Leaderboard

There was a study on 21 macaques that were fed infected muscle meat, infected brain meat, or were injected with the CWD protein. Some of the macaques became infected and were euthanized. On this hand, it is supposedly possible that humans could get CWD, since some of the macaques did. One the other hand, I believe there is a separate study concluding that some of the macaque’s proteins were the same as cervids, allowing infection, whereas human proteins were too different from cervids to allow infection. This actually holds water as a prion is known in goats and sheep, called Scabies, that have never infected humans. Scabies have also existed for a long, long time. Since Sasquatch is very likely to be incredibly close genetically to humans, it’s plausible that they simply can’t, or very very rarely get CWD. Regarding how Sasquatch and other animals avoid or deal with prions; prions are slow acting and unpredictable. They can become symptomatic in just a few years, or not at all. Its plausible that Sasquatch and even other predators would shift their diet to other animals if the disease would become too much of an issue over time, or not selecting parts of the animal that are likely to carry the prion (brain, spinal cavity). In fact, do most predators routinely avoid brains and the like? Much like how many predators avoid some other organs like parts of the digestive tract, perhaps predators avoid brains due to prion diseases? I haven’t been able to find any evidence for or against this. I will say that prions really aren’t a massive problem for the non-host species. Heck, many animals that are members of the host species may never develop the effects of a prion disease in the first place. I doubt this disease is majorly affecting, or even having any effect at all, on sasquatches. I will try to find the two studies if I can.

Their only predators are orcas and man, both of whom are not common in the Arctic Ocean, especially prior to the 20th Century. They became nearly completely protected worldwide by the mid-1970's, and orca numbers worldwide were down by that time too because of whaling (they also became almost completely protected). The only legal polar bear hunting is in Canada, where their densities are highest, and the harvest is very low. A polar bear hunt will cost you > $60K there. Now polar bear numbers are higher than ever, but like usual, preservationalists are never satisfied. Any talk of limited harvest to keep populations at a scientific ideal is attacked rabidly. And of course, they now have this climate change silliness to use to broadcast their stupidity. Ideally, they'd visit Barrow, drive out to the whale boneyard, get out if their vehicle to take pictures, and end up as hor d'oeuvres......... Only for the Clown Corps. Her study fits quite well with Sykes Zana study.

I raised the contaminated issue after seeing some pictures and got shouted down by proponents who were involved in the project. Show me a picture of the "nest" or anything else being searched by individuals dressed in street clothes rather than clean room suits without masks and I will raise the contamination issue. Oh throw in another picture of someone laying in the nest to give us an idea of size then tell me it was a serious study. DNA seems to be the darling method of proving existence but it is being misused at the field level. If I am seeing this stuff, the scientists we hope to involve in the search are too. We have to do better to for them to have any idea we know what we are doing and get their attention. Before those involved get too angry notice I used the word "we".

I agree 110%. Moreover, had her study, interpretation, and behavior been absolutely perfect, she'd still get slammed. That's just the way it is and the way it's going to be.

There is raw data. RAW DATA. It came from twelve unconnected, independent labs in a double-blind study and that study is what produced the raw data. Dr. Melba Ketchum interpreted that raw data. She got slammed and to this day still gets slammed because she tainted her interpretation of the raw data through her own personal belief system. Personally I don't care about what she said or even says today. I stay with the science and the science is in the raw data regardless of anyone's personal spin on it. I would like more independent experts to look at the data. Now I'm sure that that has happened but I am also sure that the PUBLIC summaries of any experts is weight against career choices but I STILL would like to find someone who would look ALL of the raw data who knows what they're doing.

Hey, if folks can postulate telepathic, terrain- gliding woods-ninjas, I figure I'm granted a little leeway.

I don't know about anyone else but if I was an academic, there's nothing more flattering than a crackpot volunteering me for Bigfoot research and posting my academic credentials without regard for professional decorum. A hint here since some people don't get it. People like to try to retain control of their privacy on the internet. That applies to randomly copy and pasted drivel from random sites. Just link to attempt to make your point. Don't abuse other people's written property.