Leaderboard

As I understand species identification via mitochondrial DNA, they don't test the whole DNA strand, they look at a subset of segments that can be used to differentiate between species. If we are close enough to bigfoot, it is possible that the set of segments used to identify us also matches them. There would be other segments we don't currently look at which would show identifying differences. Sort of a tangent, yet not ... it might be real interesting to submit a sample of high-confidence bigfoot DNA out for a paternity test. I'd expect that in regions that vary even from one person to the next, something non-human should truly stand out. MIB

I'm not a big believer in the "science keeps this under wraps" idea. I think if a scientist had cold hard facts and verifiable proof of BF they would run with it. This would be a massive breakthrough for science in both proving a large bipedal primate has been roaming the Americas this whole time as well as likely a big piece of the evolutionary puzzle. What scientist wouldn't want to be the next Jane Goodall ???

I will continue my backpacking and backcountry camping expeditions with interested friends but most often alone. My objective is personal. I don't have any interest in proving sasquatch to anyone much less the world. I just want to see one before I meet my maker. I've have several eyeshine incidents with one lasting for at least five minutes and moving about trying to avoid my flashlight. I've also seen very interesting footprints. Now, my objective is to see one in the flesh preferably during daylight. Don't get me wrong; I applaud those who have more global ambitions and seek to discover for the world the existence of sasquatch. It's not what animates me at this point in my life. It would be deeply satisfying to be able to sit back, with feet up, and smile knowing I had finally seen one. Nature had been profoundly kind enough to reward me with one of her most-guarded secrets. Frankly, if I had the evidence, the Ark of the Covenant of the BF world, I'd never disclose it. You can't close Pandora's box once opened. Different strokes for different folks.

http://www.cabelas.com/stores/store_info.jsp?pageName=010 CABELA'S One Cabela Drive Triadelphia, WV 26059 (304)238-0120 Strange, Rare And Unusual Sightings 03/04-03/06 The Bigfoot Forum's Own AaronD will be there with his latest book, so Stop by and Support Him! MARCH 4-6, 2016 Is Sasquatch real or myth? That is the question that top scientific researchers will be exploring during the Strange, Rare and Unusual Sightings Seminar at Cabela's on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, March 4th, 5th and 6th. This Seminar is now in its sixth year at Cabela's and has been enjoyed by thousands of inquiring people of all ages in the last five presentations. Dr. Jeff Meldrum will be the featured presenter. Meldrum is a Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology at Idaho State University and recognized as one of the leading scientific authorities on the possibility of the existence of Sasquatch or Bigfoot. Dr. Meldrum will be joined by researchers from throughout the United States including Steve Kulls who is known as "The Sasquatch Detective." Both Kulls and Meldrum are featured guest on multiple television shows and are known throughout the world. FEATURED EVENTS Sasquatch Event Weekend Friday March 4th 6:00 PM ­ 9:00 PM Conference Room A meet and greet will be held on Friday Evening beginning at 6:00 PM in Cabela's Conference Room. The entire seminar is free. Families are encouraged to bring kids who will be fascinated with the presentations. Sasquatch Event Weekend Saturday, March 5th and Sunday, March 6th 10:00 AM ­ 4:00 PM African Diorama On Saturday and Sunday beginning at 10:00 AM a full presentation seminar will be held in the amphitheater on the store's main level. The entire seminar is free. Families are encouraged to bring kids who will fascinated with the presentations.

It is just this idea of putative BF mDNA winding up to repeatedly test out only as "human" that has long intrigued me. Either the sequencing of all reported samples was done incorrectly (not a likely scenario, although it is a frequent accusation), or all the samples collected were actually from H. sapiens (ditto), or....well, you know. This is why my working hypothesis is this animal is us, in some (non-genetic) mutated, alternately-evolved and feral incarnation. That some of the behaviors mimic pongid behaviors might be just coincidental or independent adaptations to similar environmental conditions? If you've ever spent time around the mentally ill or those with severe autism, you know that many behaviors can seem, well, animalistic. If a hominid lives long enough in a natural environment, why would it not adapt strategies that apes have also hit on? Who knows what habits our H. sapien ancestors had back in the day that, if we could witness them now, would say "ape" to us?

So according to the professor's way of looking at DNA the conclusion to me is that we have no bigfoot DNA. I bet the skeptics love that. But I'm thinking the professor was talking about a full DNA test, like a genome test, and not one of the minimum ones.He did mention successful, which would be opposed to unsuccessful. Which is where the degraded DNA would fall.

You made me really smile, thanks! Yeah, he's a wonder all right. But as the topic is has the science stalled. I'd suggest that anyone who views dna results which come back as unknown (which is science speak for too degraded to pull a sample and tries to spin that as defacto sasquatch is fooling themselves. It's analogous to those people who see a light in the night sky and immediately it's little green men. The default for anything unexplained/degraded is sasquatch for some folks. Which does go to the point of the thread. Is the science stalled. I suggest that people who put forth that degraded samples which come back from dna analysis as unknown (a.k.a. - too degraded to obtain results, are evidence of sasquatch do damage to the actual science. The motivations of such people are beyond the thread topic but they do add to the general level of noise/confusion which further hampers the search. I say all this as a serious skeptic, I'd love for there to be dna of an unknown ape which had been found. Ideally it would be similar to modern great apes, or man but not exactly the same which would allow scientists to disregard the possibility of an escaped animal. But what jdl puts forth as evidence of sasquatch just isn't, no matter how much he'd like it to be. Otherwise we'd have our proof already. Lastly, I've not made a lot about this but I do wonder about it and it is science-ish. I've noticed that "advocates" of sasquatch tend capitalize the words, Sasquatch, Bigfoot and so on. Doing so implies a legendary/mythological status to the animals (e.g. - Grendel) which I doubt is the intent of advocates who believe sasquatches are flesh and blood animals. I've always shown proper respect and used the zoological usage of a small "s". We do not speak of Deer, or Elk.... it's simply deer, elk, bear, etc. I can understand novices like myself not knowing to use proper zoological usage but I'm always surprised to see it from advocates and particularly from an Applied Scientist who uses his job as an argument from authority when challenged. Just saying.... Thanks for the complements, guys. In the snapshot, as of today, analysis all you guys have is that bigfoot has not yet been definitively proven to exist to the public's satisfaction. That doesn't mean that bigfoot does not exist, and you cannot prove that bigfoot does not exist. However, you are entitled to your belief system and to proselytize all you like, which is what it amounts to when your arguments devolve into the subjective dismissal of evidence and the derision of those who do not share your own viewpoints, rather than objective consideration of all information. Frankly, had I not had any encounters, I too, would be skeptical but probably wouldn't ever bother wasting my time arguing with anyone about it. And honestly, I don't understand what constructive motive you might have to participate in this forum given the derisive nature of many of your comments. With regard to the OP, as others have said already, it boils down to proper funding under circumstances that would encourage mainstream investigation. Until then any credentialed scientist that pursues the topic will be regarded as a fringe researcher, and lay researchers will be mocked (by some on this forum even), until the day that one of them drags in a type specimen. We do have to consider that bigfoot DNA may be so close to homo sapiens DNA as to be indistinguishable based on some analysis techniques, or to be mistakenly regarded as contaminated with human DNA. Not saying it is so, just saying that the possibility has to be considered.

The problem with degraded DNA coming back as unknown would mean that the person or institution doing the testing isn't reporting results correctly, which is doubtful. Degraded DNA would give unreadable results. Whereas, unknown DNA would be readable but give unrecognizable results. Because no comparison could be made with a known entity.

I've sent out a few emails to my family back in lead/deadwood, sort of...really super vaguely asking if they ran into anything strange while mining in the old days. Most were panning/sluicing but some were actually hard rock mining. They aren't much for chitchat and this could turn bad, but I think hiflier's idea of caves is interesting and at worst they'll just stop coming out to vegas to visit so win-win.

Quote Norseman, #168, 26 Jan 2016, 9:39 a.m. "If Squatch is of the genus Homo? Then where is his tool kit? Because that is what the species within our genus do. Its that simple! & "The only relationship a Sasquatch and a Human have is that they are both bipedal primates. The similarities abruptly end right there." Norseman, #177, 26 Jan 2016, 11:56 a.m. "How strong is a Sasquatch reported to be? What can we extrapolate from that?" Norseman, #185, 26 Jan 2016, 1:31 p.m. "Sasquatch does not exhibit Homo like traits based on reports." Norseman, #194, 26 Jan 2016, 3:19 p.m. "They possess great strength (like a bear) which is not represented in the genus homo anywhere." UnQuote ===================================== OK. ... What about Zana? According to the story, Zana was a big, strong, dumb brute. And she's homo. Why not Bigfoot? I guess: All homos are not the same. Filling different niches, perhaps?

Credible and multiple witnesses send criminals to jail for long terms since their testimonies are evidence. The same applies to bigfoot witnesses. Many scientist don't read or agree with what credible witnesses are saying in regards to bigfoot due to preconceptions. It's unfortunate BFRO doesn't require witnesses to sign their statements like Paulides does with his testimonials. If you feel yourself getting hot under the collar while talking bigfoot ............................ sit back ........................ have a beer and mellow out. Blame it on bigfoot for making discovery so confusing and difficult. Bigfoot is seen along roads due to greater odds with the steady stream of viewers in cars. Cars speed along roads making wildlife sighting more available.

Bodhi, I've watched you consistently dismiss every bit of evidence that has been offered. For example: there is internal consistency within the bigfoot reports, but you have categorically dismissed all reports as unreliable based on nothing more than opinion. This forum has also introduced hair and fecal sample analyses that indicate the samples are from no identified animal, but you turn that around and pose that bigfoot leaves no identifiable evidence. Chicken or the egg here. Did you intentionally omit prints from your post? If so, why? And why would you object to their inclusion as evidence left behind? Krantz and Meldrum have heavily documented such evidence, which is in fact left behind. I wasn't being snarky about man, either. Man is the most appropriate comparison. I was the one who introduced the avoidance of conflict in the post to which you responded. Am I not permitted to carry this theme forward, preserving the integrity of my initial post? You have so maaaany subjective rules. I get lost in all of the obfuscation. Could please produce a compendium of all of your rules that the rest of us can use as a handbook?

Just a few things as we seemed to have strayed off the topic of whether the science has stalled. I believe the whole left brain/right brain thing has been shown to be mostly incorrect (sort of like that "we only use 10% of our brain capacity trope"). Accepting your premise that sasquatches were hunted by man and have thus learned to hide from man; Why then are the majority of reports found civilization-adjacent? Why does sasquatch seem to have a propensity for walking near roads, hiking trails, campgrounds (as per geotherm in this thread). I see not internal logic in sasquatch reports, does it avoid man but not understand what a campsite is, or a road, or vehicles? This inconsistency is yet another reason I feel this is a cultural phenomenon rather than a physical animal. Gorilla, in the vast majority, have consistent behavior within it's species, as does every other physical animal. Why doesn't sasquatch, if it's flesh and blood. (no woo please. this is a science thread). Now, this is a great science question that needs an answer along with many others before sasquatch science is unstalled. We don't have these answers and we can only suppose or theorize. 1. What comes to mind is some bigfoots need easy prey such as chickens, cows, or dogs in order to survive. 2. Some bigfoots such as juveniles or out casts have been pushed out of remote habitats by more dominant clans. 3. Bigfoots can't avoid roads and other human elements in order to keep up their migration pattern. This leads to question 3. a. Does bigfoot migrate? It becomes obvious we have more questions than answers. One documentary on TV showed a credentialed biologist studying Snow Leopard in Asia, and he made a great blind. He spent months and months in the cold until he got great videos of the creature. The highlighted question above has been discussed here in various threads going back several years. Summarizing the hypothetical source of the conflict and resultant evolution of interspecies attitudes: 1. Bigfoot and hunter-gatherer/early agricultural humans competed for the best and most supportive terrain for food. 2. Early on, bigfoot would have had an advantage as small groups of each encountered each other during competition. Bigfoot had the advantage during confrontations. 3. As humans developed more effective hunting weapons and as human communities grew larger, humans were more effective during confrontations. 4. Bigfoot, in response grew more stealthy in order to take advantage of shared food sources without being driven off, and more active at night. 5. Over the centuries/millennia, there were times, climatically that made survival more difficult, so humans became more efficient at gathering large amounts of food available, processing it, and storing it for long winters, etc. 6. Bigfoot, faced with efficient human collection of prime food sources, were subsequently drawn to human livestock, food stores, and eventually human crops, particularly during harsh winters. They may even have preyed on humans at times. 7. Humans would have responded by attempting to hunt down and drive off bigfoot clans because preservation of their food stores equaled survival. The oral tradition of Jack the Giant Killer stories probably had their genesis in these times. 8. As a result, bigfoot became progressively more stealthy, and likely more judicious in how often and how much they took advantage of human food sources, finding the human toleration level, at which humans did not bother to pursue bigfoot to drive them off. 9. Bigfoot were likely a known and acknowledged species among the Celtic cultures (much as they are by Native American tribes today), but belief in such things was discouraged as a new and dominant culture moved into Europe. Anything humanoid would have been viewed as demonic in origin because it was a perversion of man's aspect and because man was believed to be made in a certain image. Generation by generation, as the nexus of human culture gravitated toward progressively larger cities, the view that wild men were myth began to dominate, and still does today. Consider also that many place names with an oral tradition of Wildman encounters include the term devil or something similar in their names. So the history and interspecies evolution is more a result of competition for food than a matter of active conflict. Bigfoot are still drawn to us because we are an easy source of foodstuffs, but do so with as much stealth as possible to avoid confrontation. lots of supposition. name for me if you will ANY other animal which lives on the edges of modern civilization and yet leaves no hair, scat, bones, blood, is never hit by an vehicle (and has continued to do so with a 100% success rate)? There is no internal logic in your argument, it's all special pleading and supposition. The celtic thing is funny in that it's from an epic poem (sorta' like Beowulf). http://www.bfro.net/legends/Iwein.asp Are you positing poems as part of evidence in a science thread? That says something about the field that I've repeatedly noted. Internal consistency is absent. There are true science types who are attempting to catalog behaviors so predictions can be made about future behavior so a solution may be found. Then there are the folks who start adding ancient epic celtic poems out of nowhere and things go from science to..... I have no idea what but it isn't science. I personally feel that those who do this and the portals stuff do NOT want a definitive answer at all. I couldn't begin to guess at the motivations for such a thing but I suppose they vary. So, the example of another animal which displays the characteristics you posit? Just a few things as we seemed to have strayed off the topic of whether the science has stalled. I believe the whole left brain/right brain thing has been shown to be mostly incorrect (sort of like that "we only use 10% of our brain capacity trope"). Accepting your premise that sasquatches were hunted by man and have thus learned to hide from man; Why then are the majority of reports found civilization-adjacent? Why does sasquatch seem to have a propensity for walking near roads, hiking trails, campgrounds (as per geotherm in this thread). I see not internal logic in sasquatch reports, does it avoid man but not understand what a campsite is, or a road, or vehicles? This inconsistency is yet another reason I feel this is a cultural phenomenon rather than a physical animal. Gorilla, in the vast majority, have consistent behavior within it's species, as does every other physical animal. Why doesn't sasquatch, if it's flesh and blood. (no woo please. this is a science thread). Now, this is a great science question that needs an answer along with many others before sasquatch science is unstalled. We don't have these answers and we can only suppose or theorize. 1. What comes to mind is some bigfoots need easy prey such as chickens, cows, or dogs in order to survive. 2. Some bigfoots such as juveniles or out casts have been pushed out of remote habitats by more dominant clans. 3. Bigfoots can't avoid roads and other human elements in order to keep up their migration pattern. This leads to question 3. a. Does bigfoot migrate? It becomes obvious we have more questions than answers. One documentary on TV showed a credentialed biologist studying Snow Leopard in Asia, and he made a great blind. He spent months and months in the cold until he got great videos of the creature. The highlighted question above has been discussed here in various threads going back several years. Summarizing the hypothetical source of the conflict and resultant evolution of interspecies attitudes: 1. Bigfoot and hunter-gatherer/early agricultural humans competed for the best and most supportive terrain for food. 2. Early on, bigfoot would have had an advantage as small groups of each encountered each other during competition. Bigfoot had the advantage during confrontations. 3. As humans developed more effective hunting weapons and as human communities grew larger, humans were more effective during confrontations. 4. Bigfoot, in response grew more stealthy in order to take advantage of shared food sources without being driven off, and more active at night. 5. Over the centuries/millennia, there were times, climatically that made survival more difficult, so humans became more efficient at gathering large amounts of food available, processing it, and storing it for long winters, etc. 6. Bigfoot, faced with efficient human collection of prime food sources, were subsequently drawn to human livestock, food stores, and eventually human crops, particularly during harsh winters. They may even have preyed on humans at times. 7. Humans would have responded by attempting to hunt down and drive off bigfoot clans because preservation of their food stores equaled survival. The oral tradition of Jack the Giant Killer stories probably had their genesis in these times. 8. As a result, bigfoot became progressively more stealthy, and likely more judicious in how often and how much they took advantage of human food sources, finding the human toleration level, at which humans did not bother to pursue bigfoot to drive them off. 9. Bigfoot were likely a known and acknowledged species among the Celtic cultures (much as they are by Native American tribes today), but belief in such things was discouraged as a new and dominant culture moved into Europe. Anything humanoid would have been viewed as demonic in origin because it was a perversion of man's aspect and because man was believed to be made in a certain image. Generation by generation, as the nexus of human culture gravitated toward progressively larger cities, the view that wild men were myth began to dominate, and still does today. Consider also that many place names with an oral tradition of Wildman encounters include the term devil or something similar in their names. So the history and interspecies evolution is more a result of competition for food than a matter of active conflict. Bigfoot are still drawn to us because we are an easy source of foodstuffs, but do so with as much stealth as possible to avoid confrontation. lots of supposition. name for me if you will ANY other animal which lives on the edges of modern civilization and yet leaves no hair, scat, bones, blood, is never hit by an vehicle (and has continued to do so with a 100% success rate)? There is no internal logic in your argument, it's all special pleading and supposition. The celtic thing is funny in that it's from an epic poem (sorta' like Beowulf). http://www.bfro.net/legends/Iwein.asp Are you positing poems as part of evidence in a science thread? That says something about the field that I've repeatedly noted. Internal consistency is absent. There are true science types who are attempting to catalog behaviors so predictions can be made about future behavior so a solution may be found. Then there are the folks who start adding ancient epic celtic poems out of nowhere and things go from science to..... I have no idea what but it isn't science. I personally feel that those who do this and the portals stuff do NOT want a definitive answer at all. I couldn't begin to guess at the motivations for such a thing but I suppose they vary. So, the example of another animal which displays the characteristics you posit? Dude, you're persistently immune to reason and prone to introduce straw man topics that haven't even been touched upon. First, they do leave behind hair, scat, footprints, etc.. Your saying that they don't doesn't make it so. Second, I didn't mention the poem, Beowulf, or for that matter even think about it while posting, but feel free to go where your fantasy takes you. Third, I am an applied scientist, but am unfamiliar with your science-based background. Fourth, another example of an animal that has the characteristic of using stealth so that it can pilfer food without engaging in direct conflict? I submit that Man fits this description.

Key word here is : U.S. Intelligence Agencies ,To what purpose did they have in this in regard to science. Yes, we have lost our skills that we once had as our ancestors di back then. The ability to track game , and hunt it is a skill that is learned by being in the field and learned by observation. We have lost those skills by technology that science has provided for us. In a way science has held us back by it's advances and this is some thing that these creatures have an advantage over us. We have to go back to the way it was back then in order to advance bigfoot science. Bigfoot science can not be at a stand still because of science refusal to listen. This is why a lot of us has spent out of our own pockets to provide science what little proof we can gather about these creatures. It is not fair or just but it is a route that most of us have chosen for science. A lot of have no idea on how to handle the evidence or how the evidence should be handled since there is no proper protocol for it. Again this all starts with a creation of Bigfoot science that was started by the old guard and has been used by most. I can't see this being any kind of impediment to discovery of these potential creatures. We are very luckily enjoying a Zeitgeist of enlightenment of human evolution with all the recent discoveries and finds like the hobbit, lucy, Homo naledi and so forth adding to the picture. This is currently THE PLACE TO BE in science. If this animal exists it no doubt will further advance our knowledge of evolution of bipedal primates, possibly the homo genus, even Medieval superstitions have not retarded our recent revelations, no reason to think this will be the straw that broke the camels back........that broke a long while ago. Now think about this , the discovery of an ancient man living in the present that may very well be a link to our own DNA. Would that not create hysteria amongst the masses, including the scientist. That our science was wrong in what it has taught in schools , religion and every thing else. Is science big enough to admit this to the world . What will the world think about science , even though it has made some great discoveries. Science would have no idea on how to handle this since we have a living species among us. Also what about the 411 books that have been written and all those people that have gone missing . How would this impact on that, knowing that we have people missing in our forest that cannot be explained but now have some thing to blame it on. How will science deal with that impact? Especially all those stories about how these creatures would steal our women and children after discovery. now do you not think that this is an impediment of discovery of these creatures. No, I am betting that science does not want to jump on this train for the reason I have just explained. It makes good sense for science to have stalled where it has. We are not ready yet for discovery yet. But I have seen preparation for it in commercials and in adds and believe that we are being prepared for discovery. Little by little our minds are being prepped with small messages by science, every so often settled hints are being offered. It is just a matter of time before science is prepared to announce it. Science will catch up but our world needs to be prepared.

Congratulations on your latest book, Aaron! Much success!