Leaderboard

One incorrect concept regarding evolution in general, and mankind in particular, is that evolution is an always progressive process, that succeeding species are "better," more evolved, superior. Each species, during their existence, is equally "evolved." There is no "better" there is no "newer model."

While the mountains of the West may be pretty and good BF habitat, they work to make BF even more elusive. I think they use their superior strength and ability to manage difficult terrain to their advantage. I have seen evidence that they go straight up inclines that would require us to use switchbacks. My first footprint find was on a low mountain where the human trail was a series of switchbacks and a BF had been down to the water and went trucking straight up the mountain in a 45 degree incline and stepped on the trail margin. I would have needed ropes to make the same climb. Another place nearby I found where one had come down to the river down a 60% incline, leaving streaks of its toes. It must have grabbed tree root hand holds well out of my reach when I gingerly climbed up to photograph the streaks. They put those long arms to good use. So perhaps flatter habitat puts us more on an equal footing to get close to them? Who knows, places like Michigan may give us a better shot at encounters.

I think it is well within Disotell's ability to separate sasquatch DNA from our DNA, but whether it is within the budget of whoever is paying him to test to take the testing to that degree is likely a separate question. MIB

Here are two videos shot with my Pulsar Helion. I prefer using black hot but this particular night I decided to use red hot and it captured chipmunks running and climbing. If it can pick up something that small, it will capture a sasquatch with no problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLtaIbiS9qM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbca0qjPIFY Thermal imagers provide the opportunity for us to be more active and productive at night in the woods which is when I think we have the best chance of getting a sighting.

But it isn't precise and leaves too much scientific wiggle room when tackling the Sasquatch existence issue. Especially genetically. To clear the air, one can no longer say that "Human" is a term that only applies to Homo Sapiens! Too many other branches have been discovered with probably more to come still. But as Huntster states, it seems to be the go-to when the word "Human" gets mentioned. That why I admitted that I was guilty of allowing myself to default to thinking Homo Sapiens when I heard Meldrum and Disotell use the description of "Human" in their respective podcasts when referring to the e-DNA results from the nests. But a couple of posts back I stressed that I had come to the realization that saying "Human" doesn't necessarily MEAN Homo Sapiens. Instead, since most folks will think Homo Sapiens when "Human" is announced then simply saying "Human" becomes a safety net where suspected Sasquatch DNA is concerned. If someone THINKS Sasquatch is of the genus Homo then samples that come back Human might not mean contaminated. The accusation of contamination comes from the public and opponents to BF existence when the word "Human" comes up as a sampled result. Not from the geneticists themselves!! I see it as a convenient move to use the term "Human because 1) it wouldn't be a lie, and 2) the public at large will assume a Human result to mean Homo Sapiens and therefore the samples were contaminated by mishandling and shoddy lab technique. To be precise....only DNA samples that come back with HOMO SAPIENS DNA WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY CONTAMINATED. So far as I can tell, or remember, no one doing any supposed Sasquatch DNA testing has ever said there was DNA present specifically from Homo Sapiens. They have only ever said "Human". It is ourselves who have filled in the Homo Sapiens blank and then started in with our debates and arguments, not to mention criticizing the DNA testers and their labs and undermining their credibility. Bottom line? When a sample comes back "Human" we should be asking whether or not the supposed Human DNA result is in fact form a Homo Sapiens. Oh sure, this sounds pretty ridiculous on the surface but we have all seen the uproar that occurs when historically a DNA sample or many samples have seemingly always come back Human and so the sample or samples MUST be contaminated. It's to the point that maybe we shouldn't jump so hastily to that conclusion until we know that the sampled results actually DO include Homo Sapiens. Maybe we shouldn't simply accept the result when only the broader term of Human is used.

Actually, it would probably be a huge boost for science and Earth shattering for taxpayers, outdoor users of public lands and resources, and large private landowners. The social aspects would be off the charts. I can't even imagine how government would deal with it. It forces a reconsideration of the Constitution and all of our laws regarding human rights and responsibilities as well as human relations. And I don't think that a simple tweaking ofbthevtaxonomic definition of "human" would cool the hot water we'd be in. If these creatures can hybridize with Homo sapiens, they are are human, even if they are a different species.

I think that’s because we are the only species left in the genus Homo (officially). So we get to claim not only the species prize but the genus prize as well. And I think those scientists are used to speaking from that angle. Finding another species belonging to the genus Homo would be earth shattering for science. But even a North American great ape would do that.

For Forum members who’d like a concise overview of the genus Homo and how it intersects with the earlier hominids, Wikipedia does it well. Makes it much easier to see the years during which these extinct species lived, where found, and what/who related to. Helped me be ready for some of the fascinating conversations on this topic. Google for Homo!

Isn't the paradox we face that since we do not have a type sample and BF DNA is probably pretty close to human/HS DNA, a BF DNA test result would look exactly like a contaminated human/HS DNA and since BFs do not officially exists except as a myth, scientist will always stick to the contaminated human/HS answer. I

It is... kind of. Personally, I prefer to go into the deeper darker parts of the woods where people don't tend to go, nor can they easily get to. That's where I tend to focus. I think this type of terrain at times may be a bit too difficult for Madison, but I hate speaking for her. Madison, I think (correct me if I am wrong, Madison!), prefers the easier routes often very close to water. But that's part of her theory and documentation that she is following. But here in Oregon, there is so much water everywhere that I don't think our quarry needs to stay so close to it all the time. There is usually a source of water in some form within a mile or two of almost everywhere. The prints she finds may be from sasquatch, but they are small - within human range. She believes that nobody would let their kids play barefoot in an area with a fair bit of broken glass, fish hooks, and sharp rocks. But I try to remind her that many in today's generation eat frickin' Tide pods. But we enjoy going out anyway. And, a varied approach seems like a good idea to me. I will keep saving for a FLIR. Appreciate the info, hiflier. and BlackRockBigfoot.

Used ones come up on eBay fairly frequently, although you will probably get one out of warranty. I looked for awhile before finding a deal on a one. The best regular price that I could find was through Scheels. $499...free shipping and no sales tax. They are out of stock now, but keep an eye out and I am sure that they will get it back in stock. FLIR Scout

Something I should probably be doing myself LOL.

Thanks! I enjoy participating in this forum, even though I do far more reading than posting.