Guest Primate Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 A more human bigfoot would not be a recent innovation ..From the point of view of Native American traditions the "ape" thing is just a blip on the screen of it's ongoing history... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 I agree and know full hand many of the stories that tell of a more human type creature, my dig is that there is a heavy investment on BF being a big monkey, take the PGF Film, the Skookum Cast, The Jacobs pictures, Meldrum's foot prints, Etc, all geared towards it being a monkey, what's going to happen if the DNA comes back more human or let's just say even Neanderthal like, are there going to be Two Bigfoot's ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 RRS: Long time since we chatted. Hope you are well. I personally don't see any DNA thing with a humanistic lean being a problem, because I never looked at the PGF "Patty" as being an ape. I used to compare the head shape to OH5 (Boisei), and the legs and crural index to Neanderthal, so if the DNA thing plays out as the rumors seem to indicate, I don't see any conflict with the PGF. But for all the other stuff, the foot stuff, etc. I don't know how that'll wash out. But I really look forward to seeing how it all ends up (the DNA thing). And I do think that for the number of people involved and the effort described, that there is some substance to it. I doubt any kind of dud could get this far without falling apart. Bill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Hi Bill ~ Ya we don't talk too much as we did on BFF1, i kinda backed off a ways on the PGF, it has always been a favorite of mine and a classic for sure but i just want to see the film and don't care about all the details that have sprung up about the makings of it over the years, i think you feel the same, still when you finish cleaning it up and all i'll be there. I guess i am just a stubborn ole Irish guy that is slow to accept anything new and very weary of things that are, the DNA approach sure is another tool to use but i don't think it's the one that will do the entire job, in fact i see DNA as possibly causing some problems, even if it comes back that there is something different it still leaves the question as to what it is, there is going to be a need for a body and that only brings it back around to square one ~ ya gotta find one I suppose if enough labs come up with the same finding possibly there might be a push for some decent funding to find one and maybe that's all this DNA thing needs to do is show after all these years folks really ain't that crazy, Hows that for positive thinking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 RRS One thing I've learned about both the PGF and the bigfoot issue overall is that just when you think you've got it all figured out, something throws a detour in front of your train of thought. So the DNA thing could be contentious enough to lead to more arguing instead of more conclusions. We can't say until it's out, but just from my PGF adventures, I've been thrown a few curveballs myself by the investigation. So while I have hopes the DNA thing will be a breakthrough in advancing scientific consideration of the issue, it wouldn't surprize me if it just makes things messier and more argumentative. There's more I can't say (about the thread topic)until the stuff comes out, and I will be real curious to see if things work out as my expectations currently predict. Bill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Good post Bill ~ it is what i have seen happen since the time i have been hanging around, it drives me nuts, i can't even begin to think what you feel with all the stuff you got going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 RRS One thing I've learned about both the PGF and the bigfoot issue overall is that just when you think you've got it all figured out, something throws a detour in front of your train of thought. So the DNA thing could be contentious enough to lead to more arguing instead of more conclusions. We can't say until it's out, but just from my PGF adventures, I've been thrown a few curveballs myself by the investigation. So while I have hopes the DNA thing will be a breakthrough in advancing scientific consideration of the issue, it wouldn't surprize me if it just makes things messier and more argumentative. There's more I can't say (about the thread topic)until the stuff comes out, and I will be real curious to see if things work out as my expectations currently predict. Bill Bill, I understand totally where you are coming from. My hubby feels that all of this human DNA results we are hearing about comes from the fact that human DNA is **Everywhere** and all of the specimens are contaminated. I'm back to believing that only a body will seal the deal so to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Look, contamination would have to be the first thing that the research team ruled out of their samples, or there simply would be no case at all. And let's consider that so far both Neanderthals and Denisova DNA has been mingled with modern human populations. Both are human subtypes that exist outside of Africa. A. boisei and other non-homo groups never to our knowledge got out of Africa. But the groups that had the intelligence (or luck maybe) to get out of Africa seem also to be the ones that interbred with modern types of humans. So given this, we need to realize that the probable scenario is that there WILL be crossbreeding of BF with modern humans, perhaps for as long as there have been modern humans (200,000 years). In which case you would be seeing a mixed bag in terms of types of BF out there. Some more humanoid, heavily crossed with modern types of humans, but others more isolated and more "pure" and closer to the H. erectus or whatever they are that was present before contact with modern types of humans occurred. We see this scenario in other species such as horses and cats so why not with other species of human? Also more and more we are finding that our traditional concept of separate species doesn't really fit with the actual reality of what the DNA tells us about mammals of various kinds. There is much more continuity in the DNA, and the separateness of the size or appearance is only skin deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) Sure would have saved a lot of time and confusion if they just dragged what ever they hit back. Edited November 21, 2011 by RedRatSnake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted November 21, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted November 21, 2011 Sure would have saved a lot of time and confusion if they just dragged what ever they hit back. I'll have $20 Bucks of anyone's $$$ that they did.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chessy Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) I was nearly guaranteed that this fall the evidence in all it's glory would be presented to the American people for their consideration, Now I have extreme doubts we will ever see hide nor hair of anything. I can invision a senario where lawsuits happen and this all gets thrown into court and we never ever hear about it. I usually don't get conspiratorial but this might just have the mighty hand of the Feds all over it behind the scenes. God I hope I'm wrong ! Edited November 21, 2011 by Chessy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 That's what confuses me, why all this DNA stuff if they have a body, from what i understand these tests are costing a fortune, why not bring the body in and let the zoo's and large labs do the map testing for science on there dime, i bet quite a few people could retire on the money it would be worth, something just ain't right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 That's what confuses me, why all this DNA stuff if they have a body, from what i understand these tests are costing a fortune, why not bring the body in and let the zoo's and large labs do the map testing for science on there dime, i bet quite a few people could retire on the money it would be worth, something just ain't right. Even if they do have a body, I could see them doing the DNA mapping so that they can present the whole package themselves. Sure it probably costs them money, but there's probably more money on the other end for them as well. If they have the footage, DNA work, and type specimen then it's all over; they are now the be-all-end-all when it comes to bigfoot. You want to know anything about the most the most spectacular natural discovery of our time, then you go to the experts. They will have cornered the market. I'm not saying that's what is happening, but it would explain why they would still do the DNA work even if they have a body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 still there is the question of the race to bring one in, if i had one i would not want to be beat and lose out after so much work trying to bag one, i would have called the news up while driving it out of the woods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 The only reason I can think of that someone would hesitate in bringing one in is because they are afraid they will get into trouble. I'm not likely to bag one, but I'm convinced if I hit one in my car and lived to tell about it, I wouldn't get charged with vehicular manslaughter. Not so with those that have actually claimed to see one up close, maim, or shoot at one thinking it was another animal. The bigoot must have something about their appearance or presence that convinces people that they are possibly human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts