Bigfoot bodies and Mount St. Helens

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

DNA you say? When and where was that found?

Maybe THIS can get you started.

Yes, and after you've finished looking at that garbage, you can take a look at this summary of all the problems with it.

*Spoiler*: The "Sasquatch genome" is "the product of a combination of contamination, degradation, and poor assembly methods."

The whole thing is a sham. The "journal" that published the results claiming proof of Sasquatch DNA was established by the team that did the 'research'. That is also the only thing they've ever published.

arstechnica.com...
sososcience.com...

I'll get around to reading that at some point, thanks for the link.

I wonder if the language the Bigfoot speak is an ancient language or an offshoot of one. Maybe this is how the civilian was able to communicate with it.
This is just speculation of course but if the account is true then perhaps barely no time at all had been spent researching the Bigfoot or learning their language but at some point it had been noted that they spoke an ancient language which this particular civilian had studied.
Perhaps a Native American language or something even older like Sanskrit.

I really, really have a hard time buying this story. For many reasons. Sounds fun, but probably complete BS.

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
While there isn't an unknown species of squirrel, chipmunk or mouse in all of North America that scientists don't know about how is it possible something as large as bigfoot could go undetected?

They're not undetected in the slightest...
They are seen regularly by many, many people. They're on video and have been recorded speaking language and vocalizing. Their dna has been collected and analyzed enough times to know that these are things which are apparently related to humans.
For something we have the actual dna of, and for the multitudes of sightings, how can you say they're undetected?

Easy, hoaxes, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and no, no we don't.

a reply to: dr1234

Funny that...

Eyewitness's are good enough to prove crime/murder, hell even most science is observational based....

But not when it comes to BF

Alright, I'm calling obvious BS on the whole story (guardsman at Helen's)

First of all, I am from Washington State and lived in Yakima when Helen's erupted. The whole description of the 'clean-up' isn't accurate. If they really had found 'survivors'....why would they be burned? People that died in the eruption weren't burned, for crying out loud. They were buried in a huge lahar (mud flow).

That whole account reads like a bad scifi story that's full of holes. So some military guy supposedly made 'friends' with this Sasquatch creature, learned its language and then coordinated a search with it? Then, they call in this guy (storyteller) and one other guardsman to 'assist', although all they did was ride around in a jeep and watch them 'call' for survivors? When they finally find a survivor, instead of taking it back and trying to save its life (which is the obvious, appropriate course of action) they 'put it down' like a lame horse?

NONE of that story makes sense. NONE of it.

I believe that there is something out there, and have had a couple of strange experiences myself. But please...there are so many more plausible stories, that this one is just ridiculous.

originally posted by: Chickensalad
a reply to: dr1234

Funny that...

Eyewitness's are good enough to prove crime/murder, hell even most science is observational based....

But not when it comes to BF

You know when they are good enough to prove a murder? WHEN YOU HAVE BODY. Pretty substantial problem with that metaphor, wouldn't you say?

a reply to: jaffo

Touchè

a reply to: jaffo

Conviction for murder in the absence of a body is possible and it has happened before over the years.

a reply to: dr1234

"eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable"

Yes, witnesses can almost never get the species right.

Prosecutor: "Ma'am, is this the man that stole your purse?"
Witness: "Oh, it all happened so fast. I just can't be sure if it was a bear walking on it's hind feet or a man."

a reply to: westcoast

I agree with you in regard to the Volcano Explosion.

But, my understanding, in reading the first few OP links etc, that this was some natural disaster "Bushfire" as we call them, in the mountains, not anything to do with the explosion 30+ years ago.

I could be wrong, could someone OP etc, clear this up please....is this referring to the Volcanic Explosion or A natural Wildfire/Bushfire, that often occurs in forest areas?.
Thanks in advance.

a reply to: smcneil01

Thank you for posting - very interesting. Also, your tone and content seem way more credible than the post.

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Wolfenz
they don't have the Vocal gear to communicate like humans ! more like a great Ape

What exactly are you basing this assertion on?

In most cases the wild man, snowman, sasquatch, bigfoot
are considered Hominids aka early Man

from the description's of Bigfoot from all over the world ..

more likely they are from paranthropus or australopithecus groups a big logic guess


from what i heard from "legends" from my area and what i read in books, magazines, videos , articles
say they are unable to communicate with speech, as Hominids have similar

and great apes gorilla orangutangs , chimps, bonobos , gibbs
all lack the physical gear for speech vocal apparatus the lack of movement coordination with in it unlike humans

and here some links that i found

The Origin of Language - Could Homo erectus and other hominids speak?
www.angelfire.com...

I noticed when we found the vertebra," says Walker, "that the canal was too small to contain these nerves. The size of the canal is a lot closer to that in apes than in humans. Not enough nerves were connected to the muscles to control the breath and sustain a sentence." Nariokotome boy was speechless. Thus Homo erectus was very different than modern humans, despite the deceiving human-like appearance of skeletal remains like Nariokotome boy." - Alan Walker source: Research/Penn State, published by the Vice President for Research. Contents copyright 1998 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

hmm the ...... Turkana Boy eh.

let's wiki LOL

Turkana Boy
en.wikipedia.org...

lightly differnt then a modern human

Vocal capabilities The fossil skeleton and other fossil evidence such as Acheulean stone tools prompt the majority of scientists to conclude that Homo ergaster and Homo erectus – unlike their more primitive ancestors – became efficient hunters. The social structure would probably have become more complex with a larger brain volume; the Broca's area of the brain allows speech and is noted by a slight slant on the cranium.

Turkana Boy's thoracic vertebrae are narrower than in Homo sapiens.[13] This would have allowed him less motor control over the thoracic muscles that are used in modern humans to modify respiration to enable the sequencing upon single exhalations of complex vocalisations.[14]

From Grunting To Gabbing: Why Humans Can Talk
August 11, 2010
www.npr.org...

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

DNA you say? When and where was that found?

Various places, at various times. There was DNA, for example, found in the Sasquatch Attack" episode of Monster Quest, on the nail board. Mostly, but not quite, human is the result, every time.

Sounds like a MIB operation (movie ref.)
Bigfoot aliens hiding out or vacationing in Washington.
Miss the volcano advisory.
Civilian MIB show up to correct the situation.

Wait . . . The OP starts out about the Mt. Saint Helens eruption, then shares a story of a Bigfoot incident that happened in NEVADA nearly 20 years later, then basically claims a dudes email (again) about Mt. Saint Helens is somehow evidence of the event that happened (again) nearly 20 years later and in a different state? What? Am I missing something?

originally posted by: hammanderr
In order to believe this story you'd have to have the intellect of a 5 year old. Increasingly the Cryptozoology and UFO movements have become more religious than scientific. Embracing fantastical tales on faith and hope is the realm of religion. Utilizing reproducible results and tangible, observable facts and phenomena is the realm of science.

If you claim to be in search of the truth but find yourself requiring no proof........you're not gonna find the truth, you're gonna find science fiction.

But what if the government does not allow you to provide certain proof, i.e., a trapped Bigfoot or its corpse? If video does not constitute in your eyes "reproducible results", what evidence other than a body does? You speak of "observable facts", yet all forms of this (e.g.. footprints, hair, nests) you will deny because they can be hoaxed.

So the only proof you will accept is one that the government will stop anyone from exhibiting to you because - like the existence of ETs - it is too paradigm-shifting to permit.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: hammanderr
In order to believe this story you'd have to have the intellect of a 5 year old. Increasingly the Cryptozoology and UFO movements have become more religious than scientific. Embracing fantastical tales on faith and hope is the realm of religion. Utilizing reproducible results and tangible, observable facts and phenomena is the realm of science.

If you claim to be in search of the truth but find yourself requiring no proof........you're not gonna find the truth, you're gonna find science fiction.

But what if the government does not allow you to provide certain proof, i.e., a trapped Bigfoot or its corpse? If video does not constitute in your eyes "reproducible results", what evidence other than a body does? You speak of "observable facts", yet all forms of this (e.g.. footprints, hair, nests) you will deny because they can be hoaxed.

So the only proof you will accept is one that the government will stop anyone from exhibiting to you because - like the existence of ETs - it is too paradigm-shifting to permit.

There is absolutely NOTHING "paradigm shifting" about the existence of BF were it proven real. My God, you act like people would run around in the streets with their hair on fire and shooting their parents if thy found a BF, lol.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

DNA you say? When and where was that found?

Various places, at various times. There was DNA, for example, found in the Sasquatch Attack" episode of Monster Quest, on the nail board. Mostly, but not quite, human is the result, every time.

No. Just, no. The results are essentially either HUMAN or BEAR. EVERY. TIME.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: jaffo

Conviction for murder in the absence of a body is possible and it has happened before over the years.

Absolutely. But it is VERY, VERY rare and only happens when there is enough clear corroborating evidence to undeniably prove the person is dead.