274 replies to this topic

[Sakari]

I found a video when I googled " sex with bigfoot ", but no way I could post it here......

So, after more thought of a Bigfoot having sex with a female human, I found it to be true......Just look, it still happens.







Sasquatch Sexual Assault

« Back to Photos //  1 Comment
Judith Frankle, a scientist exploring mountains of the Pacific Northwest in the '70s, says she knows what it's like to be with a Bigfoot. Judith co-wrote the book Nights with Sasquatch: An Explosive Ordeal of Rape And Revenge Beyond Any Woman's Experience. According to the liner notes, this book chronicles "a woman forced to endure barbaric, sexual lusts beyond any human experience ... . A half-human beast whose primitive lusts stripped every vestige of civilization from her soul ...  lusts that transformed Judith Frankle into a shameless savage desperately battling to survive her shocking nights with Sasquatch.” I'm scared. Oh, and in case you were wondering, Bigfoot allegedly has a Bigmember.






Dr. Ketchup is on to something.

[DieChecker]

QuiteContrary, on 30 November 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

I like musing  "Never mind the DNA, what place/sense does this specific inter-species mating make in human evolutionary history?"  


--What were the size of humans 15,000 years ago?
--Who could this species we mated with potentially be?
--How long is 15,000 years in the evolutionary terms of a species?
--Why did the interbreeding stop? What stopped the socializing with humans?
--Why aren’t BF more like us? Tools, dwellings, fire, etc. BF, according to what we "know",  seems to have “lost” most of its human traits except bipedalism.

Do you want speculation then, for discussion purposes?

The people who used to be known as Cro-Magnon were around as late as 20,000 years ago and are supposedly the ancestor group of the Central and Northern Asia, as well as Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Some hunter gather males were known from skeletons to exceed 6 feet in height, making them very tall for early humans as a group.

My wild speculation could go like this... That the Cro-Magnon interbred with some relic Early Homo Erectus group that was living in Northern Asia, and formed a small extreamely hairy population there. Then there could have been time before the end of the Wisconcin Ice Age for them to slip over the Alaskan land bridge in limited nunbers, so that they kept breeding, but never got very well established due to poor fertility (relic of being a hybrid species). Then always in danger of being wiped out, but smart enough to know it, they formed a society of travelers who tried exceedingly hard not to be found.

[QuiteContrary]

keninsc, on 30 November 2012 - 04:50 AM, said:

Who says they aren't?

A species that's evaded human discovery for this many centuries except in myths and legend must have super intelligence.

......or they're in league with aliens or Satan.

I'm reading your latest post now, Die Checker. Wrote this post while you did.

How are they like us? Where is the evidence?

Tools, dwellings, medicine, cooking implements and active fires, "civilizations", burial sites or pyres for half ton animals, etc. Where is our evidence for all this in the lives of BF seen with frequency in the same areas? Bf is all around us, so too would be his creations. But they are not.

I don't understand the "superior intelligence" speculation based solely on the creature's elusiveness.

So, according to Ketchum,  it seems BF (a giant race) of some sort some how successfully socialized and mated with humans just 15,000 years ago. Then humans moved on and upwards and this new species retreated from socializing with us and never progressed more than a bear with a heck of a disappearing act.

Even today's primitive cultures prepare food and build and fabricate.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 30 November 2012 - 05:59 AM.

[QuiteContrary]

Thank you, Die Checker. Yes, I'm just trying to make sense of the whole theory, when I have VERY limited knowledge of evolution.

How much of this DNA does she claim is human? Radford spoke of half, but what does Ketchum say?  Whether we mated with Gigantopithecus or another, if the DNA contains significant amount of human DNA my above questions stand.

And if BF DNA does not contain much human DNA why is this creature so different from any other animal on planet earth?

[DieChecker]

I think that how much... percentages, would have to wait till whatever there is... is published.

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 30 November 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

Maybe they are playing at the opposite, just like the NASA Mars guys... Supposedly professional scientists are not allowed to give out the specifics of their professional papers before they are published. Who would want to buy magazines/subscriptions to stuff they could read for free on the Internet News?

Is that not the answer though? Part human part something?

The specifics have not been released, but the conclusions has, which NASA would never do, and shows a marked diference between a professional outfit and a bunch of scammers.

I have a feeling the place to release this is The World Weekly News, Pravda or perhaps Vanity Fair.

[psyche101]

Sakari, on 30 November 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

I found a video when I googled " sex with bigfoot ", but no way I could post it here......

So, after more thought of a Bigfoot having sex with a female human, I found it to be true......Just look, it still happens.







Sasquatch Sexual Assault

« Back to Photos //  1 Comment
Judith Frankle, a scientist exploring mountains of the Pacific Northwest in the '70s, says she knows what it's like to be with a Bigfoot. Judith co-wrote the book Nights with Sasquatch: An Explosive Ordeal of Rape And Revenge Beyond Any Woman's Experience. According to the liner notes, this book chronicles "a woman forced to endure barbaric, sexual lusts beyond any human experience ... . A half-human beast whose primitive lusts stripped every vestige of civilization from her soul ...  lusts that transformed Judith Frankle into a shameless savage desperately battling to survive her shocking nights with Sasquatch.” I'm scared. Oh, and in case you were wondering, Bigfoot allegedly has a Bigmember.






Dr. Ketchup is on to something.

Remember Henner Fahrenbach's 2008 conference?

Quote

“Their top speed for running is between 42 and 45 miles per hour,” Fahrenbach told the crowd, in a thick German accent. “They can cover 90 feet in just three steps, or 30 feet per step. So obviously, they have immensely powerful thighs and legs in general.”

“Sasquatch has been observed walking with two 200-pound pigs under his arm through the countryside,” Fahrenbach declared. “On another occasion, he’s been witnessed grabbing three goats with one arm and walking over a five-foot fence without breaking stride.

Drawing on interviews with dozens of eye-witnesses, Fahrenbach went on to say that Bigfoot’s diet is rich in mussels, clams, peacocks, and the “hindquarter” of deer. He insisted that Bigfoots enjoy wrestling, tickle fights, and, most surprisingly, gangbangs. He assured us that even a horny Sasquatch has an impeccable sense of orgy etiquette.

“When an especially large male came onto the scene,” Fahrenbach said, describing a sexual pileup involving one willing female and lots of dudes, “he didn’t try to buck the line but simply stood there and took his turn in good time.”

LINK


Ketchup is old hat.

[psyche101]

QuiteContrary, on 30 November 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

I like musing  "Never mind the DNA, what place/sense does this specific inter-species mating make in human evolutionary history?"  

Not much wiggle room I feel.

QuiteContrary, on 30 November 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

--What were the size of humans 15,000 years ago?

Same size you would see today. Perhaps generally slightly more robust due to a hunter gatherer lifestyle. We were well and truly into cave paintings by this time. That started about 40,00 years ago. We were clothing ourselves as well by that time frame, although we would not come up with shoes for another 7,000 years or so.
So sort of like hippies.

QuiteContrary, on 30 November 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

--Who could this species we mated with potentially be?

Most hominids had been outcompeted by Homo Sapien by this time and were extinct. Smaller isolated populations of possible other species existed to as recently as 1200 years ago - possibly - however they were too isolated and small statured to be considered an option here. There is nobody left 15,000 years ago to have mated with. Neanderthal was well and truly a memory, as were the Denisovians. The suggested Paranthropus (in other ideals) was dust. Gigantopithecus would simply be a silly suggestion. Not even worth going there. Homo sapiens idaltu were also dust too, but would have been a better choice for the ideal from a genetic point of view.

QuiteContrary, on 30 November 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

--How long is 15,000 years in the evolutionary terms of a species?

Minuscule. Modern Man is surmised to have been treading ground for about 200,000 years.

QuiteContrary, on 30 November 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

--Why did the interbreeding stop? What stopped the socializing with humans?

We outcompeted every other species.

Some humans though............

QuiteContrary, on 30 November 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

--Why aren’t BF more like us? Tools, dwellings, fire, etc. BF, according to what we "know",  seems to have “lost” most of its human traits except bipedalism.

Indeed, it makes no sense whatsoever for the larger stronger version of the species to give way to the smaller weaker species. Evolution just does not work like that.

[keninsc]

I'm sorry QC I didn't realize you guys were being serious.....I mean first thing I see is old Mathew T. Moneymaker, and then this woman.........Ketchum claiming that she noy only has DNA but has isolated three separate and distinct genomes and has determined from this that Bigfoots are off shoots of man and human female inbreeding. That's a little like me looking at the front of a Walmart and saying I can determine what the clock speed of their computer processor is for their accounting system. You see what I'm saying?

The woman, Judith Frankle's book, "Nights with Sasquatch", I actually read back in the late seventies. The woman was way out in never-never land at best. She talked about being savagely raped and hammered like a saw-mill town whore on Saturday night, went on about being violated repeatedly, escaping and then going back several times........as I recall, 'so she could learn from the experience.' More likely, if substituted the word "Sasquatch" for "Hell's Angel" the story would be interchangeable......apparently she really was into the whole, dirty, hairy, smelly, forced violent rape thing. Hey we all have our little likes and dislikes and she has a taste for this sort of thing. Oh and Sasquatch might well be called "Mandingo"........sorry, but she did spend a lot of time talking about what it's like being hammered by "Mandingo-squatch". I'm no expert but usually when someone dwells on such a subject in the guise of imparting how horrible it was there was a certain...........shall we say............fascination with that subject? Know what I mean?

Give me a break guys, she should have been able to walk around for a minute or so and then collected all the DNA samples we'd ever need to map the entire genome of this alleged species or had a great episode for Maury Povich..........which Bigfoot is da' baby-daddy? DNA result today on Maury!

Now, assume this is true, just for giggles. Every professional printer from the New England Journal of Medicine to Vanity Fair is going to be fighting openly for the right to publish the results........and they are most notably quiet. Smoke and mirrors guys, smoke and mirrors.........and a woman into rough sex whether real or imagined.

[QuiteContrary]

THANKS ALL for your replies!

Yes, even though I'm not buying this DNA business. I had to also wonder what these scientists are thinking about this proposed theory in general.
She can say BF is part rodent, but it's also got to make evolutionary/scientific sense, especially when the DNA will may never see the light of peer review

Sure, I can read what the footer scientists say about its origins, but that is not a source I care to rely on.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 30 November 2012 - 07:55 AM.

[Night Walker]

QuiteContrary, on 30 November 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

--Why aren’t BF more like us? Tools, dwellings, fire, etc. BF, according to what we "know",  seems to have “lost” most of its human traits except bipedalism.

There have been claims of Bigfoot using tools, fire, and dwellings. What Bigfoot is and does is dependent on which angle is considered to be dominant in the Bigfoot-lore and what is deemed credible by the individual seeker. Everyone is pursuing an agenda when it comes to Bigfoot - closely human, hybrid, relict hominid, Gigantopithecus, multiple species, interdimensional, alien, etc. When it comes down to it none are more or less valid/ridiculous than any of the others.

"Bigfoot" is really only the combination of many individual/local folkloric versions revolving around a common theme - the Wild/Hairy-Man. What Bigfoot really is is of little importance. What Bigfoot is to you (the individual seeker) is what matters and which version of Bigfoot is considered to be dominant within the lore is what matters most of all. We all experience Bigfoot according to our beliefs.

With the recent DNA claims pushing Bigfoot as a different human or human-hybrid you can be sure that it will be followed by more Bigfoot claims involving human-like behaviours and cultural activity. The Bigfoot-as-American-ape crowd have some highly influential advocates and, as much is at stake, they will not take this new threat to their position lying down so watch out for more claims supporting that side as well.

Try watching the unfolding chaos as part of the sub-cultural war for dominant position in the Bigfoot-lore. More conferences, merchandising, and TV shows to follow. To the victor goes the spoils ($$$ and cryptozoological fame/infamy) yet the mystery will remain elusive/illusive...

[QuiteContrary]

Night Walker, on 30 November 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

There have been claims of Bigfoot using tools, fire, and dwellings. What Bigfoot is and does is dependent on which angle is considered to be dominant in the Bigfoot-lore and what is deemed credible by the individual seeker. Everyone is pursuing an agenda when it comes to Bigfoot - closely human, hybrid, relict hominid, Gigantopithecus, multiple species, interdimensional, alien, etc. When it comes down to it none are more or less valid/ridiculous than any of the others.

"Bigfoot" is really only the combination of many individual/local folkloric versions revolving around a common theme - the Wild/Hairy-Man. What Bigfoot really is is of little importance. What Bigfoot is to you (the individual seeker) is what matters and which version of Bigfoot is considered to be dominant within the lore is what matters most of all. We all experience Bigfoot according to our beliefs.

With the recent DNA claims pushing Bigfoot as a different human or human-hybrid you can be sure that it will be followed by more Bigfoot claims involving human-like behaviours and cultural activity. The Bigfoot-as-American-ape crowd have some highly influential advocates and, as much is at stake, they will not take this new threat to their position lying down so watch out for more claims supporting that side as well.

Try watching the unfolding chaos as part of the sub-cultural war for dominant position in the Bigfoot-lore. More conferences, merchandising, and TV shows to follow. To the victor goes the spoils ($$$ and cryptozoological fame/infamy) yet the mystery will remain elusive/illusive...

Yes, there are those who have and will claim how BF is like us in its habits and lifestyle but, we haven't found physical evidence of this. Finding a hair a long a path he was seen taking, would be far more difficult than human/intelligent design dwellings in areas he and his clan supposedly reside.

And it is true that what he is is of little importance because he is a myth not a real creature. At least  for me.
But I still wanted to understand how these "scientists" fit their theory (ies) into the history of humans since the thread article claim is "Part Human!"

Edited by QuiteContrary, 30 November 2012 - 08:38 AM.

[Night Walker]

QuiteContrary, on 30 November 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

Yes, there are those who have and will claim how BF is like us in its habits and lifestyle but, we haven't found physical evidence of this. Finding a hair a long a path he was seen taking, would be far more difficult than human/intelligent design dwellings in areas he and his clan supposedly reside.

Well, that depends on one's definition of "evidence". Those whose belief in the reality of Bigfoot claim there is much evidence - so much so that it is incredulous that Bigfoot isn't officially recognised as a species. There is evidence of tool use (stone tools too large for human use) and dwelling construction (tree bends and other stick formations). Of course, these aren't verified in any scientific manner but instead are examples of interpretive evidence - natural and artificial occurences/formations interpretted as signs of Bigfoot. (Will Bigfoot DNA be the same?) Although it may seem ridiculous to outsiders like us, such "evidences" are powerful reinforcers to those with the appropriate Bigfoot belief. The largest portion of Bigfoot claims these days are coming from people and groups who fully expected to see/experience Bigfoot via their pre-existing beliefs - this is something that needs to be explored further.

QuiteContrary, on 30 November 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

And it is true that what he is is of little importance because he is a myth not a real creature. At least  for me.
But I still wanted to understand how these "scientists" fit their theory (ies) into the history of humans since the thread article claim is "Part Human!"

Well, Melba's seen Bigfoot. I'm not sure if Burtsev has seen a Yeti but he remains convinced by the Carter Farm Bigfoots which may have contributed samples to this study. I'm not sure if David Paulides (not a scientist but a key player in this drama) has seen Bigfoot but is a radical Bigfoot author who has been pushing this unique human tribe angle. I suspect these people are less interested in the actual history of humans and more about how they can interpret and promote the evidence in order to justify their pre-existing belief in Bigfoot.

Speculation about Bigfoot is part of the attraction of the phenomenon - because the experiences are largely subjective anyone can be an "expert". Who are the other scientists/players? Examine their pre-existing Bigfoot beliefs and I bet they are largely compatible to those of the other players.

Watch the statements of the powerful opposing Bigfoot-faction who have invested in giganto-speculation (like Meldrum and Moneymaker). I reckon we are on the cusp of the Bigfoot Wars. Science is coming to Bigfoot via Sykes DNA study so the players, factions, and speculations will have to appear more sciency to gain/maintain dominance. Or things might just get a whole lot wackier - the paranormal Bigfoot is lurking...

Interesting times...

[QuiteContrary]

"Science is coming to Bigfoot via Sykes DNA"  NW

NW, explain this a little more. Thanks

[Sakari]

psyche101, on 30 November 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:

Remember Henner Fahrenbach's 2008 conference?







LINK


Ketchup is old hat.

30 foot strides.......Damn

TY