General consensus on what Bigfoot is

[MIB]

1 hour ago, vinchyfoot said:

What shouldn't even be entertained without proof: That they are the Nephilim, aliens, demons, government experiments,  mind speakers, cloakers or any woo nonsense without proof. And there never is any. Till there is, this is a rabbit hole to nowhere and hurts the overall effort as much if not more than hoaxing.

 

I'll disagree with you.   As you've worded this, proof must be provided before investigation is allowed.   That ain't how science works.  

 

MIB

[Huntster]

15 hours ago, MIB said:

.........Genetically, we run hot, open savannah in bright daylight, they walk cold, snowy mountains in the dark.   Each specialization we have, they seem to have the opposite.   I suspect they have brain capabilities similar to ours but oriented differently because their physical advantages resolve needs we had to develop tools and fire to compensate for........

 

I recently ran across this theory. It's very interesting, especially as it relates to a religious theory I ran across some years ago:

 

"In the beginning was the Word.........."

 

 

[Huntster]

13 hours ago, Kiwakwe said:

........Sas are the original hominid species on Terra, Homo-notso-sapiens are a genetic cross between them and an off world species, wiser than we, who perform there genetic manipulations outside the reach of their native populace.

 

"Let Us create Man in Our image and likeness."

[Huntster]

13 hours ago, Doodler said:

.......We know at least two cousins were walking the planet at the last ice age. Two cousins who looked very different than we do today, but apparently we interbred..........

 

I'm more physically different from a Mtubi tribesman as a gorilla is from a chimp, but I can readily interbreed with his female family members while gorillas and chimps cannot. That is the primary genetic reality that makes all the uniquely different people on this planet Homo sapiens. Thus, if we could interbreed with Neanderthals, Denisovans, and sasquatches, what makes them different species?

[Patterson-Gimlin]

23 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

None first hand that I know of, but several second hand native American accounts of woman and child stealing (although there are also accounts of man kidnapping, too). I know of one documented account of an Alaskan Koyukon man who claimed to kill a female sasquatch with a knife after she followed him for days and finally rushed him. He thought that she "wanted to make love" with him.

I also believe that some sasquatch or "wildman" reports are feral humans.

Feral humans is something I can certainly agree with. Of course not all encounters. 

The super abilities and alien influence seems be excuses for something that simply doesn't exist. 

Now, having said that I would be much more inclined to accept a sightings report from you for obvious reasons. 

Enjoy the trophy 🏆 

[vinchyfoot]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

I'll disagree with you.   As you've worded this, proof must be provided before investigation is allowed.   That ain't how science works.  

 

MIB

I wasnt referring to the order of events, but rather until anything credible is offered up to support this sort of thing, it remains on the fringe.

[Huntster]

2 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Feral humans is something I can certainly agree with. Of course not all encounters........

 

Many of the newspaper articles in the U.S. from the early 1800's and 1950 about wild men read like feral humans, and the genetic testing done on Zana and Khwit appear to prove that a sasquatch-like female can be Homo sapien. That said, I here write that I have great suspicion of much "science", including DNA "proofs", and anybody who tries to tell me that the Patterson film subject is a Homo sapien woman is going to be met with laughter. Even skeptics call her a MAN in a suit, yet the description of Zana is a spitting image of Patty.

 

But my reading about feral children was nothing short of incredible. The evolution of a human who is reared by wild animals from infancy is almost beyond belief, yet it is undeniably, widely, and repeatedly documented.

 

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

 

Quote

........Now, having said that I would be much more inclined to accept a sightings report from you for obvious reasons........

 

Alas, all I have is a single footprint trackway find, but it was a good one. Unfortunately, it is very poorly documented. No photos or casts.

 

 

Quote

Enjoy the trophy 🏆

 

Thanks! I'll take it to my local barista and see if I can trade it for a cup of espresso!

[vinchyfoot]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Many of the newspaper articles in the U.S. from the early 1800's and 1950 about wild men read like feral humans, and the genetic testing done on Zana and Khwit appear to prove that a sasquatch-like female can be Homo sapien. That said, I here write that I have great suspicion of much "science", including DNA "proofs", and anybody who tries to tell me that the Patterson film subject is a Homo sapien woman is going to be met with laughter. Even skeptics call her a MAN in a suit, yet the description of Zana is a spitting image of Patty.

 

But my reading about feral children was nothing short of incredible. The evolution of a human who is reared by wild animals from infancy is almost beyond belief, yet it is undeniably, widely, and repeatedly documented.

 

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

 

 

Alas, all I have is a single footprint trackway find, but it was a good one. Unfortunately, it is very poorly documented. No photos or casts.

 

 

 

Thanks! I'll take it to my local barista and see if I can trade it for a cup of espresso!

 

Except..... Zana hasn't any more proof than any other folk tale from that time period. There will never be any way of knowing if that's a legit account or not.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Many of the newspaper articles in the U.S. from the early 1800's and 1950 about wild men read like feral humans, and the genetic testing done on Zana and Khwit appear to prove that a sasquatch-like female can be Homo sapien. That said, I here write that I have great suspicion of much "science", including DNA "proofs", and anybody who tries to tell me that the Patterson film subject is a Homo sapien woman is going to be met with laughter. Even skeptics call her a MAN in a suit, yet the description of Zana is a spitting image of Patty.

 

But my reading about feral children was nothing short of incredible. The evolution of a human who is reared by wild animals from infancy is almost beyond belief, yet it is undeniably, widely, and repeatedly documented.

 

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

 

 

Alas, all I have is a single footprint trackway find, but it was a good one. Unfortunately, it is very poorly documented. No photos or casts.

 

 

 

Thanks! I'll take it to my local barista and see if I can trade it for a cup of espresso!

Thank you for the link. I have heard of a few of those. Had no idea there were that many documented cases. 

[MIB]

2 hours ago, vinchyfoot said:

 

Except..... Zana hasn't any more proof than any other folk tale from that time period. There will never be any way of knowing if that's a legit account or not.

 

There are several good books on, or with substantial chapters about, Zana.    We can argue about what she was, we can't argue whether she existed.    Not rationally.   I differ with Huntster in that I no longer accept her as an example of Almasty .. she was modern human, with or without some twists.   I had hopes; they are gone.    I don't think Almasty are modern human nor are they bigfoot.    It's not that simple.    .. in my opinion, that is.

 

As an aside, many times when we talk about species we fall into two camps, "choppers" and "lumpers".    Some lean towards attributing all evidence to a single kind of entity, some lean towards the other end of the spectrum where there are almost as many types as there are individuals.   I hope to fall some rational place in between.   I suspect one of the reasons we can't "find bigfoot" is that our image / belief about what they are lumps dissimilar things together such that we are investigating the void in between them, not where either actually exists or how either behaves.    Again, just a guess, but it fits the efforts and results so far. 

 

MIB

[vinchyfoot]

10 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

There are several good books on, or with substantial chapters about, Zana.    We can argue about what she was, we can't argue whether she existed.    Not rationally.   I differ with Huntster in that I no longer accept her as an example of Almasty .. she was modern human, with or without some twists.   I had hopes; they are gone.    I don't think Almasty are modern human nor are they bigfoot.    It's not that simple.    .. in my opinion, that is.

 

As an aside, many times when we talk about species we fall into two camps, "choppers" and "lumpers".    Some lean towards attributing all evidence to a single kind of entity, some lean towards the other end of the spectrum where there are almost as many types as there are individuals.   I hope to fall some rational place in between.   I suspect one of the reasons we can't "find bigfoot" is that our image / belief about what they are lumps dissimilar things together such that we are investigating the void in between them, not where either actually exists or how either behaves.    Again, just a guess, but it fits the efforts and results so far. 

 

MIB

 

Okay so saying she existed, it's still more likely that she might just have been for lack of a better term, "not normal looking"?, deformity, any one of a number of possibilities that are more likely than Hunster's almasty flight of fantasy.

[Wooly Booger]

Sasquatch is an undiscovered species of higher primate. Either a great ape or a type of human. 

[Kiwakwe]

7 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

"Let Us create Man in Our image and likeness."

Yep, the Elohim could have been aliens!

[Wooly Booger]

There’s no such thing as aliens. 

[Huntster]

6 hours ago, vinchyfoot said:

 

Except..... Zana hasn't any more proof than any other folk tale from that time period. There will never be any way of knowing if that's a legit account or not.

 

The fact that her DNA came back as 100% sub-Saharan African proves that she was "different" than the local population, even if her characteristics were exaggerated.