Erickson Project

[Guest herosmom]

Can you tell me what you mean by renewed? Thenks

[Guest Stubstad]

By "renewed" I guess I mean "enhanced". In other words, it does appear that the sasquai have been "romantically" involved with "modern humans" from time to time since they have existed and the two "subspecies" if that is what it turns out we are (us modern humans and the sasquai) have crossed paths as it were, depending on opportunity and whatever else floats one's boat from millennium to millennium. The results appears to be a great deal of biodiversity, mainly because the sasquatch hasn't made the same dead-end genetic decisions that many other subspecies have made -- for example Neanderthal.

Based on only three complete mitochondrial DNA genomes, all of which appear to be from real-live sasquai (for a host of reasons), the mitochondrial spread is every bit as large as us humans -- in this case, two from the same mito-Eve from subglacial Europe about 15,000 years ago and one from a mito-Eve about 60,000 years ago. Of course, though, the "mito-Eve" of the 15,000 year old woman who willingly or otherwise became a mito-Eve of Sample 1 and Sample 2, would have had her own mito-Eve, possibly from the same mito Eve of Sample 3 from about 60,000 years ago in southern Africa.

Or possibly by some other "sub-human" somewhere in between.

Three data points do not describe an entire subspecies.

Also missing is the nuclear side of the equation, which may be from the same lineage as the mito-Eve of Sample 3, or (more likely) from some kind of other hominid, but not Neanderthal (they were not in Southern Africa). This could possibly have been the "source" of either the Denisovan or Neanderthal, presumably also subsaharan Africa.

Some data would be helpful in this regard, but Ketchum is sitting on it like Horton the Elephant sat on that bird egg, because "an elephant's faithful, 100 percent!"

I do though have some nuclear data that I will report on, if Ketchum doesn't get the lead out soon instead of monkeying around with lawyers and litigation and all that instead of science, in cooperation with the rest of us who have helped out (not to say started the whole thing) from Day 1 or before.

Richard

[HOLDMYBEER]

Richard,

Speaking only from the known data from samples 1,2,and 3, what is it that conclusively says the samples are not from a modern human?

[Guest herosmom]

Richard, thank you so much for the information, it's all very exciting to me! And I will be passing this on to my dear old dad, who is a fan of both Horton the elephant and bigfoot. Also wanted to say I think everyone is feeling the frustration that you are, in having worked so hard, and knowing that so many are holding on to their piece of this puzzle instead of putting it all together! I guess all we can do for now is enjoy the process, thanks again! Marleen

[Guest Stubstad]

By statistical calculations, there is a 3 or 4 percent chance that all three were from "modern" humans. The reason for the odds being this small, is that Samples 1 and 2 matched up so well on the mitochondrial side (whole genome) that the odds they were BOTH hoaxes or mistakes were only about 2% (p-value = 0.98). When Sample 3 is added, these odds should honestly be lowered to 2% plus 2%, or 4%, since only two out of three matched up as well as they did.

Therefore, the odds of pulling a "fast one" by the researchers on us DNA folks was very, very small but still statistically possible.

Add to that the fact that the researchers that provided Sample 1 and Sample 2 were NOT associated with one-another; quite to the contrary, in fact. If they were associated, it would have been possible to pull off such a match from the North American, or especially the southern European, population at-large, but that would have required a very intimate knowledge of mito DNA, which in fact neither of the research groups had. It would also have been a HUGE effort on their parts to pull it off -- not impossible but HIGHLY improbable.

Further, I have personally visited the site for Sample 1 (NW Arizona) and stayed there with the gentlemen who found Sample 1, a toenail, at his remote habituation site. My cousin, also a Vietnam war vet, was with me, and we concluded that it was HIGHLY unlikely that Larry Jenkins, who found the toenail, pulled off an actual hoax on his own. He also gave me several dozen 35 mm photographs, both of the toenail and some sasquatch footprints in the snow with a mid-tarsal break. OK, it is possible he pulled this all off, but I don't think he did, and neither did my cousin Gordy.

Larry Jenkins had no photos of the creature(s), since all his encounters were in the dark of night.

As far as Sample 2 is concerned, collected the same year (2009) and some 1,500 miles away in the Northwestern USA, I did see some VERY good footage of the creature, or at least one of the creatures, from that site. However, I have not personally visited the site.

Sample 3; ditto to Sample 2.

The bottom line: I'm fairly certain on a credibility level all three are real sasquai. How certain? Never 100% until the fat lady sings, but maybe 95% or better. I'm 96% or 97% certain on a mitoDNA level and about the same on a single gene from the nuclear side (not reported yet by me) that all three are sasquai.

So yes, they could be all modern human, like you and me. But no, I don't think they are -- I'd bet my bottom dollar on it.

Sorry, the p-value was 0.02, not 0.98.

Richard

[HOLDMYBEER]

^^^

I wouldn't think a hoax or 'fast one' likely and I don't mean to go down that road. I am very much interested in the occurrence of some sort of systemic contamination during the seizure/packaging/transport or processing of the samples. How would the mito data look different if there was a contamination with modern human DNA?

Edited to add: Germany's Phantom Serial Killer: A DNA Blunder By Claudia Himmelreich / Berlin Friday, Mar. 27, 2009

Edited September 25, 2011 by Art1972
edited to remove unneeded quote

[Guest]

Very exciting stuff and thank you for sharing....pesky "Sasquai" word aside

Trying hard to let..it...go...Wooh-Sahhhh

[Guest Stubstad]

Hippopotamus / Hippopotami

Sasquatch / Sasquai

These types of plurals are Latin-based. Hippopotamuses is common, but to me it doesn't sound as "professional" as hippopotami. Ditto with sasquatch. Sasquatches to me sounds just too corny and unprofessional / almost as if the creature is a myth.

During the first phase of the Ketchum et.al. study, we checked for human contamination for at least three of us (including me), and there was none. Not from Melba either.

I believe that Melba did a pretty good job to insure there was no contamination. Keep in mind that these three samples were fresh, not relics where contamination truly becomes a big deal.

Still, I would want to re-sequence all three samples to insure the first lab(s) didn't make any primer errors. That's why my interpretations of the samples is more general; there may have been errors in the sequencing, but my conclusions still stand, overall.

Richard

[Guest Thepattywagon]

Why can't the plural for Sasquatch just be Sasquatch?

After all, there are several other examples of animal life in which the singular and plural are spelled identically.

Deer,Moose,Sheep,even Fish.

[Guest]

Hippopotamus / Hippopotami

Sasquatch / Sasquai

These types of plurals are Latin-based. Hippopotamuses is common, but to me it doesn't sound as "professional" as hippopotami. Ditto with sasquatch. Sasquatches to me sounds just too corny and unprofessional / almost as if the creature is a myth.

During the first phase of the Ketchum et.al. study, we checked for human contamination for at least three of us (including me), and there was none. Not from Melba either.

I believe that Melba did a pretty good job to insure there was no contamination. Keep in mind that these three samples were fresh, not relics where contamination truly becomes a big deal.

Still, I would want to re-sequence all three samples to insure the first lab(s) didn't make any primer errors. That's why my interpretations of the samples is more general; there may have been errors in the sequencing, but my conclusions still stand, overall.

Richard

Sasquatch / Sasquai

These types of plurals are Latin-based. Hippopotamuses is common, but to me it doesn't sound as "professional" as hippopotami. Ditto with sasquatch. Sasquatches to me sounds just too corny and unprofessional / almost as if the creature is a myth.

As someone who possesses and admittedly worthless Marine Biology degree I think I would choose sounding unprofessional over a smattering of sounding pretentious. If the claim is that Sasquatch are more human than animal I would advise taking that into account when the times comes for the powers that be to go about assigning their official scientific and common names. After all as homo sapiens we don't often refer to one another has Homo or Sapiaui ( I guess that would be the term following the same logic) in our daily conversations. Among HUMANS race has absolutely no taxonomic significance; if Sasquatch are indeed more human than animal I hope we can throw some biological essentialism out the window when it come to picking their names.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Tautriadelta

[Guest spunout]

Do I feel a lot better that there are self annoited 'congressional scholars' on board??? As a lobbyist, no I do not. Keep the amateur opinion to a dull roar, please.

[masterbarber]

Why can't the plural for Sasquatch just be Sasquatch?

I'm going with this one.....at least until we can bag one and ask it what the rest of the crew prefers.

[Guest]

Stubstad, being the term 'Sasquatch' isn't even a Latin name, and in fact is based on the provenance of several Native Indian names and assembled by a teacher/writer up in Canada, I don't quite know that its logical to assign it Latin principles. I also don't think that by repeating the term Sasquai is going to cause people to want to start using it. The term Sasquatch seems to be the most acceptable term today, at least in the US and Canada. But if it really mattered what we called them, maybe someday they will tell us. Of course they may have told some people already, but the rest would immediately doubt any such claims even if true. That option aside, the next logical name I would think they should rightfully hold, would seem to be what the Native people used to call them. At least with respect to a non-taxonomic name. The problem with a native term is that Indigenous people had hundreds of names for them. None of which however were Latin. And of course people from all over the world had different names for them, although we don't know how many are the same species. Bottom line is, I don't think it fair that your assignment of a new name stick. I doubt it will either. No offense, but you, like most of us, just haven't the authority to name, or rename, these beings. If they are as intelligent as many believe, what they are called may already be decided, we just don't know yet. Until then, I'm good with Sasquatch as singular or plural as well...

That too aside, your input on the DNA has been an interesting read, thnx.

Edited September 25, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist

[Guest]

Can I put my two cents worth in here? Apparently, from what I've heard, the term "Sasquatch" is a phonetic, or romanized interpretation of the original Salish(?) term, which you can't actually spell in English. In their native language, there is no separation of the singular or plural of this word. In other words, it would appear to be a non-count noun, as in Deer, Moose, hay, etc. Therefore, it would seem to me, that in keeping with the original context of the term, "Sasquatch" would be a non-count noun as well. "I saw a Sasquatch up on that hill.", "The Sasquatch is a very mysterious creature."

However, it could also be both countable and uncountable, depending on the context. It is entirely possible to say something like, "There are two sasquatches over there". The difference being that, in the first two examples, I used the term generally; as a 'species'. Usually, the names of species are capitalized. In the third example, I used the term in a more specific context. I'm not talking about a species. I'm talking about living, breathing creatures that I am currently looking right at.

You can use the same idea to describe us. "Someday, Man will venture out into the stars." vs. "That man is really smart". In the first one I'm generalizing, talking about all men. In the second, I'm being more specific. I'm talking about one person.

Sorry about the long-winded explanation. As an English teacher, I sometimes do that.

Please feel free to return to your regularly scheduled forum topic.

[Guest]

Do I feel a lot better that there are self annoited 'congresional scholars' on board??? As a lobbyist, not I do not. Keep the amateur opinion to a dull roar, please.

What does congress have to do with it? Did I miss something?