Bigfoot: I want to believe

[UtahDan]

That doesn't look like a bear to me. But the reaction of the kids filming seems inauthentic. They run the moment it stands up, almost like they are anticipating it.

[SoCalCoug]

What do you think of the video?

I think I trust Bronto's sincerity - I don't think he participated in a hoax (possible he was hoaxed). Two problems with relying on any video - one is you don't really get the same feel for something on a flat screen that you do with binocular vision. What may take us several times of going through the video, slow-mo, pausing, etc., he probably could recognize far easier standing there in person. Also, while the camera shakes, our vision does not - he would have been able to focus on the "monster" far easier than the camera does.

It just doesn't look like a bear to me, when it stands up. Bronto thought it was a bear initially, so why would he be so terrified if it was a bear standing up?

It's funny that on the bigfoot sites, his reaction seems to be generally believed as unstaged - for those discrediting his reaction, you must prefer the overacting yelling or poor dialogue that you see on many hoaxed videos.

Bronto says it looked to be about 8-9 feet tall. He went back a day or two later, but it was too dark to take pictures. He said his brother stood in the spot where it was, and it was probably 2-3 feet taller than his brother.

I don't think it's a bear, and I don't think it's a moose. It's either a bigfoot or a person in some sort of costume/ghillie suit. If it's a ghillie suit, it's a crappy one, because it doesn't blend into the environment very well.

I'll give him a link to this thread and see if he's willing to come answer questions.

[UtahDan]

It's funny that on the bigfoot sites, his reaction seems to be generally believed as unstaged - for those discrediting his reaction, you must prefer the overacting yelling or poor dialogue that you see on many hoaxed videos.

For me that isn't it. Running seems like a normal reaction. What I am questioning is the fact that they run virtually instantly. It seems to me like the thought process that is suggested "it's a bear, it's a bear, it's a bear, it's standing up, shit that doesn't look like a bear, what do I do, RUN!" would take a little longer. Not long, mind you, but there seems to be no processing of the new information they get when it stands. To me, it looks more like the running was staged and the standing was the cue. Conveniently, this quick response gives us no more than a moment to see whatever it is in a standing position.

[USUC]

Yeah... a big black blob that stands up, has arms and legs and walks. Did you even watch it? Also, under what circumstances would a bear stand up on two legs to flee up hill?

I think there should be a scat investigation. The BF was definitely doing his business behind a bush.

Fleeing uphill? Arms? Legs? Walks? Doing his business?

WTF you talking about? There is a dark blob moving behind some trees. That's it.

This exchange cracked me up. I don't know why but its the funniest thing i've seen all day.

[clackamascoug]

This exchange cracked me up. I don't know why but its the funniest thing i've seen all day.

I don't think the Big Lebowski gets me. He's cold and digital in my warm tubed analog world. And he calls me crazy 'cause he didn't see the leg or arm at 32-33, or the butt wiping at 16-22. In fact, I'm not even sure if he knows that "sasquatch" is an Indian name, which translated directly is... "that big hairy thing that's always shitting in the woods."

[SoCalCoug]

Okay, guys, here's the press release we've been waiting for:

‘BIGFOOT’ DNA SEQUENCED IN UPCOMING GENETICS STUDY

Five-Year Genome Study Yields Evidence of Homo sapiens/Unknown Hominin Hybrid Species in North America

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.

I obtained this from Bigfoot Evidence Blog, but it allegedly was posted on Dr. Ketchum's facebook page today. I've seen it posted in other, independent locations, so although I can't access her facebook, I think it's a legitimate press release.

I don't know how imminent the publication of her paper is, because I think her hand was forced by a Russian scientist who posted some information about this and some other studies yesterday.

Here we go!

[clackamascoug]

So the Earth is no longer flat?

[SoCalCoug]

Okay, here's a more official link:
PRWeb

[creekster]

What is the source of DNA? Hair samples? So bottom line is human mitochondria but unknown male DNA?

We need woot on this.

[SoCalCoug]

What is the source of DNA? Hair samples? So bottom line is human mitochondria but unknown male DNA?

We need woot on this.

Mitochondrial DNA is modern human. But that's not the full story, as mitochondrial DNA is passed down maternally, only. The nuclear DNA (if I understand correctly) came from three different individuals, with three individual sequences, and are not modern human. They believe that DNA comes from an early human species (not Homo sapiens), which they know is not Neandertal or Denisovian.

Bottom line is (according to Ketchum) it's a modern human - early Homo species hybrid. Not fully human, but far closer related than our closest ape relatives.

[SoCalCoug]

What is the source of DNA? Hair samples? So bottom line is human mitochondria but unknown male DNA?

We need woot on this.

Forgot to answer your first question. The source of the DNA is either 105 or 108 separate samples, mostly hair, but some blood and saliva, and at least one, possibly two chunks of flesh.

[creekster]

Mitochondrial DNA is modern human. But that's not the full story, as mitochondrial DNA is passed down maternally, only. The nuclear DNA (if I understand correctly) came from three different individuals, with three individual sequences, and are not modern human. They believe that DNA comes from an early human species (not Homo sapiens), which they know is not Neandertal or Denisovian.

Bottom line is (according to Ketchum) it's a modern human - early Homo species hybrid. Not fully human, but far closer related than our closest ape relatives.

I understand. It seems she is saying it is a hybrid because the mitochondrial sequence is human and thus the mother must be human. This makes me wonder about the results as a hybrid seems pretty unlikely to me.

[SoCalCoug]

I understand. It seems she is saying it is a hybrid because the mitochondrial sequence is human and thus the mother must be human. This makes me wonder about the results as a hybrid seems pretty unlikely to me.

Boardmail ligers and mules.

[SoCalCoug]

Boardmail ligers and mules.

Actually, better would be to boardmail wholpins, beefalo, and red wolves (all fertile hybrid species).

[creekster]

Actually, better would be to boardmail wholpins, beefalo, and red wolves (all fertile hybrid species).

Maybe analogous maybe not. Depends on the point of separation. But it is possibly interesting.