes, or complete fabrications. Throw in a few blurry photos, some credulous television exposure, and at least one "prominent scientist who thinks the mythical animals are really out there" and you've got, what?

1) Nothing, because there never was a unicorn leaving behind authentic evidence in the first place.

2) An embedded cultural phenomenon leading to the absolute belief among thousands that the creatures actually exist.

According to Mulder, if our prominent scientist issues a statement or writes a popular book about his analysis of those footprints and hairs, the reality of the unicorn is verified.

According to me, those statements and that book have bypassed a crucial process in the advancement of scientific knowledge and represent a pseudoscientific effort to promote belief in something for which the evidence is lacking.

[Drew]

Interesting. The same results that Owen got back from Todd Disotel from the broken light bulb on the back porch of a witness. After the creature broke the bulb with it's noggin, it traipsed off leaving tracks as well.

Do you have a link to a report on the DNA findings, that show the sample is human? or does it show that it is Bigfoot?

My guess is the DNA came back human. Does the finding that all of these samples keep coming back human, dictate that Bigfoot must be some form of human? or does it dictate that humans are leaving the samples? If Bigfoot is a human, then what are we all wasting our time for?

Edited June 1, 2011 by Drew

[southernyahoo]

Sure, but explore the scenario a bit. Someone could collect ambiguous hairs from Russia, claim them to be unicorn, analyze them and have them come back as "unknown ungulate." Someone could cast hoofprints that don't quite fit the mold for other described species and proclaim "Aha, my analysis shows these prints to be unique." These claims could grow substantially with a resurgence in "unicorn culture" in which people promote the existence of such creatures through eyewitness accounts, whether legitimate misidentifications of known animals, hoaxes, or complete fabrications. Throw in a few blurry photos, some credulous television exposure, and at least one "prominent scientist who thinks the mythical animals are really out there" and you've got, what?

1) Nothing, because there never was a unicorn leaving behind authentic evidence in the first place.

2) An embedded cultural phenomenon leading to the absolute belief among thousands that the creatures actually exist.

According to Mulder, if our prominent scientist issues a statement or writes a popular book about his analysis of those footprints and hairs, the reality of the unicorn is verified.

According to me, those statements and that book have bypassed a crucial process in the advancement of scientific knowledge and represent a pseudoscientific effort to promote belief in something for which the evidence is lacking.

My point was that a scientist claiming to have analysed foot prints ( one who has specific expertise in foot anatomy ) would be on equal ground as you, whom would try and convince the scientific community with a clear photo of BF, which you have no special knowledge to authenticate. Do you see the hypocrisy?

As far as unknown DNA goes, you can't just "have" it your way, it belongs to a known or it doesn't. If science says it is different from knowns then you will have to throw those scientists under the bus with the collectors. This ofcoarse goes into conspiracy in order to preserve the grounds of denial.

[southernyahoo]

Do you have a link to a report on the DNA findings, that show the sample is human? or does it show that it is Bigfoot?

My guess is the DNA came back human. Does the finding that all of these samples keep coming back human, dictate that Bigfoot must be some form of human? or does it dictate that humans are leaving the samples? If Bigfoot is a human, then what are we all wasting our time for?

I think the term "human" can be used either to refer to Modern sapiens or to refer to a number of our ancestors. So, with ancient DNA in hand, and using the broad sense of the word, there is room for bigfoot without it being exactly "US".

[Guest JC Johnson]

I am going to wait, because like everyone else, I have no choice. It is difficult, but that is the only option.

All of the speculation and in-fighting is not something I will be involved in, and I will tell you why.

There is only one reason that I am focusing on ...to hope for nothing but the best when this is finally presented. I can only hope, of course.

I have been let down before (as we all have) and have had to hold my tongue and yet again...wait.

I am hoping that this is accepted evidence to establish Sasquatch as a reality, because I have been waiting since my children were born...decades ago now...to tell them what I saw as a child.

All the talk of Sasquatch being so very close to human...if not human itself...only validates what it specifically was that I know I saw.

As long as the general public thinks that anyone that believes they exist - let alone claims to have seen a Sasquatch, to be quite possibly a fraud and lying at best, and mentally unstable in all probability, I cannot tell my story to my children.

I am a single father, and their trust in me being stable for them is of the highest importance.

But...if this evidence and "proof" really does come to pass, I will spend that night, the night of the announcement, talking with my children. I will tell them the story of my experience. One that is part of what makes me who I am today. The reason that "dad talks so much about Sasquatch all the time" will finally make sense to them.

The chance for this conversation has come and gone before, but this time I believe it is the real deal.

For me...that is what the Erickson Project is all about.

That conversation is what I am waiting for.

Just as Dr. Melba would distance herself from Richard Stubstad, as he does not know what he is talking about, and he did not sign an NDA. In the same token, what she has been working on for years, is not the Erickson Project. I'm sure he would like it to be so in name only. Don't let her research be overshadowed by Erickson. It's not his.

[Guest wudewasa]

Really? You think you're just a "couple hundred years" of genetic drift away from an 8' tall hairy wild man with prodigious speed and strength and a drastically modified foot structure?

As for breeding with modern humans, think about it. Let's say you want to keep the young people of your village from wandering too far on their own. You could tell them that there are bears or mountain lions out there that represent a threat, but your culture is one that places great value on tremendous acts of bravery. Run of the mill wildlife is not going to cut it. You need something bigger, smarter, and more sinister. You need something smart (that can't be outsmarted), something tremendously strong (that can't be overpowered), and for that added bit of fear something that is ambiguously part of the spirit world, e.g., a shape-shifter or some such. For that added punch to scare the snot out of your young girls, be sure to tell them that it will take them as its wives.

So what makes more sense (I fear I'll regret asking this): actual creatures that are notably different from us though still capable of interbreeding or mythical creatures to which that ability is ascribed?

Ha! Yes, and don't party too hard in the mead hall, as it may attract the wrath of Grendel!

You most likely know this, but the # 2 chromosomal fusion in humans creates a lesser chromosome number than chimpanzees.

So, this further complicates the ability of humans to successfully breed with apes.

[Guest]

Actually, we do have a number of stories of BF's breeding with humans.

Note that stories do not constitute credible evidence. Also, not one of your stories of human x bigfoot hybridization purports to claim the production of viable offspring. Viable offspring are those that can, in turn, breed successfully. If mules were always viable, horses and donkeys would be a single species.

[norseman]

Really? You think you're just a "couple hundred years" of genetic drift away from an 8' tall hairy wild man with prodigious speed and strength and a drastically modified foot structure?

Well.........maybe some of us.

As for breeding with modern humans, think about it. Let's say you want to keep the young people of your village from wandering too far on their own. You could tell them that there are bears or mountain lions out there that represent a threat, but your culture is one that places great value on tremendous acts of bravery. Run of the mill wildlife is not going to cut it. You need something bigger, smarter, and more sinister. You need something smart (that can't be outsmarted), something tremendously strong (that can't be overpowered), and for that added bit of fear something that is ambiguously part of the spirit world, e.g., a shape-shifter or some such. For that added punch to scare the snot out of your young girls, be sure to tell them that it will take them as its wives.

So what makes more sense (I fear I'll regret asking this): actual creatures that are notably different from us though still capable of interbreeding or mythical creatures to which that ability is ascribed?

True, but how many accounts are there of apes trying to breed humans?

Two reports come to mind..........the original owner of Oliver the walking Bonobo sold him after his repeated advances at his wife.

And Julia Roberts had a run in with a male Orang, while visiting the park there. Must have been the red hair.....

I'm not saying that any sort of coupling between human and ape would result in offspring, but what I'm saying is that it's certainly plausible that it will be ATTEMPTED. I think it goes without saying that if your a ovulating female and there are apes around, you may not want to go pick berries by yourself.

[Guest]

Really? You think you're just a "couple hundred years" of genetic drift away from an 8' tall hairy wild man with prodigious speed and strength and a drastically modified foot structure?

As for breeding with modern humans, think about it. Let's say you want to keep the young people of your village from wandering too far on their own. You could tell them that there are bears or mountain lions out there that represent a threat, but your culture is one that places great value on tremendous acts of bravery. Run of the mill wildlife is not going to cut it. You need something bigger, smarter, and more sinister. You need something smart (that can't be outsmarted), something tremendously strong (that can't be overpowered), and for that added bit of fear something that is ambiguously part of the spirit world, e.g., a shape-shifter or some such. For that added punch to scare the snot out of your young girls, be sure to tell them that it will take them as its wives.

So what makes more sense (I fear I'll regret asking this): actual creatures that are notably different from us though still capable of interbreeding or mythical creatures to which that ability is ascribed?

I'm surprised you still doubt! Did you read the clip JDL provided in the "Scientific Approach" thread? As I claimed there is a conspiracy to keep BF ignored, JDL recanted that it isn't really a conspiracy, merely a "let dogs lie" attitude.

Does things not add up to you now? Are you the type person that if someone tells you don't go in that room there's a tiger in there killing people...you just have to go see for your self?

I would think science should feel a little bit...late. There are average persons such as myself who know BF is real...yet they have to wait until either they have personally seen a body, or a approved source (in the scientific community) TELLS them this. Are people who work in science really bright? A simple person as myself (without my own sighting) could read the information on the internet and conclude BF is a real creature.

P.S. No I do not believe a couple hundred years would alter a group of natives significantly. However, we aren't sure. There have been controlled tests where organisms have altered their appearance (not drastically) in shorter time ie, stickleback fish.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Delta Zu