Oonjerah Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 I liked that ... especially the part about Bigfoot's daddy? Thanks, kezra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) Latest on Robert Lindsays blog: **unapproved link** Very interesting and seemingly informed read Thanks for the post I enjoyed the read Edited December 9, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC removed unapproved link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) Proof? Biscardi didn't put up 50,000 dollars, he talked William Lett Jr. into fronting the money. Biscardi didn't lose anything. Mulder, you really need to pay the $20 dollars and review the bff 1.0 archives about that hoax. Defending Biscardi with that debacle is just un-believable. Now thinking back on that epic media story, they tried to use dna as proof of that beautiful specimen. http://www.bfro.net/hoax.asp http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,439201,00.html http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/georgia_bigfoot_dead_body_in_freezer_dyer_whitton_biscardi.php Edited December 9, 2012 by squatting squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) ... If I were to distill the Ketcham thesis down to ONE fundamental *Achilles heel*, it would be the notion that an *UNKNOWN* species was around 15K years ago to mate with a human. This simply goes against ALL anthropological evidence. Other than other primates at the time, there is absolutely ZERO evidence or scientific data to support the notion that another hominid species coexisted with humans (Homo sapiens) AT THAT POINT IN TIME. You would have to go back at least 30K years to see another..Neander...and we know they interbred with modern humans because most humans alive today still have some of their genes (except certain African types). The type of creature posited by Ketcham would have to be RADICALLY diverged from us..even more so than Neanders...to give rise to a creature like BF. I just don't see how the study can overcome this fundamental fact. Yes..I'll await for all the *evidence* to come in...but I have to tell ya'all....it *Ain't gonna happen*...not this year..not next year...not in your lifetime. Well,,heck....NOT EVER. There were hominids living that were older than neanderthals and denisovans. Both of those more closely related version are known to have mated with modern humans with fairly high certainty. They just found a new species, the red deer cave people that are very distinct from modern humans. I haven't heard anyone make a guess how closely related to modern humans those are. Meldrum probably was talking about them about a year or two ago when he said some heidelbergensis fossils were found in Asia that were alive until something like 13,000 years ago. Heidelbergensis was the ancestor of neanderthals and modern humans. If they were descended from heidelbergensis then something older than neanderthals existed until practically modern times. If they weren't heidelbergensis then they are probably older or possibly some population of hybrids since they share some modern features and some archaic features. They certainly lived at that time and they were just found very recently which should suggest that the fossil record doesn't prove when something went extinct. There is a bit of a gap before early heidelbergensis and later ergaster/gracile erectus about 600,000 to a million years old. They have some fossils but not much certainty on which of them became heidelbergensis or died out. In other words they don't know which were our ancestors. There is a great deal of variety in early heidelbergensis but not that many fossils. It isn't really clear about what was what. I only mention that because that is getting into the range of more distant than neanderthal and densovans so that range might be about the apparent age when the "male "lineage diverged from our population. It was about that time or older. I assume that people realize that even 600,000 years is not a long time geologically where some lineage might go unknown. It is hard for me to know when people are serious about thinking some species in the fossil record actually died just because that was the youngest fossil they found. It is a joke between me an my brother. They find two fossils of some species in my hypothetical example and some people act like they found the last one of that species that lived. There is practically proof that much more primitive hominins also lived in Asia in the very primitive features of Homo floresiensis. They didn't just drop out of the sky so more primitive hominins not in the fossil record apparently existed. There is no logical reason to assumed they died out since they haven't found a single fossil of their ancestor. That was a joke btw. If they found one then many would assume that was the last individual that lived of that species by some sort of strange logic that escapes me. Edited December 9, 2012 by BobZenor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) Latest on Robert Lindsays blog: **deleted link** Very interesting and seemingly informed read His site is blocked here. Could somebody copy and paste a PM to me? Pretty please? Edited December 9, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC unapproved link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Moderator Statement: Folks, please remember when quoting posts that contain pictures, the rules regarding reposted images are: 2.F. Reposting images: The re-posting of an image, after one member has already posted it on the BFF, is not permitted. In the event you are quoting a member who has included an image in their post, remove it in your reply to them. This applies to all images, regardless of format. You may however insert a link to the original post containing the image(s). Thankyou in advance for your cooperation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) You're missing the point... I'm contesting the Ketcham study..not the fact that BF lives. We don't KNOW it's evolutionary genesis...it certainly (at least in my mind) didn't result from a copulation between a human and an *UNKNOWN* 15K years ago. My take...it has been around MUCH LONGER and has co-existed with man for at least 100K years. Of course..we have no evidence of that either. I think you are caught here ronn1. If it is a certanty there was no hominid other than us 15k years ago then there is no bigfoot today. It didn't blink into existence. I'm also not aware of what measure of divergence precludes hybridization. We know to a CERTAINTY that modern man has lived with NO OTHERS for almost 30,000 years! (other than this *hobbit thing* isolated in Indonesia and the jury is still out...but it was *gone* over 15k years ago.. people here try and use this as a counter argument>>FAIL). YES...30,000 years!!! There is ZERO..ZIP...NADA..evidence of ANYTHING co-existing with humans since then..let alone >>>AN UNKNOWN...NOT RELATED TO MAN ..MORE DISTANT THAN NEANDER...who>> SUCESSFULLY MATED WITH>>>AND HAD FERTILE OFFSPRING WITH>>US>>>>15K years ago??? Edited December 9, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 It's a shame but this is the only place I can find that's not acting like the whole thing was a stunt by desperate Bigfooters. I wanted it to be real but it's looking bad for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 9, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) It seems that Red Deer Cave people IS being held up as possibly BF by some. A commenter over on one of the "other" blogs named Caz seems to think that their DNA though not successfully sequenced as yet is going to be within several years. Apparently cranio-skeletal morphology is a dead-ringer for BF (or so it is said). Researchers are encouraged to do an endocast of Red Deer Cave p. cranial vault to throw in the mix. So obviously Ketchum's article will not be the end of the line with discussion and prediction. Edited December 9, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) TK, Well ya know who to blame the threads namesake, if she had kept her mouth shut and let the science speak for itself.... Edited December 9, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 It's a shame but this is the only place I can find that's not acting like the whole thing was a stunt by desperate Bigfooters. I wanted it to be real but it's looking bad for us. There's always Sykes. He'll be more difficult to ridicule. Speaking of, I find it interesting his drop date has slipped. His comment that it takes time to publish in prominent journals is telling. Are prominent journals lining up to publish a paper about the known animals people send in as purported bigfoot? I'd be surprised. Let's hope he's on to something. The latest Lindsay comes with a shiny new rumor that Sykes results match Ketchum but his interpretations are different. I wonder how science doles out credit in that scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 So obviously Ketchum's article will not be the end of the line with discussion and prediction. Herein lies the problem, what else is there without anything ever materializing? We need a new term like Bllob DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 9, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 9, 2012 It's a shame but this is the only place I can find that's not acting like the whole thing was a stunt by desperate Bigfooters. I wanted it to be real but it's looking bad for us. Sometimes there are islands of maturity in seas of condescension. Yeah, there are! (figure I'm in so old and don't care anymore what bites me in the butt) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) Slim, Nope it's all In the presentation....if I for example say in the horses and buggy days that the black stuff coming out of the ground shows potential to be a power source as opposed to declaring someday man will fly at the speed of sound as a result of this power source being a reality. It might be received a little differently me thinks Perception is reality in the public eye and right now the good Dr has a perception problem. Edited December 9, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 9, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) http://frontiers-of-...-sundaland.html Red Deer Cave People Edited December 9, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts