Guest Strick Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 (edited) So what is the corollary of all this? That the DNA samples come back as Homo Sapien with Native American phenotypical markers? Who will be impressed by that? All it would mean was that we managed to collect some spit off the ground and scrape a little NA blood off a barbed wire fence.....as far as I know NA people go around leaving traces of their DNA all over the place just like the rest of us. It proves nothing. The only person who has to worry is those connected to the Sierra Kills incident: who must have disturbed a traditional burial, or crime scene Edited August 20, 2011 by Strick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 That the DNA samples come back as Homo Sapien with Native American phenotypical markers? Who will be impressed by that? Depends on how you interpret that. If the sasquatch are a type of people then they are Native American of a sort, but that doesn't mean their DNA is catalogued. There would and should be a good reason why it's not. It could have something to do with how well we get along with their tribe. Being all covered in hair / naked/ and taking their food bare handed would be bound to draw a negative reaction from us and give us doubt about what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Thanks notgiganto, that's a pretty close summary of my meaning. And yes GuyinIndiana and RioBravo, from a strictly technical viewpoint, pursuit of any idea that follows a specific point of view is biased. But that's not where I was going of course. Let me ask, how many here live off the land, close to the land? I don't mean you farm with your roto-tiller or John Deer tractor. I don't mean you go hunting come opening day with all your technical gizmos whether it be a high powered rifle or a compound bow. I don't even mean a muzzleloader. But I mean every morning of your life you go out in your moccasins, the bow you made by hand and using the stomach lining for its string and the reeds for the arrows. You wear the skins from the animals you killed and nothing more. Your knife was not bought at Cabellas but its from the material you brought back after a two day walk up to the peaks where raw obsidian can only be found. You work it with an antler from the deer that fed you last Winter. You know how to survive in the elements without your Goretex parka. You can tell when a storm is coming because the birds stopped flying because they no longer chase the insects that stopped flying because they sensed the change in barometric pressure and took cover. And so do you. How many people here knew this old way of telling the weather? This is just one example of what we no longer know because we no longer truly live close to the land. The thing is, Indigenous people did live close to the land. Much closer then the European settlers did. Something most people of today can't really comprehend as we start our day with a hot shower and fried eggs over an electric or gas stove. I also believe that the Sasquatch had more respect and trust in the Native people of the continent then they do of people today. Why wouldn't they, too many of us shoot first and ask questions later. And many of them don't do so responsibly either. I'm not saying that most Native people today are included either because many no longer live by the old ways. Many fell for the traps of modern society (the good and bad) and are in the same boat as everyone else. Many casino tribes have lost the old ways, as well as mixed races whose white relatives keep them up to speed with the rat race. The way the full blooded members once did are few and far between. How can they exist in today's noisy busy world? So yes, there is a distinction when it comes to Native people too. Being in touch with the land is a wonderful way of being and most of us today barely experience what it is like. So imagine living every day of your life in the wilds. Being able to pick up on just about every living thing moving around you. Relying on your senses to their fullest, especially that one that tells you when you are being watched. Imagine really exercising that sense. Wouldn't it naturally improve and be more useful to you? I wish I could live this way but it isn't easy. However I also honestly believe it may have something to do with why some have had more encounters then others. Almost all of mine were while off alone in the woods. That's the reason I truly believe that there are secrets that will come from the Native people that most of us will never fully understand. We of today just aren't in touch with the land anymore. How can we truly understand? How can we interact and coexist the way it used to be? We no longer truly understand the wild such as how to listen to the birds and insects. We are technological, bigfoot are of nature. The gap is only breached by a small number of ambassadors from our modern world. Even trying to understand that may be difficult for many to accept. How can some simple indigenous people possibly be privileged to interact with these beings when we can't? Well, how often are some people laughed at who come here and say they can communicate with bigfoot? Happens a lot right? And its also understandable because its impossible to tell who is being truthful and who is telling wild fantastic stories. Which story tellers are telling the truth? So when I said the following: "... the NA and First Nations perspective is actually the core of historical interaction and relationship between our species." I meant that the Native People may have something to teach the modern world, probably many things that have been largely ignored in the great race to advance technologically. And yeah, they lived side by side with these Sasquatch long before the rest of the world heard it thru some news story. Unfortunately there is probably much more that is known about Sasquatch that will never be shared with modern society. How can the world ever be trusted with knowledge that is so far outside our frame of reference? Could we ever again trade with these beings the way some tribes did? Could all modern humans actually respect Sasquatch right to exist w/o some written law to remind them? Back to reality & time to go cut up more wood with my chainsaw... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 If the DNA comes back homo sapiens then I hope Dr. Ketchum has a type specimen. Otherwise no one will believe it came from a huge, hairy human with big feet and a penchant for deer and wild berries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 If the DNA comes back homo sapiens then I hope Dr. Ketchum has a type specimen. Otherwise no one will believe it came from a huge, hairy human with big feet and a penchant for deer and wild berries. I'm pretty sure she doesn't have that big ole Sasquatch head in the back of her freezer (behind the peas) pending the big reveal..... I don't pretend to be a scientist or have any specialist knowledge of DNA sequencing, but I'm guessing that the DNA evidence Ketchum has collected reveals a sub-species of human that is more distinct and removed from ourselves than Native American. I'm speculating here - it's what we do on BFF - but I intuit from the nudges and winks coming from the direction of Derek and the General that they would not be in such a relaxed and ebullient mood if Ketchum had informed them they were, in fact,complicit in the death of a Native American. Of course, none of the above means that Ketchum's analysis is not in some way intrinsically flawed or her samples contaminated. Pragmatic Theorist - lovely post, you have a great prose style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I wouldn't believe that even with a type specimen. If she gets human DNA back, she does not have legit sasquatch DNA and that's the end of that, IMO. Doesn't mean sasquatch doesn't exist but it's just flat-out impossible that they are sapiens. (IMO I guess) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RICH G Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 NABS response is not entirely accurate. The Olympic Project was involved in the study for some time before the Coast to Coast thing. If you listen to the podcast you will hear that I came on and talked about the Olympic Project as being part of the study. Not that I really care but I want the timeline to be accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I'm seeing a bias towards this: "In order for it to show human characteristics it must be closely related to Homo Sapiens, thus the DNA will most likely be closer to Homo Sapien DNA than anything else we have seen before." OR "If the DNA is close to Homo Sapien DNA then that means they think like we do and must be human." I'm just saying one doesn't necessarily relate to the other and it is going to take a long time to figure out what and who these beings/creatures really are. The DNA analysis isn't going to be the be all and end all of this, but just the beginning of a much bigger issue, like " What does it really mean to be human?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I'm seeing a bias towards this: "In order for it to show human characteristics it must be closely related to Homo Sapiens, thus the DNA will most likely be closer to Homo Sapien DNA than anything else we have seen before." OR "If the DNA is close to Homo Sapien DNA then that means they think like we do and must be human." I'm just saying one doesn't necessarily relate to the other and it is going to take a long time to figure out what and who these beings/creatures really are. The DNA analysis isn't going to be the be all and end all of this, but just the beginning of a much bigger issue, like " What does it really mean to be human?" Well I don't think the DNA is the only reason people have their opinion on what bigfoot is. There is the tracks, the videos, the sounds and what they've witnessed that forms the overall picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Well I don't think the DNA is the only reason people have their opinion on what bigfoot is. There is the tracks, the videos, the sounds and what they've witnessed that forms the overall picture. I am curious what your thoughts are based on your observations and incite into the evidence. I believe you have also witnessed these creatures first hand, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I haven't seen one, I just offer perception based on the evidence that my team has recorded, found & collected along with some of the observations from other team members' sightings. Much of the evidence from my region could be confused with human with a possible exception of hair morphology. The circumstances of those things forms my opinion of the thing I'm searching for. In some encounters, it suggests a creature that is crude, agile, powerful and awe inspiring. Others indicate the ability to speak in some form or fasion. So , the brutish wildman hypothesis seems to fit best for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) I would find it very hard to believe that Sasquatch is just a tribe of hairy, lost Native Americans. Could it be they are not giants but usually between 5 to 6 feet tall - just like us; not super-stealthy, just cautious - just like us; not possessed of an ungodly odour - just like us after a week without showering; not possessed of supernatural speed and strength - just toned up from the outdoor life. Is it possible that Sasquatch is the same us and all the reports we have read to the contrary are exaggerations, akin to fisherman's tales?? No, I don't believe this is so. Edited August 21, 2011 by Strick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 In some encounters, it suggests a creature that is crude, agile, powerful and awe inspiring. Others indicate the ability to speak in some form or fasion. So , the brutish wildman hypothesis seems to fit best for me. This is what I always felt was most likely even thought the NAGA theory is super cool. It never fit conventional wisdom that these things don't attack more humans and never get hit by cars; and the uncanny ability to avoid us if they wish. Also, the bones thing. They had to be burying or burning the dead. Anything else defies explanation. There are still things that do still need explaining. Namely eye shine/red eye glow and the ease they move through pitch black darkness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Well I don't think the DNA is the only reason people have their opinion on what bigfoot is. There is the tracks, the videos, the sounds and what they've witnessed that forms the overall picture. I know, but what if the DNA doesn't match the observed behavior? Will it be a situation similar to what we see in dolphins where they are mammals but look like fish and act like fish? I'm just asking, I don't know, but everyone seems so sure that it is either this or that, and those are your only choices. What if the analysis shows a completely different branch of ape? Does that mean we have convergent evolution going on because bigfoot might be able to speak? Why is everyone so sure that it has to be one way or the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) I know, but what if the DNA doesn't match the observed behavior? Will it be a situation similar to what we see in dolphins where they are mammals but look like fish and act like fish? I'm just asking, I don't know, but everyone seems so sure that it is either this or that, and those are your only choices. What if the analysis shows a completely different branch of ape? Does that mean we have convergent evolution going on because bigfoot might be able to speak? Why is everyone so sure that it has to be one way or the other? An ape is an ape to me Jodie. What branch, type or family doesn't really make it a game changer for me. Now, if the people who describe it as having a dog/wolf like face were correct, THAT would be a serious shock to me. Edited August 21, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts