My Perspective and questions for you all

[Catmandoo]

3 hours ago, James33 said:

Isn't it already a law against killing one in certain states or areas? I don't see how much would really change unless Sasquatch just started co-mingling with campers on a first name basis. 

 

James33, there are 2 counties in Washington State with ordinances prohibiting the shooting/killing of a sasquatch. They are old.  Also, if a sasquatch is killed, the matter is referred to the coroner to factor in the possibility of murder charges.

 

For general reading, you may find the site    'bigfootencounters.com'  interesting .I do not agree with everything that Bobbie Short posted. She passed in 2013. The only new update is a link to her book. She had a section on 'Hoaxes, Rumors' Read it.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Catmandoo

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, James33 said:

Whole new race of humans?  That's beyond a stretch, IMO.  You are assuming it's DNA is all human. What evidence do you have? 

 

Footprints and the film of Patty’s foot. That is NOT an apes foot with an opposed big toe. It is shaped like a humans, even if it features a mid-tarsal flexibility, and is clearly the foot of a bipedal primate like man. On that basis alone, if it were to be taxonomically named, it would be of the genus “Homo”, which is Latin for “human being”:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

 

Homo (Latin homō "human being") is the genus that encompasses the extant species Homo sapiens (modern humans), plus several extinct species classified as either ancestral to or closely related to modern humans (depending on a species), most notably Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis. The genus is taken to emerge with the appearance of  Homo habilis, just more than two million years ago.^[2]Homo is derived from the genus Australopithecus, which itself had previously split from the lineage of Pan, the chimpanzees.^[3] Taxonomically, Homo is the only genus assigned to the subtribe Hominina which, with the subtribes Australopithecina and Panina, comprise the tribe Hominini........

 

 

[Catmandoo]

Jane  Goodall was an experienced field researcher before her work with gorillas.  She was with Leaky at Olduvai Gorge.  She switched to behavior and departed the 'bone field'.  I have always considered the 'estrogen versus testosterone' factor when humans have encounters with wild animals.  The estrogen factor is not always a win-win scenario. An example is brown bears in Alaska. Female brown bears have a "jealous female response".  It is an attack.   Wild animals are not predictable.

[SWWASAS]

BF exhibit all characteristics of the Homo  genus designation.      BF is likely not homo sapiens,  due to differences, but certainly point by point, match the description of the homo genus.     This has to impact and confuse DNA results.      That humans are the known living member of the homo genus,  DNA testing always points to human or contamination.  

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

Morphology
Humans can be distinguished from other living apes by a strikingly enlarged brain, reduced hair coverage on most parts of the body, and by a suite of skeletal and muscular adaptations associated with habitual bipedal locomotion, including the loss of the grasping ability of the foot. Humans are terrestrial bipeds with a limited ability to swim and dive that must be learned.  The species shows strong variation in body size and proportions, and pigmentation, some of which can be related to the wide range of environments in which Homo sapiens lives. Humans exhibit moderate sexual dimorphism in body size.
 

Nutrition
Humans are opportunistic omnivores, showing remarkable ingenuity in extracting, producing, processing and preserving foods. Humans are the only species that can control or make fire, and cooking is practiced by all known extant human groups.Regional variations in diet are influenced by availability within a particular environment, by cultural traditions such as food preferences and avoidances, and even genetic factors. Lactase persistence, which allows some people to consume milk and dairy products throughout life, is a recent adaptation to dairy consumption that would only have been useful among populations with a tradition of dairy farming.

Life cycle
Human social structure is highly variable. Traditional arrangements that may be formalised through marriage include monogamous pairs as well as one-male multi female groups and, more rarely, one-female multi-male groups.Both males and females may disperse from their natal community. Human infants are born in a relatively immature state and remain dependent on adult carers for several years.Inter birth intervals are relatively short such that females may have multiple dependent offspring at different stages of developmental maturity. Other members of a community or extended family network may contribute to the care of dependent children, including fathers, older siblings and grandparents.Humans are typically diurnal and sleep in temporary or permanent shelters at night. Family groups often have exclusive use of a shared sleeping space or residence that may serve as a home base for extensive periods.

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by SWWASAS

[salubrious]

3 hours ago, James33 said:

Whole new race of humans?  That's beyond a stretch, IMO.  You are assuming it's DNA is all human. What evidence do you have? 

 

Its pretty well-known that many organisms have two aspects to better exploit the environment. The two aspects are 'robust' and 'gracile'. Some examples: ravens and crows, wolves and coyotes, rats and mice. Its well understood that humans are the gracile form of our species. Its a theory that our robust form is extinct. I can tell you that the two individuals I encountered were quite purposeful and obviously self-aware. Who knows if they are our actual robust form (one theory holds that Neanderthals are our robust form); I can't say anything about that.

[James33]

2 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Wow, you are completely oblivious to the history of bigfoot research, aren't you?   In earlier days quite a good number of samples were tested.   All showed either no testable DNA (lack of a medula) or the DNA present always looked too human to comply with the ape-camp theory of the day so, because the testing was so expensive, testing was discontinued and the sample disposed of according to established protocols  rather than being preserved to re-test when the technology improved.

 

"It would be better to sit by quietly and have people wonder if you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove their last doubt."  

 

I suggest some catch-up reading before participating further.    Meldrum's book is a decent start, but only a start.   A lot is older, predates the expansion of internet use, so you'll have to buy and read real books, a web search won't suffice.    They are not necessarily right but you can't rationally address what they say until you've read it.

 

MIB

 

No need to be a jerk.  I have had an interest in cryptids since I saw Legend of Boggy Creek when it came out in the theater and I was 7.  I'm no expert but I am still very curious.  I've ordered Meldrum's paperback book (thanks for assuming I don't read real books too....).  I'm not planning on becoming an "expert" in this - I just enjoy reading and discussing it. And thanks to all of you on the forum that have participated in this thread, answered my questions, and made me feel welcome. 

 

I follow a couple of simple concepts - Sagan's standard,  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and Occam's Razor - the simplest solution tends to be the correct one.  When I hear things like bigfoot can do telepathy, or he's from outer space, or another dimension etc. I dismiss these immediately.  DNA definitely doesn't fall into that camp, but which is more likely?  The DNA samples were contaminated by poor fieldwork handling, or  botched testing or that bigfoot (which hasn't been proven to exist) is a human?  Occam's Razor - probably the former, not the latter. 

 

I'm also willing to allow the evidence, truth, and facts to change my thinking and belief.  I don't go looking to find facts to support my belief - I prefer to let the facts lead to a conclusion, no matter if it's what I was hoping for or not. 

 

James

 

[MIB]

I'm snipping 3 specific sections but I agree with essentially everything you said.

 

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

I have personally exchanged emails over a long time with two different habituators.      The following comments are a compilation of my experience with them.

 

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

The best model for what seems to happen is the Stockholm syndrome.

 

Absolutely!  

 

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

 in my experience the humans involved have deep seated psychological problems that long predate the introduction of BF into the mix

 

I can vouch for that from personal experience plus or minus one specific instance.    I'm not saying it is not so in that instance, I'm only saying the psychological problems didn't manifest in our interaction.   However, some of the actions taken were not what I'd call rational, I'm merely uncertain whether to attribute them to psychological problems other than Stockholm syndrome or not.

 

It is very clear in all situations their responses are not what I think I would have done, but then, I'm not experiencing the level of trauma they appear to have experienced.    The PTSD symptoms are real whether the triggering trauma was real or imagined.

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

6 minutes ago, James33 said:

No need to be a jerk.  I have had an interest in cryptids since I saw Legend of Boggy Creek when it came out in the theater and I was 7.  I'm no expert but I am still very curious.  I've ordered Meldrum's paperback book (thanks for assuming I don't read real books too....).  I'm not planning on becoming an "expert" in this - I just enjoy reading and discussing it. And thanks to all of you on the forum that have participated in this thread, answered my questions, and made me feel welcome. 

 

I follow a couple of simple concepts - Sagan's standard,  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and Occam's Razor - the simplest solution tends to be the correct one.  When I hear things like bigfoot can do telepathy, or he's from outer space, or another dimension etc. I dismiss these immediately.  DNA definitely doesn't fall into that camp, but which is more likely?  The DNA samples were contaminated by poor fieldwork handling, or  botched testing or that bigfoot (which hasn't been proven to exist) is a human?  Occam's Razor - probably the former, not the latter. 

 

I'm also willing to allow the evidence, truth, and facts to change my thinking and belief.  I don't go looking to find facts to support my belief - I prefer to let the facts lead to a conclusion, no matter if it's what I was hoping for or not. 

 

James

 

Be careful about blanket dismissal of statements made by others.    That throws you into the belief camp and that starts deviation from true science.     You have every right to expect evidence to back up the woo woo stuff suggested by others.    (Telepathy,  extra terrestrial, other dimensions, etc.)     The problem being that those that espouse such beliefs rarely do anything to provide evidence to support them.   In some cases they could but refuse to do so.    Some even claiming that BF would be offended if they did.     I listen to all, and look for confirmation with experienced  BF behavior or experimental results discovered by others.      I keep banging the drum for those who do have BF contact to experiment.    Some of these claims could be supported by experimentation.    BF may chose not to participate with experimentation but it does not hurt to try.    We, for example, do not know if BF can see colors.     Those that have gifting stations could experiment and only put gifts in red containers.    With time,   if BF stopped opening anything not red colored,  we would know they can see the red color.   

[SWWASAS]

28 minutes ago, MIB said:

I can vouch for that from personal experience plus or minus one specific instance.    I'm not saying it is not so in that instance, I'm only saying the psychological problems didn't manifest in our interaction.   However, some of the actions taken were not what I'd call rational, I'm merely uncertain whether to attribute them to psychological problems other than Stockholm syndrome or not.

 

It is very clear in all situations their responses are not what I think I would have done, but then, I'm not experiencing the level of trauma they appear to have experienced.    The PTSD symptoms are real whether the triggering trauma was real or imagined.

 

MIB

You would have to have some sort of machine like personality not to be affected by a BF encounter.    I cannot imagine a more intense thing happening other than a near death experience.     I had a recorder running during my first encounter and did not realize how much I reacted until I listened to the recording afterwords.    I thought I was cool and calm but my breathing on the recorder sounded like I had run a mile.    PTSD is definitely to be expected to some extent.    In my case I at that point I had found footprints and it was not a total surprise they were out there.    I feel for some hunter who has spent his life in the woods, always considered BF a myth,  and has a face to face encounter.    That has to be world shaking experience.   

[ioyza]

2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

The question in my mind is some sort of human psychological issue a result or a prerequisite for some sort of relationship with BF.

 

Pretty interesting question, have you considered it through the lens of Christopher Noel's autistic savant theory? Perhaps what we think of as "psychological problems" in these cases are better thought of as occupying a very different part of a psychological spectrum than most humans. I haven't noticed that thread in habituator accounts but the first thing that popped in my head is it certainly fits for Mike of Enoch.

 

Quote

Goodall was not a normal person but had special qualities that allowed her to ignore the danger and introduce herself into Mountain Gorilla groups.    Someone like that is needed to do the same thing with a group of BF.  

 

Goodall was chimps, Fosey was gorillas, and Fosey definitely had some "special qualities" too, eventually living alone on the mountain and drinking a lot, tormenting poachers convincing them she was a witch, wearing masks, lighting firecrackers, until they finally murdered her... 

 

Yeah, really interesting angle.

[BC witness]

SWWASAS, I grew up in what is generally considered Sasquatch central, the Fraser Valley of BC, so I had exposure to written and oral stories of the creature from the time I was old enough to read. When I had my own sighting in the late '70s, I was about 33, and the experience, while amazing, could not be called "world shaking", for a couple of reasons. The first is that there was already a mindset of "could be real", and the second is that the encounter was not face to face, but more observational, at a distance of 100+ yards in bright afternoon sun. My remembrance of my reaction to the event was "Wow, they really do exist out here!". I carried on with my life, and only got into seriously looking for another encounter after semi retiring a few years back.

[hiflier]

34 minutes ago, James33 said:

I'm also willing to allow the evidence, truth, and facts to change my thinking and belief.  I don't go looking to find facts to support my belief - I prefer to let the facts lead to a conclusion, no matter if it's what I was hoping for or not.

 

Same here. True story: I was on the fence for four years- 51% for existence vs. 49% against. The 51% was because I was open to the possibility coupled with a number of reports from various authorities like Forestry Service personnel and LEO's. Then I began to really look at the PGF and study what was on it. When I discovered a shoulder to height ratio of 2.3:1 that the subject in the film demonstrated it sealed the deal. The subject in the film was a real creature and that creature was a female Sasquatch.

 

In the case of me looking at factual evidence to help lead to any conclusions? that one piece of research succeeded in breaking through my own personal deadlock on the issue existence. And the realization hit me pretty hard let me tell you. I have never had an encounter but to me that awakening was the next best thing. It certainly resulted in me having a new dialogue and perspective for the last 12 months or so. People may wonder why I am so suspicious and convinced that the knowledge of Sasquatch by a government person or agency has to be a fact. I think that because if I can figure out a shoulder ratio and see that it is far, far outside the norm then others a lot smarter than me can too. The smarter ones being zoologists, anthropologists, biologists, departments of natural resources, and who knows who else.

 

Now, wanna hear my Sasqautch DNA testing rant? May as well as long as you are reading.....In all of the suspected Bigfoot DNA studies done to date has EVERYONE doing the testing been negligent in the handling of the samples? Has EVERYONE doing the testing not thought to have a control where anyone and everyone who came in contact with the samples was also tested so that their DNA could be filtered out. That EVERYONE has somehow failed in performing the most basic protocols because ALL of their Lab 101 training suddenly vanished and, more to the point, ONLY when handling supposed Sasquatch samples? Does this even sound possible? That EVERYONE involved in ANY Sasquatch DNA samples ever done were so collectively inept that EVERY sample was contaminated??!!

 

Sure, I may come across as being a little too intense for a Forum, but it is these kinds of arguments that speak loudest when it comes to the subject of people not wanting the existence of Sasquatch to be disclosed. In other words, DNA testing is beautiful, precise, universally done in crime labs, universities, biology labs, ancestry websites, and everywhere else by the billions- and done correctly and by the book.........except in a lab that is testing Sasquatch samples. Sorry folks, ain't buying it.

[MIB]

^^^^ Have to agree with that "rant."    What we're expected to believe defies logic, defies statistics, defies Occam's Razor ... and I'm not buying it, either.   Either BF is barely distinguishable from human and only then with great effort or there's an active conspiracy to suppress the actual test results.

 

MIB

Edited November 6, 2018 by MIB

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, James33 said:

.........I follow a couple of simple concepts - Sagan's standard,  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and Occam's Razor - the simplest solution tends to be the correct one........

 

There has been extraordinary evidence galore regarding sasquatches: the PG film, footprint evidence galore, aboriginal folklore, sighting reports, game cam pics, other videos, sworn statements, police reports, police evidence collection, and on and on. 

 

No proof (which can and will only consist of a carcass), but lots and lots of evidence.

 

With regard to Occam’s Razor, the simplest solution is that there is a very small population of relic hominids out there.

[hiflier]

Thank you MIB. A DNA argument such as the one present needs to be laid out with a certain level of precision simply for the sake of its own clarity. I may NOT follow that therefore a lab, any lab, may be working under a cloud of fear when conducting Sasquatch DNA testing of some sort. Would it be conceivable though that a given lab, while being completely free to conduct those tests, would be under any pressure to NOT disclose the results? Evidently that must not be the case because labs HAVE released their results. Think at least of Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach's (Ohio State University) initial investigations (the bolding is mine):

https://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/dnatests.htm

 

"Status of the DNA Analysis
of Hair Samples at Ohio State Univ.
 

On August 5, 1995, two separate sets of hair samples were collected by three persons (P. Freeman, B. Laughery, and W. Sumerlin) in the Blue Mountains east of Walla Walla, Washington. The group first tracked three sets of fresh foot prints, then found freshly twisted-off trees with hair caught in them, and within a short time later observed a sasquatch at less than 100 feet with binoculars. The hair was sent to Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach (Beaverton, Oregon), who determined microscopically that the hair appeared to have come from two individuals of the same species, that it differed in color, length and hair growth cycle between the two sets, had not been not cut, and was indistinguishable from human hair by any criterion.

 

Hence, DNA analysis suggested itself as the only methodology of promise. Through a nation-wide search of pertinent laboratories and some fortuitous contacts, W.H.F. located an investigator (Dr. P. Fuerst) in the Department of Molecular Genetics of Ohio State University, who had a specific interest in DNA analysis of Wildman and sasquatch hair. The hair underwent lengthy and concerted analytical study by Dr. Fuerst and a graduate student, J. A. Poe, both with extensive experience in hair DNA analysis.

 

Although the ultimate results have not generated a diagnostic sequence of a mitochondrial gene, which might have yielded information on the relationship of the sasquatch to other primates, we nonetheless decided to publish the outcome rather than let the study fade away as most preceding such events have.

As of January 1998, the article is virtually finished except for some illustrative material and will be shortly submitted to the Journal of Cryptozoology.

 

W. Henner Fahrenbach Ph.D."

 

 

As far as the last phrase that I bolded and underlined? What does Dr. Fahrenback mean when he said, "......rather than let the study fade away as most preceding such events have."?