Guest RioBravo Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 (edited) 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. Is this footage part of the Erickson project? Edited September 25, 2011 by RioBravo
Guest Stubstad Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 Well, on names: I did come up with a potential scientific name for the sasquatch or sasquai as one's preference my be for common English names (plural), and this was worked on with and agreed to by Melba Ketchum about a year ago: HOMO SAPIENS SESQUEQIENSIS. How does that sound as an official scientific name? True, neither Melba nor I nor both of us together may ever get scientific naming rights, but there is one (of many) things we DID agree on! Regarding capitalization of people or animals, my general understanding is (not being an English teacher, but still) that extinct or fictitious animals or beings are capitalized, such as Unicorns or Neanderthals or Denisovans or Trolls. However, real living and breathing animals or beings are not capitalized, such as elephants, zebras, wolverines, or human beings. Not capitalizating sasquatch or sasquai is my tongue-in-cheek attempt to "ease" the English language into accepting these "folks" (the sasquatch, if you will) into our midst, just like grizzly bears and wolverines and pine martens. Regarding the use of the plural sasquatch or sasquai, I like the latter better (obviously), but I'm ok with the former too; in other words, one sasquatch, several sasquatch. What I think sounds utterly ridiculous is "sasquatches", "bigfoots" or even "bigfeet". I don't even like the singular "bigfoot", because Jerry Crew also had no right to come up with such a corny name; I'd like us to agree, if possible, to try to wean us all away from the singular bigfoot" or the corresponding plural, whatever it is? "Bigfootforums" is ok because it's not the creature itself. I'll defer to the plural "sasquatch" argument & usage. I could go either way, so I'll capitulate on that one. Richard
Guest gershake Posted September 26, 2011 Posted September 26, 2011 Regarding capitalization of people or animals, my general understanding is (not being an English teacher, but still) that extinct or fictitious animals or beings are capitalized, such as Unicorns or Neanderthals or Denisovans or Trolls. I've never seen trolls and unicorns capitalised, but Neanderthals and Denisovans are proper names, aren't they?
Guest Posted September 26, 2011 Posted September 26, 2011 HOMO SAPIENS SESQUEQIENSIS Sounds pretty catchy. I have a question though, so many times on Monster Quest etc we see the DNA results come back as unknown primate, what causes this to happen?
Guest Stubstad Posted September 26, 2011 Posted September 26, 2011 HOMO SAPIENS SESQUEQIENSIS Sounds pretty catchy. I have a question though, so many times on Monster Quest etc we see the DNA results come back as unknown primate, what causes this to happen? I don't watch Monster Quest or any of the other "pop" shows on TV. In fact, I'm not even hooked up to TV (just videos). I have however read about a great deal of sequencing done previously. To my knowledge, ALL have come back "human". These were general only from the control region of the mitochondrial genome, HV1, HV2, and sometimes HV3. Other regions also tested "human", including the Snelgrove Lake sample from Curt Nelson and Jeff Meldrum. Wasn't there an episode on Monster Quest about that trip, too? Paulides reports that 95% of the sequencing on the mito side has come back Homo sapiens sapiens, too. I believe the "unknown primate" interpretations are incorrect. The furthest removed mito sample we found out of the first three COMPLETE mito sequences was almost outside of human ranges -- but not quite. This is, in my view, only because "human ranges" have been defined as VERY broad indeed -- with a maximum of about 80 or 90 mito pairs difference between modern humans as well as the sasquatch after only three sequences. There may well be some that come back "outside" of human ranges; I just don't know yet. The nuclear side is an entirely different story. Most likely, the nuclear DNA genome will be "unknown primate" as you contend. However, I don't think anyone has tested the entire nuclear genome yet apart from Ketchum. And she isn't reporting anything. I don't believe she's on to something important/exciting -- I know so, merely from the tidbits of data I've seen & analyzed. Hopefully, she will report her results -- peer reviewed or otherwise. We will also be testing the full range of the mito and nuclear genome of new samples -- in Europe. Let me know if I'm allowed to post my website here, which explains all of the above. I'm afraid if I do I'll be booted off for "surfing", as it's called these days. Richard Stubstad
Guest Thepattywagon Posted September 26, 2011 Posted September 26, 2011 Richard, you stated, "I did see some VERY good footage of the creature, or at least one of the creatures, from that site." If you had no knowledge of all of the current DNA results, etc, would the footage you saw be compelling enough to convince you that, beyond a doubt, these creatures exist? Thanks.
Guest Posted September 26, 2011 Posted September 26, 2011 I don't know if majority rule has any bearing on this, but I vote for the plural to be Sasquatch not sasqui. There is not an "s" on the end, and those are generally switched to "i". Fungus-fungi. Hippopotamus-hippopotami. Octopus-octopi. Sasquatch is one or plural. I'm not opposed to calling it yeti, if they are the same animal. Doesn't Josh Gates have a sample submitted?
Guest Stubstad Posted September 26, 2011 Posted September 26, 2011 The answer to the video footage & DNA question from ThePattyWagon: Yes. As far as sasquai goes, ok I'll capitulate based on anecdotal "anti-sasquai" sentiment & use sasquatch as a plural from now on (like one deer, many deer). As to the idea of calling sasquatch Yeti, I haven't seen any Yeti data, so I don't know. I only know that, if the Yeti exists (notice I've capitalized it because I'm still uncertain), it does display considerably different footprint patterns & length/width ratios, etc. Yes, Josh Gates gave Melba a sample to test some time ago (before 2010), and she told me it was "promising" but still inconclusive. I don't know what that meant, exactly. Richard
Guest Posted September 26, 2011 Posted September 26, 2011 Richard- there isnt really a problem linking to your site. The BFF would prefer that you put a link or some other kind of promotional spot on your site to these forums- so that its kind of a two way street so to speak. For example- if you were going to leave your link in your signature at the bottom of each post... If your putting a link to research material, and not to promote your website, then its not so important. I'm sure myself and a couple other staff would probably take a peek, and if there's any problem- you'd be contacted. Not going to "get you in any trouble" though.... Aside from that, the only other problem with any link you put up would be in relation to objectionable/offensive content, and i'm sure there's nothing to worry about in that regards. Have a good one. Art
Guest Posted September 26, 2011 Posted September 26, 2011 (edited) Hello, Richard, thanks for all your sharing. I've been reading along avidly. Two questions, if I may. First, if you and Melba agreed on the species name Homo Sapiens Sesquequiensis, does this mean it's clear already that this animal is not just in the same family as human beings (Homo) but is the same species as well (though not subspecies: H. sapiens sapiens)? (And why Sesquequiensis rather than Sasquaquiensis? Is that the Latin equivalent?) Second, I've been under the impression that the Kentucky footage (including the full facial shot) is by far the best included in the Erickson Project. But what you're saying about the video from the Northwest makes me wonder whether it's perhaps equally convincing. Given that you've seen both clips (luck man!), can you assess their comparative levels of detail and potential impact? Edited September 26, 2011 by Christopher Noel
Guest Stubstad Posted September 26, 2011 Posted September 26, 2011 Hello, Richard, thanks for all your sharing. I've been reading along avidly. Two questions, if I may. First, if you and Melba agreed on the species name Homo Sapiens Sesquequiensis, does this mean it's clear already that this animal is not just in the same family as human beings (Homo) but is the same species as well (though not subspecies: H. sapiens sapiens)? (And why Sesquequiensis rather than Sasquaquiensis? Is that the Latin equivalent?) Second, I've been under the impression that the Kentucky footage (including the full facial shot) is by far the best included in the Erickson Project. But what you're saying about the video from the Northwest makes me wonder whether it's perhaps equally convincing. Given that you've seen both clips (luck man!), can you assess their comparative levels of detail and potential impact? Christopher: I must say I'm honored to be hearing from you. I read your excellent book "Impossible Visits". I was SO impressed such that I'm not so sure these visits, or many of them, are all that impossible -- based on the DNA confirmation of the existence of the sasquatch (plural). The name we agreed on was: Homo sapiens sesqueqiensis. The spelling "sesquec" came from a plains American Indian tribe which is probably already extinct. We changed the "c" to a "q" so it would be pronounced correctly. The choice of "sesqueqiensis" as opposed to "sasquaqiensis" was simply to make it sound less corny: 'quack, quack' if you know what I mean. The reason for the middle name sapiens is that the creatures, DNA wise, appeared much closer to Homo sapiens sapiens than previously thought, but Meldrum et.al. -- especially based on the mitochondrial DNA. Even closer than Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis as I believe they are now officially called since the Max Planck Institute discoveries, below. The reason for the addition of the middle name "sapiens" for the Neanderthals is that all of us with any mitochondrial roots outside of sub-saharan Africa evidently either have Neanderthal or Denisovan genes involved, albeit to a small percentage (generally less than 5%). For example you and me. Meanwhile, I haven't spoken to Melba for the last nine months. She has probably attempted to name the sasquatch: Homo sapiens melbaqiensis by now. It may well end up that neither of us will have any naming rights. I just thought it could help both of us if I threw that out there during the deafening silence that's ensued since Melba turned in "her" article to a peer-reviewed journal sometime around the beginning of 2011. In my view, we have no choice but to forge ahead on a less exclusive basis, which I am doing with several other sample contributors. Would you like to join? Richard Stubstad
Guest Posted September 26, 2011 Posted September 26, 2011 Sure I'd like to join, but what is it exactly that I'd be joining? Thanks for the compliment on my book. I didn't mean "impossible" literally, though; the title's meant to be ironic, like...most people think such visits would be impossible, but look at all these accounts to the contrary... What about the NE footage as compared to the Kentucky footage? Can you give us a "word picture" sneak peek?
Recommended Posts