Where Have All The Giants Gone?

[ohiobill]

With the variability of hair and human hair in particular (color, medulla size & presence etc) coupled with the purported similarities between human and Sassy hair I remain skeptical at this point.  Morphology is now mainly used to judge viability for DNA testing. http://makezine.com/laboratory-62-study-the-morphology/  

[Guest]

I thought squatch hair was hollow like a polar bears. Or had some other unusual characteristic to it, mainly no medula or end part that comes from the body, which is why they cant do DNA on it, because the hair cell is like a scale cell or???

[SWWASAS]

Ohiobill you made my point exactly with the comment about the NAWAC hair. A hair presumed from Sasquatch is available. If you are correct that hair DNA is defining, I presume they had it tested. What were the results? I do not recall seeing press releases, main stream science throwing up their hands in disbelief and primatologists mounting expeditions. At a conference I attended in the last few month photographs of a bigfoot nest was shown. Leaves of some bush or tree, I do not recall which one, had been broken off, arranged on a floor of the nest as some sort of bedding, and it was apparent this nest has well used. A PHD candidate, daughter of a researcher, was there and supervised the examination of the nest and collection of the hairs. That is about as vetted as hair collection can be. Hair samples were found, and presumably tested. The results of that testing are unknown but should have been available by now. While some species of monkeys in Africa might to be accepted on hair DNA evidence alone, because monkeys are known to live in Africa, the most earth shattering zoological find of the millennium in North America is not going to be accepted just from a hair sample.

Disotell sends samples out to other labs for testing. He has stated publically that he cannot tell them what they might be testing. Only that the sample is strange and he wants another opinion. If tells them what it might be, most labs refuse to test it. They want nothing to do with testing for BF DNA. All of these factors stack up against a hair sample being accepted as proof of an undiscovered species in North America.

The collection, transfer of custody, storage, and testing of whatever proves to be BF better be well vetted and something has to tie it to bigfoot. Most of what Sykes tested would not stand up to any sort of vetting process. Collection was by lay persons in most cases, collection protocol was unknown, transfer custody, storage, were all unknown until Sykes got it and began testing. We live in a world with global travel. Science will not more accept the anecdotal origin story of a hair that tests positive than it will accept the anecdotal sighting of a witness. Most of these samples were submitted by persons that were pretty certain that they were genuine. And most proved to be known animals. Some would not sequence and some were deem contaminated. I accept all that from Sykes. You are missing part of what I am saying about DNA with respect to hair; finding a bigfoot hair to test is very difficult. Let me use me as an example. I have had two encounters where I can return to the location establish the location within 100 ft radius. And several footprint finds within a couple of yards. If I divided up the larger radius into 1 ft square grids, and searched for hairs, and only selected the most likely hairs with presumed BF hair taxonomy, I could conceivably have 100s of hairs to test in the larger areas and none in the smaller ones. I would think that even if BF shed a hair or hairs in my grid, my chances of finding it would be nearly zero. We don't even know if they commonly shed hair. Hair from the Skookum cast was tested with negative results. Most were elk. The hair has to be from BF for it to test positive and finding that hair is the most difficult part of the process.

Edited December 19, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest]

Found one OP, this one is at least 8 foot tall. So it could possibly match your 10 foot tall bigfoot picture. It takes 10 foot walking/ running strides. BFRO-BFRO

[ohiobill]

Wag - Polar bear hair is a little strange. It has a hollow medulla to help trap air for insulation and it contains no pigment but it does contain DNA which researchers can use. http://cornerofthecabinet.com/2014/02/10/polar-bear-fur-isnt-technically-white-its-translucent/http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618151333.htm

 

Randy - I'm not sure if the particular hair in the pic was tested by NAWAC . Use your premium membership and read up on Area X for more info I can't link to here, hint, hint. 

 

I will agree with most of your post regarding collection, vetting, etc only in the context of a free test such as provided by Dr. Sykes. Certainly the person paying for or providing the test should have the right to refuse any and all submissions for any reason they see fit. For example, I wouldn't pay to test a sample coming from a park in downtown Chicago but I might pay to test a sample found in a footprint or on my shirt after a squatch reaches through an open window at my OK sassy camp and grabs me. If paid for by a private party there's no reason to worry about vetting, the only worry would be good protocols to ensure good samples. You don't need vetting to test a sample and no amount of vetting will change the outcome of the test itself. A human sample will test human, bear tests bear and Sassy would test "something" based on what it contains.The GenBank blast results, done correctly, will point out the best matches for each query. H.V. Hart has given suggestions on how he would test an unknown sample, I suggest reading up for more info.

 

I have no idea on the results of the nest you heard about? I suggest you contact them and find out, I'd be interested to know myself.  

 

I'm not sure how to address your concerns in the last two paragraphs - where you see thin prospects I see progress. I think your concerns about vetting, addressed above, have no impact at all and really aren't even relevant. DNA test results don't need a backstory, they just need to be repeatable. The rest of your concerns really have nothing to do with any inherent problem with DNA but are problems caused by researchers. 

 

Samples testing as known animals are to be expected, the wider the net cast the more varied the catch. All that proves is that DNA testing works, that's not a problem. Samples that won't sequence or are contaminated are to be expected but offer the possibility for better results in the future if researchers increase their knowledge about how to reduce contamination and better store evidence. I don't see any type of problem with the fact that any particular piece of prospective evidence tested comes back negative like your example of the Skookum cast. Either there is DNA evidence indicating an unknown animal or there isn't. That's not an indictment of DNA, that's an indictment of the evidence or researchers. 

[SWWASAS]

We seemed to have taken this thread well off topic. Back to the topic. What is infuriating to me is that I suspect BF bones have been in the Smithsonian. Where they are now only they know. Perhaps they were part of the material dumped into the Atlantic to get rid of it. When the bones were collected, DNA testing did not exist. If those bones were available now, DNA methods could be used on the teeth and large bones and the quest to find DNA in hair would not be of much interest other than develop family trees and relationships of the different BF groups in North America. If they are as widespread as witness reports, they have to have been isolated from each other for a very long time. It is a long way between Florida and the PNW with lots of human civilization in between.

Bones would tie the DNA to the species. I have maintained that while a live specimen or a freshly dead body would be very hard to come by, bones should be easier to get. It could be that handled right, some habituation situation could get them to voluntarily provide some. Who knows. I just have the feeling that some lava tube in some remote area of the PNW they stash all their dead. Some of them even are cold enough to have ice nearly year round.

Seems like there must be problems with the hair route and DNA. Many people are running around with purported BF hair, and surely they have tested it. The reasons for no results so far must be that, 1. It was something else to begin with, 2. There are problems with the testing that do not yield results, 3. The results that suggest contamination are not contamination but that BF is closely related to us. Any, some, or all of these factors must be at play. The only way to eliminate all three of these factors from consideration is to have a body, or at least a skeleton, available for testing to establish the species.

[Guest DWA]

People think science is about the ceaseless plumbing of the unknown by the passionate, driven, and smartest among us. 

 

As professionally practiced, nothing could be much further from the truth.

[hiflier]

Hello SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT,

 

We interrupt this program for an important special announcement.......

 

 There is a "4." that should be added to your list- the results were so explosive that none dare go public with them. I don't think it's an option that should be ruled out. If anything was found to support or prove an extant NA ape existed then it might be then known what greed has possibly done to the population.

 

 

 

 

And now back to your regularly scheduled program.......

Edited December 20, 2015 by hiflier

[Twist]

What would be an example, in your opinion, that would be explosive? A very close relative of ours? not of this world origins? Just curious.

[JDL]

I think we're getting past the era where people are surprised at government malfeasance. 

 

A concerted effort from academia using FOIA, congressional pressure, and other tools (the courts) could result in access to the Smithsonian's remaining holdings of artifacts collected before the Civil War .  This effort should also incorporate the BLM which has responsibility for collecting and maintaining such artifacts too.

 

Ultimately, if it turns out that artifacts have conveniently disappeared, the final resort could be controlled excavation of select mound sites, where it is likely that more artifacts can be found.  I would expect resistance to this, primarily from Native American groups for a couple of reasons. 

 

Confirmation of significant Old World communication with the Americas (such as centuries of inter-Atlantic trade) would definitely shake up the status quo.

[Twist]

I would hope that excavation of mound sites would receive resistance from not only Native American groups but anyone else with a sense of decency. I'm not at all big on purposely disturbing burial sites for a reason such as Bigfoot or looking for giants. Just my opinion however.

[ohiobill]

Randy - Of course there are problems in acquiring and testing DNA samples whether it comes from hair or bones. Problems are encountered when trying to test humans, apes or even large predators like Polar bears but samples are tested everyday as a matter of course. Pretending that there are insurmountable problems is silly and disingenuous. I've linked several links for you to articles and studies. and can link several hundred more if you will read any of them?

 

Regarding your list:

1. It was something else to begin with - Not a problem as the test worked, problem lies entirely with the submitter. 

2. There are problems with the testing that do not yield results - Some samples may be too degraded to ever produce a good test, knowledge will improve the       percentage of samples that can be successfully tested.

3. The results that suggest contamination are not contamination but that BF is closely related to us - Samples can be tested against any known sample. Samples could be tested against humans of different ethnic backgrounds or even from lines related to human. Guessing won't get it done.

Hiflier's #4. The results were so explosive that none dare go public with them - More explosive than Dr. Ketchum's novel hybrid theory? We've seen how science was willing to consider and address the idea. 

[JDL]

I do believe that there was a separate species of tall people capable of interbreeding with modern humans that culturally dominated the Americas in antiquity.  Based on the artifacts reported to be found with the large skeletons, they were distinct from what we perceive to be bigfoot.

 

I think explosive would be the existence of another species of advanced hominid, known by the Smithsonian to have existed, yet covered up.

I would hope that excavation of mound sites would receive resistance from not only Native American groups but anyone else with a sense of decency. I'm not at all big on purposely disturbing burial sites for a reason such as Bigfoot or looking for giants. Just my opinion however.

 

 

I don't think this has anything to do with bigfoot.  It does have to do with an understanding of human origins and ancient culture, much of which may be submerged at this point.

 

Archeologists routinely disturb ancient cultural sites around the world in order to learn about our predecessors.  We're not talking about doing anything out of the ordinary in this case other than to ruffle the sensitivities of some in our culture.  It comes down to this:  Is it better to keep knowledge locked away to preserve the sensitivities of some, or to responsibly explore a discrete selection of sites to learn more about our origins?

 

The current laws were established at a time when people were indiscriminately excavating such sites.  The laws have achieved their goal of arresting such widespread behavior.  Now it should be possible to grant certain exceptions to the law to qualified academic pursuits without subverting the purpose of those laws.

[SWWASAS]

Well certainly #4 could exist and be several things. One possibility could be that BF are of alien origin and their DNA is so strange that the results make no sense to the testing labs. That could be interpreted as corruption or contamination too. The lowly octopus has such strange and complicated DNA that even scientists call it alien. Nothing else like it on earth exists and there seems to be no ancestral species with similar DNA. It is like it just got here somehow.

Well science seems to have no problem going half way around the world and looking for dead Pharaohs in Egypt. Many have been undisturbed for millennia. Traveling displays of Egyptian history are very popular. I see no public outrage at that. The Native Americans may revere ancient ones but often say that many of those cultures are not their ancestors. They say things like we do not know who those ancient ones are but they are not our ancestors. Most Native American accounts of giants are of conflict between those giants and their normal sized tribal ancestors. The giants often referred to as cannibals and fearsome. Hardly something a tribe would embrace or want to protect as their own. So I think in many cases the government policies concerning repatriation and reburial are not only misguided but terribly convenient for the government to get rid of controversial evidence.

Edited December 20, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Twist]

I understand that it's common place to disturb burial sites in the name of science. In the case of mounds in the Midwest, a good number have already been dug up and explored. If the stuff taken has been misplaced or discarded on purpose then the answer shouldn't be to just dig up more.