Leaderboard

Hello All, "Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?" Yes. But it's for the simple reason that it's like anything else. Money. Not the lack of it but more that there isn't a means to control it to make money off of it. Think about the bigger stuff that involve a couple of little somethings called revenue and profit. Think of the reason behind Prohibition. Once how to "legally" funnel the money was established then alcohol was...wait for it...legal again. Same with the newer marijuana laws and the biggest economic ball of wax for profit and revenue there ever has been....warfare. Sasquatch, if it's real, will be another control the wealth game. Once that's in place then we will get our proof. In the meantime the race is on for us to somehow scoop those that would try to funnel any monies to be made to the top. Same old same old. This principle has not and will not ever change. First get the resources out of the habitat and while at it figure a way to keep all the revenue and profit from a Sasquatch disclosure. Yep, I'm a cynic, and to long in the tooth to not get this. Of course now I'm a crackpot- but I'm a wise and learned crackpot. Besides most crackpots are considered outside the status quo and sheesh, who wants to belong to THAT crowd.

It has stalled because despite the efforts of the NAWAC, Olympic Project, BFRO, and many other earnest researchers out there, we still don't have a single piece of hard evidence to work with. If there were a definitive type specimen or even unambiguous DNA evidence, we could then do things like: * Habitat mapping * Species population estimation * Primate cladistics (assuming DNA) and calculation of genetic distances to humans/chimps/Neanderthal, etc. * Physiology and size range * Ecosystem impacts * Sexual dimorphism studies * Behavioral, family group, kinship analysis * Species protection programs But no science can be done at this point because THERE IS NOTHING TO STUDY - except some really awesome stories. I'm very open to the idea of sasquatches being real, but until we have actual proof, the only "science" is in the form of chasing shadows. Honestly, if the NAWAC guys can't bag a type specimen, I'm having a hard time believing it can be done (assuming there is an extant species.)

So basically what you are saying is that its useless in this line of work? Nope, when you bring that body into a lab and the body is accepted as a BF, they will run DNA tests with different labs compare results, and then declare which markers differentiate BF from other similar species including our self.

There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding on this forum about how DNA works. Having done the human DNA genome tests to determine my ancestry I learned a lot I did not know. Even though there is no question I am human, there are certain designated markers that are evident if your ancestry was at a specific time and place in human history. Those markers went back to before my ancestors were homo Sapiens. I have Neanderthal DNA. I was able to compare the ancestry of my paternal and maternal lines. In only a few cases were the markers the same. In other words in only a few cases were my paternal and maternal ancestors at the same place at the same time. Certainly they had to be same place same time for me to be conceived in modern times. Some here seem to think that human and animal DNA is significantly different. "The chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical, but there are a few short DNA sequences that have changed significantly in humans since the two species diverged about 5 million years ago (see Pollard et al., http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020168).These 'Human Accelerated Regions' (HARs) provide clues into our evolution. (Photograph: Image by Owen Booth.) " So there are only a few short DNA sequences that have changed since our species diverged. These things are called Human Accelerated Regions, and those are located to differentiate humans from other animals with common ancestry. What people seem to be missing here is that an unknown bipedal mammal with common ancestry at any point, the DNA is going to look very similar to human. Without an accepted BF DNA type, DNA labs are not going to know where to look for markers that differentiate BF from other species with common ancestors. They can tell you it is not a chimpanzee or not a human because they know where to look for markers that define the chimpanzee and human. That is why we get so many unknown species results or suggestions of human DNA contamination. It looks sort of human but is missing some modern human markers but yet contains strange ones. I think some here expect some kind of red light and alarm to go off to alert a lab they have found an unknown species. Does not work that way. Most labs would likely assume contamination when something strange is sequenced.

Indeed, Bigfoot should be exposed with very little mtDNA if they were not human. The CO1 gene and the cytochrome b region of mtDNA that Sykes used would have allowed him to distinguish between modern human and Neanderthal, but it wasn't there for those samples. People should take the human result more seriously in my opinion. While some samples can be mishandled and contaminated, it is also a good point that when targeting a specific loci, the makers will be present for both contributors if they are the same species or very similar and not when they are vastly different species. This is why we have species specific primers.

Science has already failed us when so much of the BF traits include portals, psychic talk, heightened vision, smell, hearing, ability to leap buildings in a single leap, and of course eat 1 million zagnut bars and not gain a pound etc..... What i was getting at is not to jump to conclusions based on a statement or inference someone made. Because I see a kid with red hair and think he could be Irish does not mean I am considering all red heads Irish. That said, yes I believe BF can leap buildings in a single leap.

Dr. Meldrum may have written a lot of on footprints but it is all speculation at this point regarding how it proves BF to be a real flesh and blood creature. Its a rather crude statement to make that someone can not be taken serious on this board just because they do not yet believe the supposed evidence presented, even if a scientist backs it up. Its perfectly acceptable to be skeptical and question the supposed evidence until it is a proven fact.