Where Have All The Giants Gone?

[Cotter]

^LOL

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

I am a descended from Native American giant and yet I wonder if you are not buying into delusional thinking.

 

How do you know you are descended from NA giants? Just curious...

 

Either because I'm delusional and a follower of Zecharia Sitchin or... actually My great Grandfather was native and giant...

Intuition, but the meaning is different from the classic Nephilim pseudo scientific fantasy. more psycho spiritual. As such I have encountered different natuaral cryptid "giants". However in native knowledge the elder of a species is represented by a giant individual who is a "Grandfather" who controls and is the pattern for his species, either locally or universally. Perhaps Bigfoot is a "Giant" with similar abilities regarding hominids. He evolved out of our path as a constellation of rejected abilities beyond the apprehension of modern man but as a "master animal"  the reason we cannot control Bigfoot is he is the actual controller. 

If we start catching Bigfoot I would guess we are at the boundary of an extinction level event.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

No DNA in redheads!  That's it, I don't trust em, if I can't prove their human I cant prove they're real!!!!

Red heads cold come from albinism, African descendants, Mideastern, etc. The feature did not arise first in Europe but near last. If you want to assert a specific population (for what reason? Eurocentric we where here first, too argumentation?) Then present an Archaeological horizon. I.E. before this date this cultural constellation exists and after this date we find that another culture existing along with it's artifacts, bones, and detritus. It is the minimal scientific requirement.

[ohiobill]

Randy, where did you find the info that there is no DNA in red or blonde hair? I know that peroxides commonly used in hair dyes can ruin samples.

[SWWASAS]

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2013/04/challenges-dna-testing-and-forensic-analysis-hair-samples

Here is a article that addresses this. It is a good read and explains the problems with getting BF DNA from hair. It sure explains why Sykes can examine dozens of samples and not be able to determine the source. I think he has misled a lot of people into thinking hair DNA testing is definitive. It is unlikely to result in a DNA sequence. It is very difficult to sequence DNA from hair, unless you have the root. Pretty much no root and you don't get anything that will likely sequence according to this source. As the article mentions even washing hair destroys DNA in it. I guess that blonds wash their hair more than dark haired people. They are missing or have little of the pigment that is in the middle layer of the hair that gives it the color. After reading this article I am glad I have not been spending money on DNA testing of hair samples. Looks like a waste of time unless your goal is to make people think that DNA tests of hair would show if any were BF.

[ohiobill]

I think you may want to reread the article. I'm not seeing where you are finding your information that red hair and blond hair contain no DNA?

 

The article states a 60%-70% success rate in extracting Nuclear DNA from hairs with attached roots, Successful Mitochondrial DNA extraction rates (not stated in article) are higher due to thousands more copies of MtDNA vs Nuclear DNA. MtDNA can be extracted from hair shafts without roots. Dr. Sykes used MtDNA,  http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/01/yeti-bigfoot-dna-hair-study-science-animals-himalaya/ 

[SWWASAS]

Ohiobill: Part of my problem is all the conferences and presentations I have attended. If you look at page 22 through 25 of Powell's "The Locals" He references Dr Fahrenbach who discusses lack of a medulla in suspected sasquatch hair. The medulla is the often hollow inner core of hair where any cells containing DNA can get trapped and yield DNA. The book states: "An interesting thing about the lack of a medulla is that this condition also is seen in some blond human hair. And without a medulla, neither blond human hair, nor sasquatch hair, yields any usable DNA for analysis. " DNA if present has to be in the root structure or trapped as cells in the hollow medulla. Suspected sasquatch hair under a microscope while it may be dark brown looks reddish under a microscope and has no medulla.

I quite frankly do not trust Dr Sykes motivations for testing DNA. Unlike Dr Disotell who seems genuinely interested in testing for BF DNA, Sykes seemed entirely too pleased with himself when he "proves" submitted samples were something else. He certainly does not mention the lack of medulla factor with relationship to DNA with his testing nor does he hypothesize what would be observed if humans and BF are related. His thing seems to be dismiss a sample and move on. People on this forum have submitted suspected BF hair to Sykes only to find that it was never tested and was never returned.

If BF hair and human hair, especially blonds or redheads, are that similar, as I have stated before, I think it extremely unlikely that hair DNA will ever yield anything definitive. To do so you have to get a hair that is somehow yanked out and has the root cells attached. Normal human hair just breaks off at some distance from the root. If BF hair is similar, hair that is shed will exhibit similar properties and not likely yield DNA.

[ohiobill]

Randy - I don't understand your skepticism towards Dr. Sykes, his work is available for review and critique? Do you feel his work is untrustworthy for some reason? HairyMan has stated that the sample sent in from NAWAC tested human but wasn't returned - is that what you are referring to?

 

Having not read "The Locals" I can only assume that a mistake or misunderstanding occurs in the book or in your interpretation. Hairs of all colors can be sequenced correctly - having the root attached just makes it more likely to find nuDNA. Hair color is found mainly in the cortex, not the medulla, so I'm not sure why anyone would think that the lack of a medulla has anything to do with hair color? Hair shafts are routinely sequenced for both nuDNA (some may have samples that haven't undergone cornification) and MtDNA. You do NOT need a root attached to test for MtDNA or nuDNA but odds go up for nuDNA in hairs with an attached root. MtDNA is perfect for testing samples from different species like Dr. Sykes showed. Bear, raccoon, porcupine and human were easily differentiated using MtDNA. 

 

Hopefully I can sway your opinion towards the feasibility of using hair as a definitive method suitable for the field. I'm attaching the conclusion from a study that counters your current opinion after studying and testing the matter. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0069588

 

"In conclusion, we developed a simple and cost-effective method to extract DNA from hair shafts using enzymatic laundry powder and PCR buffer with high efficiency and even can extract DNA from trace amount (0.1 mg) of hair shafts. The extract could be directly used as template to amplify the target gene. Repeated experiments also showed the good stability and reliability of the approach. The results indicated the simple method has a good practical future regarding its cost-effectiveness and easily operation. Considering hair shafts characteristics of easy to get, transport and store, we believe the proposed method in this study will find more applications in the animal husbandry traceability research, breeding cultivation and wild animal biodiversity study, etc."

[SWWASAS]

I did not say that hair color has anything to do with the medulla only that a high percentage of human blond hair does not have a medulla. The question is, and I don't know, does the hair have to have a medulla to protect DNA in the interior of the hair? Powell claims Fahrenbach says that. The root end is exposed and would have to be tested fairly quickly for it to be viable. Fahrenbach says that even normal human hair washing destroys human hair DNA so it must be pretty fragile in thin hairs like human hair. Sykes methodology mentions carefully washing hair samples to try to eliminate contamination. I think Sykes is being disingenuous and purposefully obfuscating the reliability of testing hair samples. So what if he has tested dozens of samples and most turn out to be known animals. One would expect that collecting hair samples in the woods. He has a lot that he categorizes as contaminated. Are they? Known and more common animals would be far more common that some exceedingly rare creature.

I do not think you can sway my opinion because unless I see a BF leave a tuff of hair on a blackberry bush, or pull hair out of a BF on a lab table, probability dictates that any hair found in the woods will be something other than a BF. Just because other animals are far more common. Taxonomy can help eliminate some samples but until we have a known BF hair sample, we have no idea what it really looks like and taxonomy is not much help. We are just guessing and testing samples without something to tie them to BF is unlikely to succeed. I do not have the money to run around collecting samples to test unless something ties it directly to BF. That tie is very hard to get. I have documented several footprints but I have yet to see the BF that made them.

Edited December 18, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[ohiobill]

It doesn't sound like you've had a chance to read the study I attached earlier but hopefully after you do we will be able to agree that blonde hairs (with or without a medulla present) and red hair both contain DNA which can be sequenced irregardless of what was presented in "The Locals".

 

The study clearly implies that the medulla doesn't protect the DNA as you currently seem to believe - " but the exact location of recoverable nuDNA in the hair shafts remains unclear. According to the literature [14], [18]–[20], we supposed that it is localized in the cuticle (outer layer). For this reason, we tried enzymatic laundry powder with the assumption that it can get enough nuDNA from cuticle as PCR template but less amplification inhibition substances" with good results as documented in the link I provided.

 

I think you are disingenuously and unfairly implying that Dr. Sykes (or any researcher) who washes samples prior to testing is intentionally ruining their chances of recovering intact DNA when even a cursory read of every study provides evidence that washing the hairs multiple times is an accepted and even necessary protocol. 

 

I'm certainly not trying to sway your opinion that "probability dictates that any hair found in the woods will be something other than a BF" as I agree with you on this point. As I've stated, I'm hoping to change the fact that you "think it extremely unlikely that hair DNA will ever yield anything definitive" and I feel it would be easy if you actually read what researchers in the field are doing rather than rely on "The Locals" for your information. Every successful test involving hair DNA completed to date is refutation to your theory that it's "extremely unlikely that hair DNA will ever yield anything definitive". I will also point out that we don't need a sample in GenBank to provide evidence of an unknown primate...a Sassy hair could be tested and classified not only by what it might contain but also by what it may be missing. 

 

I hope that by putting out factual information, rather than opinion supported solely by books like "The Locals" found in the "Occult and Paranormal" section of Amazon, we will help anyone actually interested in approaching this subject scientifically. 

[SWWASAS]

As I said in a previous response that my computer deleted before I sent it, you obviously know more about DNA testing than I do. I am not aware of any hair DNA test to date that is "successful test" evidence of BF. Could you enlighten us and if that is true, why are we still arguing existence with skeptics? For hair DNA to yield anything you have to find something you know is a BF hair that has viable DNA. Just that problem makes hair DNA acceptance unlikely unless you have a body. If you have a body you don't need to test hair other than describe its taxonomy. Now explain how I am wrong?

[ohiobill]

I don't claim to be a DNA expert but I have read numerous studies and all of H.V. Hart's posts on this forum which I suggest to anyone who is serious about understanding what is possible. 

 

I don't know of, and doubt existence of, any DNA test positive for Sassy. As you say, we can't actually test for Sassy without a known sample. I'm sure we would have heard of it in a reputable journal and through widespread media coverage. I believe that rumor was started by DWA even before he had his epic April Fool's day fail. I'd have to look it up but I assume he fell for Ketchum's "study" and that's the reason he has never provided proof of this assertion although he rarely provides much beyond assertions so who knows? 

 

My point is that testing hair for DNA is definitive! If a viable sample can be obtained the very least we can find out is maternal lineage utilizing MtDNA. With nuDNA present we can gain information about not only the sample individual(s) but also something about both their parents.

 

Where you are wrong is insisting that we need a known Sassy sample to provide evidence of existence, we definitely don't. GenBank allows testing unknown samples against known samples in what's known as a "blast". Relationships can be determined by focusing on specific loci differences found in different animals and calculating percentages. H.V. Hart literally walks you through the whole process and shows step-by-step where Dr. Ketchum made her mistakes if you are willing to put a little time into it. It's not simple but it is definitive. A sample showing "unknown primate" or "unknown hominin" from a reputable lab would gain immediate attention and further study by well funded and full-time scientists. Hopefully H.V.Hart will begin posting more often when these topics come up but I will try to find a link if you want.

 

If you don't believe me about what could be possible with an "unknown" sample just google fu "Ketchum DNA" or DeNovo DNA" and look at the attention Dr. Ketchum's study received from experts around the world. 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The idea that that DNA can't be extracted from hair is apparently outdated, but either way, you don't have to do DNA testing on hairs to guess what species it came from. Just by observing the hair's morphology under a microscope, you can make a pretty good guess. Sasquatch hairs for instance fit the profile of human, except they have a reddish tinge and the ends are worn out http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p_176-177.pdf

 

A purported Sasquatch hair that was recovered by the NAWAC:

 

 

 

 

[ohiobill]

With DNA testing you don't have to guess but morphology does have a place, even in DNA studies like Dr. Sykes'. It only underscores how important it is for all of us to get a better grasp on what's possible rather than ascribing nefarious motives to folks when we don't even understand why they may perform testing in a specific manner. Maybe if we followed and understood what science is actually doing we wouldn't have to constantly hear about how science isn't addressing the topic.

 

I notice you placed "purported" in front of "Sasquatch hair that was recovered by the NAWAC" but not in front of "Sasquatch hairs for instance fit the profile of human, except they have a reddish tinge and the ends are worn out"? Is this an oversight or possibly a reflection on how you view NAWAC's offering?

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I can't say with complete certainty that the one hair in that photo is from a Sasquatch. With large collection of samples though, one can see patterns if there are any and make a case for it.