Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 You're right that we need a voucher specimen to confirm any DNA. There's a catch-22 when it comes to proving the existence of Bigfoot using DNA technology. To prove they exist through DNA analysis, you would need a specimen to compare the DNA to (to settle any doubts within the science community), but by then the species is already proven to exist. Basically, DNA alone won't do it, but DNA analysis is a necessary step once a specimen is collected. At this point in Bigfoot research, all that's left is collecting a specimen. There isn't much else to learn about the animals through typical research methods.
SWWASAS Posted April 24, 2015 BFF Patron Posted April 24, 2015 We know darn little about their behavior so there is a lot to learn there. Do they migrate? If so how far? Do they have a patriarchy, or are they like bears in which the males are opportunists? Do they mate for life? How long do the young stay with their mother? Do they climb trees as juveniles then stop? What do they really eat? Where to they sleep? Do they congregate in family units? Why are they so darn fussy about getting their picture taken? Why are they so fussy about leaving footprints? Are they the reason for disappearing humans? I have a lot of questions I would like to have answers for.
Guest DWA Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 Actually they are not fussy at all about leaving footrpints, why we have so many. Other than that I think what Ontario means is that the answers to those questions will get no traction until the animal is confirmed. Of how many species have we known much at all before that?
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 I've thought about this a lot and it seems that even once the animal is confirmed and there are teams of qualified people out in the field, we still won't learn much about them because there are already skilled hunters and trackers that are part of groups like the NAWAC and they're giving it their best in a rare location where there are supposedly a lot of them. The only hope is for technology to improve to a point where we can study them without having people look for them on foot. I think it should be pretty clear by now that looking for them on foot just doesn't work. It's a harsh and often overlooked truth in Bigfoot research.
BigTreeWalker Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 I've mentioned that before. It won't be like studying chimpanzees or gorillas. We will still have the same problem of having to find them, then trying to approach them. Unless the habituators want to do the scientific studying.
Lake County Bigfooot Posted April 26, 2015 Author Posted April 26, 2015 (edited) Started into Nature of the Beast, just got my copy of Sykes new book, the first chapter tells the story I discussed of how Lori Simmons and Rhettman Mullis took Sykes to the tree where a Sasquatch has somehow managed to find or build a den under. While he tried to be skeptical he could not rationalize what took place there and was left with the question of how such a creature could exist. It certainly sounds like that trip to the USA affected his perspective on the matter. The notion of studying the hair samples that arose prior to that was due to advances in the ability to extract the DNA from hairs that previously yielded too little DNA to sequence. Also what opened his mind to the possibility was the recent discovery that Europeans had interbred with Neanderthals more recently than previously thought, allowing for a possibility of a remnant population to still exist. The last chapter in the book discusses Zana, and much of what lies between is discussing the hair study, so I guess the impression of the book is that it is his attempt to introduce the idea that such creatures could exist and that scientific evidence is present for that notion, welcome to the club Mr. Sykes. Edited April 26, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot
Guest DWA Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 I have always considered Sykes a serious scientist who, like a number of them, over-skepticized on this topic. Anyone who can change his mind on a seriously tightly-held position is clearly displaying his scientific chops. Science is about changing your mind when the evidence does.
Sunflower Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 I've mentioned that before. It won't be like studying chimpanzees or gorillas. We will still have the same problem of having to find them, then trying to approach them. Unless the habituators want to do the scientific studying. Some of the habituators have donated hairs, but to do what Jane Goodall did is out of the question. She was funded, and most, if not all of the habbers are not funded, as far as I know... Any of the costs associated with "studying" (which I refer to as "observing") have been paid for out of my/their own pocket(s). I'm sure that's how most of us operate. Besides, some of us aren't into the science 100% and just enjoy the interaction and friendship. They may make chimp noises from time to time but they are not chimps. The other issue is - they do the choosing it seems and they are in control. If you find a group/clan consider yourself lucky, you hit the lotto, but it may not last and is certainly not a sure thing. There are a few instances of hairless and hairy folks interacting for years and years but it's not the norm. They are an enigma, they surely have been watching us for who knows how long and they've definitely seen how we treat each other at times and that might be part of the reason for them being so elusive????? Just a thought..... I appreciate the biologists like you who spend your time and money hunting for proof, just get ready for the blowback, which is nothing new in the scientific community.
BigTreeWalker Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 At least all our funding is our own, so no grant money to be accountable for. We got into this out of our own curiosity. Then we found this evidence which we knew was of importance. So we knew we had to preserve and present it. If it is looked into more closely by the scientific community, that's what we are hoping for. If not, that seems to be the nature of the beast (pun intended). ;-) 1
SWWASAS Posted April 26, 2015 BFF Patron Posted April 26, 2015 Some of the habituators have donated hairs, but to do what Jane Goodall did is out of the question. She was funded, and most, if not all of the habbers are not funded, as far as I know... Any of the costs associated with "studying" (which I refer to as "observing") have been paid for out of my/their own pocket(s). I'm sure that's how most of us operate. Besides, some of us aren't into the science 100% and just enjoy the interaction and friendship. They may make chimp noises from time to time but they are not chimps. The other issue is - they do the choosing it seems and they are in control. If you find a group/clan consider yourself lucky, you hit the lotto, but it may not last and is certainly not a sure thing. There are a few instances of hairless and hairy folks interacting for years and years but it's not the norm. They are an enigma, they surely have been watching us for who knows how long and they've definitely seen how we treat each other at times and that might be part of the reason for them being so elusive????? Just a thought..... I appreciate the biologists like you who spend your time and money hunting for proof, just get ready for the blowback, which is nothing new in the scientific community. Sunflower would you consider yourself a habituater? I don't really like that term myself. I am well aware of BF stranger danger reactions. But when I have offered technical support to those that claim to have ongoing habitat interaction it has always been refused for various reasons. Certainly people have the right to privacy and protection of the BF species. But I assume that BF habitation humans are here to share knowledge and information. The frustrating thing for me is if these situations are genuine, it offers a far better chance of learning about BF behavior. Certainly that behavior is modified by the human involvement in the mix, but it is better than guessing about BF behavior which is what most of what we have is based on. Anyway to those who are interested, I offer technical support and use of equipment for anyone that might be interested who have visitors to their property. I would do this without ever visiting the location or even knowing where it is. Certainly willing to work out any mutually agreeable conditions. That offer is on the table for anyone. All I ask is that information documented is shared. 2
Yuchi1 Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 I'm aware of three (3) seperate people that have/had a high level of interaction (habituators, to some) with these entities however, once word (aka: location) got out as to the situation, all began having major issues with armed intruders on their property. These people do communicate with each other however, because of previous hacking incidents, you'd probably have to have deep web access to get there, nowadays. So, you have the gunslinger set, hunting for BF and out there firing at shadows, blurs and otherwise unidentified targets. Then, you have the Smjea's of the world that (IMO) did kill one however, when the DNA results were first revealed (to him) changed the story (and, subsequent DNA samples sent to others) to black bear, out of concern for possible criminal justice issues. IMO, the State of Sasquatch Science in 2015 is the same as it has always been, a hockey game being held in an insane asylum. 2
BigTreeWalker Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 SWWSP, plus 1. I don't like the term either but everyone knows what it means. I would suggest these people keeping a journal of their behavioral observations. People do want to share their experiences it seems; this would be a useful way of doing it. At the point of proven existence this kind of information would then become invaluable. But, just like everything else you would have to take the good with the bad.
Guest DWA Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 (edited) One issue we frequently have in this field is people who don't provide evidence...because they see what happens when people do. I don't begrudge habituators a thing, and in fact feel a bit gleeful about the dirt they rub in the faces of people asking them for proof. They owe no one anything...and all the blame is on scientists who don't so much as address what other scientists in directly relevant fields have shoved right in front of them for examination. I have not bit one of frustration with habituators; first of all I don't even know if they're telling me the truth; second of all, the evidence tells me this animal is every bit as real as mountain lions and wolverines, neither of which I have seen in the flesh, and if Patty is a hoax when we have a movie of her, well hell, they could be too. So I don't really need anyone to tell me anything; I'm just hoping I get to see one someday, and am content to see whether that happens or not. Edited April 26, 2015 by DWA
Guest diana swampbooger Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 Looks like the Sasquatch Genome Project has added more data. I find this interesting. In parsing out more of the nuDNA of Homo sapiens cognatus, human DNA is included with a mosaic of other primate DNA. Couldn't find the haplogroup/s for it though.
Sunflower Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 Last time I read it was Haplogroup H but that was a few months ago. Haplogroup H comes from the area of Ethiopia 50,000 - 70,000 years ago. The "eve" and her group left and took several different side trips, some stayed in the area, while others kept moving North and slightly East. It's easy enough for anyone to look up how Haplogroup H traveled and to track the Mitochondrial Eve for said group.
Recommended Posts