Leaderboard

After reading that transcript. I get the impression from what Dysotel is saying, that we shouldn't need a type specimen if we have a good DNA sample. So with all the supposed bigfoot samples tested we haven't been able to do what he says is possible. My conclusion there is either we have no real BF DNA samples or what he is saying is not true, in that we haven't been able to identify the distinguishing characteristics which should be present. Yes , that's what he (Disotell) is saying, barring the possibility BF could be human or part human with a human mitochondrial (maternal) lineage. He does however acknowledge that other primate species have formed through hybridization, and probably accepts that Cro magnon , Neanderthal, and Denisovans cross bred.

After reading that transcript. I get the impression from what Dysotel is saying, that we shouldn't need a type specimen if we have a good DNA sample. So with all the supposed bigfoot samples tested we haven't been able to do what he says is possible. My conclusion there is either we have no real BF DNA samples or what he is saying is not true, in that we haven't been able to identify the distinguishing characteristics which should be present.

My suggestion is that you incorporate research into more daily routines, if you walk, then plan to walk near rivers or streams in the area. If you ride bikes, well that is about the same trails. Record in areas close to home, as I do often. Best of all, move to a home that abuts a wilderness area, this does not have to be a huge wilderness, or even strictly a true wilderness. I live on a marsh close to a river and I have had activity around my property. I think you would be surprised where these creatures will venture, many reports occur just outside of towns and slightly further out on the edges of large cities. My area has had repeated sightings at about 50 miles distance from Chicago, with many even closer to that in the large forest preserves of the south, some sightings in developing suburbs that still had farms and streams available. Start thinking outside the box, it is not always on some mountain, or in some vast wilderness that these creatures can be found, food, water, and cover, these are the only requirements, and cover can be darkness as well. I plan on proving bigfoot exists only to myself and in my situation, having a sighting, finding prints, and more recording evidence. As far as the world knowing, well I will leave that to those who might be after a specimen, without actually seeing the creature, you first have to prove to yourself that they actually exist, and that is my priority. If I can find solid print evidence I will be convinced to a much greater degree about their presence in my area. I had a very amazing vocal encounter, and one I think must be pretty rare, a juvenile going off whooping, and nothing you could confuse with a canine, it was purely primate, so much so you might think human, but it was not a human being running around whooping in my marsh after some fireworks. Then 8 days later the same individual, and I mean I knew it was the very same individual, whoooooeeeeep whoooooeeep, and then a deep response from farther into the woodline, whooooooo whoooooo, this was right in my yard, which also has a nice apple tree. When you hear them it will not be a question, because it is something you have absolutely never heard before, and it will astonish you to no end. Then you start recording and turn up woodknocking and other strange vocalizations, well it becomes more and more convincing that they are using an area. My suggestion is to think locally if that is at all a possibility. Illinois, and unlikely state, few trees per acre, and far less hills or mountains, and yet it is in the top 4 states in the country for sightings, figure that one out, but equate the steams and farms and deer presence, and bingo....

There are no guarantees. Peter Byrne has spent his lifetime looking and never had a sighting. Cliff has not either as I remember. But both have found footprints and other evidence. I found one footprint that was so fresh that dirt was still falling down the sides of he impression. A couple of minutes earlier I could have had a sighting. So they have had similar chance but bad timing like I did in that case. Then there are the methods and sighting reports. Bluff Creek may be holy ground for BF researchers but is it really that active?. I suspect that the area is overrun with BF researchers in the summer and any BF in the area are very elusive or just move away. I have never been in the field with Cliff. We have talked but he barely knows me. I do not know if he uses the same methods away from the "Finding bigfoot" show that he uses in the show. I have been pretty vocal about what I think is wrong with the methods used on the show and by a lot of BFRO people in general. Too much of what they do is promoted by "experts" who really have no scientific basis for what they are doing. Much of it flies in the face of logic and of what successful deer and elk hunters do in the field. Successful hunters do not wander around in groups making a lot of noise. If one of your objectives is to get video or photographs of a BF in the field, why in the world would you emphasize night investigations? Night video or photography is very difficult. If you insert yourself into a non active area you could indeed spend months and never have a contact. And once you are there, even if BF was there when you got there, they will observe your behavior, and it becomes pretty easy for them to avoid you if that behavior is predictable. They could get very tired of avoiding you, and their restricted movement during daylight hours, and by moving several miles away, they have solved their avoidance problem. So static presence in an area may be less effective relative to days spent in the field getting contact, than periodic insertion into their active area and spending less days doing it. Yes you can wait for BF to find you. But for that to happen you have to insert yourself into a location where they are active and wait for them to find you and make a mistake and show themselves. I prefer to make it easier for them to make mistakes by trying to have them unsure of where I am as much as possible. What I do may not work for others but it has for me.

IMO, one of the most serious fatal flaws is in belief that science finds it's basis in purity of purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth as science is power and that power is sought to be controlled by entities that derive economic and societal benefit from such, often taking the form of government. One such example is the US government's role in the radiation incidents during and post-WWII, agent orange and the Desert Storm health issues, to name a few. The government was finally discovered to have known the science (read; health risks) beforehand but chose to sacrifice lives and let taxpayers foot the bill (settlement funds) after the fact. To wit, have a client whose late husband worked at a plant in Ohio during the span of 1956-1964, with the Dutch Boy Paint sign as the building's logo. However, the worker's there were handling yellowcake for the DoD and sans proper gear for health precautions. This gentleman suffered from a variety of pulmonary and cardiac ailments from that point on and succumbed to those along with other related conditions a few years ago. In 2004, and forty years later, a federal compensatory fund was set up by congress (at taxpayer expense) to pay the victims (or, their survivors) for what was known (scientifically) to happen (to them) decades earlier. In August of 1945, my late father drove a landing craft with a company of US marines in it, up the Sebaso river into the heart of what was left of downtown Nagasaki, two days after the plutonium bomb had been dropped there. The US government/military later professed ignorance on the effects of radiation poisoning yet has subsequently set up yet another victim's compensation fund. The list is seemingly endless (agent orange fund, etc.) and illustrates how the science of these events and products was manipulated/concealed for the sake of expediency, at the time. Much of what's posted above is now common knowledge, so tinfoil hat reference is....irrelevant. Therefore, to place any significant degree of belief on the resolve of mainstream science with regard to the BF enigma is (IMO) to run the Preakness with a hobbled horse as there are likely far too many political and economic interests counter to such an effort. History is another area open to interpretation as (IMO) there are often two (2) versions of such, what is recorded in the textbooks and then, what actually happened. One current example of such was a recent forensic analysis of the battlefield at Little Bighorn wherein the published historical version of Custer's Last Stand was tested versus what the evidence revealed. As is now known, the historical version is significantly flawed when the actual forensic evidence was brought to light and revealed what really transpired on that day. Another is the common belief (we even have a holiday for it) that Christopher Columbus "discovered" America. The late Dr. Covey (WFU) along with a couple other anthropologists in the attempt to translate the oral, isolate Yuchi language into a written form conducted a series of investigations into the root base of this language. One of the significant findings was that the language was predominately Egyptian, with other Mediterranean languages forming minority aspects which would indicate western (north African) migration to the New World, thousands of years earlier than the history textbook version. Therefore, to rely upon mainstream science and history as the basis for discovery and the truth in many instances, can be/has been unreliable.

This is part of your post I can agree with, except the part "if the NAWAC" can't get one. I do believe there is a reason why no one has brought them to the table that is "known". <insert name of favorite government institution that you think has a body> I am thinking they have been killed in the past and buried for whatever reason by common folk (Peter in Canada comes to mind, not the Sierra joker). I'm totally believing why people and groups are having such a hard time bagging this extant species and it starts with their neurons and not ours, for starters. Yes, they couldn't have pulled it off for this long without having an enormous skill set. I do not think the DNA enigma part of it is bumfuzzling science. It may have bumfuzzled Ketchum but there are other people that can speak to that better than I.

You have a good point and my observations of researchers who have been at it a very long time seem to confirm your divorce court allegations. Some that have understanding spouses avoid that. But those that move on, find partners that are as into BF research as they are. We all make life choices and if BF research becomes too high a priority, relationships often pay the price. In my posting I implied that it was all pure chance. Certainly chance is involved but I started research looking at clusters of sightings and visiting each sighting location. By going where activity had been previously reported, trying to determine what BF were up to when sighted and guessing where they might have been headed, I sort of vectored in on the active area. That may have increased the chances for contact. Intuition and hunches are not a bad thing. Finding an active area and just sitting around is not a bad tactic either. But I find that boring and you certainly are not likely to find many footprints that way. If nothing else footprints are an indicator you are in an active area.

Does science end or start when a species is accepted by science? That collection of anecdotes, stories, stories and footprints you disdain so much will be the basis of learning about BF behavior, habitat, social culture, and demographics. People that have them will be sought out by the academic community who will have a lot of catching up to do if they want to understand the species in the wild. Data is data is data and the lay and academic skeptics are the ones who are choosing to ignore it at this point in time. Your claim that no science is or can be conducted is simply not true. When that BF is on the lab table and the foot can be examined and xrayed, Meldrum's work can be verified. He has already done the science, it only needs to be validated. Certainly he could be wrong on some of this theories but being wrong does not mean you not done science. The only scientists who are demonstrably wrong are the ones who declare BF a myth without looking at the data. In my book they are not scientists at all but academic hacks.

While I agree in the sense that science may not realize it when they are looking at BF DNA, if the species is to be established as a separate species by means of genetic divergence, it would start somewhere in the genes they use to measure divergence , and it's the same genes used in species ID, like the ones used by Sykes. My sample in the Ketchum study tested human Haplotype T2b. When they have enough DNA to define the DNA at that level, the species is no longer the question. No other ape will register at this depth. They do know where to look in the genome, so make sure you do too.

Here's a link that may better explain what researchers are capable of when dealing with an unknown DNA sample. I linked the transcript but it's also available as a podcast. Another good source of DNA info and what's possible can be found right here on the BFF in posts made by hvhart. He will literally walk you step by step through making a BLAST query using Dr. Ketchum's DNA results and what it all means. http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/09/07/02/transcript/

Been out about a dozen times in the last couple years. Been knocked at in two different locations, found tracks in two different locations, found two bone stacks miles apart, and been growled at (not sure what that was ). Now all I need is a sighting. That would be icing on the cake. But, I would be OK with more of the aforementioned.

Good work SWWA. One problem is many of us, including my self, think that every last gene on the DNA strands can be laid out for examination and comparison. Example. Let's take a colorful Indian beaded purse. Every bead or gene is showing, and we can visually see them all at once. Now we hold two purses side by side, and if some beads are in different patterns or colors then we have different purses or species. Since the bigfoot bead pattern matches no other primate's seems like we could identify bigfoot. What's the problem with this picture? One problem is we have 3.2 billion human genes or 3,200,000,000 beads on a purse. A semitruck could probably fit in this purse. Seems like some are saying we can't see all the beads or genes all at once. We can only see a square inch at a time. If this portion matches, it may or may not be the same purse or species. Mammal Homo sapiens 3,200,000,000 3.2Gb Homo sapiens estimated genome size 3.2 billion bp[55] Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome[56] Another example of stalled science.

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.

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.

I will continue my backpacking and backcountry camping expeditions with interested friends but most often alone. My objective is personal. I don't have any interest in proving sasquatch to anyone much less the world. I just want to see one before I meet my maker. I've have several eyeshine incidents with one lasting for at least five minutes and moving about trying to avoid my flashlight. I've also seen very interesting footprints. Now, my objective is to see one in the flesh preferably during daylight. Don't get me wrong; I applaud those who have more global ambitions and seek to discover for the world the existence of sasquatch. It's not what animates me at this point in my life. It would be deeply satisfying to be able to sit back, with feet up, and smile knowing I had finally seen one. Nature had been profoundly kind enough to reward me with one of her most-guarded secrets. Frankly, if I had the evidence, the Ark of the Covenant of the BF world, I'd never disclose it. You can't close Pandora's box once opened. Different strokes for different folks.

Bodhi, I've watched you consistently dismiss every bit of evidence that has been offered. For example: there is internal consistency within the bigfoot reports, but you have categorically dismissed all reports as unreliable based on nothing more than opinion. This forum has also introduced hair and fecal sample analyses that indicate the samples are from no identified animal, but you turn that around and pose that bigfoot leaves no identifiable evidence. Chicken or the egg here. Did you intentionally omit prints from your post? If so, why? And why would you object to their inclusion as evidence left behind? Krantz and Meldrum have heavily documented such evidence, which is in fact left behind. I wasn't being snarky about man, either. Man is the most appropriate comparison. I was the one who introduced the avoidance of conflict in the post to which you responded. Am I not permitted to carry this theme forward, preserving the integrity of my initial post? You have so maaaany subjective rules. I get lost in all of the obfuscation. Could please produce a compendium of all of your rules that the rest of us can use as a handbook?

This is easy and probably perplexing to skeptics but I don't intend to prove existence of BF in 2016. I am not equipped to do that. Should I find skeletal remains, and I am always searching for that, the best I can do is find someone I trust and turn the bones over to them. That is more difficult than it sounds. I do not know who I can trust. At best I might get a mention in the paper they publish. At worst, they could have the skeleton confiscated at any point by some alphabet agency who is watching them. I think I mentioned in my own thread that have a new interest in tree blow overs and the exposed soil their upended roots display. If you ran around with an excavator, you could not expose as much soil in a forested area because of the living trees and root systems. But when nature exposes soil with dozens of tree blow overs in an area, bank erosion along ash falls and lahars, soil erosion along stream banks, and land slides along cliff faces, nature is doing the work of dozens of pieces of heavy equipment exposing previously hidden soil, and you don't need a permit from anyone dig or to look. The ash fall and pyroclastic flow areas are particularly hopeful. The ash and pyroclastic soil does not contain a lot of organic material that makes it highly acidic like normal forest soil. That organic material has all been burned or cooked out. A BF could have been caught, suffocated, and buried in an eruption, and like Pompeii the preserved body is there to find covered in ash, waiting for natural erosion processes to expose it. These methods may not work at all mid continent but the PNW is pretty much entirely volcanic in origin.