This thread is born out of a discussion about Neandertals and Bigfoot that can be found at the following link:
Rather than continue to discuss the subject in the Neandertal story comments I've decided to start a thread on the forum in hopes that the conversation will continue. Many people have contributed to the discussion offering their own ideas about just what the alleged Bigfoot could be or could not be. This creature is also known as Yeti, Sasquatch, the Forest People, and various other names. Some believe the creature is some sort of prehistoric human or human hybrid. Others of us believe the creature is likely some species of Gigantopithecus such as G. blacki as I myself believe along with Idaho State University anthropologist Dr Jeff Meldrum et al.
We have also discussed the Ketchum Bigfoot DNA Study conducted by Dr Melba Ketchum not long ago. That study involved the DNA sequencing of alleged hair, feces, and other samples reported to be from the creature. The results were inconclusive because there is nothing to compare them to but Ketchum and her team did arrive at some conclusions about Bigfoot. First, they concluded that Bigfoot is real and that we have an unknown creature living in North America that is elusive and very large. They also concluded that the DNA shows the creatures lineage is from a "human mother and unkown hominid father." Expanding on this discovery Dr Ketchum has stated that the "unknown hominid father" could have been a prehistoric giant ground sloth which interbred with human women at some point in the past. I myself do not agree with her expanison comment about humans interbreeding with prehistoric sloths. This study has been met with much controversy in the academic community.
I myself believe that Bigfoot is some North American species of Gigantopithecus blacki or some other ape. I do not believe it is a proto-human. I tend to follow the same lines of thinking on the creature as Dr Jeff Meldrum of Idaho State University. I have observed Bigfoot on two occasions and from what I've seen with my own eyes and investigations along with speaking to credible witnesses I believe the creature displays a lot of ape-;like behavior more than anything else. Further, the creature is very ape-like in appearance and behavior in my opinion.
We have also discussed misidentification in our discussion and the general opinion is that many so called "sightings" of Bigfoot are, in fact, misidentification of common animals such as bears. I, like Dr Meldrum, believe that Bigfoot is a RARE creature and that many of the sightings are simply matters of misidentification. We've also discussed hybrids and how inbreeding between species has limits which is absolutely true. We've also discussed the hoaxsters who go about making Bigfoot tracks with plywood cutouts, filing false sighting reports, and people on YouTube claiming to have filmed the creature (most of which are either bears or people in gorilla suits).
We have had some intelligent and respectful conversation on this subject and I hope that will continue because EVERYONES opinions and insights matter. At this point in time we really don't know what this creature is so anyone could be right about it. I wish to express my gratitude to everyone who has involved themselves in the discussion under the Neandertal story and hope you will help keep the discussion going here on the forum. Thank you.
I'm going to add more to the discussion when I'm not playing with my daughter but you guys really are "my people" and I love you for it! I love having a community that can talk about Bigfoot and I don't have to feel like a crazy person!
love, light and blessings
You're not crazy. I'm a scientist and have seen the creature with my own eyes twice and I'm not a novice to the wilderness as I spend much time in it and have for decades. So IF you are crazy then that makes two of us LOL.
Hello Roberto and others I also hope will come into this thread.
It is good to have this kind of forum for this discussion, as many other forums are poisoned with people that have no respect for views other than those of their own camp. I am far aways from the actual action myself, as I am living in Sweden, but I have set my mind on going for a hike some day in Sasquatch country.
One other good thing with this site is that many people that are joining also keep an open mind outside of the realms of " the scientific community" not at all meaning this as them being less scientific in their minds, rather the opposite. As others here, I am willing to take the risk of having to change my views when things prove differently and keep my mind open for this possibility. But also, I am prepared to support what I find as good proof even if the rest of the world would be against it.
Concerning the Ketchum study, it is such an example of different aspects of research and its public, achademical and political aspects. I believe that dr Ketchum and her financers had a perhaps to naive view of how the scientific community works and in this way, went into a trap. The scientific journals provoked her to revice the paper making interpretations and elaborate further over the results in a way that drove her outside of her realms. This was then striking back on her even with totally unbased critisism on the stringency of the work and method and especially contamination and quality control. Such a paradox, this being the part of the study that people within achademia would never be able to match. But, when not accepting the interpretations, this is what they were hitting at.
As I stated above, I don´t care about that the study is being ignored by the scientific community. I have enough basic understanding in molecular biology technology, from being active within this field on the technology side, alltough this was many years back, to trust my own assessments. Also note that no one within this field ( molecuar biology specialists) have really come forward and seriously challenged the methods, labwork and results. I would even say that there are a great many of these people that are knowing full well that the study holds up, but cannot support something like this in their present position.
I agree with you as I stated earlier on the part of the ground living Sloth would be a very unprobable male progenitor for Bigfoots. I think this speculation came out of these further elaborations in the paper in the combination of using irrelevant tools. What I believe to be irrelevant tools in this way, is based on that these tools are not supposed to be used on hybrid species. Simulating phylogenetic trees and running a "Blast" is all based on that hybrid species play no part in evolution. at this point now, I also believe that dr Ketchum have understood this fallacy of the pesent tools, and are now looking at archeology in search for a possible male progenitor for Bigfoots. If she would have a lucky strike in this way, she may be able to decifer the code having both " languages" it is a mix of, at hand.
So, if someone in a qualified way would show me where the study is flawed, I will honour this, but then a lot of studies based on DNA proof also probably would have to be questioned. Otherwhise I cannot se for myself how it could have been flawed.
Would a support for the Ketchum study on those lines be in confict with peoples observations?
Would it exclude possible progenitors for Bigfoots?
No! ( except for ground living Sloths)
Inventor you may not be as far from the action as you think. I know the creature has been reported in Norway so likely there are reports from Sweden too. Is it not possible that when the samples were collected that they may have been contaminated with human DNA? Some of the samples were old from what I understand. So if someone (the collector) just picked up a hair with their hands wouldn't that contaminate the DNA? My understanding is it would contaminate the sample but I'm not a molecular biologist. The ground sloth postulation is out in left field as far as I'm concerned. Anything is possible I suppose but I highly doubt a human female interbred with a sloth and I don't even think offspring would be possible in such a union. So I was abit taken back when Ketchum suggested this. I think for some that raised red flags with her research and motives so they simply passed off all of her research and findings as fallacy or in error to some measure.
More than 99 % of the forested areas are cultivated forrest in Sweden and people out in the rural areas are rather hostile in their attitude to carnivors, especially so, the native Same people. So I am sad to say, that they rather want all the wolfes, bears and wolverines to be hunted and killed. This same attitude would not be good for possible trolls reentering Sweden after 500 or 600 hudred years of absense. I definitely do believe that their are such ones at least in Russia, Poland and the Check republic. Clearly there is a possibility of entrance from he Russian side into Scandinavia. Also, I don´t blieve that they are quite the same as the Bigfoots.
How to secure and check on contamination when working with DNA? - Use the code and quality to your own benefit! And dr Ketchums group, actually being forensic scientists, performed all those necessary tests based on the code and the quality. If the quality is bad or you have a mixed material, you will not have it cut in the sam type of fragments, when cutting it up with restriction enzymes. Therefore, it will show a smear or extra bands, when you run it on a gel with electrophoresis. If there is foreign DNA present, it will show its code when being sequensed ( and you can also quick test it). If you then have a record on all possible contamination sources ( people in possible contact with the samples, possible known animals etc) you can rule out contamination. In this case, the mito heritage, at a closer look, also showed to be slightly differently mutated as compared to the today present variations of those same human haplogroups. This indicating a split sometime before 15000 years ago.
There are thousands of bears in America and I have never seen a dead one just lying there. Never seen a dead cougar carcass in the wild and there are thousands in the West. But every once and a while some one sees a bear or a big cat and with all those trail/game cameras out there I think we ought to get a picture of a bigfoot at some point in time. I hope when they do its a good one and not an "iffy"one. Wonder what confirmation of existence would mean to the Bigfoots' fate?..Wonder if they're better off as a myth?
I cant see the groundsloth and a hominid doing it....no!! Bigfoot would have to be somewhere in the fossil record, we just hav'nt recognized it til now. Of all the accounts of Bigfoot, the only one I really am conviced by was the interview with Les Straud on his encounter in Alaska. You can see it on youtube.
I've spent a lot of time over the years in the wilderness and sometimes in places where no other human being has been in perhaps 100 or more years. I can count on one hand the number of bears and moutain lions I've seen and I have never found skeletons of either. Both are elusive just as the Bigfoot is. You pose an excellent question and concern John Dale. Indeed, what will confirmation mean to the creatures fate? I agree. Sometimes such creatures are better left to remain in the realm of myth.
I think Bigfoot is in the fossil record only we haven't recognized them for what they really are yet. In addition to it being postulated this creature is some form of Gigantopithecus it has also been proposed that it may be some form of Meganthropus or Paranthropus (both of which I will expound upon later today in this thread).
I saw the episode of "Survivor Man" with Les Straud and his encounter with this creature in Alaska. Even he now believes the creature to be real but, like us, isn't sure what it is. Thank you for your comments.
I believe the chart will be very much redrawn on the heritage of apes and humans. There are many complications when looking on the human heritage, which is becoming more and more clear, and one of the complicating aspects are the hybridisation occurances. All tools and assessments on the heritage issue have earlier been based on that there is no influence from hybridisation occurances. Those supposed genetic trees show to have branches that grow together again, so it formes rather a web . This aspect renders a lot of the earlier asumptions as faulty or limited.
It is my hope that we will one day find out more about this creature, I often wondered since they seem to be solitary or just really good at hiding.... where are the familes the young surely they mate. Recently I have wondered if the underground cave systems people are now talking about are the answer?
Looking forward to folloowing the thread.
Nisa Carroll Burkay
Some eyewitnesses have spotted familes of these creatures but typically they are alone or a mother carrying her young in much the same manner as gorillas carry their young. Underground cave systems are extensive and they are found all over the world. You may be very correct, in that, Bigfoot uses them to live and/or hide in. If we lived in the wild all of our days we'd know where all the best hiding places are and where all the cave entrances are. We'd know how to avoid predators and man. Our senses would be keen and we would adapt to our wild environment. It would not be difficult for us to hide or get away from some danger than had not spotted us yet. We would know the wildlands like we know our own homes and towns.
How many times in human history have we discarded an idea either culturally or scientifically, only to have it proven to be true later?
I have never seen a "Bigfoot", but that doesn't mean it isn't a real creature; I hope it is as it can help answer a lot of questions about the origins of humans.
There is a definitive answer to this question and I hope we find it one way or another in my lifetime!
It's very possible that Bigfoot could be some species of Gigantopithecus, the largest known ape that ever lived. However, there are other possibilities with one being Meganthropus. Meganthropus is classified by most paleoanthropologists today as being a variation of the Homo eretus species of ancient humans. But, others do not accept this and think Meganthropus was a separate species from H. erectus. There are some problems will classifying Meganthropus as H. erectus. For one, H. erectus stood an average of 6 feet tall (182 cm) which makes them about the size of humans today. Meganthropus, however, averaged a height of around 8 ft tall (2.43 cm) with an average weight between 400-600 lbs (1.81-272 kg). When you get past the shock and hype that witnesses experience when seeing a Bigfoot the creature matches almost exactly the height and weight of Meganthropus.
Fossils from Meganthropus have been found in Java and Indonesia. As I said most paleoanthropologists consider it to be relatd to H. erectus in some way. However, others believe it was more related to the australopithecines (the "true" ape-men" some have said). All of these are considered to be ancient human ancestors. This lends support to Dr Ketchum's findings in her Bigfoot DNA study.
One thing we must keep in mind is that one hominid species did NOT disappear as another replaced it. The fossil evidence shows beyond doubt that several hominid species co-existed sometimes for long periods of time in some areas. So this appears to be the "norm." In some respects when I think about the Ketchum results, that is that Bigfoot is the product of "a human mother and unknown hominid father," Meganthropus might be a good candidate.
Finally, let me just state that fossils aren't formed easily. Environmental conditions must be just right for something to become a fossil. In places like Java and Indonesia the environmental conditions are NOT conducive to fossil formation and this is why we find so few fossils there. However, in Africa the environmental conditions were much MORE conducive to fossil formation and that is why we find so many fossils there. I point this out because many people have the misconception that every dinosaur or prehistoric human or plant that died became a fossil. NO SO! In fact, very few of them became fossils.
It is great that that the incidencential occurence of fossils is discussed, it is not reprentative of where life have been thriving. The DNA record is a more representative picture allthough lots will have been lost due to extinction also here, though it is clear that we need a better understanding and better tools, to interpret this in a better way.
Hi, I'm new at this so bare with me. I have never seen proof of Bigfoot with my own eyes, but I would still like to believe such a species exists.
What drove me to comment on this subject is the idea of hybridization. I cannot claim to know much about geneology and hybrid biology, but I have always been under the impression that most hybrids are sterile. From what I understand it is possible for a female to be fertile (ex. female mule who's father was a donky), however the male hybrid would still be sterile. And please correct me if I'm way off course on this idea.
Anyway, my point is how would the Bigfoot lineage have been able to continue, unless the original cross breeding occured between two very, very closely related species or perhaps sub-species? Much like dog breeding, I guess.
No giant ground sloth/ape! That's just silly, really.
The most imidiate problem for a hybrid is if the parents don´t have the same number of chromosomes. Then, this offspring will generally be sterile because it will produce insufficient sexual cells lacking some of the crucial DNA information. A mutation changing the hromosomal number would by rare incidence happen to two different individuals that then also happen to mate, then a new species have been formed. They and their offspring can then not breed with the original species even though there is no generall differens on the DNA sequence. So, perhaps this have been initiating the forming of many species. The issue of different chromosomal numbers is valid between horse and donkey as well as between humans and all known apes.
The other aspect of this issue is general differences in the DNA-code, so even with the same chromosomal number, each chromosome would have to carry the same kind of genes more or less, to even produce an living offspring. But there may be possibilities when the chromosomal number incidentally happen to fit, to produce a fertile offspring even between lets say a monkey and an ape.
Just reading everyone's posts and thought I would join in. Not trying to say I understand all of what has been said but I will add my 2cents worth. First I do not understand any one thinking that a giant sloth and a early human actually did the deed (although might have been cold that night and one thing led to another) and that it was even possible for any offspring to have formed. I did not think that different species could conceive. Horses and donkeys, yes. Lions and tigers, yes. Dogs and cats, no. Second has anyone heard of Lloyd Pye. Recently watched his video Everything we know is wrong ( i think that's what it was called). The way he described Bigfoot, Yeti, Sasquatch etc was that they could quite possibly early hominids. He explains their shape, size etc to that of the varying creatures around the world that all early cultures say have been around since time began. I understand that there is no proof for any of our theories being right or wrong ( sorry, can't help lol the sloth/hominid connection, but hey, I'm no scientist/biologist) I just haven't heard anyone bring this up. Yes he is the guy talking about the starchild ( again no proof either way) and going on just that alone all early people's of the world have their stories on those from space. Aborigines ( Australian ) talk of themselves being the first people and coming from space. So I am asking has anyone heard about any of this and has any of it been proved right or wrong. The video was from 2003.
CraigG I've seen the video you are talking about by Lloyd Pye. None of what you have mentioned has been proven nor disproven true or false. It all continues to be speculative. The Hopi speak of the Star Beings coming down from the sky atop their Mesas in northern Arizona in times past and still today. How do we prove or disprove what hey say? We can't just go walk into their communities atop the Mesas and invite ourselves to sit and watch for these Star Beings to arrive can we?
As for Pye and Bigfoot I tend to think they are some species or variation of an early hominid or some variation of the giant prehistoric ape known as Gigantopithecus blacki. It has been suggested that Bigfoot may be the common ancestor of apes and humans that has somehow survived into our present day. Of that suggetion I'm unsure but anything is possible.
We have a lot of theories and some facts but we don't have all the facts. This is why in anthropology it is said everything is "subject to change" as new discoveries and information come to light. Further, early anthropologists saw evolution as one stage after another. Then it was conceived as a tree. Now it is beginning to look as if evolution is not levels nor trees at all but something more akin to a twisted bush.
Returning to and closing with Bigfoot in my own studies and observations of the creature I see a lot of ape or gorilla-like morphology and behavior more than I do of human morphology and behavior. This is why I believe it is some variant of Gigantopithecus blacki. However, I'm not ruling anything out at this point and it could be some ancient hominid who is a known or unknown human ancestor. Again, returning to my comments previously about Meganthropus, that hominid appears to have much in common with what is reported to be Bigfoot today.
Thanks for replying Roberto. You mentioned the Hopi. I'm sure if you just went there without permission they would likely tell you to leave, but if you were to contact them first, showing enthusiasm and asking permission I would say you would be welcomed. Heck, they would probably sit up there with you. Has anyone tried. Getting back to Bigfoot etc Mr Pye said that in Russia there was a case where a village had one of these entities, using her ( Sally I think she was called ) for hard labor and also a bed warmer so to speak. Lloyd went on to say that the entity had given birth to a number of children whose fathers were villagers. If she was an ape, again with two different species, no offspring would have occurred. But if she was an early hominid then going by what I have read Neanderthal DNA is in some humans. Apparently red hair comes from their genes? So I'm sorry but I still have to go with lloyds presentation and at this stage not with the apes. He was also saying that all early hominids had longer arms than us ( also had way thicker bones than us, alot stronger pound for pound )so in my way of picturing them this could look very ape like. What do you think.
Roberto; my own take on Bigfoot is that these are another species of hominid, probably descended from Giganto. Since there is only the tiniest fossil record of Gigantopithecus Blacki, I don't believe that constitues enough evidence to side-track them as a Simian. There is some evidence supporting the theory that they and Home Erectus were enemies. It makes sense that they learned to hide from "man" as they traveled. I believe they continued to evolve, getting smarter all the time while honing their ability to hide. They learned to find homes where man did not intrude. The Asian origins also point to their migratory wanderings taking them to North America, easily along the coastal route. Their size also makes sense and in most cases, a smaller animal rarely becomes larger over time. The most modern of paleo-anthropological evidence now points to there being several concurrent species of man, as the simple straight "timeline" of evolution has been debunked completely. We have a very big family, it turns out. Big enough to contain other human species, including Bigfoot or as some call them, Forest People. A really enlightening read on this subject is The Accidental Species by Henry Gee.
Trader in American Indian arts since 1985, writer and armchair anthropologist
Excellent points Richard.
The Hopi are cautious towards outsiders and they have many secrets they will not discuss with outsiders. Every morning the elders sit atop their pueblos looking eastward for the return of the "true white brother." White doesn't mean white skinned. The wait for Pahana whom they call the "true white brother" who will return wearing a white cloak and carrying a red stick. They are a very interesting and wise old culture.
There have actually been some experiments concerning the interbreeding of humans and apes. Josef Stalin had such a program going with the goal being to create a super soldier. It is unknown of any of the experiments were successful. In the late 1970s Communist China announced that they were attempting to breed an ape with a human. The results of that endeavor are unknown but are thought to be unsucessful. Humans and the great apes share a common ancestor on the evolutionary timeline so interbreeding between the two may not be so out of the realm of possibilities as we might think.
As for the Russian Bigfoot you mention I believe you are referring to Zana who wa alleged to be a Russian Almasty (similar to the North American Bigfoot but perhaps a variant). She was captured in the late 19th century in southern Russia and was described by villagers as a "wild woman." She was used for hard labor, was covered in body hair, and refused to wear clothing. She would not eat cooked food and when she slept she layed down and slept like a camel sleeps. She became pregnant by one of the male villagers and had a son named Khwit. She actually became pregnant several times and insisted on washing the newborns in cold water. As a result most died. Villagers began taking the newborns away from her before she could wash them in cold water and Khwit was one that was taken away along with a brother and two sisters. These surviving children lived as modern humans and had offspring. Khwit died in 1954. For more on Zana you can go to:
Khwit's skull has been described by scientists as being a Tkhina Skull. Such skulls exhibit a combination of modern and primative features. It was determined that his skull is more similar to that of the Neolithic Vounigi II skulls in the fossil record. The face was more protruding as we see in many hominid ancestors of modern humans and the cranium was not as high vaulted as in modern humans. He and his siblings were described as being exceptionally strong as was his mother Zana also described. He also had a lower forehead than is found in modern humans such as that often seen in Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis, et al.
In November of 2013 British geneticist Professor Bryan Sykes at the University of Oxford carried out DNA tests on saliva obtained from Zana's modern descendants. He also used a tooth from one of her son Khwit's skull for DNA analysis. Professor Sykes was actually the first geneticist to obtain DNA from an ancient bone prior to this undertaking. The results showed that Zana was no more Neandertal than any other modern human. Non-Africans and sub-Saharan Africans share between 2-4% DNA with Neandertals. The Neandertal genome was sequenced in 2010 and the results of that analysis clearly showed interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neandertals.
The biggest surprise uncovered by Professor Sykes was that Zana was not Caucasian but African. In fact, the DNA showed beyond doubt that Zana was 100% sub-Saharan African. It is thus believe either she or her ancestors were brought to the Abkhazia region of Russia as slaves when the region was part of the slave trading Ottoman Empire.
Professor Sykes does see some rather odd features in Khwit, however. Khwit's skull has very wide eye sockets, an elongated brow ridge, and what appears to be an additional bone in the rear of his skull (which suggests ancient rather than modern origins). Sykes has suggested that perhaps Zana was a remnant of an earlier human migration out of Africa possibly tens of thousands of years ago which, if so, would make Zana part of an uknown human tribe dating back to the time when humans were still evolving and whose ancestors were forced to dwell in remote regions for some reason into modern times.
In fact, all early hominids did have longer arms that modern humans today. They were stronger than modern humans likely because they had to survive in the wilderness unlike modern humans. If I put you out in the wilderness with no provisions at all and told you to survive you'd "beef up" fairly quickly or die. Also, just to note, most of our ancient human ancestors did look ape-like to varying degrees and this might shock you and many others here but if you look at some modern people today some have features similar to apes and I've actually seen people with wide eye sockets and other primitive features walking in our midst. I've also observed people that look similar to Neandertals and even have the bun on the back of their skull as was a distinctly Neandertal characteristic. Don't believe it? All you have to do is look at people today and you can see some of these primitive traits in them. I've never thought many of us are as "Homo sapien" was we are led to believe, in fact. The evolutionary norm, in fact, has been various hominids coexisting and why would that norm not be so today?
Exactly, Roberto. In fact, now that the full Neanderthal Genome has been decoded, it seems that a majority of living humans have up to a 2% amount of Neanderthal genes with the exception of certain Asian populations and some Oceanic peoples. Once the genomes of the Siberian Denisonvan people and the Phillipine Flores mini-people are decoded, we may find we have a lot more in common than we thought!
There is some very serious Habituation research being conducted in studies in the Pacific Northwest following Jane Goodall's tecniques and ideas. These are, after several years, beginning to bear real fruit as physical evidence and behavioral observation is beginning to be acquired. It's an exciting time in Hominid research right now.
Trader in American Indian arts since 1985, writer and armchair anthropologist
Hopefully by following the techniques and ideas of Jane Goodall's primate research some answers will come forth and this matter will be settled once and for all. Yes, indeed, this is an exciting time in Hominid research.
Would a species formed from one or multiple hybridization occurences need to have an equal share of nuDNA heritage from the respective progenitors?
No, the first generation offspring would have an equal share of nuDNA from each parent, but would not qualify as a new species yet though. After so many generations, so that a species have been formed with the required alignment between different individual genomes and so on, the nuDNA heitage may well be unequally represented between the progenitors. Why? Due to natural selection and substitutions between chromosomes.
I have put in those two earlier comments above as reflexions on other comments further up and the " Ketchum study", showing a majority of the nu DNA heritage from unknown male progenitors and a totally human mt DNA heritage ( but not quite present day human) .
My point in this is, stop only looking one eyed at the mtDNA. This methology is even more misleading than the old way of looking at horses pedigrees, only taking notice of the stallions. The mt DNA heritage may even theoretically be a remnant from ancient female progenitors which heritage have been almost wiped out from the nuDNA.
Inventor I think there is a bit of over emphasis on mtDNA and not enough emphasis on nuDNA.
I'm no expert on anything, but what if Big Foot is the product of the Red Headed giants who ran off into the forrests and mountains to escape the people trying to eliminate them. After being in the woods for so long, they became, for lack of a better term, ferrel and adapted into what is now Big Foot, Sasquatch, Wooley Booger, so on and so forth.
Peace and Love,
It is a possiblity.
Dr Melba Ketchum will soon be doing a comparative whole genome DNA study on the Redheaded Giants, the "Paracas elongated sculls" and the Bigfoots she have allready done. Its a crowdfunding effort behind this, and it is still lacking some of the requied funds. This research will bring a lot more clarity in the possible relationships between these different ancients.
I dunno what to think of Bigfoot. IMO the possibility that he is merely an unknown hominid is very small. There is so much "high strangeness" associated with bigfoot sightings that it suggests to me he is more akin to fairy folklore and UFOs.
Scrape away all the hype and take another look. That's what I did. The MAJORITY of BF reports do NOT include wacky UFOs, fairy folklore, etc.
I'm no expert on anything regarding this topic, I've just enjoyed reading about it over the years. This thread has been great!
I do have a curiosity I'm not sure was addressed, perhaps it was and I missed it do to my lack of scientific background. I was reading this article yesterday and found it intersting, I had never heard about this discovery in the midwest, which surprised me because I've followed discussions about the Indian burial mounds in my area for ages, of course this was long before my time. Could this provide more information about the missing links to bigfoot if we were to be allowed to study it? How does this mesh with other giant skeletons found throughout the world? I'm sorry if this is off topic, perhaps it's a discussion for another thread.
I've had questions about bigfoot since I was a small child but no one to ask. For anyone who has seen them, could I get a little more visual description? Such as, would the fur be described as course or smooth? Is it consistent in length or is the head hair longer? Bowed legs or straight? Spinal curve or straight? Do they use tools of any kind? Could the fur be some type of primitive clothing fashioned from another species?
Long ago I read Clan of the Cave Bear, and of course I know that's entirely fictional, but Jean Auel is said to do extensive research so I always assumed some things were based on facts, I always wondered if bigfoot could be decendents of neanderthals who ultimately hid themselves from us in order to survive.
Just my musings on the topic,, thanks for the discussion, it's fascinating.
NikiK giant skeletons are found all over the world. Some are of known peoples while others continue to be unknown. Some suffered from a disease which made them grow bigger than the rest of the population but some suffered from no known disease that would cause such. The Biblical Goliath who was slain by David with a sling shot was said to have been a giant and is said to have come from a race of giants. There are many ancient stories about such giants virtually from every culture in every land. In fact, they just unearthed some mummies in Egypt (perhaps those of a million people) and one skeleton they found was folded to fit into the upright grave (the mummy is said to be over 7 feet tall). I do think some of the giants they have found in North America MAY be the remains of Bigfoot hominids and not Homo sapiens. Could they be Neandertals who simply hid from modern humans to avoid complete extinction? It is possible but without DNA testing we can only speculate. Such DNA testing may reveal something entirely different, in fact.
I have observed these creatures with my own eyes on two occasions. Prior to my first observation I was a complete skeptic and thought people who claimed to see these creatures were nutty wackos. After seeing them once and then a second time with my own eyes I came to realize these creatures are, in fact, very much real. From my own two observations I will tell you the following:
My first observation was that of 3 individuals following a very large herd of elk. My grandfather and I were deer hunting and sitting atop a hill when we first saw them. Ironically, the elk were calmly walking along with the 3 Bigfoot walking some distance behind them. They were approximately 61/2 to 71/2 feet tall. All 3 walked slightly hunched over similar the way a gorilla walks upright but slightly more upright. Their gait was longer than a humans gait. Through my binoculars I could see they were very hairy. It did not appear they were wearing clothing of any kind. Two were males and I could see their genitals. The one bringing up the rear was a female with large breasts and female genitalia. The hair was not overly long such as you would see in humans with long hair today. The faces had hair on them around the mouth and cheeks but there was no hair on the nose or in the area of the eyes. The noses were broad like that of gorillas and flat. They all had very large shoulders and chests as well as very well padded buttocks. Their arms almost seemed out of proportion with the rest of their body as they were exceptionally long coming down almost to the knees. Their faces were flat like that you see in modern humans today. However, one of the males had a mouth and jaw areathat protruded more than the others and resembled what you would see in an ape. They all had brow ridges above the eyes although not large like you find is some ancient human ancestors in the fossil record. We actually got a good look at all of them through the binoculars for some time as we watched them walking behind the elk herd. This was in the days before cell phones and we didn't normally take cameras on hunting trips.
I had my second observation from inside a cabin a few years later. Myself and some others were sitting inside the cabin getting ready to go to bed when one of the others saw "someone" lookiing through one of the windows of the cabin. I looked out the window and could clearly see "someone" standing about 10 to 15 feet from the window looking right at us. This individual stood about 61/2 feet tall and was very muscular in the shoulders and chest. His arms were oddly long hanging almost to his knees. There was a partial moon that night so his features were clear. He was covered in black hair or fur except for his nose and eyes areas. His nose was broad and flat and we knew he was a male as his genitals were less hair covered than the rest of his body. One of his hands was turned outward and we could see that the palms were hairless. The hair on his head was not long. We believe this individual was young. One of the others with me flipped on a light outside and we really got a good look at him. The light did not scare him, oddly. He gazed up at the light and then back at us all watching him through the window. He then turned his back towards us, went on all fours, and walked away rather slowly. My thought at the time was "What the hell is a gorilla doing in the forest?". But it was no gorilla! This individual was flat faced with a small brow ridge. It's mouth and jaw protruded slightly but not as much as the one individual in my first observation.
In both observations we found large human-like tracks. All of the tracks showed space between the toes as would be expected from someone not ever having worn shoes. Dermal ridges were also observable in the tracks. I was, as mentioned, a disbeliever even after my first observation but the second convinced me this creature is real beyond doubt. Regarding my second observation no one slept in that cabin that night as I think we were all fearful to sleep. Regarding my first encounter with the 3 individuals following the elk herd I was shocked, awed, and taken back. My grandfather's face turned white and became as stone upon seeing the 3 creatures. Without looking away from the creatures I said to my grandfather, eventually, "Why are those men following the elk?" My grandfather simply replied, "Those aren't men." The elk and the 3 bigfoot went off into some thick trees and we lost sight of them. My grandfather told me we needed to get out of there so I started to walk down the hill in the direction of where these creatures had been as the truck was over the next hill. He grabbed me and told me to follow him. He led me in a big half circle in the opposite direction these creatures and the elk were moving. The following day myself and a buddy went out to see if we could see them again but we did not. However, we did observe tracks of the 3 bigfoot and the elk herd.
Many rearchers believe Bigfoot uses tools such as stones and sticks. That is not odd as humans also use such tools as do chimpanzees and gorillas. As for there legs being straight or bowed to me they appeared mostly straight with a slight bow. Their walk is odd as when they walk they seem to bring their legs inward and then outward. The Bigfoot in the Patterson films does this as well btw. It appeared to me their hair was fairly smooth and it was more like hair not fur. I saw no claws on any of these creatures and, in fact, with the one at the cabin when he turned his hand he appeared to have nails like humans and apes do. Some researchers believe these creatures groom each other much like baboons do. I did not smell any stench from them as some have reported.
Dude! You take the cake! You have either rendered the singularly best rendition of a Bigfoot encounter or you have the story telling skills that surpass most sucessfull authors!! Either way, I'm your man. I choose, until proven wrong, to take your information at face value. Has the experience stayed sharp in relief, or has it become fuzzy over the years? I ask only because I question my own perceptions sometimes. Please don't be insulted. I find you coherent, lucid and informative!.
i read your post and watched the Patterson films. i remember them back then. i was ten in 67. i never was really all that skeptical. and after reading your account, watching that film again and all the other account around the world, it almost seems that there are more than one species, or many subspecies of the same species. like us. there are Russian bison and there are American bison, they are nearly identical yet you can see subtle yet visible differences. put them side by side they would be more visible. i for one believe you saw one of them. but that guy in the vid where he has his kids and wife and huntin' buddy. was he the one using plywood foot prints?. the footprints on the side of the road in the patterson film impressed me the most. i have seen grizzely tracks in the same place, mountain lion tracks in front of our trailer in the same soft moist earth. there is no way those tracks are made with plywood or funky clown feet. no way. maybe it is best they remain a life long memory for the few, a legend some and a lie to the rest. we wil certainly drive them towards extinction far quicker if we actually caught one. just like we have with most everything here, including ourselves. people wil now want a bigfoot hand ash tray and pay a million bucks for it, or bigfoot gall bladder because they think it will cure their PE(premature ejaculation). i also read you guys entire posts.
With any species of any organism there are environmental and regional adaptations. Many bigfoot researchers do hold the theory that there are more than one species of bigfoot. Sadly, the hoaxsters are out there and all they really accomplish is muddying the waters and diverting attention from real research. Ah yes, everyone wants their 5 seconds of fame!
Here's an example of just how much we really DON'T know.....
One of the people who inspired me to study science was an archaeologist for a rather well known agency. I was absolutely fascinating by his stories, excavations, and finds regarding the early people of North America (ie: Native Americans). One time he was rather upset so it seemed after returning from a dig site near our area. In fact, he almost appeared angry but he was trying to hide it or something. I could tell something was deeply bothering him. I passed it off as perhaps he had received some bad news or had a disagreement with a collegue or friend. I let him cool down for about a week and then went to see him again. To my surprise he was still upset and he still seemed somewhat angry about something.
We sat down and began to talk. At first it was small talk and I finally told him I could tell something was bothering him. He paused for a long while with his eyes fixed on me. Finally, he asked me for my confidence and I assured him of it. He told me that he was digging in an early American site when he came across a skull and some bones that were fossilized. He dug them out and found them very "odd" as they did not appear to be anything like other remains he had found in the area. I asked him what he meant.
He told me that "clearly" the remains were not ancestral Native American nor any other race for that matter. He went on to say that the skull was rather odd and "out of place" as it appeared to be more "ape-like than modern human." He said when he realized what he was looking at he covered it back up! I asked him to take me to the site so I could see it and he absolutely refused. I asked him what he thought the remains were, an ape or something? He told me they were "similar" to fossil remains found of Homo habilis. I was astounded to say the least.
Homo habilis is considered an ancient human ancestor in the fossil record. It lived between 2.3 and 1.4 million years ago IN AFRICA! So how did this thing get to North America if, indeed, it was the fossil remains of Homo habilis????
During the course of our conversation I asked him if he was sure the remains were those of H. habilis or some other similar ancient human ancestor. He said he was fairly certain they wer habilis remains and added that one thing he was absolutely certain of was that they were NOT the remains of modern humans. He concluded that there is something "very wrong with our concept or interpretation of the ancient human fossil record." He was right! According to our present theories of human evolution H. habilis remains have never been found outside of Africa and most certainly not in North America as conventional wisdom says humans came across the Bering Land Bridge and migrated southward into the Americas. Prior to such migration there were no prehistoric hominids in the Americas.
It was at about that point that my friend began to express his anger.....no, let me say RAGE! He was really angry! Angry because he felt he had been lied to and played like a fool by academia and the scientific community in general. Angry because he had believed such ancient hominids as H. habilis had only been found in Africa yet he had found such remains in North America!
I asked him why he covered them up and suggested he go back and dig them up again and tell the world what he had found. I recall his yell clearly even today. He shouted at me, "I can't do that or my career will be ruined forever and I wil be the biggest laughing stock of the scientific community to date!" He was right, sadly, as what he found did not fit convential evolutionary theory and his find would call the entire timeline of human evolution into question. Further, he also informed me that doing such would cost him his job. He was right about that too.
So rather than risk all that my friend simply recovered the fossil remains and walked away. And that is typically the way it goes when something out of place is uncovered in anthropological/archaeological community. You uncover something and once you realize what you have found you then begin to consider the consequences of our find. And sometimes those consequences could turn out to be very expensive for YOU, personally. And so you must weigh the risks of telling or not telling the world what you have found. Those who go full steam ahead typically end up being attacked by the scientific community, academia, and everyone else. They typically lose their jobs and/or funding. Their careers are ruined forever! In short, these scientists are disgraced because they exposed something contrary to the conventional "wisdom." Can you imagine what would have happened to my friend had he gone full steam ahead, verified his find as fossil remains of H. habilis, and told the world about his find and where he found it? They would have literally crucified him! So he covered his discovery back up in the dirt, kept his mouth shut, and played the game. The game of ignorance, half truths, and sometimes out right lies.
Years later I ran into him and asked him what he was up to. He informed me that he was no longer an archaeologist as he had chosen to leave the profession. I told him I found that unfortunate and asked him why he left. His words to me were, and I quote, "I found that I could no longer preach the lie nor adhere to the lie. I came to the conclusion that continuing to do so would only make me part of the lie and I didn't want to be a part of THAT!" I asked him if he still thought the fossils he found that day were truly of H. habilis. He told me he was "certain beyond any doubt." One thing I noticed was that he somehow seemed to be more free, more at ease than I had ever seen him before. I commented on this observation to him and he told me, quote, "Yes, it's amazing how good you feel when you break away from the lie and sheer ignorance." He smiled widely and was like a well fed cat.
So, what are fossil remains of H. habilis doing in North America when they are only suppose to be found in Africa? And what other fossil remains have been found only to be reburied and never mentioned again by archaeologists and anthropologists? And how many of these scientists have paid a very high price for going full steam ahead with their "odd" discoveries? How many careers have been purposefully ruined as a result? But here is what suffers the most in every case. TRUTH!! Real science follows the truth wherever it might lead. JUNK science only follows the truth when it leads back to conventional and accepted theory and belief. Now I ask you, what do we have the most of today????
all i see is junk food created by junk science to answer that rhetorical question. i want to take a stab at how did H. Habilis ended up in the good ol' u s of a. since hoax has been used i'm going to pick he walked here or migrated here. possibly techtonic plate shiftage assisted a little. those things have been sliding around since forever. i'm glad that friend of yours went and got that fossil, i would have. i like John Dales idea of hack sawing the bars of some of those cover-ups. i have a cordless sawsall with 2 batteries, 2 metal blades. we could make a saturday, heck a whole weekend of it, that would be a blast. to bad i don't know where to go.
Thank you so much for your detailed response Roberto, I can clearly visualize from your experience I wonder if your Grandfather had some experience that caused him to fear them? It seems that from your second sighting that they are curious instead of afraid of us.
On your last post, I feel for your friend and for the loss of knowledge due to other small minded people who can't let go of their preconceived ideas. It is my hope that someday we will escape that pattern and evolve to a greater understanding.
My grandfather was an avid hunter all of his life so he spent a lot of time out in the woods. After that day with him and seeing the look on his face I knew he had encountered these creatures before somewhere, sometime. The look on his face was one of fear and panic but I think he was trying his best to control it as he did not want to panic me. He knew what they were and of that I'm certain. However, after the incident I would ask him what they were and he would not answer me. Years later I said something about it to him and all he said when I asked him what he thought they were was, "giant monkeys." And that is all he ever said and then he walked away from me not wishing to talk about the matter any longer. My grandfather was the kind of man that when he indicated he didn't want to talk about something you best not pursue it.
Yeah sometimes I draw a parallel to science and religion with the professors being the high priests. To be attacked for publishing an observation that does not fit with prevailing theory is the same mechanism that created the concept of heresy. The earth is flat and there are no bigfoots. Next step is the thought police.
What I didn't pick up in your encounter with your Grandfather and at the cabin is the overall skin color. Was there a difference between the hair color and hide? Also, what is your feeling about the Patterson film, does it coincide with what you saw? I just cant make up my mind, but then again, I have never seen one in real life.
In both instances the hair was black or dark brown. The ones walking behind the elk herd had light colored faces from what I could tell but the one near the cabin had a darker face, in fact, I would say it was black. I got the impresson the creature at the cabin had thick hide, at least it looked that way.
Some aspects of the Patterson film coincide with what I saw on both occasions while other aspects do not. In my first encounter (when the BF were walking behind the elk herd) they walked more stooped than the BF in the Patterson film yet the stride of their gaits was very similar to what you see in that film. In my second encounter I saw the BF turn and when it did it moved it's body/shoulders to turn unlike humans who simply turn their heads when they turn to look back. Apes do the same thing when they turn they must turn shoulders and all due to how their skulls are positioned on their spines. So this aspect coincides with the film as well. The BF at the cabin walked away on all fours like a gorilla. That does not appear in the Patterson film.
If you look closely at the BF in the Patterson film you can see when it walks it brings its knees inward towards each other which is an unusual walk. You can also see when it walks a bulge on its right thigh which may be the result of some injury or defect.
So, they were "T" legged. Thats what you call that gait, I believe, was more common when people got Rickets from Vitamin D deficiancy. An intersesting feature, maybe a residual effect from retaining quadropedal tendencies. How do the stay so illusive? They are breeding, so they must be in sufficient numbers. I am now thinking there is footage and stills but the owners are maybe holding out on the world at large, which, I would probably also do, knowing mans' track record on inter- species relations.
I actually think they are a rare species and the majority of sightings are misidentification or simply fabrications. How do they stay so illusive? Just as any other animal does. In the wilds we are in THEIR homes and they know every inch of their home just as we know ours. Long before and IF we see them they've already had their eyes on us for a long while. I agree with you. I know several people who have videos and stills that they keep private due to their concern about all the "Rambo's" out there that just want to go kill one for a trophy.
DNA evidence says this creature is half human and half something unknown. Likely it is our ancestor although a failed experiment. Apes were taken and mixed with DNA from a more advanced race and the product was human beings. In BF's case the experiment failed for some reason. Maybe they were designated as "untameable" by that more advanced race. Or maybe they refused to be the workers that the advanced race wanted us to be so they were exiled to the wilds for the rest of time. Fact is we will not know exactly what this creature is until someone, somewhere delivers a body. Yes a DEAD body! I can hear some of you here screeching now but, hey, the fact is without a body this creature will remain a matter of guessing and speculation. Science needs a body so this matter can be settled once and for all. We are a slave race so get used to it and stop believing you are free when none of us are free at all. Humans have been engineered since the dawn our time to serve a more advanced civilization.
Greetings Eric. As a member of the slave race engineered to serve, why have you missed every shift
I have scheduled you for?..Just kidding, but really, I am not so certain that the Bigfoots are a product of genetic tinkering. We, yes, for sure but them, I dunno. They seem more consistantly static in the nature of their behaviour, like they have got their game down pat and just roll with it. Sharks became Optimized millions of years ago and the fossil record shows persistence in expression. The scientific term is " If it aint broke, dont fix it". They tread water but dont swim upsteam, so to speak. All this indicates an animal. I very clever one though. Now, could we be a modified version of them?????
Erik you present an idea postulated by the later Zacharia Sitchin in his Earth Chronicles series of books. His theory was that humans were genetically altered by mixing ape DNA with the DNA of a superior race of beings he called the "Annunaki." And, further, the purpose for this was to breed workers to work for them in ancient gold mines. So, yes, if Sitchin is correct then we are a slave race but there is a lot of debate over Sitchin's theories and his interpretation of ancient Sumerian texts.
In an article appearing on this site entitled "Ancient Humans Bred With Completely Unknown Species" and dated 24, Nov 2013 it is something I've been deeply thinking about recently. You can find the article at:
Briefly, the article reports on a new study presented last year to the Royal Society meeting in London on ancient DNA revealing some rather dramatic findings. It centers around the genome of the Denisovans which are believed to be ancient human ancestors. In their DNA a segement was discovered that may have come from a different species of hominid as yet unknown. The discovery indicates that interbreeding was rampant among ancient human ancestors in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago. However, the most significant discovery was that they also apparently mated with a mystery species of hominid from Asia. Further, the study indicates that this mysterious unknown hominid was neither human nor Neandertal.
Debate continues over the identity of this unknown hominid. Some have suggested it may have been a branch of Homo heidelbergensis whom are believed to be the ancestors of the Neandertals. Paleoanthropologists Chris Stringer of the London Natural History Museum, however, admits we don't have "the faintest idea" what the mystery hominid species could be, in fact.
H. heidelbergensis lived in Africa, Europe, and Asia between 700,000 and 200,000 years ago as near as we can determine. Fossils of this hominid were first discovered near Heidelberg, Germany in 1908. As near as can be determined males of this species stood about 175 cm (about 5 ft 9 in) tall and females stood slightly smaller at about 157 cm. Males averaged about 62 kg (136 lbs) in weight while females weighed about 51 kg. This hominid species is characterized by a very large browridge, a larger braincase than previous hominid species, and a flatter face. It's beleived H. heidelbergensis was the first species to live in colder climates. It's short, wide body structure is an adaptation for conserving body heat. It is believed this species used fire and wooden spears and that it was the first species to routinely hunt large animals. Further, it is believed this hominid was the first to build shelters, creating simple wooden structures out of wood and rocks.
Lee Berger of the University of Witwatersrand has pointed out that some H. heidelbergensis fossil remains found in South Africa were "giants." He says these populations routinely stood over 2.13 m (7 ft). That puts it in the range of credible BF sightings. Further, the species may have survived longer than we thought especially in places like China and eastern Russia (Siberia).
So my thinking is this.....Could this be the mystery species and, if so, could this also be the unknown nonhuman father of Bigfoot as indicated by the results of the Ketchum DNA Study? Could H. heidelbergensis or some subspecies thereof be the common ancestor of BF and us?
Did not know that Heidelbergensus were discovered 7 foot tall, another little gem in my quest to see an ever broadening picture of our lineage. Thanks.