Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[SWWASAS]

Maybe we don't need bones or a body.    Just saw this today.  

 

     

Scientists say they've figured out a way to extract tiny traces of ancient human DNA from dirt in caves that lack skeletal remains.

The technique could be valuable for reconstructing human evolutionary history, according to the study published Thursday in the journal Science.

That's because fossilized bones, currently the main source of ancient DNA, are scarce even at sites where circumstantial evidence points to a prehistoric human presence.

"There are many caves where stone tools are found but no bones," said Matthias Meyer, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who co-authored the study.

The researchers collected 85 sediment samples from seven caves in Europe and Russia that humans are known to have entered or even lived in between 14,000 and 550,000 years ago.

By refining a method previously used to find plant and animal DNA, they were able to search specifically for genetic material belonging to ancient humans and other mammals.

Scientists focused on mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down the maternal line, because it is particularly suited to telling apart closely related species. And by analyzing damaged molecules they were able to separate ancient genetic material from any contamination left behind by modern visitors

The researchers found evidence of 12 mammal families including extinct species such as woolly mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, cave bear and cave hyena.

By further enriching the samples for human-like DNA, however, the scientists were able to detect genetic traces of Denisovans — a mysterious lineage of ancient humans first discovered in a cave in Siberia — and Neanderthals from samples taken at four sites.

Crucially, one of the sites where they discovered Neanderthal DNA was a cave in Belgium, known as Trou Al'Wesse, where no human bones had ever been found, though stone artefacts and animal bones with cut marks strongly suggested people had visited it.

Eske Willerslev, who helped pioneer the search for DNA in sediment but wasn't involved in the latest research, said the new study was an interesting step, but cautioned that it's difficult to determine how old sediment samples found in caves are.

"In general (it) is very disturbed and unless you can show that's not the case you have no idea of the date of the findings," said Willerslev, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Meyer said the new method greatly increases the number of sites where archaeologists will be able to find genetic evidence to help fill gaps in the history of human evolution and migration, such as how widespread Neanderthal populations were and which stone tools they were able to make.

Scientists may also be able to greatly expand their limited knowledge of the Denisovans, whose DNA can still be found in Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians today, by using the new procedure.

"In principle, every cave where there's evidence of human activity now offers this possibility," Meyer told The Associated Press.

___

Follow Frank Jordans on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/wirereporter

 

 

 

 

 

YOU MIGHT LIKE

 

Police: Captive Woman Found Crying In Pit In Neighbor's Shed

18 hours ago

 

ESPN Laying Off 100 Broadcasters, Writers As Viewers Dwindle

16 hours ago

 

Ex-Congresswoman Accused Of Living Large On Charity Funds

6 hours ago

 

Trump Tax Plan Could Be Good News For Many, Bad For Deficit

18 hours ago

 

California Dad Of Missing 5-Year-Old Boy Released From Jail

1 day ago

 

•  
• Customer Support
• CenturyLink.com
• Privacy Policy
• Internet Terms and Conditions
• About Our Ads
• About CenturyLink
• Ad Choices
• Legal Notices
• Feedback 

  

• Copyright ©2017 CenturyLink

 

 

 

[Night Walker]

Norse – I was simply demonstrating that your previous claim (ie “it sure in the heck is CLEAR enough to be on par with any trail camera video the CCP could manage to capture”) was not quite as accurate as you made out...

Bigfoot being filmed anonymously and then posted on YouTube is not usually something to get excited about. However, if you are personally convinced by this video then what efforts have you made to confirm its authenticity? I’d hate to think that you set the bar for evidence that low or that this current discussion has thus far uncovered more than you…

 

Dmaker – we are concerned with LFTBM only as a kind of date-stamp to try to work out when the Mama&BabyBigfoot video first surfaced…

 

Airdale – the earliest internet chatter I can find about this video is Feb 5, 2013:

 

Clear Video of Bigfoot Filmed During Independence Day? 

According to experts, the suit presented in this video is only 1 percent away from the Patterson-Gimlin creature. Looks real enough to pass the ole smello-meter in our opinion. Check out the part where it's walking around with a baby.
Category: Entertainment
Licence: Standard YouTube Licence

www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8zv4WCCtrY

The next day (Feb 6, 2013) the blog discussing the video claims that it originally surfaced in 2010. Leroy Blevins was blamed for hoax but he vehemently denied it and, in turn, blamed FBFB for creating the hoax… http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/who-really-filmed-this-clear-video.html

 

 

23 hours ago, BobbyO said:

 

Definitely NW, well it was definitely purported to be from the Olympic Peninsula when I first saw it.

 

Can't be certain of the year's however but certainly before LFTBM came out, most definitely.

 

I think it could most definitely be 10 years back I first saw that vid.

 

I have a geeky, warped ability to remember certain things like this where this subject is concerned for some reason..;)

 

The original video I saw had it titled as such if I remember right, or at least in the description of the video.

 

Possibly YouTube but I can't recall for sure.

 

Can anyone back you up on this? Did you write anything down about it at the time? Is there anything in the original BFF archives that mention it? Anyone willing and able to check?

I know enough about how memory works to not trust it completely without more definite confirmation – not even my own memories. Confidence in the accuracy of one’s own particular memory is, unfortunately, not a good predictor of its actual accuracy…

 

YouTube was created in Feb 2005 and Google bought it in Nov 2006… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

 

Edited April 28, 2017 by Night Walker

[norseman]

Night Walker,

 

Only a body will do, I don't care about video. 

 

But dont complain about clarity, and then shift gears to authenticity, when you don't like the fact the video is pretty clear.

 

Your proving my point for me.

 

But please continue on discussing the really really super duper crystal clear video in which the unknown creature acts in a really super duper correct way that you would expect an unknown creature to act like......so you will be really really convinced Bigfoot is real.

 

 

[Night Walker]

21 minutes ago, norseman said:

Night Walker,

 

Only a body will do, I don't care about video. 

 

But dont complain about clarity, and then shift gears to authenticity, when you don't like the fact the video is pretty clear.

 

Your proving my point for me.

 

But please continue on discussing the really really super duper crystal clear video in which the unknown creature acts in a really super duper correct way that you would expect an unknown creature to act like......so you will be really really convinced Bigfoot is real.

 

 

 

Aren't both clarity and authenticity important? I take it that your only research into this video is just watching it...

 

I like it that the video is pretty clear but it is simply not as clear as you suggest. Please don't lecture me about shifting gears/goalposts/whatever when you are being plenty shifty yourself...

[BobbyO]

8 hours ago, Night Walker said:

Norse – I was simply demonstrating that your previous claim (ie “it sure in the heck is CLEAR enough to be on par with any trail camera video the CCP could manage to capture”) was not quite as accurate as you made out...

Bigfoot being filmed anonymously and then posted on YouTube is not usually something to get excited about. However, if you are personally convinced by this video then what efforts have you made to confirm its authenticity? I’d hate to think that you set the bar for evidence that low or that this current discussion has thus far uncovered more than you…

 

Dmaker – we are concerned with LFTBM only as a kind of date-stamp to try to work out when the Mama&BabyBigfoot video first surfaced…

 

Airdale – the earliest internet chatter I can find about this video is Feb 5, 2013:

 

Clear Video of Bigfoot Filmed During Independence Day? 

According to experts, the suit presented in this video is only 1 percent away from the Patterson-Gimlin creature. Looks real enough to pass the ole smello-meter in our opinion. Check out the part where it's walking around with a baby.
Category: Entertainment
Licence: Standard YouTube Licence

www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8zv4WCCtrY

The next day (Feb 6, 2013) the blog discussing the video claims that it originally surfaced in 2010. Leroy Blevins was blamed for hoax but he vehemently denied it and, in turn, blamed FBFB for creating the hoax… http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/who-really-filmed-this-clear-video.html

 

 

 

Can anyone back you up on this? Did you write anything down about it at the time? Is there anything in the original BFF archives that mention it? Anyone willing and able to check?

I know enough about how memory works to not trust it completely without more definite confirmation – not even my own memories. Confidence in the accuracy of one’s own particular memory is, unfortunately, not a good predictor of its actual accuracy…

 

YouTube was created in Feb 2005 and Google bought it in Nov 2006… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

 

 

I'm fully aware of memory retention and its limits too, i can assure you, i just completed the toughest memory retention geography test on the planet.

 

Do/Did i write down info on every Sasquatch video i watch ? Absolutely not.

 

Can anyone back me up on this ? I have no idea.

 

Is there anything in the BFF Archives about this ? I don't know, have a look.

 

Anyone willing to check ? Not me, i couldn't care less if anyone believes what i'm saying or not, i'm just telling you that the first time i saw that video it was purported, by whoever and wherever the video was being put out there, to be from the Olympic Peninsula and i know it was well before LFTBM came out for sure. I take an interest in all WA related Sasquatch bits and bobs and this one for some reason, stuck. If you're so interested in this for whatever reason, i'm surprised you're asking if there are others willing to spend their own time finding x and y for you. That's not really how it works. In the words of my great late Nan, "Get off your **** and do it yourself."..;)

Edited April 28, 2017 by BobbyO

[dmaker]

What does LFTBM have to do with the mama Bigfoot video? I don't see any connection.

[norseman]

9 hours ago, Night Walker said:

 

Aren't both clarity and authenticity important? I take it that your only research into this video is just watching it...

 

I like it that the video is pretty clear but it is simply not as clear as you suggest. Please don't lecture me about shifting gears/goalposts/whatever when you are being plenty shifty yourself...

 

Absolutely I just watched it!! I think it's probably a fake.....a very clear one at that! But that's just my opinion! It's not a blobsquatch, it's not a bear, it's not a human. It's a Bigfoot with a baby. There is absolutely NO clarity issue at all. I can immediately see that on the film.

 

The PGF is the most documented and well known film site for a Bigfoot in the world....so what!!?? How does it's "authenticity" help Patty be real in the eyes of science!!?? It DOESNT.

 

Dude I'm sooooooo not shifty, I have been beating the type specimen drum for so long and so loud on this forum....your way off mark.

 

All ONE person has to do is pick up a rifle instead of a camera.....you want clarity? How does 600 lbs of DNA testable physical evidence sound to you? That's clear. That's stick a fork in it clear.

 

And Lastly.....let's just say for a second a government agency gets really really clear photoage of a Bigfoot with a camera trap? How do they vouch for it's authenticity? I promise you the first thing the Biologists think if they ever encountered Bigfoot on their film? 

 

Is that they were being punked. 

[SWWASAS]

Yep.    They would probably be amazed at how good the costume looks and remark on that to each other.     Look at that,  the costume maker must have knowledge of biology since the muscles show through.      After all being men and women of science they appreciate technology.   

Edited April 28, 2017 by SWWASAS

[NCBFr]

I wish the BF with baby video had real sound as opposed to the background music.  If it were real I would expect some serious screaming to be coming the way of the camera man.  Something to tell the cameraman to get the heck away from my baby.

[Guest DWA]

That video looks about as fakeyfake as I have seen.  I thought, cool video game!

One thing you always think about a video with zero backstory:  Um, why?

 

P/G had backstory all over it.  This is, what, guy tossing us a video?  And vid-game characters move like that; animals don't.

On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 5:07 PM, SWWASAS said:

Beyond that,  much of what Drew says does not happen,  has happened.     I know of a couple of people now who have pretty convincing trail cams photos (they have chosen not to publish them) ,  I have examined what I believe to be BF skat, and bodies have been available as the result of vehicle collisions, and people shooting BF going back hundreds of years.        Fossils are such a rarity, that many animals accepted by science have no fossil record.       None of that makes any difference to science related to BF but anyone but a devout skeptic should at least be aware of that and open to the possibility of existence.     

Same old same old scoftic BS, eh?  Do they think we don't remember what they say from one day to the next? And what we said back?  I'm gonna have to write a Scoftic Primer. To start:

 

1.  Don't talk about the fossil record; you are gonna be made to look foolish.

2.  Don't say something has never happened.  First, you don't know that I know a prospector in the Yukon with the COOLEST doorstop for his cabin; second, DON'T SAY SOMETHING HASN'T HAPPENED WHEN IT HAS and there's a record of it!

3.  Get out of that box and look around at the big wide world.  Just once.  Sheesh.

[dmaker]

Where is it documented that bodies have been made available as a result of vehicle collisions? 

[BobbyO]

On 4/27/2017 at 4:16 PM, dmaker said:

Why are we concerned about LFTBM? The suit used in the mama bigfoot video does not look like the one used in LFTBM. The image that Night Walker posted does not claim to be from the mama bigfoot video. It also has a ufo in it. Note the lack of ufo in the mama bigfoot video. I don't see any connection between LFTBM and the mama bigfoot video. 

 

 

The connection was in what Night Walker wrote.

 

He/She said the image from LFTBM was at the tart of the Mama BF video, hence a connection..

 

N=Not sure how you failed to work that out for you to be fair D, i only hd to look back over a page of posts to see it.

 

Time consuming again, to clarify for someone else, when they easily cold have done it themselves.. 

On 4/28/2017 at 3:14 PM, dmaker said:

What does LFTBM have to do with the mama Bigfoot video? I don't see any connection.

 

Again...

[SWWASAS]

In just one book with BF reports I found several that referenced vehicle collisions where the BF was killed.    Since humans, and their cars were involved, once they are driven or towed away no one really knows what happened to the BF.     Deer, elk etc are normally removed after some time in this area too.   It is rare that they stay long enough to be torn apart by scavengers.    For all we know BF pick up freshly killed deer and elk and haul them off.   That exact situation has been reported.    Oh I know that some do not accept anecdotal accounts at any level.      I guess until a bigfoot researcher or biologist themselves run into a BF,   nothing will ever be protected and made available for study.  Most people worry about their own injuries or vehicle when something like that happens.    Would take a special focus to deal with the BF and not your own issues.     Then again if the BF tribe is around, perhaps it might be very dangerous to try to remove the body.  

[Guest DWA]

It seems the least scientific approach imaginable to say something didn't happen when a number of reports say it did and one has no evidence that would lead one to believe the reports are mistaken.

 

If it is reported...it stands unchallenged, until *one provides evidence* that the report is mistaken, and assumptions don't cut it.  This is so fundamental to scientific endeavor that one would not think it necessary to say.  But then, look where we are, and think about why.

Edited May 30, 2017 by DWA

[norseman]

1 minute ago, DWA said:

It seems the least scientific approach imaginable to say something didn't happen when a number of reports say it did and one has no evidence that would lead one to believe the reports are mistaken.

 

If it is reported...it stands unchallenged, until *one provides evidence* that the report is mistaken, and assumptions don't cut it.  This is so fundamental to scientific endeavor that one would not think it necessary to say.  But then, look where we are, and think about why.

 

No. Nope. Nein. Nyet. Nada..........

 

Again my scientifically challenged fellow, this IS NOT how science works!!!!!

 

You need physical evidence to prove the reports CORRECT!

 

Its simple. I'm reporting seeing a green dragon in my garage. OK. I need physical proof. Some dragon skin, a tooth, a claw, a bloody corpse, etc....... No matter if it's just me. Or a million other people. Special pleading and attributes for the beast need not apply.

 

Lets try to stop with the special pleading and attempting to send human society back to the dark ages, m'kay?