Possible reason why there are no good photos of Bigfoot.

a reply to: trollz

I agree that they are most likely omnivorous and besides just eating meat they have abundant forest full of food. Just think how many times an eyewitness account starts with a Bigfoot squatting before it stands and trots away. I think they are busy forging for mushrooms, berries and roots and that is when they are most vulnerable to be approached without them noticing.

As for the bones I think we have found them many times throughout history. The SI-Te-Cah tribe of Lovelock Cave a.k.a. The red haired giants of Lovelock may be an earlier example of a mass Bigfoot grave. Also all the examples of the North American Giants discovered. We really don't know what we are dealing with out there. It's obviously an intelligent being that has been witnessed throughout history by multiple sources worldwide.

I have wondered for a while now if maybe sasquatch sightings were just actual humans that were able to shapeshift. Giving an illusion of what they are. So to us, we'd see an unknown creature and conclude that it may be what others consider a "sasquatch".

My great grandfather was a Medicine Man and could shape-shift at will. My (living) grandmother has witnessed this numerous times and still stands by this. He wouldn't shift to a "sasquatch" though, his form took on a Wolf.

Just throwing in another possibility.

They are not shapeshifters.

originally posted by: trollz

I think you're right to be skeptical of the analysis, but there are good reasons for refusing to publish the results for peer review.

I've got to disagree. In my opinion, if her analysis is valid then there's no reason not to release it. Without releasing the results, its the word of a woman of questionable ethics who has attached herself to several, and I hate to use the word because after all I am posting this on a conspiracy forum, but she has attached herself to more than one "fringe" investigation. But if the results are accurate and valid then releasing the data would vindicate her and blow the doors off of cryptozoology forever removing it from the dusty corners of libraries and putting it into the realm of legitimate and recognized biological science.

When people in academia or science so much as mention the possibility of sasquatches, they sometimes tend to get laughed out of their careers.

In my personal experience, the only time people get laughed out of a career its because they make claims they can't support with data and evidence. I certainly understand the trepidation involved, but even more reason to run the tests more than once, dot all the I's and cross all the T's to make sure there are no errors. If the data is solid then as I stated above, its a career maker not a career ender. I could give examples but I don't want to derail the thread off of the intended topic. I'm happy to do so in a PM if you like though.

The way I see it is that her results are for the believers, not the people who are simply out to demonize her as a conspiracy nutjob.

But if the data is solid, it will make believers out of everyone and make those who want to marginalized her as a nutjob look like fools. If the data is legit she has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Maybe her company isn't run properly, maybe it sucks; but that doesn't mean she doesn't know what she's doing as far as dna analysis.

The flip side is that it doesn't mean that she DOES know what she's doing. Based on her analysis of the "star child skull" I'm not overly inclined to give her a favorable review but that's a totally seperate topic and I don't want to derail this thread.

As for the angels thing; most of the world believes in some version of God, and in spiritual beings. Why is it crazy to imagine spiritual intervention being the cause of their existence? I know that in the bible, there are passages suggesting that exact thing; that angels "mated" with (or messed with the dna of) humans, and created a race of savage half-human creatures. I'm not saying I believe or do not believe such a thing, I'm just saying that the stories have been out there and are already believed by many people. I don't think it's crazy at all to consider that sasquatches may be the result of spiritual or extraterrestrial activity. In fact, that may explain why many people attribute supernatural abilities to them.

In my opinion, it makes for a great story, but having a background in anthropology, I have to follow the data and there simply isn't any to support this notion.

a reply to: peter vlar

You know, now that I think about what I said in relation to releasing the analysis data and your response, I have to say you're probably right. I didn't really think about what I was writing until after the fact. I can't see any good reason for withholding something like that. Can you? Why do you think she would withhold the information? Do you see it as an indication that she is lying about something?

"In my opinion, it makes for a great story, but having a background in anthropology, I have to follow the data and there simply isn't any to support this notion."

With your background, do you have any particular take on the sasquatch issue? One particular thing that interests me is their apparent migration routes from Asia down into Australia and Northeast into North America. I wonder where they originated from.
During the time that the Sundaland and Bering land bridges existed, were there any groups of human ancestors that the present-day native Americans would have come into contact with? Is it possible that neanderthals could have survived up until that time and interbred with the humans?
Forgive me if those are stupid questions, I really don't know my history in relation to those things.

There is no reason to believe that Bigfoots are anything other than normal creatures - possibly more like us than like apes but who knows, we may find they are the missing link. Somehow I dont think these are up there with unicorns and goblins because there is more tangible evidence for their existence like the hand and foot prints in the ground. We dont see that kind of evidence for goblins and fairies and Irish leprachauns - or aliens for that matter. So, I think we are chasing something physical rather than something inter-dimensional, at least it is more physical than other things mentioned above. Even Mothman does not have footprints going for him to prove his existence.

Maybe we should stop and evaluate in another thread what physical evidence we do have for all these legendary beings?

As I have said before on ATS, the thing which is our downfall in investigating all these things is that we do not correllate all the different avenues of investigation and we do not work together to form a coherent picture of the subject. If we did, we would not be able to be distracted and confused by government shills and disbelievers because the evidence would be there for all to see. As it is, we are disorganised and easily distracted. Divide and conquer is one of the war cries of those who wish we do not find out about these things.

originally posted by: aseruk
They are not shapeshifters.

OH! Ok! Thanks for clearing that up for me!

Like I said, I was just throwing out a possibility.
Has anyone mapped to see how far away any Native Reserves are from "known" sightings? I'll have to look into that
Like I said before......From personal family experience it "could" be a possibility.
But thank you very much for your useless post!

I'm my opinion it is a gigantopithicus, a species of bi pedal primates that stood about 8-10 foot! I have a picture of one but don't know how to embed it on here (sorry fairly new). Gigantopithicus are thought to have been extinct for about 100,000 years but the similarities between them and modern day accounts are astounding! They come from central Asia! I can member reading somewhere that they migrated to north america with man when there was a land bridge between Alaska and Russia. Would explain the theory as to why the native American people protect them and revere them!

a reply to: qmantoo

If we did, we would not be able to be distracted and confused by government shills and disbelievers because the evidence would be there for all to see. As it is, we are disorganised and easily distracted. Divide and conquer is one of the war cries of those who wish we do not find out about these things.

Oh, here we go. Blame it on 'shills,' eh? Lol.

One of the 'shills' invited samples of hairs thought to be from bigfoot, squatch and yetis. Greg Sykes is an Oxford Uni geneticist and the samples they analysed all came back as known animals. One exception was a sub-species of bear from India/Bhutan that seems to be a hybrid leftover from the days when Neanderthals walked the Earth. You should read the paper, but why let your opinion be troubled by evidence? He mentions those who claim bigfoot is 'rejected by science' and that's pretty much what you've written above with the 'government shills' snipe. Genetic analysis of hair samples attributed to yeti, bigfoot and other anomalous primates

In contrast, I've been a reader of the bigfoot books and blogs for several years. Almost every hoax comes directly from the bigfoot hunting community. Google Matt Moneymaker, Rick Dyer or Michigan Iceman. See if you can find 'bigfoot nests' mentioned prior to recent times. Even Sanderson was grumbling about bigfoot hoaxes in the 60s and, arguably, he was its biggest proponent.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Being from the UK and having a life long interest in bigfoot I obviously watched the programme with a lot of interest and although the DNA came back as known animals and even the "yeti" sample came back as a polar bear hybrid is fascinating in its self. The problem I have is that they only tested a handful of samples and IMO doesn't represent the whole of this enigma.

a reply to: damo1583

I agree with you there although it was 30 samples. Sykes did his best with what he was given and the final report is out there for peer review. A stark contrast to the Ketchum shenanigans of (apparently) hoovering up a large number of samples and then releasing spurious findings in a vanity-press journal.

...doesn't represent the whole of this enigma.

'Enigma' is a good word to use. I've argued that bigfoot aren't real, not that people aren't seeing them...an enigma.

originally posted by: qmantoo
Everyone is going around assuming that Bigfoot can see in the same visible spectrum as we can and their eyes have the same biology. What if they can see into the infrared and maybe into the ultraviolet.

Game cameras don't "floodlight" the area they're taking a photo of. They depend on body heat emission to trigger.

Perhaps your "Bigfoot" is at room temperature. Or, more likely, doesn't exist.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: damo1583

I agree with you there although it was 30 samples. Sykes did his best with what he was given and the final report is out there for peer review. A stark contrast to the Ketchum shenanigans of (apparently) hoovering up a large number of samples and then releasing spurious findings in a vanity-press journal.

...doesn't represent the whole of this enigma.

'Enigma' is a good word to use. I've argued that bigfoot aren't real, not that people aren't seeing them...an enigma.

Professor Sykes credentials are unrivaled and you got from him that he was a true man of science and was indeed willing to go with anything he found from the data! Let's face it coming from that world even the mention of fringe subjects could finish a career even his! It was a TV programme which if you look at it really did very little in comparison to what is actually needed to properly investigate this phenomenon! Maybe with technology moving forwards we might one day be able to find out forsure ! Maybe silent drones that have IR and heat detecting cameras???? I don't know tbh. But also with the progress in tech hoaxs will become better and that must also be taken into consideration

a reply to: L0125D

My post was very useful for you now know that they are NOT shapeshifters.

originally posted by: damo1583
I'm my opinion it is a gigantopithicus,!

i have always felt like bigfoot descended from gigantopithicus blacki.

the general consensus is biigfoot has some level of intelligence.....of course blacki did too because he wasnt single cell but imo, if it were a giganto, people would have found it by now...

a reply to: Grovit

Its just an incling as it seems the most likely fit! Physically they are pretty much identical to reports from witnesses and from the grainy film clips that are not clear hoaxes, its possible with dwindling numbers that some of them could have migrated along the land bridge between Alaska and Russia! As I said before I have always been interested in bigfoot! Whether a small number of gigantos made that journey and have survived till today living in small packs is debatable for better minds than mine lol

Sorry survived as a species not as individuals

originally posted by: damo1583
a reply to: Grovit

Its just an incling as it seems the most likely fit! Physically they are pretty much identical to reports from witnesses and from the grainy film clips that are not clear hoaxes, i

i get what youre saying...from my eyes though, they dont look pretty much identical...they look very similar to me

they seem to be the same height wise but to me, gigano obviously looks more like a gorilla and bigfoot more like a giant, hairy, human with gorilla traits.
thats what i see.

either way though, i think giganto is in that blood

a reply to: Grovit

For me its the silloette of the gigantic especially the shoulders and neck areas along with the height and mass! Possible hybridisation over time??? This hypothesis is over a 100,000 years! I think its clear that native american people know a lot more than they will ever tell, they seem to be protecting them

originally posted by: trollz
a reply to: peter vlar

You know, now that I think about what I said in relation to releasing the analysis data and your response, I have to say you're probably right. I didn't really think about what I was writing until after the fact. I can't see any good reason for withholding something like that. Can you?

This is a great example of the positive benefits of entering a discussion like this with your mind open just enough to entertain the notions of someone you may not necessarily agree with and for that I commend you. From my perspective, no I can't see any rational reason for withholding the data from review. Upon a little further digging, I did find that Ms. Ketchum did finally publish her work. On the other hand, its still a little sketchy as the journal she published in is one she herself owns and there are only two articles published in the history of the journal, both papers authored wholly or in part by Dr. Ketchum. Her explanation was that several journals were going to publish it until they for d out the subject matter and the editors them declined because it would end their careers. I hold by my earlier rationale that if the data was legit, then people would be foaming at the mouth to take part in this groundbreaking research and be the first to publish and review that data.

Why do you think she would withhold the information? Do you see it as an indication that she is lying about something?

Perhaps its got something to do with the book she authored and is plugging, 'Mystic Forrest - Wishes' ? Or maybe it has something to do with her current crowd funding campaign in which she is trying to raise several tens of thousands of dollars to engage in more DNA testing in an attempt to prove another of her hypothesis, that giants once roamed North America? All of this can be found on her Facebook page, you Know, where all reputable scientists do their fundraising. Did I mention that to view her paper you first have to pay $30? She owns her own genetic testing lab/company, but claims she spent over $30,000 testing the material. The whole thing just smells awfully fishy to me and lacks the hall,arks of professional integrity. Another issue I find is that while she certainly is a doctor of veterinary medicine, she also claims to have a background in genetics. I might be wrong or perhaps I just haven't been able to locate the apropriate information as yet, but I can find no information pertaining to her degree in genetics or even where she allegedly studied or received her additional degree from. I'm hesitant to outright call her a liar but I'm having difficulty swallowing this bitter pill she's handing out. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt for now and state that the information may be out there somewhere and I just haven't found it yet. But to be honest, I'm not terribly hopeful.

One of the refutations of her work, a journalist from Texas if I remember correctly, claims that a geneticist friend of his reviewed the data and his results indicate several mundane and well known animals such as opposum but nothing even remotely human. He however will not disclose the name of his geneticist source because they are reluctant to have their name associated with the case. Without being able to verify sources and no legitimate citations, it may as well be another dead end. As appealing as the results may be, it is in the end no more definitive than Dr. Ketchums results.

With your background, do you have any particular take on the sasquatch issue? One particular thing that interests me is their apparent migration routes from Asia down into Australia and Northeast into North America. I wonder where they originated from.

My take on Sasquatch/Bigfoot is that on a personal level, I would love for it to be real. Ive been fascinated by the possibility of an unknown/cryptid Hominid for nearly 35 years since i first read about it as a kid. On a professional level, even the best evidence is inconclusive and anecdotal at best. There's enough tangible evidence to keep hope alive for me but until somethimg more conclusive presents itself, I have to remain agnostic about it. Unfortunately, in my opinion, there are some big issues that stick out in my mind such as the requisite population size to maintain perpetuity of the species. At the same time we could very well be looking at so,ethimg that is highly endangered or on the brink of extinction as well. It really could go both ways and there is enough pristine habitat to keep small isolated bands of the, hidden but the reality is that if we are talking about an unknown hominid that is a member of the great ape family, we should have seen so,e evidence in the fossil record. Additionally, all known apes are very social creatures and live in fairly large groups and are not the so,Italy creatures that Sasquatch is portrayed as in popular folklore. There should be nesting or living areas as well as food sources that are somewhat obvious. Their size is at beyond anything we have seen in the last 100,000 years in regards to any other apes and even at that we are only able to make estimates based on jaw bones and teeth of Gigantopithecus Blacki which was up to 10 ft (or 3 meters) tall.

During the time that the Sundaland and Bering land bridges existed, were there any groups of human ancestors that the present-day native Americans would have come into contact with?

There were a couple of groups of archaic hominin populations that persisted in East Asia and down through Melanesia up until the end if the LGM(last glacial maximum). The Red Deer Cave people were very definitely still living as recently as 11,500 BPE and possibly even into more recent times. Denisovans, based on tracing gene flow and calculating mutation rates, were possibly still thriving throughout East Asia, down through Sundaland and likely crossed the Wallace Line into what once was Wallacea and possibly into Australia itself though that is still very debatable. While the probability is very low that the people who crossed Beringea into NA encountered H. Denisovans in NA, it is very possible that they encountered them on the Siberian side and if there was a migration up the pacific coast of E. Asia they certainly would have encountered them at some point, its just a matter of when as physical remains of H. Denisova are limited to one location in Southern Siberia. Genetic data suggests that they could have persisted until as recently as 20,000 BPE and possibly more recently until the end of the LGM but without more evidence its still rather speculative. Also, with the limited remains of H. Denisova recovered their morphology is still unknown beyond being able to discern that they were likely similar in stature to HNS(Neanderthal) with some more archaic features, but certainly not anywhere near as tall as Bigfoot is thought to be and depicted in common folklore even if it were to turn out that Denisovans made their way into NA.



Ketchum's "journal"-

www.denovojournal.com...

Her Facebook page-

www.facebook.com...

originally posted by: trollz
Is it possible that neanderthals could have survived up until that time and interbred with the humans?
Forgive me if those are stupid questions, I really don't know my history in relation to those things.

Not stupid questions at all. Far better to ask and add to your knowledge base Instead of wildly speculating on random possibilities I would say.

While HNS definitely admixed with "us" in Europe roughly 60,000 BPE, the range of their habitat never extended as far East as Beringia nor did they survive into recent enough times outside of isolated pockets in south western Spain, Portugal and possibly the island of Malta. Denisovans, like their cousins Neanderthal, also admixed with "us". The gene that allows Tibetans to function at high altitudes with no ill effects comes from HSD and Melanesians have a much higher percentage of their genes than people of European descent have of HNS. Because of the likely morphological similarities between Neanderthal and Denisovan I personally find it rather unlikely that admixture would result in anything resembling what Bigfoot is depicted as. Based on so,e very good samples, the entire Denisovan genetic code has been decoded and the closest we are going to get to what a hybrid of them and us is modern day Melanesians.

One thing to add, based on all the genetic data currently known after decoding Denisovans, we learned that there is an as yet unidentified common ancestor of modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans. Who they were, exactly when they lived and what they looked like is all completely unknown at the moment. Could that archaic hominin have made its way to North America and eve rurally become Bigfoot/Sasquatch? Until we learn more it can't be ruled out but without the data we can't say with certainty one way or the other. As I stated earlier, I keep my fingers crossed and hope that hard evidence turns up but until then its a bit irresponsible from a scientific standpoint to argue in favor of something based on anecdotal data compounded with the vast number of known hoaxes.