Leaderboard

^^^^^ I know for a fact Meldrum is anti kill. Anyhow, a couple of points: 1) Using vocalizations as a data point to survey population or range is very crude at best. It's probably most successful with marine mammals such as whales that have very distinct calls and underwater recordings have awesome acoustics and range. Cougar where Iam from are studied by aerial survey with the help of tracking collars as well as DNA studies. To verify family groups. This is precise enough that they knew a cougar that was hit by a car in NJ came from SD. 2) Iam very successful at calling black bear by mouth call. And have called in four bear in a single day. Success varies, but in the PacNW where there are high numbers existing, this is not a tough endeavor to accomplish. 3) If Sasquatch is a long ranged bipedal ape living in all forested states? The biological survey to count numbers and assess range will be a massive undertaking. With the understanding that this creature has alluded conventional biology this far from those same forested states? Makes the endeavor an even more tougher task. Squatch biology tactics will have to developed in order to close with and study these creatures. It would be huge learning curve....... But none of this is going to happen without a body. Lastly, we can make educated estimates about what an elusive giant ape might eat or it's gestation period, overall population, etc but ultimately it's a WAG.

The assumptions behind the testing were biased by the preconceived ideas of the time. Only a small part of the mtDNA is tested for species identification. When the markers in that area match, you assume match. In the past, because of the cost, and because of the assumption that bigfoot was just an ape, an upright gorilla as some still assert, when the initial pass shows human, not ape, at the gene locus (locii?) that are used to separate human from known ape, then the testers assumed human contamination and stopped testing. It is likely if those were real bigfoot DNA, if they had continued testing, they would have found differences. I don't think it is right to conclude that those samples WERE bigfoot DNA. What it is proper to conclude is that the testing was terminated before going far enough to make any determination other than whatever provided the DNA, it was very very humanlike if not actually human. There is another possibility if this is taken to extremes. It's not as simple as specific genes being present or not. Some genes can be present but "turned off" by the actions of other proteins, RNA for instance, which determines whether the trait the gene is for actually manifests itself. It could be possible ... I'm not claiming this is true, but possible ... that the DNA could be essentially identical but different pieces active or inactive because of some slight difference on a completely different section of the DNA producing a protein that toggles it one way or the other. This stuff is NOT simple and people who are trying to make it so are doing the rest a disservice. For all I know, those seemingly contaminated samples were just that. I'm throwing out possibilities, I'm not doing a Giorgio Tsoukalous imitation jumping from "might be" to the assumption of "must be" or "is". What I believe we know now and all should agree on is that the past testing didn't go far enough, we assumed it was adequate to prove human contamination or not, and we don't know that for sure anymore. I wish we had some of those old samples to retest with today's techniques and at today's costs. MIB

What are you talking about? It's the consistency of the reports in the absence of evidence that makes them credible. It's only the skeptical scienctists who don't do their job and should pay attention but aren't paying attention who are at fault. I've built plenty of fences. All of them double dressed faced and capped. BTW kind sir, how many Got Monkey have you this year? (not you Incorr, the other dude)