Guest Strick Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I haven't heard anyone suggest the Yowie is a marsupial dog. I think the Thylacine fills/filled that niche. I have heard some suggest the Yowie is a marsupial human - a much scarier proposition, though having a pouch would sure come in handy when it comes to getting your groceries back from the supermarket! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Thanks for the link SouthernYahoo, for some reason I thought we were further along than that with mapping. I think we are farther along with mapping for alot of different species. I was just pointing out that barcoding methods could get you close to knowing you had something new real quick. It's just not enough to be absolutely sure if it's really close to something else. So much more sequences would need to be compared to fully map out it's phylogenetic placement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Gotcha, I'm just going to have to wait and read what she did because I can't see how you could choose which ones to chase down if they were showing up as human in the basic barcode test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Mulder wrote: "Here, at the resulting end of the development, we see the obvious advantages of weak bodies and strong intellects with a rich information exchange ability..." Weak in body, of course, because we've significantly lessened the power of the major evolutionary force - infant mortality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) 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... Let me preface this with the statement that I have complete respect for Native American concerns. But I'd like to point out the following: If what we've heard about the someday-to-be-released DNA study is accurate, then the haplotype places its origin in Europe. At one time most Europeans lived much as traditional Native Americans do/did. These European peoples had many legends of bigfoot-like beings, and also interacted with them on a level similar to that of Native Americans. It was the cultural conversion first under the Roman Empire, and then the Holy Roman Empire that changed this. Part of this conversion was to label many Celtic traditions (and other similar cultural traditions) as evil. The old lady with a lifetime of pharmacological lore became the local witch. The local wildmen became evil, etc. During this cultural conversion (some might say conquest), if one persisted in honoring the old traditions, or simply maintained that they had seen wildmen, they were sometimes labeled as evil. This had consequences. One might conclude over time that our current cultural dismissiveness of bigfoot and ridicule of those who "consort" with bigfoot has its origin in the aforementioned cultural conversion. People were encouraged to hear, see, and speak no evil and not to associate with those who did. When nordic immigrants came to America, they reported seeing trolls. Others reported wildmen, and some simply called them boogeymen, bugbears, ogres, or giants. This is reflected in a wealth of place-names throughout North America that bear these monickers. I agree that Native Americans generally acknowledge and respect bigfoot, but I doubt that they do more so than Native Europeans did prior to their cultural conversion. Even today, if you get to know rural folk and share your interest with them, they'll eventually let you in on what they've experienced. I find them to be very pragmatic about bigfoot, though not eager to raise a hue and cry when they see them. I do not find this to be dissimilar to modern Native American attitudes toward bigfoot. So my points are that bigfoot itself may well be a European immigrant, that bigfoot traditions are a shared experience, and that no one culture has a monopoly over interaction and relations with bigfoot. Edited August 21, 2011 by Jodie edited to comply with forum rules 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dicker Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 thers no way bigfoot is a prosn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Bigfoot is an umbrella term describing several phenomena. No single theory encompasses the reported data because there are several things being described, IMHO. Therefore,it is my position that the DNA evidence gathered and examined of late will only address part of the larger issue. Everything won't be revealed if it is found that the DNA collected is an anamoly. DNA without prevenance is just DNA. It could be anybody's. Until a scraping is performed on a live subject, I don't think the scientific community is going to be swayed. I am certain they will dismiss the findings as either a hoax or a ruined sample. If we really want to know why they aren't affected by gunfire and why thier eyes can glow red, somebody is going to have to ask them. We aren't making progress trying to figure it out on our own. They might tell us. Probably not. I don't think we are important to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 I don't really understand bar code methods. I have enough information to make guesses how they work. I believe they are just tests that basically grab specific sequences out of a mixture of DNA. I think they, the extracts, are then amplified and the DNA is added to a gel that is electrically charged and the various "genes" or specific segments migrate up the gel based on their relative electrical potential(polarity?) or something to that effect. It makes bars like you would get in chromatography. It shows the relative position of selected genes if they are present. It would be like having 30 genes with several possible choices for each gene. Every person would have different set of the genes. It isn't designed to see other animals but it could be adjusted to test for them as well but it wouldn't be very reliable in that use. A sequence is really the only way that you could test for an unknown animal. Then the argument that you need a body to verify is completely unjustified. You simply DON'T need a body with a sequence test like mitochondrial DNA. You can compare sequences directly to humans and chimps and even Neanderthals. For the bar code type method, you probably need a body and it will never really prove anything. I hope that isn't what is being used. I am confident it isn't the primary method used. Hopefully someone can correct or expand on this. I don't really get the bar code methods or understand why they would ever be used for a suspected bigfoot sample unless you are just asking for trouble. I had some sort of minor stroke or something similar a couple of weeks ago and it is causing me problems in understanding. This question is something basic that has bugged me for a while. I guess we will have to wait and see but if bar code type tests are used, I am going to be very hard to convince of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 The way I understand it Bob, The barcoding method is to use a single gene found in all organisms that is relatively unchanged across species due to it's non-coding nature. This would make it a good interspecies marker that can be used for quick ID of knowns, since it would accumulate mutations at a slow constant rate it would work like a clock to gage relatedness and time since divergence. The COI gene is the one used. I hope you have a full recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) I've got to think that BF is something other than Homo sapien. Dr. Matthew Johnson saw something that shook him up (see video). Some random guy in the woods wouldn't have the affect on you. Large, hairy, gutteral growls, hoots and nonhuman speech patterns. That just doesn't scream Homo sapien to me. The NABS must be using "human" in the broadest possible terms. It has language and a semi-structured culture, but nothing like Homo sapiens. The Randi.org board linked to my post, and I read some of their comments. They are convinced that Paulides is simply saying that BF is a human being. I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I think they're reading into it what they want (like we all do). The bottom line for is is that we're looking at something that is both human-like and ape-like. Maybe that's too simplistic, but that's the way I see it. Edited August 22, 2011 by rwridley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Large, hairy, gutteral growls, hoots and nonhuman speech patterns. That just doesn't scream Homo sapien to me. The NABS must be using "human" in the broadest possible terms. It has language and a semi-structured culture, but nothing like Homo sapiens. The Randi.org board linked to my post, and I read some of their comments. They are convinced that Paulides is simply saying that BF is a human being. I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I think they're reading into it what they want (like we all do). The bottom line for is is that we're looking at something that is both human-like and ape-like. Maybe that's too simplistic, but that's the way I see it. As far as I can read the tea leaves around here and elsewhere, I think you're 100% correct. I haven't seen the posts you're referring to but I know they've been saying for some time that the only option left for believers is for BF to be human. My personal opinion is they have it all backwards; if Ketchum is on to something, it's the only option left for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Gotcha, I'm just going to have to wait and read what she did because I can't see how you could choose which ones to chase down if they were showing up as human in the basic barcode test. Dr. K. was using a hair and fiber expert to choose the ones to test based on morphology first. Some of those samples had been vetted by other labs prior to being sent to her like the one I sent. Our sample was divided during collection so that some could be sent out to labs and the other could be examined by us. This reduced the chance of sending a contaminated sample to a DNA lab like Dr. K's. I would guess that there was something in the morphology that gave good indications which hair samples to chase down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 As far as I can read the tea leaves around here and elsewhere, I think you're 100% correct. I haven't seen the posts you're referring to but I know they've been saying for some time that the only option left for believers is for BF to be human. My personal opinion is they have it all backwards; if Ketchum is on to something, it's the only option left for them. Based upon what I've seen first hand, they are not human, but they are near-human. I can easily buy the human hybrid possibility. Keeping in mind that they are physically powerful and adapted to competition with other fauna, it does not surprise me that they would, upon occasion, use bestiality to get their point across in some interactions with humans. I can't buy the giganto hypothesis, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) Just found this on a messageboard called The Forbidden Truth- Please be aware that one of the foremost DNA experts in the world will be making a highly anticipated press conference expected by September 2011 that is going to knock many in the 'main stream' scientific community on their collective ***** from her unmolested numerous DNA sampling from different years and locations in the US, which match nothing we currently have in any database YET all match EACH OTHER. History & geography books will be rewritten! ...her findings (which I already know the outcome) will not be her opinion, they are hard core undeniable DNA facts........ so JUST pay attention. ... We'll be adding one more HUMAN species to the list soon. I don't know anything about that group, but I thought it fit into this discussion. Holy crap - I just read some of their other posts on that messageboard. It's offensively anti-semitic. I'm not sure why they are covering BF news. Edited August 22, 2011 by rwridley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Just found this on a messageboard called The Forbidden Truth- I don't know anything about that group, but I thought it fit into this discussion. Holy crap - I just read some of their other posts on that messageboard. It's offensively anti-semitic. I'm not sure why they are covering BF news. EEK! If those people aren't on a watch list, they should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts