They Said The Baby Looked Human?
From the howtohunt.com channel comes a bigfoot story that has us shaking our heads. They said the baby looked human?
M.K. Davis Discusses The Bloody Dog Print at Bluff Creek [Massacre]
Uh Oh. Here we go again, folks. M.K. Davis originally brought up this theory called the "Bluff Creek massacre" theory back in 2008 at a conference. The controversial theory was immediately rejected by the Bigfoot community and Davis was shunned from ever speaking about it again. According to Davis, based on his expert film analysis and color enhancements of frame 352 of the PG film, he theorizes that the Patterson party had been to the Bluff Creek site at least once before returning to capture their famous Bigfoot video. His theory also suggests that the party probably murdered a family of Bigfoots and buried their bodies. Davis points to an enhanced anomaly resembling a bloody dog print and a pool of blood as proof of his theory.
First of all , he's not the only person speaking the truth about bigfoot although he is speaking the truth. Secondly, bigfoot is indeed archaic human so any baby would truly look human no doubt. “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,” said team leader veterinarian Dr. Melba S. Ketchum in a news release. “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.” connect the dots mates ! the answers are right in front of you !
ReplyDeletecheers
Joe
I think you could be wrong sir. No where in the annals of science have they proven the existence of a Sasquatch much less any type of data on DNA. Just my two cents worth. Carry on.
DeleteNope, time after time bigfoot hair comes back as being human when tested . Bigfoot isn't 100% human but a hybrid possibly somewhere along the time they bred with humans . Facts are facts mate. Go into the woods, have a camping party and maybe you'll be lucky to see one.
Deletecheers
Joe
Maybe you could be putting the cart before the horse. You can't really call it Bigfoot hair until you know for sure it's a Bigfoot. When a hair sample comes back as human, with all the modern technology in the year 2020, you can bet the farm it's human. You can agree with me that what has been described as a Bigfoot fits perfectly with the Gigantopithecus (which died out a hundred thousand years ago) and that definitely would not come back positive for human DNA. Looking at things from a step back you can also agree with me that a ten foot Gigantopithecus breeding with a human and producing an offspring is something closer to a 50's B horror movie than reality. Do a little research and you will see several holes in your theories I'm quite sure.
DeleteWell mate , I guess you’re right . I oft spray me knickers at the wee thought of bigfoot being real and oft times I become a wee bit daft . My apologies mate !
Deletecheers
Joe
^ Well PS/Bruce , I guess you've proven yourself to be mentally unstable prized prat once again. You get pwned on this blog and decide to respond in your typical childish way . Silly twonk, bigfoot studies are not for kids
Deletecheers
Joe
“Maybe you could be putting the cart before the horse.“
DeleteYet you claim that a Bigfoot needs to be classified before a hair sample is used in the research that leads to that point of study? I’ve never heard of a more archetype example of the very being before the horse. A scientific discovery before science study. You see, this is the example of extraordinary evidence numpty’s like you enjoy touting, when in fact, the evidence is already there.
“The Walla Walla sample matched an individual from Uzbekistan! How on Earth could that be explained? I have not had long to think about it, but my immediate thought is that I find it very difficult to reconcile this result on the Walla Walla with the impressive provenance provided for it by Paul Freeman and his companions. The hair was caught in the splintered wood of a tree whose branch had been twisted off with tremendous force. Had the Walla Walla hair been found lying on the ground in the vicinity of a Bigfoot “experience” then a loose human hair is always a possibility. But this hair must have belonged to whatever creature broke the branch, even it was not one of the Sasquatch the trackers saw in the vicinity soon after.”
- Dr Bryan Sykes, Nature of The Beast
It appears Bryan Sykes finds the hair samples credible enough when matching human. The only thing that would require to differentiate the small differences between these hominin and us, are more of the same hairs so a genome can be explored to determine how archaic they are. Which is why I assume it’s taking so long if no more hairs are available for testing at this time.
And nope! When analysing Giganto’s jaw, anthropologists knew a long time ago that it was a quadruped. And we know from 3 databases of reports and footage that what we are concerned with is an archaic human.
Appearance - archaic human
Footprint evidence - archaic human
DNA - (archaic) human
When i was young and crazy about bigfoot i thought it was a type of ape . Now I really think it is archaic human . It is the reason why so many sightings have had people say they looked human but not 100% human. One day all the science community will catch up with these known facts and there will be no more debates. it would be sad for the skeptics because then they'd have to find another subject to troll on, hahaha
Deletecheers
Joe
Hello my name is Douglas and I believe in this I have seen my Father After years of His passing and my Daughter Heather was about 3 months old and I was feeding her and a ghostly white figure of a man stood in out staircase,so yeah I believe in what you saw and I'm very interested in your Footage and Thank you for The Doucumentary
ReplyDelete