What do you think Bigfoot is?

[guyzonthropus]

Personally, within the F&B paradigm, I'd bet they evolved along with the rest of the mammalian megafauna, probably within the boreal forests, or along the edges of the ice sheets. Progressing cooperative hunting and gathering systems(which lends itself to language development.and vice versa) as well as in defence of the group against other megapredator species of the time. 

while I can't say with any certainty when or where bipedalism entered the picture, or if it arose independently of our lines implementation of it, I'd guess they lifted from their place amongst the obligate quadrupeds when our ancestors did, as I believe that up to a point, their forebearers and ours were one and the same.(I find it implausible to think bipedalism arose twice within the same family, in so convergent a manner that our foot morphologies are THAT close) and with the fossil record being as so very incomplete as it is, we can hardly begin to consider the vast array of relatives we may very well have had running about the different regions and habitats of the planet, each specializing to their conditions through both behaviors and physical modifications acted upon by any given selective factors or bottlenecks within a specific context, which over time, presented countless opportunities for potential interbreeding between distinct populations/species, most of which we have no fossil or other physical evidence of. Of course, different regions, and or different times, will have different species or groups interacting in the different interphase zones, leading to an ongoing stream of diverse combinations trying to become a successful species capable of progressive survival. So maybe sasquatch represent just a different sequence of early hominids that have managed to hang on and hold out, akin to the Denisovans and hobbits, only without becoming absorbed by sapiens sapiens or getting eaten into oblivion by komodo dragons(I'm sure that's one pain in the ass lizard when you're 3' tall.....just saying)

The whole issue of "DNA will be the real proof" may prove erroneous in that they may very well be just that closely related to us, or their "sequence of interbreedings" may incorporate enough of the same or similar elements from the maelstrom that which was the wild baccan love fest that might have been our sordid and long forgotten past, so twisted crazy that we as a species simply felt it best to eliminate all other witnesses....Also, back when we were first charting the DNA and seeing what made us human, differentiating us from the furred masses, what we viewed as normal human didn't even consider what role "unknown primates" might play, in that they were all even more unknown then as they are now, especially in light of the precidence we gave the fossil record as "nearly complete/direct" despite all the species we ve since discovered, and the countless other contributor species we never will.....

[guyzonthropus]

Could they possess abilities beyond our own skill set? Eye shine, infrasound, extreme stealth, forest ninja-ology, telepathy, telekinesis, remote viewing, manipulation of electro-magnetic fields, cloaking, use of portals, translocation, insane strength, piloting UFOs, some purple glow thing, ongoing interaction with species of extraterrestrials, iinterdimentional existence, disappearing trackways, any of that shyte Dr Johnson talks about....any of that ?? Ehhhh......sure, maybe...but you gotta ask yourself, with each of these reported phenomena, what would it take for you to believe it actually occurs? And once you go there, how can you be sure that what ever such "acceptable evidence" is provided is actually that, and not "just" confirmation that they can control images and perceptions within a person's mind(which is something I personally would find just a bit disconcerting in and of itself!) 

But by discounting the mere possibility of such things may well prevent you from seeing it, should any such be demonstrated or done before you, or perhaps shut down pathways that could lead to a larger confirmation on terms of their existence.....right? 

So piloting UFOs....unlikely, but can't be ruled out until the Spacing Guild states they allow no sasquatch crew members.....

 

So, I think I can guess what at least a couple of you are thinking at this point.....

"Did he really do what I think he just did?"

" Y'know, I do believe he just pulled off a fair recreation "

"Yeah! I knew something seemed oddly familiar in a vague sense..... "

"Ahyup, dude just Jiggypotomused us..... "

"Ahhh, that does take me back"

" Well, yeah, but Jiggy P. made a lot more sense..... "

"True....."

 

[SWWASAS]

Somehow I cannot see a humanoid species that does not even carry round clubs piloting anything.    With technology comes gadgets even if that technology is what a tribe in the Amazon uses.    Admittedly the Amazon tribes do not wear much in the way of clothing but they do have weapons.    They have no need for clothing.     So in their way BF must have no need for clothing either.   

[MIB]

I suppose that, at least 'til we KNOW differently rather than just BELIEVE differently, we should allow for the possibility that rather than being non-technological, they are hyper-technological, aliens from somewhere else that have their technology built in rather than needing to carry it externally.   Not "robot" or anything so cliche as that, but mechanically enhanced biological.   Remembering Clarke's third law here.   It certainly would fit some of the reported actions better than anything else we've got so far.

 

No, I don't believe it either, but there is no basis other than personal belief for removing it from the table at this point in time.    On that basis, it'd be foolish to entirely discount it.   But then, fools about and I'm sure some will.   It would be kind of funny/ironic if in the end Patty really was a suit ... just not one of earthly origin. 

 

MIB

Edited September 1, 2019 by MIB

[wiiawiwb]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

Somehow I cannot see a humanoid species that does not even carry round clubs piloting anything.    With technology comes gadgets even if that technology is what a tribe in the Amazon uses.    Admittedly the Amazon tribes do not wear much in the way of clothing but they do have weapons.    They have no need for clothing.     So in their way BF must have no need for clothing either.   

 

If you're the fastest and strongest creature in the forest, you may not need an external weapon as they are already incorporated into its body.

[SWWASAS]

I would agree except that humans with firearms have shifted the balance of power in the woods.    We are the most dangerous thing out there.  

[MIB]

Just now, SWWASAS said:

I would agree except that humans with firearms have shifted the balance of power in the woods.    We are the most dangerous thing out there.  

 

I would think so, too, except that we have not put a bigfoot body on a table for study.    If we cannot kill them at will, whether we choose to or not, that leaves us as the second most dangerous thing out there.

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

Most humans are not interested in killing them.  So many reports of hunters not making the shot because of how human they look.      We certainly are the most dangerous thing they face if the reports of bear avoiding them are true.      Did you feel like you are adequately armed when you had your sightings?    I sure didn't when I had my first encounter and still don't.   I guess I count on getting a pass from them like I have.  

[Huntster]

36 minutes ago, MIB said:

........there is no basis other than personal belief for removing it from the table at this point in time.    On that basis, it'd be foolish to entirely discount it.   But then, fools about and I'm sure some will........

 

Call me a fool, then, because I refuse to believe that sasquatches are extraterrestrial, they pilot spaceships, they are gods, or any of that happy horse manure. I base that on my beliefs (or lack thereof) supported or unsupported by existing evidence.

 

13 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Most humans are not interested in killing them........

 

I am. If they were legally huntable, I'd shoot one at the first opportunity I had.

 

........Did you feel like you are adequately armed when you had your sightings?.........

 

If I have a center fire rifle (and I almost always do wherever I am), I can kill it. It might not drop dead on the spot as if shot with some sort of science fiction death ray, but it will die. 

 

 

[starchunk]

On 8/30/2019 at 8:58 PM, BlobSquatch said:

Maybe nephilim, or descendants of Cain. I really don't know.

But they're heeeeeeeeeeeeeere. 😁

 

 

That kind of claim is the laziest kind of nonsense. And why the subject isn't taken seriously in the mainstream.

[Arvedis]

 

17 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

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.

 

Zana and Sykes came up in a previous thread and I forgot. Still haven't looked into it but it appears to be a different Sykes DNA study AND a different book by Sykes than what I was thinking.  I will have to look into it more closely.  I guess I am baffled at how Zana, if she really was a BF, was captured and became a willing participant in being "property" or a housewife or whatever social dynamic among humans she was in. 

 

I also don't get your fascination with the word compelling but I guess that is your business.

 

 

17 hours ago, MIB said:

 

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.

 

 

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

 

Either Hersom or Erickson or maybe a tag team effort by both, originally funded Paulides .  I don't know the reason why Paulides would have been hired at that time because he had not yet written any books or anything in the field. Guessing he sold his law enforcement, investigative background. He claims on his web site that "they" found Ketchum  to lead a DNA study so maybe it was a group decision.

 

It is also clear from events that followed that Ketchum was not the best choice to represent the interests of the study. I can't imagine how or why people with money to burn on BF studies would have allowed it to go on that way. So I put it on the financiers shoulders to permit Ketchum to drift into the orbit of the blueberry bagel lady's habituation area, which is what (I think) drove Ketchum's motivations.  I also think that Erickson was swayed since he talked about it on his web site. Not sure if that content is still up there.  There was talk about a secret habituation site, maybe even the short clip of the BF allegedly sleeping was taken there, who knows. The fact that they tried to use the sleeping BF as a link to the study was really a bad turn.  Mainstream news picked up on it.

 

Just comes down to professionalism.  Either do it right or keep your money.  Then Hersom says he wanted the "whole genomes" returned to him after the project bombed.  He must have very deep pockets to do so after the fact.  For 150 grand (I think that was the figure he gave Ketchum?) I would have gotten real scientists to lead the study.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Arvedis

[MIB]

2 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

There was talk about a secret habituation site, maybe even the short clip of the BF allegedly sleeping was taken there, who knows.

 

That was Erickson and "Matilda", the Chewbacca mask.    Pretty comfortable they got hoaxed.

 

MIB

[Arvedis]

Just thumbing through some older topics on BFF and Ketchum, Zana, Sykes, DNA, hybridization, Matlida, hoaxes, etc have been talked to death.  Lots of recycling of topics. Does that mean BF is influencing the internet by spinning us in circles?

[Huntster]

57 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

Zana and Sykes came up in a previous thread and I forgot. Still haven't looked into it but it appears to be a different Sykes DNA study AND a different book by Sykes than what I was thinking.  I will have to look into it more closely.......

 

I think his Zana DNA study was much more revealing and important than his yeti study. And, apparently, so did he.

 

........I guess I am baffled at how Zana, if she really was a BF, was captured and became a willing participant in being "property" or a housewife or whatever social dynamic among humans she was in........

 

The details of her capture, unfortunately, appear lost to time. I can find none of them. But her domestication appears more detailed. She was essentially caged and treated like an Alaskan sled dog for three or so years. Eventually her captors were recognized as her source of food or pain. Slowly, she went from cage to chain, then treleased to wander when she realized that there was a never ending supply of food and wine at "home". 

 

It's like the old adage, "With a handful of peanuts, I can train a monkey to do that job."

 

.........I also don't get your fascination with the word compelling but I guess that is your business...........

 

For several years I beat the radical skeptics with that at JREF (now known as ISF, or International Skeptics Forum, after tgeir founder James Randi was exposed as the a$$hole that he clearly was). <Adjective> evidence was the tactic they used to try to discount all evidence; "compelling", "convincing", "conclusive", etc, ad nauseum. 

[SWWASAS]

3 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Call me a fool, then, because I refuse to believe that sasquatches are extraterrestrial, they pilot spaceships, they are gods, or any of that happy horse manure. I base that on my beliefs (or lack thereof) supported or unsupported by existing evidence.

 

 

I am. If they were legally huntable, I'd shoot one at the first opportunity I had.

 

 

 

If I have a center fire rifle (and I almost always do wherever I am), I can kill it. It might not drop dead on the spot as if shot with some sort of science fiction death ray, but it will die. 

 

 

Well the rub is you got to know what they are,   to know if they are huntable.     Most states define what is allowed to be hunted.     What are the laws in Alaska?   Personally I think the first person that drags one in,  is going to have serious legal issues even if it is some kind of animal.    The best thing to do, no matter what really happens, is claim self defense and deny you were in a hunt.   If the fabled coverup exists,   they are likely to give you a pass if you don't tell anyone.   If no coverup exists,  then be suitably grief stricken, that you had to shoot it to save your life.   The thing charged you and did not stop, so you had not choice but to open fire.    Best not shoot it in the back.   

Edited September 1, 2019 by SWWASAS