Leaderboard

They need one male and one female to officially classify an extant species is my understanding. But I’m sure a solid DNA hit of a new novel primate would get the ball rolling….hopefully.🤞

Im just a layman. But from what I’ve read? Sub Saharan Africans are 100 percent Homo Sapiens. Europeans and Asians have Neanderthal DNA, and some Asian groups also have Denisovans DNA. I have some suspicions there isn’t 100 percent of anything. I think the Homo Genus has bred back into itself after separation so many times it’s quite the bushy tree. It helps when they can look at the genome of say a Neanderthal and then reexamine Homo Sapiens DNA and isolate what we share.

I haven't commented on this site for a few years. In fact, one of the last times I remember commenting was in another thread that concerned mitochondrial DNA. Some of the "regulars" treated me like an idiot. Frankly, it was because they had no knowledge of some of the foundations of cell biology. I'm going to make a few points and they can either do their research or dismiss me as an idiot again. First of all, you have to look at mitochondria as a primitive bacteria that was incorporated into what are now eukaryotic cells. We're talking about an event that occurred billions of years ago. For those who are unfamiliar with this concept, it is called Endosymbiotic Theory. Why it's important to understand this concept is that one needs to view mitochondria as symbiotic "parasites" that multiply and pass on their genetics completely independently from our nuclear DNA. Secondly, the mitochondria (and thus the mtDNA) of a mother are passed on to the subsequent generation within the cytoplasm of the mother's egg. It is a continuous line of passage through the female. Thirdly, the mtDNA is very stable. While there is always a possible evolutionary upside for variation in nuclear DNA, there really isn't one for mitochondria. They have a small genome, and most mutations probably won't work out. In fact, most mutations will quickly result in an individual cell's death. Based on the nature of mtDNA inheritance and mtDNA's tendency to maintain its integrity over time, I do find it possible that Bigfoot mtDNA would be indicated as "human" when tested. We frankly have no idea how closely we are related to Bigfoot. And while I'm not going to go to any length to defend Melba Ketchum's studies, I will say that any Bigfoot breeding with a human female, even if it only happened one time, thousands of years ago, would produce a mtDNA "human" result in a sample from a descendant today.

To begin with, DNA has no amino acids, which are found in proteins. Nucleotide bases hold the DNA strands together through hydrogen bonding. Until I see the sequence and the primers used I do not believe Mayor's claim of chimpanzee DNA. Based on behavior and physical characteristics it's as unlikely that Sasquatch DNA is that close to a chimpanzee as it is to be very close to human. UNLESS hybridization is involved. Presumably we are talking about mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother only. So a hybridization event will not show anything about evolution of the male, or the female. It's a slice in time(of the mating) of the female. Nuclear eDNA is much more difficult (and expensive) to sequence, and was not likely the case in either the Mayor or the Disotell case. But, please, show me the data. If Mayor used a sequencer that had previously been used on chimpanzee DNA, there could be carry over. Protocol details, especially blanks and standards, would be helpful to know here. Comparisons of the Kentucky vs the Washington environment based only on rainfall neglect other important factors such as microbe species and populations, temperatures, and sample handling. There is plenty of opportunity for degradation. I am currently analyzing littoral eDNA sequences for signs of an unknown primate and have learned that sequencing errors can confuse the issue, as well as heteroplasmy, and the possibility of sperm mtDNA leaking (into the egg). The latter is fairly minute in humans but may not be so in Sasquatch. The community awaits a sample collected from an observed Sasquatch immediately after deposition, or a body part. Otherwise, as mentioned above, there are too many unknowns to base a case on subtle differences. In the mtDNA region of over 200 bases that I studied, Neanderthal differs from modern human by only ONE mutation, so there's "no room" to distinguish an intermediate Sasquatch there. Longer sequences in other regions are desirable. There's a lot of data to sort through in this work. The so called "mammalian" primers I used also sequenced birds, and fish, lots of them. Unfortunately I know of no readily available software to do this. Also, the NCBI BLAST results are not eDNA friendly, so relevant data must be extracted through character manipulation of large flat files. I wrote BASIC programs and also used Excel sorting. A goal of this work is to develop a simple procedure that can be used by our Community to analyze sequence data from commercial labs.

It would be difficult to pick the worst as there are so many choices. The idea of a Bigfoot Documentary as a concept is really simple: Does or could Bigfoot exist? Thus, a great documentary should make the best case as to why Bigfoot exists (or it doesn't). The best documentaries focus on that topic. If done well it will even score some points among skeptics who at least admit some of the other side's points are fair points. I think of Dr. Eric Began on one of these shows who complemented Jeff Meldrum and did leave open the possibility Bigfoot could exist. He gave the reasonable position as to why established science hold the position Bigfoot is not a proven thing. He even said he hoped Bigfoot does exist as it would be very interesting to his scientific discipline. He gave props to Meldrum because his position, argument, and reasonable points were respectful. That is quite a contrast vs Bobo appearing on Conan. Munns, Meldrum and others make great points in documentaries of these sorts. Thus, these are rated high on a scale of bad to good. Meanwhile you have shows like Finding Bigfoot. This show is so bad they talk of Bigfoot's like they know his favorite baseball team is or his favorite color. You have Bobo running around with a "Squatchin' hat saying every twig snap is a 'squatch" Those shows not only are harmful to the Bigfoot discussion, but they should be an embarrassment to any believer trying to make their best case to others Bigfoot could exist. I saw X Creatures which claimed to focus on the PGF. It was a really weak hit piece designed to attack the PGF (in a really ineffective and lazy way) to convince us the PGF was a hoax. I wish a PGF documentary could be put out where those who think it is a hoax have to actually make their best case (one better than x creatures). Focus on the film and let each side make their best case. What do we get instead? A bunch of embarrassing junk. Who is the poster boy of the Bigfoot is real argument? Bobo in a 'gone squatchin' hat. Imagine a public seeing a documentary where the following was presented: - PGF suit replicating failure using 1967 materials - and Munns like explanation of step by step of what the film shows with starts and stops - showing how the film was at its most stable point when Roger was closest to Patty near the time of the turn back -footprint evidence which goes with the PGF itself -Jim McClariins similar but not same traveling to the site for his walk the following spring. and so on. The truth is, most bigfoot documentaries I have watched on the subject are pretty bad and that is being kind. Here is your representative. And we wonder why they don't take the subject seriously... (I don't dislike Bobo or his passion but that is not the point)

My personal opinion isn't one people who ask such questions usually want to hear .. so .. you've been warned. I think Todd Standing is a straight-up hoaxer. I have not seen anything even vaguely legitimate with his stamp on it. My .. suspicion .. is that at some point long ago he had an authentic "thing" happen but was unable to substantiate it so he did the unthinkable: he tried to manufacture the evidence he could not otherwise produce and he got caught at it. It is too late for him. There is nothing he can do, ever, that won't tainted by his past hoaxes. Worse, any other researcher who is seen with him is tainted as well .. brings their judgement into doubt. MIB

Access to Crown Land in Canada is not heavily restricted. There are a few areas that get closed for wildlife protection from hunters and traffic, but generally Canadians can go anywhere that isn't privately owned, so about 90% of the country is open to all. The problem is getting to a lot of it, as there are no roads through vast areas, unless someone is operating a logging, mining, or oil lease there. My access to the land around Harrison Lake is via logging roads built by private companies that pay stumpage fees to government for the right to log, and they only restrict access to the actual logging site, to protect their equipment while it's there. Gates are usually removed as soon as the specific resource road is not in active use. Mining and oil/gas drilling areas are similar, access is open except on active sites, for safety reasons.

lol