What do you think Bigfoot is?

[SWWASAS]

6 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

 

worth looking into but my recollection is the giganto fossils had zero salvageable DNA.

 

Fossils are by definition organic material that has been replaced with inorganic minerals.    A genuine fossil would contain zero organic material and its associated DNA.   Bone or teeth in various states of preservation may contain DNA because of being encased in hard material that protects it from being destroyed by bacterial action.  

[Arvedis]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

Fossils are by definition organic material that has been replaced with inorganic minerals.    A genuine fossil would contain zero organic material and its associated DNA.   Bone or teeth in various states of preservation may contain DNA because of being encased in hard material that protects it from being destroyed by bacterial action.  

 

Just going by memory here but I recall they were only able  to determine its diet and some behavior through teeth.

[RedHawk454]

8 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Everything about the phenomenon is theory, but the more evidence gathered over the years strengthens some of the theories. Over the past 20 years, the repeated "human" results of many DNA examinations, the "ghost" markings in some DNA test results, and the recent additions to the human family of Denisovans and Hobbits all strengthen the theory that these creatures are members of the homo genus. It's not fact, it's just a stronger theory now, and that's "just the way it is".

 

 

Wouldnt BiGFo0Tery be nothing but conjecture?

[RedHawk454]

How many here’s believe in Ketchum’s report?

[Madison5716]

Late to this, but here's my two cents.

 

8-9 million years ago, dryopithecines in Africa split into two lines - one that led to gorillas and the other to humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos.  At 7 million years ago, another split happened between chimpanzees and bonobos from early ancestral hominins that became humans. I've heard during the Miocene epoch, there were at least 50 types of great apes. I think bigfoot originated somewhere back around there, probably interbred with early humans (it seems we slept around a lot, since we also have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA), and became a new species. It self-selected to become nocturnal and gigantic size, which is our opposite. They and us are similar, but we share this world by occupying opposite niches - we are tool users, hairless and live our lives in communities, being out and about primarily in the daytime.  They don't need tools, rely upon their strength and speed, are hirsute and are primarily nocturnal, living singly or in small family groupings. They are also very intelligent,  but in different ways. So, yes, in the great ape family, but similar to how we are great apes, but more.

 

 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Madison5716

[Arvedis]

1 hour ago, RedHawk454 said:

How many here’s believe in Ketchum’s report?

 

I'm not surprised by the results, which seems legit (part human, park unknown) but I find the cast of characters involved to not be credible.  The financier should have just kept it to a very small circle of the best people he could find.  Hiring Ketchum was a mistake. She became the target of all the criticism but there were lots more people involved.  What sunk things was how they presented the data. They fired their PR person and replaced her with the blueberry bagel habituator lady  (she had no experience at all in that sort of thing or anything scientific). Igor Burtsev was a loose cannon and installed himself as the voice of the group, making premature announcements on facebook that confused everything (which people blogged about and got all the crazy theories connected with the data).  Burtsev decided that his opinion was what the study should reflect. He's not arrogant about it, just a sham scientist. He still hangs out with the blueberry bagel lady AND janice carter coy.  It's on his FB pages.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Arvedis

[CallyCat]

I don't know what bigfoot is, but whatever it might be, I think it's on its way out (extinction) , otherwise, the species wouldn't be so elusive.

[NatFoot]

11 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Everything about the phenomenon is theory, but the more evidence gathered over the years strengthens some of the theories. Over the past 20 years, the repeated "human" results of many DNA examinations, the "ghost" markings in some DNA test results, and the recent additions to the human family of Denisovans and Hobbits all strengthen the theory that these creatures are members of the homo genus. It's not fact, it's just a stronger theory now, and that's "just the way it is".

 

I get it.

 

I also understand your POV and I think your "I know it's this way about the .gov and others" is clouding what I used to think was an open and logical mind (I know you still are a logical guy).

 

Maybe I'm not expressing myself well, as an MS degree holder - I feel not great about that, but...whatever. I've said my piece.

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, RedHawk454 said:

Wouldnt BiGFo0Tery be nothing but conjecture?

 

Yeah, but so is almost all of paleoanthropology. Again, that leaves lots of room for theory.

4 hours ago, RedHawk454 said:

How many here’s believe in Ketchum’s report?

 

I won't subscribe to their theory of a hybrid, but I believe hybrids occur, and I sure wish their DNA work could be compared to that of Sykes and then shared.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, NatFoot said:

........ I think your "I know it's this way about the .gov and others" is clouding what I used to think was an open and logical mind (I know you still are a logical guy)..........

 

I don't "know" that my theory about government(s) is accurate. I've thought about it from every angle I can imagine after considering current sasquatch evidence and government behavior, formed my theory, and am close to believing it. I don't think it's illogical, either. Government, now and over the past 500 years at a minimum, has well established that nearly anything is possible from them. Moreover, if millions of people can believe that extraterrestrial beings are visiting us and government either doesn't know about it or is covering it up, then my theory about government and sasquatches looks more than logical.

[Arvedis]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Yeah, but so is almost all of paleoanthropology. Again, that leaves lots of room for theory.

 

I won't subscribe to their theory of a hybrid, but I believe hybrids occur, and I sure wish their DNA work could be compared to that of Sykes and then shared.

 

what about Sykes' testing is compelling?  It's based on hair samples which don't hold up to scrutiny. Is that surprising?

 

Spoiler

"In the first ever systematic genetic survey, we have used rigorous decontamination followed by mitochondrial 12S RNA sequencing to identify the species origin of 30 hair samples attributed to anomalous primates. Two Himalayan samples, one from Ladakh, India, the other from Bhutan, had their closest genetic affinity with a Palaeolithic polar bear, Ursus maritimus. Otherwise the hairs were from a range of known extant mammals."

 

Edited September 1, 2019 by Arvedis

[Huntster]

15 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

what about Sykes' testing is compelling?  It's based on hair samples which don't hold up to scrutiny. Is that surprising?

 

LOL!......"compelling"! <Adjective> evidence!

 

For one thing, I focus on his testing of Zana's children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, not the supposed yeti samples. These samples are living, breathing people, in addition to the sampling of the remains of her direct son, who has only been dead within my lifetime. 

 

I find that "compelling" (lol!) because rabid anti-sasquatch entities have accepted it by proclaiming from the rooftops, "See?! Zana was a human!", and insisting that she was an African slave imported relatively recently while simultaneously chosing to ignore Sykes when he points out that her DNA matches no known Africans presently existing.

 

If his DNA sequencing from Zana's progeny matches what the Sasquatch Genome Project came up with in their "hybrid", there is "compelling" evidence that another human species is out there.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Huntster

[MIB]

5 hours ago, RedHawk454 said:

How many here’s believe in Ketchum’s report?

 

Nope.   I would like to have, but as a person with a formal science background, she failed in ways that are inexcusable totally separate from the science itself.    A scientific paper follows a very rigorous format.   I've read the paper.   She did not do it correctly .. my 8th grade science teacher, my high school science teachers, my college science professors .. would have all given her a F and told her to do it over if she expected to pass the class.   That is not debatable except from ignorance.   The content .. it is like this: she told us what she was giving us in the way of data.    A person might have to have subject-specific expertise to realize it, but the fact is what she delivered is not what she said she was delivering.    Again, not debatable except from ignorance though it is a more excusable "flavor" of ignorance.   

 

Even if you don't  understand that, by merely participating in this form for a short while, be very leery of her claim that 109 of 109 samples tested were positive for bigfoot.    That is a huge, HUGE red flag.     If you ALWAYS get bigfoot as your result, your testing methodology is flawed.    They are there.   I'm convinced some of her samples were indeed bigfoot, but it is an absolute slam dunk safe bet that at least half were not.

 

4 hours ago, Arvedis said:

I'm not surprised by the results, which seems legit (part human, park unknown) but I find the cast of characters involved to not be credible.  The financier should have just kept it to a very small circle of the best people he could find.  Hiring Ketchum was a mistake.

 

I don't think that's the way it all went down.    Ketchum was involved much earlier via her work with David Paulides when he was writing Tribal Bigfoot and The Hoopa Project.    This predates what we call the Ketchum project by at least 5 years.     It might be more correct to say she brought in the financier than the other way around.    Plus you have to decide which financier you're talking about, Hersom or Ericksen?   Both were involved with Ketchum at different times in different ways. 

 

Before you get too wrapped up in stuff, you have to understand what Ketchum was REALLY trying to prove, how, and understand that at least one of the financiers was on exactly the same page / in lock step with her on that agenda.

 

I think it as likely as anything that rather than finding something to support what they wanted to show, they found just the opposite and deliberately sabotaged their study so as to suppress what they actually found.    If you understand what they were trying to do, and why, that makes perfect sense.   Costs money to fail, but the pockets were deep enough to handle it.    Just a guess, though, not something I can document.

 

MIB

Edited September 1, 2019 by MIB

[guyzonthropus]

Ok, I have a couple takes on all this!!!(surprise surprise! "Should we get chairs?" lol

 

first off, MIB if youse were nekkid, isn't that the point where you want to get to talking before things "go to the next level" so to speak? That sounds like it was an incredible encounter! How very cool! ! Of course, it's easy for me to say what I would have done, since I have no such experience(!) But as a life-long noise maker/musician/creature yabberer(as opposed to whisperer) in such a context, i d think I'd be trying out all sorts of different things like rhythmic patterns with the knocks(which could pose issues akin to howls, as if they have codified patterns you don't know "what yer saying" ) but once the vocalizations start, I would, ideally and hypothetically speaking mimic their sounds, then see if they would mimic some of mine, and then go on to see just how well they can really imitate any sound.....(like I said, life-long noise maker) it is my own perspective that sounds/noises can present truer intent and meaning than our own specific verbal language and the expectations we have of it. 

This all leads into one of my reasons for resistance to the whole autistic ape idea...and that is based on what is seen within their linguistic systematics and patterns, a part of that being the transmission rate of their exchanges, which has been estimated to be at least twice the normal speed of human verbal interactions, which I , for one, find surprising, as it seems generally that the larger the creature, the slower the rate of communication. So what would this imply in a species 2-5x our own size? I would hesitate to say a diminished mental capacity....as has been proposed in the past, a large nocturnal apex predator which actively pursues large prey while navigating the hazards of a forest at night must have at least a decent "processor speed" in order to do so effectively, either that or as a species, they are exceedingly lucky!. As seen in other such active pursuit predators, the capacity to adjust, observe, react and redirect in response to preys evasions leads to more advanced cognitive prowess. For example, the monitor lizards are active foragers/pursuit predators that use sight, olfactory and sound sensory inputs while hunting, and have evolved to become perhaps the most cognitively advanced group of lizards alive today.

[guyzonthropus]

These reptiles are problem solvers. Another example may be seen in the honey badger, a versatile player of the African brush, whose intelligence is widely known. Now factor in the primate/hominid component, and that takes it to a new level. 

lack of tool use? Well, that we see...they may utilize wood instead of stone, a far more malleable material, and one that breaks down leaving little trace...fact? No, but plausible conjecture.

Above it was stated we are naked/hairless apes essentially defenseless, and therefore our drive to invent technologies was fueled. This does relate to the apparent configurative differences between ourselves and the big furries in regards to where we both came to our current forms, and the selective factors present in each contact. 

For a monkey living in the scrublands of subsaharan Africa making a living running down larger prey animals in a cooperative manner, where water is scare and food hard come by, it makes some sense to go relatively small and hairless, with a body wide profusion of sweat glands to assist in cooling. Needless to say, we don't yet know where sasquatch developed as  the species(or species complex) they are today, but I'd think it a safe bet that they weren't there along side us skippering through the Namibian bush after a kudu they split off the herd, for if that were so, either they or we would not here today....

As to what they are/are capable of, some of you folks know I take the "12 burner stove" approach..with pots on every one, each with its own combination of elements and aspects, taken from the reports and accounts of interactions. While some pots from the "what is it?" Stove are up front, near bubbling over with supportive/ integrating concepts, evidences, and frameworks, I don't discount the potentials of the more obscure pots in back, with their seemingly unlikely brewings of more implausible components....why? Because as soon as you begin selecting aspects you view a possible, you begin limiting your pathways of analysis, and worse still, biasing your entire inquiry. So, I keep multiple interpretations of what might just be running simultaneously, cuz like mamma used t'always say, "you don't know until you do, and even then, it's just gonna be one small part of a whole you've yet to grasp" (ok, me mum never said that, fact is...I just came up with it...) So just because I find it unlikely the UFO was really piloted by blonde sasquatch with darker highlights, rather than toss it outright, it's into the back pot over on the far back left burner, cuz ya never know. 

My front row center lot of "what is it" has a tasty compote of flesh and blood creature,  evolved on this planet, developed as a versatile generalist(presuming a single species with varying degrees of variation/specialization/speciation within regional populations) with a relatively high level of cognitive adaptibilty and situational awareness.

The addition of verbal language does lend itself to the potential for social /cultural elements to arise faster and further than the other prevalent species of the time. Some may choose to discount the "unintelligible gibberings" as nothing more than the chattering of wood apes, but the structures found within the recorded examples seem to indicate there s a lot more to it. Yet even without that component of these utterances, there is a bias we humans often fall into with regards to other species, and that is since we as "observers" can not detect any deeper levels of symbolic abstraction, they must not exist! (Got Arrogance, you pink hairless dwarfs? Huh? Do yas?) Who knows, their forms of culture may not manifest in configurations easily recognized as such by us, or may be of such a nature that those observing the outward indicators either cannot accept them for what they are and imply, or they choose not to on a conscious or unconscious level and thereby prevent the potentially reality shaking realizations and paradigm shifts.