Bigfoot Is Real, And We Have DNA To Prove It: Researchers

reply to post by Ewok_Boba

What are we talking about? It is a forum after all, isn't it? Room for discussions etc. Look, I agree with you that data is data but this gives the science world and everybody that take their word as gospel another reason to ridicule her and her study.

.....what are we talking about........sheesh.

Originally posted by ObservingYou
they serve as spare pysical bodies for US to incarnate into in the event of a nuclear strike (that is detrimental to actual soul essence)

That doesn`t make sense to me, so you are saying that bigfoots didn`t exist before 1945 when we invented the atomic bomb?
or
They did exist before 1945 because someone or something could see into the future and knew we would make an atomic bomb in 1945?
If they can see into the future then why did they say " in the event of.." wouldn`t they already know if a nuclear strike is going to happen in our future?

reply to post by jonnywhite


Interesting story about your footprints. But I'm sure they were just from some big guy running barefoot in the snow.

I am not understanding how the Doctor is able to conclude that this is Bigfoot Hair or Bigfoot DNA when there is nothing to compare the sample to. No known Bigfoot specimens exist to my knowledge therefore no baseline DNA to compare it too. At best the Doctor could conclude the sample to be non human in origin and even this would be a leap. She appears to say it does have human origins so not sure how she has come to her conclusions.

If the police have a crime scene and collect DNA, they are unable to compare to anyone whose DNA they do not have a sample of and the same would apply here, until there is a confirmed Bigfoot specimen, then no DNA sample can be confirmed that of Bigfoot....and no matter if Ra and Co themselves said it is so.

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by ObservingYou
they serve as spare pysical bodies for US to incarnate into in the event of a nuclear strike (that is detrimental to actual soul essence)

That doesn`t make sense to me, so you are saying that bigfoots didn`t exist before 1945 when we invented the atomic bomb?
or
They did exist before 1945 because someone or something could see into the future and knew we would make an atomic bomb in 1945?
If they can see into the future then why did they say " in the event of.." wouldn`t they already know if a nuclear strike is going to happen in our future?

Nuclear = Splitting the Atom - with dangerous consequences.

Maldek and Mars are but 2 examples within our own solar system of the consequences of messing with such dangerous sciences.

But, on the subject of "seeing the future", prophecies are self fulling if that's the direction our thought patterns continue. Atlantis is a perfect example.

sorry

I'm very open minded, but they are going to need a body to get anyone excited about "proof"

reply to post by ObservingYou


Quoting the Law of One, written by 3 people and a NON-HUMAN named Ra isn't exactly proof of anything you said about Bigfoot.

The Law of One is as fictious as the Bible.

You are really special though, I will give you that.

All these armchair biologists that haven't done a lick of their own scientific tests...what an amusing racket.

Anyway, I'm just happy to hear that we are actually making progress. Has anyone bothered to look up Homo cognatus or whatever it is and cross reference between testimonial descriptions/biological samples of "Bigfoot" and the historical profile for these ancestors?

No? Then what are you waiting for, quit bickering and actually do some background research! Verify, verify!

reply to post by Sayitaintso
Modern human and some sort of ape? If it hadn't happened 13,000 years ago I would know exactly who to blame. On second thought maybe that's the reason they are so hard to catch.

Originally posted by ObservingYou
reply to post by Clairaudience

 

The truth is stranger than fiction. Remember that that.

Remain ignorant if you choose.

edit on 15-2-2013 by ObservingYou because: (no reason given)

That is what as known as a non sequitur, as in responding with garbage. If you have nothing salient to actually add, why add anything?

Dr. Jeff Meldrum via Project Sasquatch:

"The journal was created on a GoDaddy template on Feb 4, by a third party, with a one-year contract. There is no information about who is editing the "journal" or who the members of an editorial board might be. I queried the contact feature on this matter but have received no reply. This does not appear to be a refereed journal. It appears to merely be a front for a self-published report. The sequences have not been uploaded to Genbank."

I'll trust what the good Dr. says.

Originally posted by ObservingYou

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by ObservingYou
they serve as spare pysical bodies for US to incarnate into in the event of a nuclear strike (that is detrimental to actual soul essence)

That doesn`t make sense to me, so you are saying that bigfoots didn`t exist before 1945 when we invented the atomic bomb?
or
They did exist before 1945 because someone or something could see into the future and knew we would make an atomic bomb in 1945?
If they can see into the future then why did they say " in the event of.." wouldn`t they already know if a nuclear strike is going to happen in our future?

Nuclear = Splitting the Atom - with dangerous consequences.

Maldek and Mars are but 2 examples within our own solar system of the consequences of messing with such dangerous sciences.

But, on the subject of "seeing the future", prophecies are self fulling if that's the direction our thought patterns continue. Atlantis is a perfect example.

No, there is no proof that Maldek actually ever existed, and even if it did, who 'messed' with it? What is your point about Mars exactly? Non sequitur again

reply to post by OkieDokie


BigFoot is indeed real. Seems to be whatever myth or legend the Native Americans pass down through their legacy, turns out to be true or plausible, Like; Blue Kachina.

They didn't lie back then. Nor were they mesmerized to the point of delirium and constantly mistook what it is they saw.
It's US who are having the issues with understanding or accepting what it is they were writing about. The indigenous people were very keen. They KNOW if they saw an 8-foot bipedal long hair stinky creature standing near their camp fire or caves! Therefore they chronicled it.
BigFoot is real. Now what? Time to really start questioning authority? I say it is!

Homo sapiens cognatus.

That's just stupid. You name species with 2 names, not 3.

Not to mention if you know a thing about DNA, if you have a sample of DNA, there's no way to determine what the organism looks like from the DNA, unless you cloned it.

Now I understand why cryptzoologists get such a bad rep.

reply to post by ObservingYou


You seem to have all the answers. Yet your a member of ATS. Glad we got you and not GLP.... GLP probally could'nt handle the way you simply school everybody in your dribble. The op thread is talking about a REAL life scientist that is studing myth of bigfoot with real science. Not pseudo Ra Hoo Haa interstellar power of one dribble. why not just write your own thread about Rahoohaa and we'll flame it up good for ya. Anybody got some match's & gasoline?

Originally posted by Ghost375

Homo sapiens cognatus.

That's just stupid. You name species with 2 names, not 3.

Not to mention if you know a thing about DNA, if you have a sample of DNA, there's no way to determine what the organism looks like from the DNA, unless you cloned it.

Now I understand why cryptzoologists get such a bad rep.

Well... if it has 3 names, its not a species, its a subspecies.

Homo Sapiens is a species.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a subspecies evolved from the "old" homo sapiens (this is you and me)
theres also Homo Sapiens Idaltu for example... or homo sapiens neanderthalensis (you know... the neanderthal - altho this one can also be classified as a different species from the same genus and be called "Homo neanderthalensis"... anyway) They were "sapiens" also.

So... if said "bigfoot" exists, it will be a subspecies of homo sapiens; if its called "cognatus" or not, I have no idea, but if it existed it would have 3 names because its still a subspecies - "derived from". And would be definitely be under the "sapiens" species (btw, if you argue it cant be under "Sapiens" you're entering the same discussion ppl have why the neanderthals cant be under "sapiens". But in my opinion, and considering the meaning of Sapiens, the neanderthals fall into the "sapiens" species simply because the definition of "sapiens" given is too big and vague - basically it means "to know, to have discernment, wise (well lol... in relation to the others hehe - this one is not to be taken literally), rational, etc"... so neanderthals have all the traits and rights to belong to this species)

So... before I kill you out of boredom, I'll shut up now - rule of thumb - Genus - Species - Subspecies

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by ObservingYou
reply to post by Clairaudience

 

The truth is stranger than fiction. Remember that that.

Remain ignorant if you choose.

edit on 15-2-2013 by ObservingYou because: (no reason given)

That is what as known as a non sequitur, as in responding with garbage. If you have nothing salient to actually add, why add anything?

edit on 15-2-2013 by something wicked because: I may as well spell it right ;-)

Actually "non sequitur" means "of no relevance" or "illogical conclusion that has nothing to do with something said before".

In this case it was relevant and logical considering his previous post - it followed the previous post in the same logic therefore coming to a coherent conclusion of statement".

As much as "crazy" his first post sounded, and even if you dont agree, ignore, ridicule or simply think his dogmas are stupid, it has its "logic" (even if its only HIS logic - doesnt matter for the issue at hand), therefore his second post was NOT "non sequitur" - it followed and was related to the previous post (or statement).

Example taken to the extreme: "Where do bananas come from?" and you answer "My shoes are dirty" - thats "non sequitur" - but it loses its "non sequitur status" IF your shoes are dirty from bananas... lol... yes weird, but altho its not a coherent response, it is still related to the previous subject or statement and still has his, altho skewed, logic. At first seems "non sequitur", but later you'll find out that is not because you explain the logical reason how it is related to my question. Its also contextualized.

reply to post by OkieDokie


Why doesn't someone just ask Bigfoot if the hair is indeed his?

Originally posted by ObservingYou
and the Law of One is the most highly regarded, largely undisputed channeled texts in existence.

According to whom exactly? What person/group decided that?

Originally posted by Ghost375

Homo sapiens cognatus.

That's just stupid. You name species with 2 names, not 3.

Not to mention if you know a thing about DNA, if you have a sample of DNA, there's no way to determine what the organism looks like from the DNA, unless you cloned it.

Now I understand why cryptzoologists get such a bad rep.

Two names not three?

Let me think.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens

Cognatus would be a sub-species of Homo Sapiens. Just like Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a sub species of the species Homo Sapiens.

K thx.

I see Fraternitas beat me to the punch.