Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[Nonpareil]

It seems you are under the false impression I'm here only to prove Bigfoot for you. I've not accepted that task for presentation here. I'd simply like to read and post same as everyone else that enjoys the forum.

Then why are you posting in this thread?

 

[dmaker]

Mike, I don't mean to seriously imply there were ravenous groups of bone munching porcupines roving the ancient wilds hunting down and devouring Giganto and their skeletons whole as the reason for the lack of any notable finds.

My bold. So, you weren't saying that porcupines ate all the bones and that is why we don't have many giganto fossils? Because words mean stuff, and you always say exactly what you mean. You have reminded us of that many times in this thread.

Ahem...

"Thank you Mr Porcupine. They couldn't eat the teeth or jaw bones, other than that, they pretty much gobbled up our entire Giganto fossil record." ChrisBFRPKY

"I don't know the depth of your understanding or study of the subject. If you are inquiring if porcupines ate up almost the entire fossil record for Giganto, then yes that would be correct" ChrisBFRPKY

 

[Cervelo]

Well since Chris feels he's said all he's going to about his picture of Bigfoot....here we go!
I'm assuming he thinks this is the Bigfoot?

That's one deformed bigfoot and tiny as well...ummmm how do they suspended in mid-air?
Could this bigfoot be in mid-morph to another dimension or shape shifting?
These are the questions that science must answer, since Chris won't.

 

[Giordano]

It seems you are under the false impression I'm here only to prove Bigfoot for you. I've not accepted that task for presentation here. I'd simply like to read and post same as everyone else that enjoys the forum. If you do not want to participate in a conversation with me personally, then simply don't engage one. Chris B.

I was a bit confused by the title of the thread, "Latest Bigfoot Evidence." I was also confused, given your web site, your statements that you saw Bigfeet yourself from close up, your own referencing of your photos, and your declaration that you had a saliva sample that might be Bigfoot's, that you were taking the position that you had evidence to present here from an pro-Bigfoot position. Sorry if I got it wrong.

Oh wait, maybe you are relying on the idea that if you claim your evidence is not "proof" then no one has a right to question it as to whether it is really evidence or not. Is that it?

 

[carlitos]

My bold. So, you weren't saying that porcupines ate all the bones and that is why we don't have many giganto fossils? Because words mean stuff, and you always say exactly what you mean. You have reminded us of that many times in this thread.

Ahem...

"Thank you Mr Porcupine. They couldn't eat the teeth or jaw bones, other than that, they pretty much gobbled up our entire Giganto fossil record." ChrisBFRPKY

"I don't know the depth of your understanding or study of the subject. If you are inquiring if porcupines ate up almost the entire fossil record for Giganto, then yes that would be correct" ChrisBFRPKY

 

[Giordano]

I seem to remember we were in a discussion of "mystery DNA". Though unlikely, it may be related to Bigfoot. It would certainly be exciting if we could match a modern sample to that unknown DNA. If you don't wish to have a conversation about it, then why engage one as you clearly have? It looks like you now wish to retreat into a "show me the monkey" stance. I don't have a monkey to show you.
Chris B.

No, I only did not want to facilitate a distraction from the real topic of this thread. We had already established the only relevance to this thread from the Deniosvan DNA: DNA sequencing can tell you a lot even before one has many bones or artifacts.

But I share with you the idea that unknown primate DNA is very interesting, as is human evolution. So good news: I started a new thread in the Science section for anyone who wishes to discuss this different issue.

 

[Resume]

I seem to remember we were in a discussion of "mystery DNA". Though unlikely, it may be related to Bigfoot.

Unlikely? It's untenable. There isn't anything remotely relatable to bigfoot because we have nothing, no thing of bigfoot available for comparison. Nothing to test, not a whiff of hair, scat, bone to test. Bigfoot proponents have failed miserably to establish any verifiable evidence, any reason to take their cartoon creature seriously.

It would certainly be exciting if we could match a modern sample to that unknown DNA. If you don't wish to have a conversation about it, then why engage one as you clearly have? It looks like you now wish to retreat into a "show me the monkey" stance. I don't have a monkey to show you.
Chris B.

In case you haven't noticed, this is a show me the monkey thread. The entire subject of bigfoot is centered around it's purported existence. Unless, as is speculated by long time observers of the passing footie scene, this fringe hobby is all about the BLAARG.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Chris you could take your entire involvement in this thread, replace the word Bigfoot with the word "Pumpkinhead" and nothing would change about any of your arguments.

 

[HarryHenderson]

On the contrary, I find it's extremely easy to be honest...

Here's one of the articles complete with a pic of the toe bone:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25423498

And in case you can't click the link, or you're expecting others not to, here's a quoting from the article:

"The Neanderthals were already well known, but DNA analysis of a finger bone and a tooth excavated at the cave revealed evidence of a human type living 40,000 years ago that was distinct both from Neanderthals and modern humans. When this work was published in 2010, the team behind the discovery dubbed this human species the "Denisovans" after the Siberian site.
The Neanderthal toe bone was found in the same cave in 2010, though in a deeper layer of sediment that is thought to be about 10,000-20,000 years older. The cave also contains modern human artefacts, meaning that at least three groups of people occupied the cave at different times."

A high quality genome sequence was obtained from the small bone using techniques developed..."

But it also threw up a surprise result: that the Denisovans interbred with a mysterious fourth group of early humans that were living in Eurasia at the time. Between 2.7 and 5.8% of the Denisovan genome comes from this enigmatic species."

The bolded section is the important part (well besides the fact that these percentages of mystery DNA came from the Neanderthal toe bone)

Later DNA analysis from the Denisovan type specimens (finger bone and teeth) ALSO contain about 1% of this unknown DNA.
This reference can be found at this link:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.VO3hJ3zF-So

Drewbot might be right, maybe you're not lying, you're just horribly horribly CONFUSED. Several things. The red verbiage addition was to add better "context", a word you're as confused about as this. In reality the Neanderthal "toe bone" mention in your link is a non-sequitir. It came out of nowhere. It doesn't mean anything. The writer does NOT say they tested that Neaderthal toe bone.

Regardless of the article's crappy writing, and it really is, ALL the Denisovan DNA information came from bones Denisovan. Yet you're claiming all the Denisovan's DNA information came from a Neaderthal toe bone. That's not just absurd and illogical, it's absolutely not true.

Your reading comprehension is the one in need of serious revision.

Actually, the "mystery" DNA was found in the Denisovan remains, not the Neanderthal toe bone. Because otherwise the sentence would not be "(b)etween 2.7 and 5.8% of the Denisovan genome comes from this enigmatic species", but would be "(b)etween 2.7 and 5.8% of the Neanderthal genome comes from this enigmatic species".

The article is clearly discussing two distinct DNA sequencing events. One on a Neanderthal toe bone and the other on the Denisovan finger and tooth.

Now...how about that DNA analysis of the spit?

Simply further proof of what the articles ACTUALLY say.

Chris is in so far over his head on the DNA talk.

Clearly Chris said that a mystery DNA was found in the toe bone.

The Toe bone is Neandertal.

The 'Mystery DNA' is from the 8 year old finger bone of the Denisovan girl.

You sat there and posted an excerpt from the article, and the excerpt ITSELF proved you didn't know what you were talking about.

EPIC fail bro. I don't think you're lying, I think you are unable to comprehend what happened.

To clear it up for you, The Finger bone and tooth were Denisovans, The Toe was Neandertal. The Denisovan DNA included a portion of Archaic human DNA, which the Neandertal TOE did not contain.

The article outlines clearly the first mystery DNA sequence came from the Neanderthal toe bone. The same sequence being found in the Denisovan type specimen (finger) although in a smaller percentage...

NO. No it doesn't. Please re-post with a proper citation. You're not lying are ya?


Game, Set, Ma...

 

[AdMan]

Chris you could take your entire involvement in this thread, replace the word Bigfoot with the word "Pumpkinhead" and nothing would change about any of your arguments.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Drewbot might be right, maybe you're not lying, you're just horribly horribly CONFUSED. Several things. The red verbiage addition was to add better "context", a word you're as confused about as this. In reality the Neanderthal "toe bone" mention in your link is a non-sequitir. It came out of nowhere. It doesn't mean anything. The writer does NOT say they tested that Neaderthal toe bone.

Regardless of the article's crappy writing, and it really is, ALL the Denisovan DNA information came from bones Denisovan. Yet you're claiming all the Denisovan's DNA information came from a Neaderthal toe bone. That's not just absurd and illogical, it's absolutely not true.

Your reading comprehension is the one in need of serious revision.


Simply further proof of what the articles ACTUALLY say.




NO. No it doesn't. Please re-post with a proper citation. You're not lying are ya?


Game, Set, Ma...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...rthal-genome-incest-archaic-ancestor-science/

"Data obtained from a Neanderthal woman's toe bone points to incest and inbreeding among early humans, an international genetics team reported on Wednesday.

The fossil's genetic map, or genome, reported from Denisova cave in Siberia's Altai Mountains dates to more than 50,000 years ago. The cave was home at separate times to both Neanderthals and the so-called Denisovans, two sister families of now-extinct early humans. (See also "New Type of Ancient Human Found.")

Adding to increasing evidence of a tangled human family tree, the new Neanderthal genome study released by the journal Nature also suggests that another previously unknown archaic human species shared its genes with some of our ancestors. The study authors suggest that it was Homo erectus, one of the earliest human species, which first arose around 1.8 million years ago. (See also "Why Am I a Neanderthal?")"

At this point I feel you don't even realize what you're arguing. It is frustrating to see such zeal demonstrated of simply refusing to acknowledge scientific facts of a known find that are published and on record.

I don't hold it against you in any way of course as it seems common to dispute most anything I post, but let's take a closer look at what you are arguing against.

The Neanderthal toe bone I've referenced is a very significant find. It has nothing to do with the Denisovan type specimen finger bone. That is a separate issue. The Neanderthal DNA mapping of the toe bone is what led to the earliest discovery of the unknown archaic DNA in discussion. That same archaic DNA was also found in the Denisovan type specimens but that again is a separate issue.

If this is still confusing, I would suggest you ask The Shrike to better explain it to you as this is the last time I will attempt to do so. Chris B.

 

[Akhenaten]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...rthal-genome-incest-archaic-ancestor-science/

"Data obtained from a Neanderthal woman's toe bone points to incest and inbreeding among early humans, an international genetics team reported on Wednesday.

The fossil's genetic map, or genome, reported from Denisova cave in Siberia's Altai Mountains dates to more than 50,000 years ago. The cave was home at separate times to both Neanderthals and the so-called Denisovans, two sister families of now-extinct early humans. (See also "New Type of Ancient Human Found.")

Adding to increasing evidence of a tangled human family tree, the new Neanderthal genome study released by the journal Nature also suggests that another previously unknown archaic human species shared its genes with some of our ancestors. The study authors suggest that it was Homo erectus, one of the earliest human species, which first arose around 1.8 million years ago. (See also "Why Am I a Neanderthal?")"

At this point I feel you don't even realize what you're arguing. It is frustrating to see such zeal demonstrated of simply refusing to acknowledge scientific facts of a known find that are published and on record.

I don't hold it against you in any way of course as it seems common to dispute most anything I post, but let's take a closer look at what you are arguing against.

The Neanderthal toe bone I've referenced is a very significant find. It has nothing to do with the Denisovan type specimen finger bone. That is a separate issue. The Neanderthal DNA mapping of the toe bone is what led to the earliest discovery of the unknown archaic DNA in discussion. That same archaic DNA was also found in the Denisovan type specimens but that again is a separate issue.

If this is still confusing, I would suggest you ask The Shrike to better explain it to you as this is the last time I will attempt to do so. Chris B.

Yeah, good.

So . . . evidence for Figboot?


Should I hold my breath?

 

[Cervelo]

So how does the continuing advancements of DNA analysis have anything to do with Bigfoot, oh yeah every shred of evidence examined has failed to support the claim.

 

[Giordano]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...rthal-genome-incest-archaic-ancestor-science/

"Data obtained from a Neanderthal woman's toe bone points to incest and inbreeding among early humans, an international genetics team reported on Wednesday.

The fossil's genetic map, or genome, reported from Denisova cave in Siberia's Altai Mountains dates to more than 50,000 years ago. The cave was home at separate times to both Neanderthals and the so-called Denisovans, two sister families of now-extinct early humans. (See also "New Type of Ancient Human Found.")

Adding to increasing evidence of a tangled human family tree, the new Neanderthal genome study released by the journal Nature also suggests that another previously unknown archaic human species shared its genes with some of our ancestors. The study authors suggest that it was Homo erectus, one of the earliest human species, which first arose around 1.8 million years ago. (See also "Why Am I a Neanderthal?")"

At this point I feel you don't even realize what you're arguing. It is frustrating to see such zeal demonstrated of simply refusing to acknowledge scientific facts of a known find that are published and on record.

I don't hold it against you in any way of course as it seems common to dispute most anything I post, but let's take a closer look at what you are arguing against.

The Neanderthal toe bone I've referenced is a very significant find. It has nothing to do with the Denisovan type specimen finger bone. That is a separate issue. The Neanderthal DNA mapping of the toe bone is what led to the earliest discovery of the unknown archaic DNA in discussion. That same archaic DNA was also found in the Denisovan type specimens but that again is a separate issue.

If this is still confusing, I would suggest you ask The Shrike to better explain it to you as this is the last time I will attempt to do so. Chris B.

Good news (repeated): I opened a new thread yesterday in the Science section for you (and everyone) to talk about these interesting aspects of DNA sequencing and human ancestry! I already posted that information here, It now seems even more of a distraction to continue to talk about these irrelevant things in this thread.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The cave was home at separate times to both Neanderthals and the so-called Denisovans, two sister families of now-extinct early humans.

Were they home to Bigfoot?

Adding to increasing evidence of a tangled human family tree, the new Neanderthal genome study released by the journal Nature also suggests that another previously unknown archaic human species shared its genes with some of our ancestors.

Do you have evidence that any of those unknown archiac human species were Bigfoot?

The study authors suggest that it was Homo erectus, one of the earliest human species, which first arose around 1.8 million years ago. (See also "Why Am I a Neanderthal?")"

Does the study authors suggest it was Bigfoot?

At this point I feel you don't even realize what you're arguing.

We're all arguing that you don't have evidence for Bigfoot.

It is frustrating to see such zeal demonstrated of simply refusing to acknowledge scientific facts of a known find that are published and on record.

It is frustrating to see such seal demonstrated of simply refusing to acknowledge that nothing you're talking about has anything to do with evidence for Bigfoot.

I don't hold it against you in any way of course as it seems common to dispute most anything I post, but let's take a closer look at what you are arguing against.

Let's take a closer look at your claim to know Bigfoot exists. That would be a nice change of pace for "Latest Bigfoot Evidence" thread.

The Neanderthal toe bone I've referenced is a very significant find.

Does it prove Bigfoot?

It has nothing to do with the Denisovan type specimen finger bone.

Well it also has nothing to do with Bigfoot so I don't see where you're drawing the line there.

Apparently the only thing we aren't allowed to discuss in the Bigfoot evidence thread is actual evidence for Bigfoot.

That is a separate issue.

Yes. It is a separate issue from your claim to have seen a Bigfoot.

The Neanderthal DNA mapping of the toe bone is what led to the earliest discovery of the unknown archaic DNA in discussion.

What led the discussion back to you seeing a Bigfoot?

That same archaic DNA was also found in the Denisovan type specimens but that again is a separate issue.

Hey how about the separate issue of you seeing a Bigfoot?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Yeah, good.

So . . . evidence for Figboot?


Should I hold my breath?

If you have some you wish to present for discussion, by all means please do.

So how does the continuing advancements of DNA analysis have anything to do with Bigfoot, oh yeah every shred of evidence examined has failed to support the claim.

One way it has to do with Bigfoot was posted by another member. It seems DNA science is now perfecting a method for DNA recovery from tracks.

Of course though without a type specimen any unknown DNA to be collected will be quickly disputed or dismissed as not being specifically from Bigfoot. After all, there's no way to prove it came from a Bigfoot.

Another way is that with new recovery techniques/methods, we may actually be able to collect/map DNA from much older finds for reference. This is particularly important if you're looking for new additions to the family tree. Where as we may not have a confirmed type specimen on file, but with DNA evidence we do know we have a subject we have yet to confirm.

Good news (repeated): I opened a new thread yesterday in the Science section for you (and everyone) to talk about these interesting aspects of DNA sequencing and human ancestry! I already posted that information here, It now seems even more of a distraction to continue to talk about these irrelevant things in this thread.

I think that was a great idea on your part and I applaud you for starting a new thread on it. Perhaps it will serve to enlighten. Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Adding to increasing evidence of a tangled human family tree, the new Neanderthal genome study released by the journal Nature also suggests that another previously unknown archaic human species shared its genes with some of our ancestors. The study authors suggest that it was Homo erectus, one of the earliest human species, which first arose around 1.8 million years ago. (See also "Why Am I a Neanderthal?")"

So . . . what's mysterious about it, then?

Is bigfoot Homo Erectus?

WTF are you talking about?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Were they home to Bigfoot?



Do you have evidence that any of those unknown archiac human species were Bigfoot?



Does the study authors suggest it was Bigfoot?



We're all arguing that you don't have evidence for Bigfoot.



It is frustrating to see such seal demonstrated of simply refusing to acknowledge that nothing you're talking about has anything to do with evidence for Bigfoot.



Let's take a closer look at your claim to know Bigfoot exists. That would be a nice change of pace for "Latest Bigfoot Evidence" thread.



Does it prove Bigfoot?



Well it also has nothing to do with Bigfoot so I don't see where you're drawing the line there.

Apparently the only thing we aren't allowed to discuss in the Bigfoot evidence thread is actual evidence for Bigfoot.



Yes. It is a separate issue from your claim to have seen a Bigfoot.



What led the discussion back to you seeing a Bigfoot?



Hey how about the separate issue of you seeing a Bigfoot?

If you have some evidence for Bigfoot to present for discussion, please do so. I'd be happy to comment. Chris B.

 

[Nonpareil]

Is bigfoot Homo Erectus?

I believe that's what he's insinuating, yes.

Or, rather, that the "unknown human species" was Bigfoot, not homo erectus.

 

[Resume]

If you have some evidence for Bigfoot to present for discussion, please do so. I'd be happy to comment. Chris B.

Would you like to discuss the hypothesis that footie is merely a social construct? You know, based on the rather bald fact that there is no actual footie in evidence, anywhere, at any time in the natural history of North America.