The Hunt For The Southern Bigfoot

[hiflier]

Hello Branco,

I've been digging for that. As far as I can tell using the term Type A is a genetic representation for Human. It may be a certain genetic representation of what is called a MHC Class I which includes something called the HLA a, b, and c type antibodies? It also may have references to Old World primates, New World Primater, and Humans and what they do or do not share genetically. I've been looking at how those differences are defined such as Homologues, Orthologues, and Paralogues which have to do with evolutionary genetic divergences.

Rather complicated, for me anyway but I'm starting to understand the terms better. For example From a common ancestor Humans and Apes diverged. Part of that diversion resulted in genes being duplicated (paralogues) but duplicated as separate alphas and betas (homologues) where the beta was given a different function. One could say then that a Human is the alpha to a gorilla's beta. Same genes but different functionally. Genes that are kept the same with the same function even after species diversion are called the orthologues.

Other than that LOL, I haven't run across the specific term "Type A Primate". Alpha over beta? Got me.

Edited August 31, 2015 by hiflier

[Branco]

Would you please PM me a couple of aspirins; my head hurts!   

[MIB]

Exactly .. this whole "type whatever" stuff sounds like a load of pseudoscientific horse puckey created by someone who wants to give the impression of expertise and has nothing but talk to back it up with.    It's cutesy, ridiculous, and laughable.   If you've got a bigfoot shape with human facial features, just say so.  If you've got a bigfoot shape with a snout and sharp canines, just say so.   ... and cut the ego-boosting nonsense.

 

MIB

Edited August 31, 2015 by MIB

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

MIB, that's exactly what I was thinking. 

[Cisco]

^{This is a rather sensational account but there were multiple witnesses so somebody saw something. Whether or not it was a Bigfoot, remains to be seen....no pun intended.}

 

^{I agree with MIB in that I get the feeling the GCBRO is trying to make this whole thing sound more credible by using scientific techno-jargon.}

 

^{In truth, its more likely that it was a weekend get together of some guys actually interested in Bigfoot, some guys just interested in getting out in the woods, some guys interested in drinking whiskey and other guys just tagging along for fun. This would result in a rather unorganized effort that would logically lead to the shooting fiasco that was described.}

 

^{Maybe it was a Bigfoot that was shot or maybe it was a raccoon and the shooter was still feeling the effects of last night's whiskey dinner, causing him to make an imaginative interpretation of what he actually saw and what he wanted to see...}

[OkieFoot]

Hello Branco,

I've been digging for that. As far as I can tell using the term Type A is a genetic representation for Human. It may be a certain genetic representation of what is called a MHC Class I which includes something called the HLA a, b, and c type antibodies? It also may have references to Old World primates, New World Primater, and Humans and what they do or do not share genetically. I've been looking at how those differences are defined such as Homologues, Orthologues, and Paralogues which have to do with evolutionary genetic divergences.

Rather complicated, for me anyway but I'm starting to understand the terms better. For example From a common ancestor Humans and Apes diverged. Part of that diversion resulted in genes being duplicated (paralogues) but duplicated as separate alphas and betas (homologues) where the beta was given a different function. One could say then that a Human is the alpha to a gorilla's beta. Same genes but different functionally. Genes that are kept the same with the same function even after species diversion are called the orthologues.

Other than that LOL, I haven't run across the specific term "Type A Primate". Alpha over beta? Got me.

 

I'm guessing "Type A Primate" does not mean a Primate with a Type A personality. 

 

As I was reading through your post, it made me think about how we've all heard how humans and chimpanzees share 98% of the same DNA; which I've also read isn't exactly correct. To be brief, I read a paper by Jeffery P.Tompkins, who has a Ph.D. in genetics. It was above my level of DNA expertise but he did say (to use his wording), when you include all the relevant data, DNA sequence comparisons show human and chimp genomes are not nearly identical at all.  Although he did say there were some sections of the chimp genome that were very similar to humans.

 

It makes me wonder if DNA sequences from a real Bigfoot should show some similarities to humans. I ask that since Bigfoot is bipedal, like humans, and are humanlike in their build and how they walk.  

 

I like Branco's question about if the lab results have ever been made public.  If everything was on the level, and if you had a lab result that pointed to non-human origin, you would think they would want to let people, or organizations, know of the result. 

Edited August 31, 2015 by OkieFoot

[Martin]

A couple of points.

1) I don't know of any dna report that was released. I read that that "it was inconclusive just like all of the other dna reports. Nothing is going to work except a body" etc.

2) This certainly doesn't prove anything but I believe in all likely hood something was shot. What it was I don't know. A subsequent report from the original author indicated that he thought it might have been a monkey from the primate refuge down the road.

3) As far as I know the GCBRO were the first pro-kill group. They had a large organization (50+ people) in the 90's and early 2000's. They sponsored annual or bi-annual hunts on a piece of private property which supposedly had activity much like that claimed at AreaX. Internal issues and timber harvesting in Monster Central has made this group largely irrelevant until their "Killing Bigfoot" TV show was piloted. By looking at their forum I see that they now accept blobsquatch pictures as evidence.

I would like to speak to someone who was there and get a 3rd opinion as to what happened during the hunt.

[hiflier]

Hello Martin,

Contacting the GCBRO and inviting someone here who was on that expedition might not be a bad idea. My understanding of the 98% genetic overlaps between Humans and Chimpanzees is actually clearer after reading up on genetics. There will be identical genes that give both arms with hands, eyes up front, ears on the side of the head etc., but the two species are different because even if those genes are identical the alpha version and the beta version have caused the differences in those characteristics that we see. differences in pelvic gait, mid-tarsal breaks in the foot structure, thumb position, and so on.

The Type A Primate term also may have been referring to a blood type. Type O positive is the most common in nearly 40% of the Human population whereas Type A positive is second with a little over 30%. So it could have meant that. Blood types for primates other than Humans though similar carry different antigen molecules on the surfaces of red blood cells. As Humans and apes became further separated genetically after the initial split each one's normal genetic mutations over time created larger gaps in their blood antigens,

The term Rh factor found it's genesis in the Rhesus Monkey which is where scientists first discovered the Rh positive and Rh negative variables. A Gorilla might have a Type A blood but the antigen molecule attached to the red blood cell is way different in what it will accept or reject in the area of blood transfusions. Hard to tell if these posts have been on topic or not but they do relate (I think) to looking at what a Type A Primate might be referring to? We need more information from the source of the testing or anyone else in a DNA lab perhaps.

Good for you for picking up on this Branco.

Edited August 31, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest]

"type A primate" is a reference to the category of "greater" as opposed to "lesser" apes: http://australianmuseum.net.au/humans-are-apes-great-apes.  I don't get how was this determined in the testing. Jim Lansdale of GCBRO has talked about this a few times in interviews as well so it is not closed ranks.

 

https://youtu.be/B_IhoHl2f8w around the 7 minute mark to about 10 minutes in.

 

There is also a fairly primitive GCBRO message board that is not members only. Lansdale is quite open about how prolific the species is in the piney region, the motivations of the group and seems willing to talk about anything that anyone asks.  

Edited September 1, 2015 by Wingman

[hiflier]

Hello Wingman,

I think it safe to greater apes have genetic markers in their genome that are specific to them. With the information I've been reading up on regarding genetics one would thing that Human markers would be different enough in a good lab to determine the great ape from a Human. If Sasquatch has an abundance of markers from both though I could understand tests coming back Human as well? Anyway Thank you for helping to clarify the Type A term Branco was curious about. Nice work.

[David NC]

The problem with the inconclusive thing with DNA is that it was very expensive and is still fairly pricy now to have it done. When labs would test for unknown animal they get human markers they pile it into inconclusive and or contaminated file. It can hurt the labs reputation to be wrong. If you have any done now I would ask them to run it fully and give you the results no matter what they are, and hope they give you a copy of the full results before they contact anyone else about the results.

[hiflier]

Hello Davis NC,

 

It's very expensive otherwise we'd be sending in stuff all the time, BF related or not.

[BigTreeWalker]

The problem with the inconclusive thing with DNA is that it was very expensive and is still fairly pricy now to have it done. When labs would test for unknown animal they get human markers they pile it into inconclusive and or contaminated file. It can hurt the labs reputation to be wrong. If you have any done now I would ask them to run it fully and give you the results no matter what they are, and hope they give you a copy of the full results before they contact anyone else about the results.

I agree with this. It is the reason we didn't go for DNA testing on the bones. Even if you had a full test done, you would still have problems with the contamination issue if there are any human markers present. Only with a body or a verifiable part thereof is DNA testing going to be of any use. Then comparisons will be able to be made.