Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 (edited) I've recently read an article that was written by Dr. Henner Fahrenbach over a decade ago on sasquatch hair morphology and the DNA testing that's been done on purported samples. DNA analysis has been done on promising hair samples, but the conclusion has always been that the results were the result of contamination and that the DNA didn't actually come from the hair itself. When the article was written, it was presumed that DNA technology would improve over time, allowing for more effective extraction of DNA from hair samples. It's 2015 now and DNA technology has improved to a point where geneticists are able to both remove contamination and extract DNA from the shaft of a hair. The Sykes study was focused on doing just that, but the results are still the same as they were over a decade ago, which I think may be suggestive of the possibility that the animal in question, for some reason, possess modern human DNA. The video on the Snelgrove Lake blood sample was something I found interesting: The basic physiology and behavior that's described by eyewitnesses of Sasquatch indicate that it's not possible for it to be modern human. For instance, there isn't any evidence to suggest that they create tools (a hallmark being human) and the possibility of them developing traits such as a tapetum lucidum in just 15,000 years is astronomically low. Basically, their description alone can be considered hard evidence that they aren't human. A few years ago, Melba Ketchum came out with a theory that they are a hybrid, but the DNA sequences she provided weren't suggestive of that and the theory totally falls apart when you stop to think about what it would take to create an entire population of hybrids without us possessing any trace of their DNA. Recently there was a report from someone who frequents the Ouachita mountains that opened my mind to the possibility of a connection between Bigfoot and something else that is currently in the same basket as Bigfoot. I know it sounds crazy, but I now think there could be more to this phenomenon than meets the eye. Edited May 3, 2015 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Something else??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest possessed Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Are you thinking more humanoid or apelike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 There's no evidence of any non-human ape DNA unless the nuDNA of Sasquatch has a contribution from something else. The something else would also have to be great ape and genus homo if the mtDNA was still modern human. if the mtDNA was distinctively different from modern human and detectable with screening methods, we would see BF proven........provided that the scientific establishment wants it proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faenor Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 I've recently read an article Recently there was a report from someone who frequents the Ouachita mountains that opened my mind to the possibility of a connection between Bigfoot and something else that is currently in the same basket as Bigfoot. I know it sounds crazy, but I now think there could be more to this phenomenon than meets the eye. The dogman also likes throwing rocks and only comes around when the cameras are off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 There seems to be a recurring pattern of hair samples showing the same results and being ruled out as contamination. Perhaps it really is the result of contamination, but I think at this point other possibilities might need to be considered. I've read that Dr. Meldrum is currently overseeing a new DNA study this year and I think they already have hair samples that they plan on getting testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted May 3, 2015 Moderator Share Posted May 3, 2015 I just do not get it? how can there be contamination on hair or the root of hair when the testing is done internal. If the contamination is on the out side of the hair being tested ,can not there be a way of cleaning the sample. I can see the oils or such rubbing on the hair samples from us who have collected the sample. So can not this contamination be cleaned off the hair sample before being tested. The other thing that has me with DNA is the fact that there are others here who would agree that the change of custody is not better observed. That the charge of custody should be logged and their DNA tested so that it could be observed with the collection of hair samples. I can see maybe one or two being contaminated of the sample but all the samples? There has to be some thing to the DNA that keeps coming up with human. Sample after sample that keep coming back as part human has to be from the real deal. The other thing what percentage of the DNA is human and what percentage keep coming back as unknown mixed with unknown primate. Also at what ratio is the Human aspect to the unknown primate is amongst the DNA samples that have been tested. The creature although very primitive and yes no tool usage that I have observed have acted in a very human way. It is not like other animals where you can predict them because of their habits. You cannot set up a tree stand and say that a Bigfoot will walk down this trail like you can with a deer or any other animal. You cannot predict their action because they do not abide by the law of nature. So by them able to think on their own and behave not like the animals of the forest ,in my opinion that makes them human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Saying that it isn't the result of contamination would basically go against the theory of evolution. The most logical conclusion is contamination or a regular human source. If you were to genetically modify a human being to look and behave like Sasquatch (it's theoretically possible), the result would be the same. You would get mitochondrial DNA that's 100% modern human. The differences would be seen in the nuclear DNA, but only in the segments of genetic code that you modify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 (edited) I don't know how the people found the hair. If they plucked it from a bush in the general vicinity of a sighting then it could be anything. How many of these hair samples were directly from a bigfoot? The story I'm thinking about is the one I read about the guy that hit one on a motorcycle, neither was hurt, but he walked away with a handful of the creature's hair. Now that kind of sample would be worth the money spent to have it tested. Edited May 3, 2015 by Divergent1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted May 3, 2015 Moderator Share Posted May 3, 2015 Saying that it isn't the result of contamination would basically go against the theory of evolution. The most logical conclusion is contamination or a regular human source. If you were to genetically modify a human being to look and behave like Sasquatch (it's theoretically possible), the result would be the same. You would get mitochondrial DNA that's 100% modern human. The differences would be seen in the nuclear DNA, but only in the segments of genetic code that you modify. So in a way you are saying that science is scared of evolution change. if discovered that the DNA of these creatures were not contaminated but found to be that of human in such a evolutionary way. Yes the books would have to be re-written and who knows where we as humans would be on the tree of life. I have read that the strongest part of the DNA structure was from the mothers origins and not that of the fathers. Even with the nuclear DNA you are still looking at the mothers origins . Not sure if I am right about this but is not the mitochondrial DNA efficient for ID'ing of origins. Just that for me it does not make sense that retesting after retesting should be done when you have many samples of different origins resulting in the same. It is like saying that I do not like this result let me do another until I can come with the answer I like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 In another interview with Dr. Disotell, I recall him saying that contamination is very very common, even with today's methods. I don't think it's that crazy to think that all these cases are the result of contamination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 There seems to be a recurring pattern of hair samples showing the same results and being ruled out as contamination. Perhaps it really is the result of contamination, but I think at this point other possibilities might need to be considered. I've read that Dr. Meldrum is currently overseeing a new DNA study this year and I think they already have hair samples that they plan on getting testing. I do hope Meldrum continues with his hair testing project, and that we here from him on the results. Hopefully he'll have some answers on a sample I sent him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I guess it's one thing to get the DNA & another thing entirely to interpret the DNA. So.... as Kathy Strain says, it's gonna take a body on a slab & the organization(NAWAC) she's involved with has all their ducks in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 What I find astonishing is that the blood they collected from a certain area was contaminated??? By what??? I still haven't heard a good answer to that one???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 If it was blood on a rock that had been there for days it would be difficult to lift that without some of your own DNA getting into the mix. All it takes is one skin cell. I doubt they had more than gloves on at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts