• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Leeches ("bloodsuckers") are a good deterrent to would-be swimmers.


Seriously, story telling is a whole thread or forum section in itself. War stories, fish stories, Hoosier daddy, dog ate my homework, "telephone," not to mention translation issues. Oh and tribal people didn't have eyeglasses, not to mention cameras, note pads or embedded reporters.
 
Last edited:
The Shrike said:
. . . And if the risk of abduction was higher in certain areas of "no man's land" between tribal boundaries, then you'd be likely to warn your young'ns to never go there. Of course, if you tell those young'ns that they can't go there because our enemies are there, then you're basically daring them to go to prove their bravery. If, however, you tell them some mystical, giant, shape-shifting, uber-cunning monster/spirits live there, you might have some better luck keeping your kids closer to home.

I'm pretty sure this is why my parents took us to see "Boggy Creek" - so we wouldn't wander too far on our own in the woods. (My kids are easy - I just say "ticks" and you can't pay them enough to go there.)
Click to expand...

Why not tell your kids that they will be eaten by a bear, cougar, lion, wolf or smilodon?
 
William Parcher said:
The random Bigfooter in Oklahoma who says he watched a Bigfoot and that there is no way that he was mistaken or hoaxed. What "real thing" is his monster originated from?
Click to expand...

Whoa, we were talking about the origins of Native American legends. The "knower" in OK is a misidentifier, a hoaxer or a hallucinator. He likely got the idea from Patterson, not from the PNW tribal legends.
 
William Parcher said:
Why not tell your kids that they will be eaten by a bear, cougar, lion, wolf or smilodon?
Click to expand...
For the same reasons he listed as a known enemy. The unknown enemy is always more frightening than the known.
After all, those animals you listed were all defeated by humans, the boogyman never has been without supernatural effort, abilities and intervention.
 
parnassus said:
Whoa, we were talking about the origins of Native American legends. The "knower" in OK is a misidentifier, a hoaxer or a hallucinator. He likely got the idea from Patterson, not from the PNW tribal legends.
Click to expand...


I understand but I'm trying to put it into perspective for the NA. We don't really know how many Salish claimed to see Sésquac when they were out and about.

A fella comes running into camp. I just saw Sésquac over by the lake! Were there any Sésquac skeptics in the tribe? Did they suggest that he had a misidentification, hallucinated or was just telling a lie? Did any Salish ask for proof of the existence of Sésquac? Did they all just believe? Did they even have a concept of something that can be talked about but does not exist at all?
 
A PNW tribe of short hairless people is attacked by a wandering tribe from the Plains whose men are taller and hairier. The Plains tribe comes out of the forest at night while most of the men are away hunting seals and attacks the village, and wins because they are bigger and stronger and better fighters; and they take women. Only a few survivors tell the tale and the stories conflict. But they all agree that the attackers were not of The People ie not us. The attackers never return. Over 16 generations the story becomes slightly distorted. Now the attackers were very big and very hairy and not people.
Now some Strain type comes to the tribe and says, "hey, bigfoot exists; you got any giant hair covered forest beast legends?"


"DO WE EVER !!??!"
 
Last edited:
Exactly Parnassas. Native American lore is full of stories that cannot possibly be completely true. They are exaggerations and fabrications designed to teach lessons. Stories of snakes marrying Badgers. Wolves turning into men and marrying women. All kinds of things. Native lore cannot be taken in a literal sense.
 
There seems to be some feeling amongst the footers that Bigfoot may seek retribution for the killing of a mother and young squatch (which resulted in a tissue specimen being sent to Ketchum for DNA). So all of us in Northern California better take bigfoot repellent into the woods with us. (Of course, I wouldn't be without it; have carried it for 40 years and it works perfectly. Canon is the brand name; various models.)
 
I can 100% guarantee that there will be no bigfoot retaliation. I read that link, and can't believe they are seriously entertaining that thought.
 
Deacondark said:
...and can't believe they are seriously entertaining that thought.
Click to expand...
The fact we, supposed 'smart people' here at the JREF, have 'seriously entertained the thought' of writing more than one or two words addressing this 'Bigfoot DNA' aspect - as if it deserves even one or two words - is what I can't believe. Sadly, this is the type of inane JREF thread (and there are many) where one proves they have way too much free time on their hands.
 
HarryHenderson said:
The fact we, supposed 'smart people' here at the JREF, have 'seriously entertained the thought' of writing more than one or two words addressing this 'Bigfoot DNA' aspect - as if it deserves even one or two words - is what I can't believe. Sadly, this is the type of inane JREF thread (and there are many) where one proves they have way too much free time on their hands.
Click to expand...

Would they have had to have mapped bigfoot genome to make the statements they are making? DNA shows bf is "between humans and chimps" etc How long would that take and how much DNA?

NA legends and big hairy ape abductors: Maybe like the Egyptians who never "lost" a battle, is it also possible that NA males would rather have lost their women and children to "monsters-men" than mere men?
 
Last edited:
atpeace said:
Would they have had to have mapped bigfoot genome to make the statements they are making? DNA shows bf is "between humans and chimps" etc How long would that take and how much DNA?
Click to expand...
No; a moment; and none.

In other words, it's a lie.
 
parnassus said:
No; a moment; and none.

In other words, it's a lie.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a lie, I never thought otherwise.

But I wondered just how ludicrous a theory it was, (besides the obvious fact of bf's nonexistence). I was trying to figure out how you get "halfway" between humans and chimps". If a humans and chimps genome are the same except for x < 4% Bf would be x amount of that x<4% therefore they would have had to have mapped a lot of DNA?
 
If you're going to use math regarding bigfoot issues you will probably first need to study up on 'Bigfoot Math' which is a specialized part of 'Bigfoot Science'.
 
GT/CS said:
If you're going to use math regarding bigfoot issues you will probably first need to study up on 'Bigfoot Math' which is a specialized part of 'Bigfoot Science'.
Click to expand...

Yes, every JREF BF thread has one obvious twist, a nonexistent subject that should end all threads, but I just wondered exactly what the "halfway" DNA claim would mean had they really had DNA. Is it as simple as saying "we drew this conclusion overnight with our brand new shiny DNA evidence"?
Suspension of disbelief is definitely required to answer my question but that is not unusual in bf discussions in relating bf "science" and "math" to real science and math and psychology and anthropology and....:) "Oh, what a tangled web [they] weave..."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom