Leaderboard

Hi, everyone, I have brought up the DNA subject several times over the past two or three years but you know how things go, it's difficult to think of everything from all angles right away. A thought occurred to me this morning that pushed my logic buttons and I could use some input to see if anyone else might have some thoughts about it. Of course, just about everyone knows about the nest discoveries that have been going on in Washington State by the Olympic Project. When they were first discovered, Dr. Meldrum took soil samples from under the centers of some of the structures and a year and a half later Dr. Todd Disotell finally tested them for possible Sasquatch DNA. But here's where things get a little muddy for me. His findings showed that all of the usual animals that frequent that area had their DNA show up in the samples. But there was some Human DNA that was also present. Dr. Disotell concluded, however, that the Human DNA was too degraded to show a novel primate. Now here's where it gets interesting, so many people (and science) has said that one needs DNA sequences in the Genbank in order to have anything to compare DNA samples to in order to identify whatever organisms are in a sample- including Humans. That fine, and I get that, although, I do not necessarily agree with it for my own reason. But this is what occurred to me: Dr. Disotell, an expert primate evolutionary geneticist, would KNOW that a novel primate couldn't be discovered without having that particular genome in the Genbank. But if that genome WAS in the Genbank then: 1) A novel primate discovered at the nesting site wouldn't actually BE a NOVEL one after all. And, 2) If the genome ISN'T in the Genbank then what was it that caused Dr. Disotell to even look at the samples for the possibility of discovering a new primate in the first place? I know I'm bringing this up as a fine point, but if there is no Sasquatch genome in the Genbank (because of the novel primate classification) for comparison, and people say that that's what's needed, then, according to Dr. Meldrum's and Dr. Disotell's efforts, it would appear that a novel primate in North CAN be discovered through DNA even if there's no genome available for comparison? If two scientists do the work thinking that a discovery can happen (apparently without a genome), then why do other people say that it can't happen (without a genome)? This makes no sense to me.

Well, it does beg the question (the real elephant in the room) WHY? I come here to air out such thoughts....not to make trouble, but to keep active the thought processes going on behind the status quo- in fact, IN SPITE of the status quo. Seems a shame that there doesn't seem to be anyone but a Bigfoot community to actually have such a conversation with. Glad you folks are here or I don't know what else I'd be doing in order to find an outlet that, lately, has me buried in ever more questions without solutions. And for that I sincerely thank you.

I added this to some of the Small Town Monsters stuff they've been using as promo to push the documentary i the past few days..;) ---- I’ve waited a while to post this one. On November 16th, @small_town_monsters released their much coveted and most recent ‘On the trail of Bigfoot’ documentary, ‘The Discovery’ (Available Now, on Amazon). One of the many big questions to come from it was ‘Why ?’. Why would something build a nest where it did, and why would they build a nest with what they did ? All (20+) Olympic Project nests found so far were made with Evergreen Hucklberry (Vaccinium Ovatum), a species of Huckleberry that has pretty unique medicinal values. The Evergreen Huckleberry, also known as the Californian, Florist’s, Shot and Winter Huckleberry is one of only 3 out of 26 Vaccinium species in North America that can be used as a ‘birthing aid’ where its medicinal purpose is concerned. ‘An infusion of the leaves and sugar have been given to a mother after childbirth to help her regain her strength.’ Could this be the ‘Why ?’ that these nests are built out of what they are ? In some Native languages the term for plants translates to “those who take care of us.’ Food for thought, and maybe for other reasons too !

Very good question. None of the potential answers seem very satisfactory. It kinda suggests real bigfoot is something unacceptable to science so they're ignoring what it is and trying to dictate what it is allowed to be .. and that square peg won't stay in their nice round (pigeon) hole. ... but that's just me guessing.

Apparently so because I don't think finding a novel primate's genetic signature is that much of a needle in the haystack as folks make it out to be. @MIB My opinion only of course here, but I truly think it goes something like this in the way of genetic differences in the primate evolutionary order: genus Orangutan+>Last Common Ancestor(3%), genus Gorilla gorilla+>LCA (1.9%), genus Pan troglodyte+>LCA (1.1%), genus XXXXX xxxx (.5-.7%), genus Homo to itself (.1%)..... Again, my opinion, using the scientifically known 3-4 million year cadence for primate evolutionary splits. So I think there's a lot more genetic room for a novel primate discovery than I'm being told that there is. And I have to say, IF that's the case, then what gives in light of the technological advances in research, field work, and monitoring that just doesn't seem to fit the rather backward Sasquatch discovery picture that I'm being shown?

Some fall pictures from WV.

Hello all, I look forward to objective discussions. I am particularly focused on the PG film.

Greetings, Interested in the topic and particularly any sightings in the Pisgah National Forest area in Western North Carolina. I’m an avid hiker and have spent 50 years hiking the PNW, Appalachian Mountains, California, Ozarks, Colorado, Austria, Florida, and Texas. Thanking you for adding me.

I have not heard anything quite like the sierra sounds. Never heard what I'd truly call a howl either. I've heard a very loud "roar" but it is low pitched, no scream or howl component to it. A couple times I've heard sort of mumbly voices. Never with that kind of deranged chatter component the Sierra Sounds have. Once I heard 3 entities of some sort hollering back and forth. They were simultaneously getting closer together and moving towards me. Though they met up and seemed to be just a few yards apart for a couple hundred yards, they continued hollering. The language was tonal, nothing I recognized, and fairly high pitched .. like pre-teen / pre-puberty boys. Though they passed within 75 - 100 yards of me in the forest I could not see them. They paused uphill for me for 15-20 minutes hollering occasionally before eventually splitting up. One stayed above me about 150 yards while the other two went uphill and away in opposite directions .. sort of reforming the triangle their voices originally seemed to come from. Other people heard them .. couple of hikers I ran into. Strange when it happens. I would say nothing I've heard .. other than the first roar which came from only 3/4ths of a mile from me .. seemed particularly threatening. The Sierra Sounds rattle my nerves.

Although I have heard vocalizations, they were nothing like the Sierra Sounds. I have never heard anything like the Ohio howl either... it certainly doesn't mean that these aren't authentic. Many species have a diverse set of vocalizations.