Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Is Bigfoot actually a hybrid?
Topic Started: Nov 25 2012, 02:07 PM (2,039 Views)
faintsmile1992
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Is anyone else feeling sceptical right now? :P

http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/melba-ketchams-official-announcement.html

"DALLAS, Nov. 24--A team of scientists can verify that their 5-year long DNA study, currently under peer-review, confirms the existence of a novel hominin hybrid species, commonly called “Bigfoot” or “Sasquatch,” living in North America. Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species.

The study was conducted by a team of experts in genetics, forensics, imaging and pathology, led by Dr. Melba S. Ketchum of Nacogdoches, TX. In response to recent interest in the study, Dr. Ketchum can confirm that her team has sequenced 3 complete Sasquatch nuclear genomes and determined the species is a human hybrid:

“Our study has sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain 3 whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples. The genome sequencing shows that Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens, but Sasquatch nuDNA is a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species. Our data indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens.

Hominins are members of the taxonomic grouping Hominini, which includes all members of the genus Homo. Genetic testing has already ruled out Homo neanderthalis and the Denisova hominin as contributors to Sasquatch mtDNA or nuDNA. “The male progenitor that contributed the unknown sequence to this hybrid is unique as its DNA is more distantly removed from humans than other recently discovered hominins like the Denisovan individual,” explains Ketchum.

“Sasquatch nuclear DNA is incredibly novel and not at all what we had expected. While it has human nuclear DNA within its genome, there are also distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences. We describe it as a mosaic of human and novel non-human sequence. Further study is needed and is ongoing to better characterize and understand Sasquatch nuclear DNA.”

Ketchum is a veterinarian whose professional experience includes 27 years of research in genetics, including forensics. Early in her career she also practiced veterinary medicine, and she has previously been published as a participant in mapping the equine genome. She began testing the DNA of purported Sasquatch hair samples 5 years ago.

Ketchum calls on public officials and law enforcement to immediately recognize the Sasquatch as an indigenous people:

“Genetically, the Sasquatch are a human hybrid with unambiguously modern human maternal ancestry. Government at all levels must recognize them as an indigenous people and immediately protect their human and Constitutional rights against those who would see in their physical and cultural differences a ‘license’ to hunt, trap, or kill them.”

Full details of the study will be presented in the near future when the study manuscript publishes."


For a start if Sasquatches if exist they are simply not Homo, they can't behave like Homo or they'd be more noticeable to their congeners, and the primate in the Patterson film just doesn't move or look like a species of Homo. The Gregory Forth book about cultural images of wildmen in southeast Asia touches on wildman images from around the world and concludes that the image of 'Bigfoot' grew out of European culture and that the only wildman images native to North America (and attested in a pre-Columbian context by the whistling ape masks) are the short statured kind that can be compared to the ebu gogu and orang pendek etc, and entered Euro-American consciousness as albatwiches and 'Jacko' (though given Jacko's mysterious origins, its not impossible that he was a captive orang pendek!). Where is bigfoot in indigenous North American oral traditions? Didn't the Injuns know Bigfoot exists either?

Maybe bigfeet will come here soon to ask 'classify me'.
Edited by faintsmile1992, Nov 25 2012, 02:13 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stonesheep
adieu
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Some people think bigfoot (bigfeet?) are a relic population of Gigantopithecus.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Toiletman
fat megalomanic nerd
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Yes, it's bullshit already for the plain fact that we do not have bigfoot/sasquatch DNA or even proved that such a being ever existed.
If you take anything in this forum overly serious, you should really go and see a doctor.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
faintsmile1992
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Gigantopithecus was not half Homo sapiens (mixed with what?).

And where are the unambiguous native traditions of hairy large bodied hominins around North America before European contact?

Whether there really were orang pendek type hominins in North America (how did they get there?), the image of the small wildman was present around the Americas when Europeans arrived, as it is in Asia and the Pacific.

And no, indigenous stories about cannibal giants and windigos are not about hominins, they aren't ultural images of what people perceived to be real animals and bigfoot researches have to clutch at straws to find Sasquatch before the Europeans.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ferox
Member Avatar
Upper Paleolithic Savage
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Quote:
 
Ketchum is a veterinarian whose professional experience includes 27 years of research in genetics, including forensics. Early in her career she also practiced veterinary medicine, and she has previously been published as a participant in mapping the equine genome. She began testing the DNA of purported Sasquatch hair samples 5 years ago.

Ketchum, gotta catch 'em all...But how did she get that sample, I mean even if she did find some hair strain it could have been contaminated. I don't think Bigfoot can be classified yet as a species if there was no specimen analyzed and their taxonomy is totally a mystery. If there is such a thing i think it might be the descendant of some type of gigantopithecus or a more robust and bigger version of Homo heidelbergensis.
Edited by Ferox, Nov 25 2012, 03:50 PM.
"The savage lives within himself while social man lives outside himself and can only live in the opinion of others, so that he seems to receive the feeling of his own existence only from the judgement of others concerning him." Jean Jacques Rousseau
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
faintsmile1992
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I'm reading now about the pighish traditions which are associated with otters but also with monkeys, and which some people believe to refer to a hominin. That people in northeastern North America have images and rituals that are related to monkeys at all, shows there's at least a cultural memory of nonhuman primates here, but the detail about long claws obviously isn't based on a real primate although it turns up in the Austronesian and Sri Lankan wildman images (the Austronesians probably brought that detail to Sri Lanka), and there it might originate in the Austronesian confusion between their images of terrestrial wildmen, mawas (orangutan) and sun bears.

But even without the claws, the pighish is neither Homo nor Gigantopithecus. the image of pighish combines traits from both the 'ape-like' and otter-based folkloric beings of northwestern North America, and for what its worth the image of the pighish reminds me of the sucarrath.

In Manlike Monsters on Trial, Marjorie M. Halpin suggested that the pighish was at first associated with the sea otter and not the river otter, and points out that the otters are the most anthropomorphic mammals in the Pacific northwest. If the ancestors of Pacifids brought with them heir Asian folklore into the northwestern Americas, then in the absence of monkeys the traditions would naturally became revaluated so as to focus on the river otters in their place.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ferox
Member Avatar
Upper Paleolithic Savage
 *  *  *  *  *  *
For some reason some people call it Skunk ape, who knows, there might be even some members of the mustelidae family, some giant relics from the last ice age(not the commonly known wolverine or skunk bear)
http://natgeotv.com/uk/phantom-wolverine/galleries/skunk-bear
Edited by Ferox, Nov 25 2012, 04:07 PM.
"The savage lives within himself while social man lives outside himself and can only live in the opinion of others, so that he seems to receive the feeling of his own existence only from the judgement of others concerning him." Jean Jacques Rousseau
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulrich
Member Avatar
Ich habe keine angst
 *  *  *  *  *  *
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcGJJ-egB40[/youtube]
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dryhavich
Member Avatar
Królestwo Polskie
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Ulrich
Nov 25 2012, 04:13 PM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcGJJ-egB40[/youtube]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
faintsmile1992
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Actualy some people do talk about mylodontine sloths in South America surviving to the present and being behind the mapinguari sightings there, but not in North America. But bigfoot is either a primate or doesn't exist.

The indigenous Pacific northwest people don't speak of the pighish or pik'is as a real animal themselves, only western cryptozoologists do. The pighish is obviously a confusion of other images, which do actually include a distinct 'monkey' or 'ape-like' image that is normally seperate from those of both the Enhydra and Lutra otters (for instance the masks of all three are different) and comes closer to conventional zootaxonomy.
"Reminiscent of the arved stone heads of the Columbia River area are the Tsimishian and Niskan 'monkey' masks. These masks, used to designate a wild and uninhibited personage during certain ritual feasts. The mask portrays an anthropoid figure with a prognathic, chinless lower face, and brow ridges (appearance)." - Dawn Prince-Hughes

So yea, its impossible to deny the 'ape-like' imagery is at the very least the memory of nonhuman primates back in Asia, or they wouldn't know what one looks like, they just seem to lack a category for specifically large, bipedal monkey-like beings that they regard as a real animal the way sea and river otters are.

The idea of a monkey-like mask being used to designate "a wild and uninhibited personage during certain ritual feasts" reminds me of the Chinese figure of K'uei and his association with the nao-nao.
Edited by faintsmile1992, Dec 28 2012, 11:09 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crimson Guard
Member Avatar
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I had threads on Big Foot here back in 2008 before the forum was attacked, too lazy to search if I re-created them. But here's an interesting link with Coon talking about Bigfoot:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/coon.htm
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
faintsmile1992
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
If we had a rep system it would be +1 for you Crimson.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stonesheep
adieu
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
If they existed we should have found their remains by now. But maybe they're smart enough to hide/bury their dead.
Is this bigfoot?


Some more:


Edited by stonesheep, Nov 25 2012, 05:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
faintsmile1992
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I'm a sceptic but if they were never numerous it shouldn't be necessary to suggest burials to explain why bigfoo bodies aren't ever found because the corpses of bears are rarely encountered and odd bones might even be discovered misidentified as belonging to a human or another large mammal. And besides not being necessary, the problem with attributing cultural behaviours like that to bigfoot is they're supposed to be pretty much solitary which makes cultural transmission unlikely.

Though speaking of finding bones, its worth mentioning the Lishu, Salkhit and Red Deer Cave hominins were all very late survivors in Asia. Its impossible to know whether they had hair and they weren't in the Americas, but it shows that populations of hominins can persist without trace (until someone eventually finds their remains). Peter Frost posted briefly on this subject but I don't see why they're relevant to bigfoot. The North American 'ape-like' images could be inspired by any primate not neccessarily the Red Deer Cave people, but Frost touches on cryptozoology by quoting from Deusen a Tungus oral tradition referring to 'monkey people' so I'm posting this link.

http://evoandproud.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/monkey-people-we-once-knew.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulrich
Member Avatar
Ich habe keine angst
 *  *  *  *  *  *
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVTWN6wulxM[/youtube]
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jalu
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Big foot, Yeti, Lockness monster, God, Devil - You know what I mean. They are out there, but you can't catch them. ;)
Edited by jalu, Nov 25 2012, 05:54 PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"An unexamined life is not worth living" - by Socrates
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
faintsmile1992
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Gotta catch 'em all! :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Toiletman
fat megalomanic nerd
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Is it actually sure that there weren't any monkey species in North America in the past? I mean, you find monkeys as far north as Japan so why not North America,too? A lot of large animals got extinct when humans entered north america so that could have happened to them,too.
If you take anything in this forum overly serious, you should really go and see a doctor.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
faintsmile1992
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Well primates are pretty much limited by dependence on fruit supplies and I read the reason macaques can live in Japan but not Siberia is because Japan is on the northern extreme of the laurel forests in Asia. So its pretty unlikely any catarrhines crossed Beringia either with or before Homo sapiens, and most of the platyrrhines are outright forest specialists with few species present in drier gallery forests (just a few callitrichids, titis, howlers, leaf eating spiders and capuchins, and none of them are terrestrialists) and there are no New World counterparts to the terrestrial Old World hominins or papionins. Its not clear why this absence is when not all platyrrhines are adapted to life in the flooded forests, but its hard to believe the platyrrhines would create a gigantic, bipedal, terrestrial, seasonal climate adapted form present in North America when they haven't in the cone of South America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ferox
Member Avatar
Upper Paleolithic Savage
 *  *  *  *  *  *
There are a lot of articles that cover this, and a lot of serious people or even people of the academia that support the existence of bigfoot...but overall preoccupation for cryptids or supranatural, overearthly beings(stuff like moth man, Loch Ness Monster, Mokele-mbembe, Yeren, Yeti) at the level of an obsession are the preoccupation of odd ball, schizoid types that would rather believe in their fantasies and not reality.
"The savage lives within himself while social man lives outside himself and can only live in the opinion of others, so that he seems to receive the feeling of his own existence only from the judgement of others concerning him." Jean Jacques Rousseau
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Miscellany · Next Topic »
Add Reply