The case for Homo Erectus

[hiflier]

13 minutes ago, Willystyle said:

I guess I just thought Science was much closer to solving this whole mystery though than what is actually the case.

 

There is no scientific investigation into this subject. And nothing anyone has done, no matter who it is, has moved science to even look at it. I think deep down, and maybe even NOT so deep down, we all know what it would take to get science to take notice. Yes, it would be way out of their comfort zone, and it would be way out of ours to get the ball rolling. No one said it would be easy or fun or even the least bit enjoyable. In truth it would be stressful for all parties involved considering that risking putting a stop to resource harvesting would be putting everyone, scientists included into high risk territory.

 

But choices are few. Leave things as they are or go all out. Anything in between will just get knocked aside. Question: If a movement by science to actually go after this creature should ever materialize would there be a preemptive move to thwart discovery by a program to go out and kill all the Sasquatches rather than have the creatures brought to light? Serious question. Could science move in such a way as to not allow that to happen? 

[hiflier]

<crickets>

[SWWASAS]

Meldrum himself gave a presentation several years ago in which he mentioned that through much of human prehistory we shared the planet with two and sometimes three other high level primate species.     We and Neanderthal were compatible enough to interbreed giving me 1.2 percent of them in my woodpile.   If presently we are the only higher level primate,   it is the first time in millions of years.      Some misunderstanding of DNA seems to pop up now and then.   As is often mentioned we and chimpanzee DNA are 98.8 percent identical because we shared a common ancestor 6 or 7 million years ago.     What if BF shared the same ancestor but did not interbreed since?    Or did interbreed at times but then diverged.    That would make our DNA and BF likewise similar with similar markers.   .    Any interbreeding since the chimpanzee would throw in markers that humans carry.   In the case of my DNA,   I have 16 markers placing my ancestors at certain places and times.    The earliest was the P305 marker placing my ancestry in Africa more than 100,000 years ago.  That was followed by the M42 and then the M168 markers in East Africa then the Rift Valley 70,600 years ago.    Each of the 16 DNA markers or sequences of DNA places my ancestors more recently in time.    .... They exited Africa before 60,000 years ago when they arrived in Asia.    BF interbreeding with humans ancestors at any time would introduce similar DNA markers.  My ancestors were wanderers,  around Asia, then moving back to the NW and making it into Europe between 15,000 to 17,000 years ago.    What if BF migrated to Asia and stayed put, until crossing the Bering Land bridge during one of the several ice ages?     If BF DNA had my P231 marker from Central Asia 25,000 to 30,000 years ago,  in its DNA sequence, someone would assume it is human or its DNA was corrupted with human DNA with that marker.     The problem being you have to accept existence of another species to accept strange DNA marker results and not write them off to contamination.        The only way that will be resolved is collect DNA from a BF on a lab table.  

Edited August 11, 2019 by SWWASAS

[MIB]

17 hours ago, hiflier said:

<crickets>

 

Crickets from me because I was ... sleeping.   Priorities!!

 

If there is a coverup .. well, it depends.   How large, how organized, how well funded, and for what purpose?    At what point does the damage from continuing the coverup outweigh the damage from discovery of bigfoot?   I think that's the core of the question and each person's answer likely is rooted in what they think bigfoot is, thus the reason for the coverup.   

 

The best we could hope for is the reasons are not that important and, in the face of great effort coming, those in charge of the coverup just throw their hands in the air, say "forget" it, and let the discovery proceed .. maybe spend their time and effort concealing the coverup itself rather than trying to hide bigfoot.   

 

Worst case, though, if there is some serious reason for hiding bigfoot's existence, then the scientists are putting themselves in grave danger.    I do not think gov't has any delusion of being able to find and kill every last bigfoot.  If they try that and even one escapes, they've guaranteed that proving existence will happen and all the consequences stemming from proof will happen.   If there is a conspiracy, I don't believe they'll risk it.   Alternately, the scientists involved might be presented with an ultimatum: stand down or you and your family die.   It wouldn't be hard to concoct a story that they were all working on some dangerous new contagion, there was an "incident", and all contracted it and perished.   It seems more feasible for conspirators to do that successfully than to kill the bigfoots. 

 

Alternately, they tell us WHY the bigfoots are a danger that must be ended, and then go ahead trying to kill them openly.   That might be the most likely.

 

I don't believe there's a cover up, though.   I think I'd have been told to stand down or face consequences.   Hasn't happened.

 

MIB

[norseman]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

Meldrum himself gave a presentation several years ago in which he mentioned that through much of human prehistory we shared the planet with two and sometimes three other high level primate species.     We and Neanderthal were compatible enough to interbreed giving me 1.2 percent of them in my woodpile.   If presently we are the only higher level primate,   it is the first time in millions of years.      Some misunderstanding of DNA seems to pop up now and then.   As is often mentioned we and chimpanzee DNA are 98.8 percent identical because we shared a common ancestor 6 or 7 million years ago.     What if BF shared the same ancestor but did not interbreed since?    Or did interbreed at times but then diverged.    That would make our DNA and BF likewise similar with similar markers.   .    Any interbreeding since the chimpanzee would throw in markers that humans carry.   In the case of my DNA,   I have 16 markers placing my ancestors at certain places and times.    The earliest was the P305 marker placing my ancestry in Africa more than 100,000 years ago.  That was followed by the M42 and then the M168 markers in East Africa then the Rift Valley 70,600 years ago.    Each of the 16 DNA markers or sequences of DNA places my ancestors more recently in time.    .... They exited Africa before 60,000 years ago when they arrived in Asia.    BF interbreeding with humans ancestors at any time would introduce similar DNA markers.  My ancestors were wanderers,  around Asia, then moving back to the NW and making it into Europe between 15,000 to 17,000 years ago.    What if BF migrated to Asia and stayed put, until crossing the Bering Land bridge during one of the several ice ages?     If BF DNA had my P231 marker from Central Asia 25,000 to 30,000 years ago,  in its DNA sequence, someone would assume it is human or its DNA was corrupted with human DNA with that marker.     The problem being you have to accept existence of another species to accept strange DNA marker results and not write them off to contamination.        The only way that will be resolved is collect DNA from a BF on a lab table.  

 

I do not think we are only separated by 30,000 years. That would make them modern human and I don’t see the evidence to support that.

 

If our evidence is valid. Like track casts, the PGF, etc.

 

I also do not think we are compatible sexually. If we were I think we would have found it in Native American populations by now. Just like we find Neanderthal and Denisovan genetics in certain populations of modern humans.

[MIB]

57 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

I do not think we are only separated by 30,000 years. That would make them modern human and I don’t see the evidence to support that.

 

Right.  I think that is too close.

 

Quote

If our evidence is valid. Like track casts, the PGF, etc.

 

Right.  And our evidence appears to be evidence of SOMETHING.

 

Quote

I also do not think we are compatible sexually. If we were I think we would have found it in Native American populations by now. Just like we find Neanderthal and Denisovan genetics in certain populations of modern humans.

 

If what Paulides wrote is correct (either Tribal Bigfoot or The Hoopa Project) based on the tribal lore from the area, a cross is almost possible, but either is stillborn or dies as an infant.  Just the thinnest fraction too far apart.  Take it with a grain of salt, definitely, but consider the implications anyway: I would say that would put them a little farther apart from us than we were from Neanderthal since that cross was viable enough to survive to reproduce and leave some Neanderthal DNA in most of us alive today.  

 

MIB

 

Edited August 11, 2019 by MIB

[norseman]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

Right.  I think that is too close.

 

 

Right.  And our evidence appears to be evidence of SOMETHING.

 

 

If what Paulides wrote is correct (either Tribal Bigfoot or The Hoopa Project) based on the tribal lore from the area, a cross is almost possible, but either is stillborn or dies as an infant.  Just the thinnest fraction too far apart.  Take it with a grain of salt, definitely, but consider the implications anyway: I would say that would put them a little farther apart from us than we were from Neanderthal since that cross was viable enough to survive to reproduce and leave some Neanderthal DNA in most of us alive today.  

 

MIB

 

 

But barely.

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/humans-and-neanderthals-may-have-had-trouble-making-male-babies-180958701/

[SWWASAS]

There is another factor related to a cross between a male BF and a captured First Peoples woman.       Without access to fire,  bed clothing etc, it is unlikely that a BF / human cross baby would make it through the first winter even if it were genetically viable. For sure the woman's mother would not be available to provide stuff a normal grand parent does for a human baby.  Then when weened, the baby would need to be able to tolerate raw foods to be able to survive.    I think it very unlikely the mother could last long on raw meat either.  

[SWWASAS]

4 hours ago, norseman said:

 

I do not think we are only separated by 30,000 years. That would make them modern human and I don’t see the evidence to support that.

 

If our evidence is valid. Like track casts, the PGF, etc.

 

I also do not think we are compatible sexually. If we were I think we would have found it in Native American populations by now. Just like we find Neanderthal and Denisovan genetics in certain populations of modern humans.

Well modern humans and Neanderthal were effectively separated by 30,000 years of evolution and succeeded in successful interbreeding when they coexisted.     As far as Native American populations I read someplace that very little DNA tribal  testing has been done because of lack of interest on their part and their pure blood lines are nearly non-existent now due to interbreeding with Europeans.   Perhaps the reluctance to get tested is because tribal affiliation is worth sharing casino money and individuals do not want to be disassociated with the tribes based on  DNA evidence.      Whole tribes no longer exist and the NA DNA waters are getting muddier every day.   .   

[norseman]

3 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Well modern humans and Neanderthal were effectively separated by 30,000 years of evolution and succeeded in successful interbreeding when they coexisted.     As far as Native American populations I read someplace that very little DNA tribal  testing has been done because of lack of interest on their part and their pure blood lines are nearly non-existent now due to interbreeding with Europeans.   Perhaps the reluctance to get tested is because tribal affiliation is worth sharing casino money and individuals do not want to be disassociated with the tribes based on  DNA evidence.      Whole tribes no longer exist and the NA DNA waters are getting muddier every day.   .   

 

Modern humans and Neanderthals were not completely successful.

 

Male hybrids were either stillborn or sterile. Resulting in the Neanderthal Y chromosome going extinct.

 

The female hybrids that were fertile and survived were bred back into the modern human population. Which resulted in the small amount of Thal DNA we see today in the modern population.

[Incorrigible1]

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/first-people-americas-came-sea-ancient-tools-unearthed-idaho-river-suggest

 

• •  
• •  
• •  

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

Ancient people apparently followed rivers more than 500 kilometers inland to Cooper's Ferry in western Idaho.

LOREN DAVIS

First people in the Americas came by sea, ancient tools unearthed by Idaho river suggest

By Lizzie WadeAug. 29, 2019 , 2:00 PM

About 16,000 years ago, on the banks of a river in western Idaho, people kindled fires, shaped stone blades and spearpoints, and butchered large mammals. All were routine activities in prehistory, but their legacy today is anything but. The charcoal and bone left at that ancient site, now called Cooper’s Ferry, are some 16,000 years old—the oldest radiocarbon-dated record of human presence in North America, according to work reported this week in Science.

The findings do more than add a few centuries to the timeline of people in the Americas. They also shore up a new picture of how humans first arrived, by showing that people lived at Cooper’s Ferry more than 1 millennium before melting glaciers opened an ice-free corridor through Canada about 14,800 years ago. That implies the first people in the Americas must have come by sea, moving rapidly down the Pacific coast and up rivers. The dates from Cooper’s Ferry “fit really nicely with the [coastal] model that we’re increasingly getting a consensus on from genetics and archaeology,” says Jennifer Raff, a geneticist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence who studies the peopling of the Americas.

The Clovis people, big game hunters who made characteristic stone tools dated to about 13,000 years ago, were once thought to have been the first to reach the Americas, presumably through the ice-free corridor. But a handful of earlier sites have persuaded many researchers that the coastal route is more likely. Archaeologists have questioned the signs of occupation at some putative pre-Clovis sites, but the stone tools and dating at Cooper’s Ferry pass the test with flying colors, says David Meltzer, an archaeologist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. “It’s pre-Clovis. I’m convinced.”

Edited September 4, 2019 by Incorrigible1

[hiflier]

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 2:42 PM, Incorrigible1 said:

That implies the first people in the Americas must have come by sea, moving rapidly down the Pacific coast and up rivers.

 

OR....they were already here from a previous migration. Thinking of the mastodon butchering find in San Diego at 130,000 years bp. What I'm saying is that the find in Idaho may have been left behind as the glaciers began to move South through Idaho?

[Incorrigible1]

3 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

OR....they were already here from a previous migration. Thinking of the mastodon butchering find in San Diego at 130,000 years bp. What I'm saying is that the find in Idaho may have been left behind as the glaciers began to move South through Idaho?

That leaves 100k years of habitation without evidence (yet found). That's a stretch. I would be thrilled if your proposal was found correct.

[Incorrigible1]

Scientists recreate what Neanderthals might look like today. Suit and all.

 

 

[NathanFooter]

3 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Scientists recreate what Neanderthals might look like today. Suit and all.

 

 

 

  Yeah right, that is clearly a man in a suit.   Case closed.