Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Exactly, unknown humans. As yet still to be found and typed. What did we learn about them? Nothing. They're still lost, unnamed and we don't have any idea what they actually looked like. However, the find did prove that we still have missing elements still out there somewhere. But where are the bones? Sound familiar? Chris B.
Click to expand...

They aren't lost: they are extinct (although I believe that traces of their DNA can be found in certain modern humans). We know exactly where some of them were; where we found their bones. They have been named. They have been typed. And we know some things about them (including some aspects of how they looked). Did you look up anything about them before you posted?
 
The Shrike said:
Chris, in post 2519, I provided links to 4 images of human renderings of creatures, each with associated legends in the cultures that produced them. Can you please explain why you think the "wild woman" mask represents a real bigfoot (even though it doesn't look or act at all like one) but these would (presumably) represent mythical creatures to you?

Consider the last one for example - a mask of the iconic Boris Karloff movie version of Frankenstein's monster. This creature appears in countless stories (written, film, animation) in the English-speaking world and where Shelley's text has been translated to other languages. We instantly recognize the brutish face, pallid complexion, and neck bolts as indicating this creature. There are annual festivals in which revelers don costumes of this character and act out pieces of its legend.

Now imagine that you're future-Chris in the year 3020. The 2015 Rise of the Machines wiped Anglo-American culture off the map, and only fragments of our once-rich history and art remain. There are only a few hundred people in the world who speak English and there is virtually no written record of our culture. There are little fragments here and there of our ancient customs, including Halloween. You find some photos of ancient Frankenstein's monster masks and they seem to resemble quite a bit one of the monsters from those ancient stories.

By your logic, you would conclude that Frankenstein's monster masks represent first-person encounters with real Frankenstein's monsters. You would base this conclusion on the fact that there was a folklore about such monsters and the masks remind you of the subject of that folklore.


Now do you see the problem?



Also in post 2519, I again provide examples of the actual point of considering the lack of bigfoot artifacts, i.e., ancient peoples used parts of all manner of creatures they revered. The point is not to look for art that you think resembles bigfoot, but to look for actual pieces of bigfoot among those items.
Click to expand...
I did view the pics in your links, and I reviewed them prior to this post. I see what you're saying. But in the "future" scenario you present I'd be missing currently available information on the background of those drawings and masks.
I suppose if we threw current background info out the window it would be anyone's best guess as to which may have been real or which may have been made up.

That would lead into the next set of pics you listed. Physical artifacts from living creatures used in ceremonial or self decoration. In that case it would be easy to sort through and make a determination that a bear claw necklace would indicate there were bears at some point in the past. That's cut and dry. If it were only that easy for Bigfoot. I understand from your point of view it is that easy. No Bigfoot parts among NA can only mean no Bigfoot right? But how can you be certain? You can't. The only thing you can be certain of is that Native Americans didn't collect Bigfoot parts, not that they didn't have any knowledge of them or that they existed or not. Chris B.
 
Giordano said:
Denisova hominins. There are many things that we do not know about them, but we know that they are an extinct species of human/human-like primates that are distinct from Neanderthals or modern humans, and this can be elucidated from their DNA alone.

This illustrates exactly the opposite of your posts: the DNA itself is very valuable even not knowing much (or anything else) about the creatures from which it came.
Click to expand...

Ah, so DNA from an unknown primate would prove we have unknown primate DNA. It wouldn't prove we still have one today. It wouldn't prove what it looks like or where it was. How wonderful, such a discovery. There's an unknown primate yet to be found that we know nothing about. I already know this much. Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Giordano said:


Given two people have even offered to have the DNA tested for free, or nearly for free, you appear to be worried that if it is not Bigfoot then you will be embarrassed. Well, you can never establish now if it is or isn't Bigfoot without having it DNA tested. So I gather that you would rather have a sample that might be Bigfoot DNA than to learn definitively one way or another. Given the level of excitement and cash that can be yours if it tests as Bigfoot DNA, then I must assume that you are pretty certain that it is, in fact, not Bigfoot DNA, and that you cited it here to support your argument even knowing this.
Click to expand...
No thanks. Not interested. Chris B.
Click to expand...
That is not a credible answer. Who do you think you're fooling here?
 
The Shrike said:
I seem to recall that the DNA sequenced to describe the Denisovans came from one or more finger bones.

Bones found . . . DNA sequenced . . . new organism described. That's how it works when there's an organism to be described.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we have a different recollection. I seem to recall the DNA sequence was a partial trace from a female Neanderthal toe bone made in the Denisova find.
Chris B.
 
Giordano said:
They aren't lost: they are extinct (although I believe that traces of their DNA can be found in certain modern humans). We know exactly where some of them were; where we found their bones. They have been named. They have been typed. And we know some things about them (including some aspects of how they looked). Did you look up anything about them before you posted?
Click to expand...

I must have missed that. Do you have a link?
Chris B.
 
What the heck does an exinct human ancestor have to to with an alleged extant 9-ft monkey wandering around every hoot and hooler in NA?
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Perhaps we have a different recollection. I seem to recall the DNA sequence was a partial trace from a female Neanderthal toe bone made in the Denisova find.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

No, not a Neanderthal bone, DNA from a bone in Spain that had a large number of Denisovan rather than Neanderthal sequences, and additional Denisovan bones in Siberia. That is the whole point. There was an estimated 17% inbreeding with local Neanderthals and approximately a 600,000 to 800,000 year divergence from Neanderthals and modern human beings. There is typically a lot of evidence of inbreeding between the different ancestral species of human/human-like species. Human evolution is not like the separate branches of a tree, but involves a lot of divergence, inbreeding, more divergence, bottlenecks, etc.

You don't need to try to recollect, especially given that recollections can be so dicey. You can just find the original references on the web or in a library. Or in this case, you could have just clicked on the link provided to you.
 
Last edited:
I don't know; clicking on a link sounds like a lot of effort. Way more than mailing spit to a university.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
If it were only that easy for Bigfoot.
Click to expand...
It is that easy for bigfoot.

We have no bigfoot remains among any artifacts of any of the people who claim some kind of bigfoot mythology. Does this prove there are no bigfoots? No, but we have competing explanations and can apply the principle of parismony to help determine which is more likely:

a) There is no bigfoot.

b) There is bigfoot, but native people did not see fit to collect its body parts, either as food, as items of utility (e.g, a pouch), or as adornment/worship.

For b to be true, it takes more steps than for a to be true:

*Native people hunted all manner of creatures for food, for protection, as tests of bravery, etc. For them not to hunt bigfoots would be contradictory to how they tended to view all other creatures.

*Native peoples were not squeamish about killing other people and keeping their body parts.

*Native peoples actually claimed to have bigfoot/yeti body parts, but had to lie about it because such things didn't exist.
 
Giordano said:
I'm not certain what you "missed" but here again is the link just provided by Resume, which appears to cover all your points:
http://www.livescience.com/41679-oldest-human-dna-reveals-mysterious-homnid.html

There are others with more details, if you wish. But you can just Google them if you have more specific questions.
Click to expand...

Nope. Sorry but this link is about Sima de los Huesos finds and nothing to do with the Denisova find mystery DNA sequence. Specifically, I addressed the mystery DNA sequence taken from the female Neanderthal toe bone at the Devisova site.

I'm not interested in Sima de los Huesos finds, Denisovans or Neanderthals, only the mystery DNA sequence collected from the Neanderthal toe bone.
Chris B.
 
Giordano said:
No, not a Neanderthal bone, DNA from a bone in Spain that had a large number of Denisovan rather than Neanderthal sequences, and additional Denisovan bones in Siberia. That is the whole point. There was an estimated 17% inbreeding with local Neanderthals and approximately a 600,000 to 800,000 year divergence from Neanderthals and modern human beings. There is typically a lot of evidence of inbreeding between the different ancestral species of human/human-like species. Human evolution is not like the separate branches of a tree, but involves a lot of divergence, inbreeding, more divergence, bottlenecks, etc.

You don't need to try to recollect, especially given that recollections can be so dicey. You can just find the original references on the web or in a library. Or in this case, you could have just clicked on the link provided to you.
Click to expand...
It would seem my recollection trumps your ability to present related facts.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Nope. Sorry but this link is about Sima de los Huesos finds and nothing to do with the Denisova find mystery DNA sequence. Specifically, I addressed the mystery DNA sequence taken from the female Neanderthal toe bone at the Devisova site.

I'm not interested in Sima de los Huesos finds, Denisovans or Neanderthals, only the mystery DNA sequence collected from the Neanderthal toe bone.
Chris B.
Click to expand...
fromlinkyoudidn't read said:
The only known Denisovan fossils so far are a finger bone and a molar found in Siberia. [Denisovan Gallery: Tracing the Genetics of Human Ancestors]
Click to expand...
What toe bone? What mystery?

Another link: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/125-missing-human-ancestor/shreeve-text
In the back of the cave is a small side chamber, and it was there that a young Russian archaeologist named Alexander Tsybankov was digging one day in July 2008, in deposits believed to be 30,000 to 50,000 years old, when he came upon a tiny piece of bone. It was hardly promising: a rough nubbin about the size and shape of a pebble you might shake out of your shoe. Later, after news of the place had spread, a paleoanthropologist I met at Denisova described the bone to me as the “most unspectacular fossil I’ve ever seen. It’s practically depressing.” Still, it was a bone. Tsybankov bagged it and put it in his pocket to show a paleontologist back at camp.

The bone preserved just enough anatomy for the paleontologist to identify it as a chip from a primate fingertip—specifically the part that faces the last joint in the pinkie. Since there is no evidence for primates other than humans in Siberia 30,000 to 50,000 years ago—no apes or monkeys—the fossil was presumably from some kind of human. Judging by the incompletely fused joint surface, the human in question had died young, perhaps as young as eight years old.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
It would seem my recollection trumps your ability to present related facts.
Click to expand...

You seriously can't grasp the fact that simply going "But I SAW a figboot!" without being able to back it up in absolutely anyway is meaningless can you?

What did you think was gonna happen when you went on a board full of skeptics with nothing but a totally uncorroborated story? We were all gonna go "Oh well then random anonymous person with zero evidence I guess that settles it!"

Or is this just the BLAARGing character you rolled?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I'm not interested in Sima de los Huesos finds, Denisovans or Neanderthals, only the mystery DNA sequence collected from the Neanderthal toe bone.
Click to expand...

Translation: I'm not interested in facts that prove me wrong, only in fake "mysteries" I can shove "But you don't know for sure... therefore Figboots" into.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom