Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[Bodhi]

Bodhi you do realize jdl is a chemical engineer wait i mean an applied scientist now. He has patents, taught at west point, and won the football state championship. The new ceo at the company he founded gets paid 750k plus stock options.

Bodhi what does your ceo make by the way?

You made me really smile, thanks! Yeah, he's a wonder all right. But as the topic is has the science stalled. I'd suggest that anyone who views dna results which come back as unknown (which is science speak for too degraded to pull a sample and tries to spin that as defacto sasquatch is fooling themselves.

 

It's analogous to those people who see a light in the night sky and immediately it's little green men. The default for anything unexplained/degraded is sasquatch for some folks.

 

Which does go to the point of the thread. Is the science stalled. I suggest that people who put forth that degraded samples which come back from dna analysis as unknown (a.k.a. - too degraded to obtain results, are evidence of sasquatch do damage to the actual science. The motivations of such people are beyond the thread topic but they do add to the general level of noise/confusion which further hampers the search.

 

I say all this as a serious skeptic, I'd love for there to be dna of an unknown ape which had been found. Ideally it would be similar to modern great apes, or man but not exactly the same which would allow scientists to disregard the possibility of an escaped animal. But what jdl puts forth as evidence of sasquatch just isn't, no matter how much he'd like it to be. Otherwise we'd have our proof already.

 

Lastly, I've not made a lot about this but I do wonder about it and it is science-ish.

I've noticed that "advocates" of sasquatch tend capitalize the words, Sasquatch, Bigfoot and so on. Doing so implies a legendary/mythological status to the animals (e.g. - Grendel) which I doubt is the intent of advocates who believe sasquatches are flesh and blood animals. I've always shown proper respect and used the zoological usage of a small "s". We do not speak of Deer, or Elk.... it's simply deer, elk, bear, etc. I can understand novices like myself not knowing to use proper zoological usage but I'm always surprised to see it from advocates and particularly from an Applied Scientist who uses his job as an argument from authority when challenged. Just saying....

Edited January 28, 2016 by Bodhi

[ShadowBorn]

Going back to the old guard, I bet they would love to have a chance with today's technology in hand, as well as the knowledge they contributed and was built upon. I think one fatal flaw in the methodology they employed was that they always were chasing reports, instead of really searching out the movements of the creatures, they flew to this spot, drove to that spot, and basically did cursory investigations. I know that Rene had his opportunities at sightings, but he was always off to the next spot before things would transpire, Will Jevning attempted pursuading him into staying on a night or two more during one such investigation, Rene was too impatient and left, later the group had an encounter with multiple Sasquatch. It is one thing to research sightings, and quite another to do real field research. Much of what they did was in daylight, and it beacons the question, were they that set on a sighting, or were they guarding themselves from one, there are certainly risks that come with doing it the right way. My guess is that if they spent as much time figuring out the patterns of the creatures as they did chasing reports, they would have had their sightings in the process.

 

Conclusion: We have grown in that respect, more time is actually being spent in the right areas at the right times, and more data is being collected, but in the process we have alerted them to our knowledge of them, and they have responded by becoming more elusive, and retreating further into wilderness areas. It must be painfully obvious to them when they see humans tying to find them, looking at the ground, always looking around, that would make them more wary, just like deer when hunting season is approaching seem to know that humans are stalking them, and change their behavior accordingly.

What I have bolded and underlined is a great example. Every deer hunter knows that the best chance of getting a deer is at the start of bow season or gun season. where one can pattern them well and can set up on them. But once those deer know that they are being hunted they adjust and change their pattern and seem to go into a night time pattern until the does go into heat and the bucks just do not care. 

 

There is no pattern with these creatures where we can adjust to them and set up an ambush on them. Some how they seem to know or pick up that we are after them and will adjust accordingly. Rather then us hunting them they start to hunt us and keep track of our where about. This is not a creature that behaves like a normal creature of the forest nor does it behave like a Chimp or a Gorilla/Ape. This is a creature that seems to be able to process thought, some thing that I believe only Man is capable of. 

 

As we encroach it's territory it seems to want to communicate with us , but it has not developed the function to do so. It's development has only reached a point where it try's communicate with us by using sticks ,stones, or means that only it knows what it means. If we were to look at early man and see how early man communicated back then before speech. I wonder in my opinion how similar it would be that us and them would be. How far apart are we from them and us as far as communication goes from our ancestry. 

 

If science is so interested in the evolution of man kind then these creatures would be a start to a great find. But science is not and feels that this is all nonsense. There fore funding will never be funded to any project to the discovery of a great find. A find like this might prove how human beings might have developed with in our world. Now for theologians this would put them at odds with science. It would also put this at odds with the beliefs of how people believe the world was created and lead many people to despair. I am not sure if science is prepared to deal with the implications that may occur of a discovery of this kind.

 

I understand what you're thinking ShadowBorn but think the exact opposite would be true!

 

Science has ridden itself of the religious dogma that plagued it and stifled it for generations, we are currently in a great era with regard to discoveries particularly relating to early humans and primates, we have recently discovered bonobos, bili apes, early hominids and the scientific world is abuzz with these discoveries. Now is the right time and place if any to introduce a new bipedal species.............. science is a progressive thing, it's not a one and done solution, if new evidence is presented the theorums change............that's the beauty of it and that's why a lot of what was previously taught is now fraught with error. But it's the way it has to be, we can't continue to teach things that are now shown to be wrong just to be more comfortable to some people. If a discovery comes, science would handle it by being scientific, by taking emotion out of the equation and studying the creature to determine where it fits in the great web of evolution. I really don't think it's going to cause panic or the general public to lose all trust in science or wildlife officials etc. I think it will be embraced.

 

One other point I would think is feasible is that if a new, bipedal ape was found, especially one which closely resembled us (in relation to other apes) scientists would be crawling out of the woodwork all over to secure the infamous 'grant money'. What primatologist / biologist / anthrapologist wouldn't want a piece of this action?

 

Celtic Rider

I do know that we are always on the verge of great discoveries  and that science has no problem with it. But some times science holds back under great discretion due to situations just like this one. IMO Some times it might be best to hold back info rather then shout it out of the roof tops for the best of the people. It might even have titles like under the national security. I am not sure it is just a guess. IMO. But what ever it might be under, science has stalled and taken a back seat and made sure that funding does not reach the right people who can very well prove these creatures  existence.

[georgerm]

 

 

Which does go to the point of the thread. Is the science stalled. I suggest that people who put forth that degraded samples which come back from dna analysis as unknown (a.k.a. - too degraded to obtain results, are evidence of sasquatch do damage to the actual science. The motivations of such people are beyond the thread topic but they do add to the general level of noise/confusion which further hampers the search.

 

I say all this as a serious skeptic, I'd love for there to be dna of an unknown ape which had been found. Ideally it would be similar to modern great apes, or man but not exactly the same which would allow scientists to disregard the possibility of an escaped animal. But what jdl puts forth as evidence of sasquatch just isn't, no matter how much he'd like it to be. Otherwise we'd have our proof already.

 

 

 

 

My thoughts are the DNA was not degraded, but matched no known primate. Can you cite some testimony as to these statements? Thanks for getting back on board and your thoughts are appreciated. Let's all keep thinking and solving............  have a good day ..............  stay in the field

[BigTreeWalker]

The problem with degraded DNA coming back as unknown would mean that the person or institution doing the testing isn't reporting results correctly, which is doubtful. Degraded DNA would give unreadable results. Whereas, unknown DNA would be readable but give unrecognizable results. Because no comparison could be made with a known entity.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

A genetics proffesor from NY University was on The Bigfoot Show podcast a few years ago. One of the things he made clear was that there's no such thing as unknown DNA if you have the sequences. Once you've successfully tested a biological sample, you can figure out exactly what the organism is, where it fits in the tree of life and can compare the DNA sequences to that of other known organisms. It seems like even the term "unknown primate" wouldn't make sense if you have the DNA results.

[JDL]

 

Bodhi you do realize jdl is a chemical engineer wait i mean an applied scientist now. He has patents, taught at west point, and won the football state championship. The new ceo at the company he founded gets paid 750k plus stock options.

Bodhi what does your ceo make by the way?

You made me really smile, thanks! Yeah, he's a wonder all right. But as the topic is has the science stalled. I'd suggest that anyone who views dna results which come back as unknown (which is science speak for too degraded to pull a sample and tries to spin that as defacto sasquatch is fooling themselves.

 

It's analogous to those people who see a light in the night sky and immediately it's little green men. The default for anything unexplained/degraded is sasquatch for some folks.

 

Which does go to the point of the thread. Is the science stalled. I suggest that people who put forth that degraded samples which come back from dna analysis as unknown (a.k.a. - too degraded to obtain results, are evidence of sasquatch do damage to the actual science. The motivations of such people are beyond the thread topic but they do add to the general level of noise/confusion which further hampers the search.

 

I say all this as a serious skeptic, I'd love for there to be dna of an unknown ape which had been found. Ideally it would be similar to modern great apes, or man but not exactly the same which would allow scientists to disregard the possibility of an escaped animal. But what jdl puts forth as evidence of sasquatch just isn't, no matter how much he'd like it to be. Otherwise we'd have our proof already.

 

Lastly, I've not made a lot about this but I do wonder about it and it is science-ish.

I've noticed that "advocates" of sasquatch tend capitalize the words, Sasquatch, Bigfoot and so on. Doing so implies a legendary/mythological status to the animals (e.g. - Grendel) which I doubt is the intent of advocates who believe sasquatches are flesh and blood animals. I've always shown proper respect and used the zoological usage of a small "s". We do not speak of Deer, or Elk.... it's simply deer, elk, bear, etc. I can understand novices like myself not knowing to use proper zoological usage but I'm always surprised to see it from advocates and particularly from an Applied Scientist who uses his job as an argument from authority when challenged. Just saying....

 

 

Thanks for the complements, guys. 

 

In the snapshot, as of today, analysis all you guys have is that bigfoot has not yet been definitively proven to exist to the public's satisfaction.

 

That doesn't mean that bigfoot does not exist, and you cannot prove that bigfoot does not exist.

 

However, you are entitled to your belief system and to proselytize all you like, which is what it amounts to when your arguments devolve into the subjective dismissal of evidence and the derision of those who do not share your own viewpoints, rather than objective consideration of all information.

 

Frankly, had I not had any encounters, I too, would be skeptical but probably wouldn't ever bother wasting my time arguing with anyone about it.  And honestly, I don't understand what constructive motive you might have to participate in this forum given the derisive nature of many of your comments.

 

With regard to the OP, as others have said already, it boils down to proper funding under circumstances that would encourage mainstream investigation.  Until then any credentialed scientist that pursues the topic will be regarded as a fringe researcher, and lay researchers will be mocked (by some on this forum even), until the day that one of them drags in a type specimen.

A genetics proffesor from NY University was on The Bigfoot Show podcast a few years ago. One of the things he made clear was that there's no such thing as unknown DNA if you have the sequences. Once you've successfully tested a biological sample, you can figure out exactly what the organism is, where it fits in the tree of life and can compare the DNA sequences to that of other known organisms. It seems like even the term "unknown primate" wouldn't make sense if you have the DNA results.

 

We do have to consider that bigfoot DNA may be so close to homo sapiens DNA as to be indistinguishable based on some analysis techniques, or to be mistakenly regarded as contaminated with human DNA.  Not saying it is so, just saying that the possibility has to be considered.

[BigTreeWalker]

A genetics proffesor from NY University was on The Bigfoot Show podcast a few years ago. One of the things he made clear was that there's no such thing as unknown DNA if you have the sequences. Once you've successfully tested a biological sample, you can figure out exactly what the organism is, where it fits in the tree of life and can compare the DNA sequences to that of other known organisms. It seems like even the term "unknown primate" wouldn't make sense if you have the DNA results.

So according to the professor's way of looking at DNA the conclusion to me is that we have no bigfoot DNA. I bet the skeptics love that. But I'm thinking the professor was talking about a full DNA test, like a genome test, and not one of the minimum ones.

He did mention successful, which would be opposed to unsuccessful. Which is where the degraded DNA would fall.

Edited January 28, 2016 by BigTreeWalker

[WSA]

It is just this idea of putative BF mDNA winding up to repeatedly test out only as "human" that has long intrigued me.  Either the sequencing of all reported samples was done incorrectly (not a likely scenario, although it is a frequent accusation), or all the samples collected were actually from H. sapiens (ditto), or....well, you know.  

 

This is why my working hypothesis is this animal is us, in some (non-genetic) mutated, alternately-evolved and feral incarnation. That some of the behaviors mimic pongid behaviors might be just coincidental or independent adaptations to similar environmental conditions? If you've ever spent time around the mentally ill or those with severe  autism, you know that many behaviors can seem, well, animalistic. If a hominid lives long enough in a natural environment, why would it not adapt strategies that apes have also hit on? Who knows what habits our H. sapien ancestors had back in the day that, if we could witness them now, would say "ape" to us?

[JDL]

It continues to intrigue me as well.  It could be as simple as natural selection into robust and gracile forms.  The robust form perfecting physical prowess, and the gracile form perfecting the use of tools.

[Twist]

I'm not a big believer in the "science keeps this under wraps" idea.  I think if a scientist had cold hard facts and verifiable proof of BF they would run with it.  This would be a massive breakthrough for science in both proving a large bipedal primate has been roaming the Americas this whole time as well as likely a big piece of the evolutionary puzzle.  What scientist wouldn't want to be the next Jane Goodall ??? 

[MIB]

As I understand species identification via mitochondrial DNA, they don't test the whole DNA strand, they look at a subset of segments that can be used to differentiate between species.   If we are close enough to bigfoot, it is possible that the set of segments used to identify us also matches them.   There would be other segments we don't currently look at which would show identifying differences.  

 

Sort of a tangent, yet not ... it might be real interesting to submit a sample of high-confidence bigfoot DNA out for a paternity test.  I'd expect that in regions that vary even from one person to the next, something non-human should truly stand out.

 

MIB

[Bodhi]

 

 

 

Which does go to the point of the thread. Is the science stalled. I suggest that people who put forth that degraded samples which come back from dna analysis as unknown (a.k.a. - too degraded to obtain results, are evidence of sasquatch do damage to the actual science. The motivations of such people are beyond the thread topic but they do add to the general level of noise/confusion which further hampers the search.

 

I say all this as a serious skeptic, I'd love for there to be dna of an unknown ape which had been found. Ideally it would be similar to modern great apes, or man but not exactly the same which would allow scientists to disregard the possibility of an escaped animal. But what jdl puts forth as evidence of sasquatch just isn't, no matter how much he'd like it to be. Otherwise we'd have our proof already.

 

 

 

 

My thoughts are the DNA was not degraded, but matched no known primate. Can you cite some testimony as to these statements? Thanks for getting back on board and your thoughts are appreciated. Let's all keep thinking and solving............  have a good day ..............  stay in the field

 

Sure georgerm; I think it was one of the disotell interviews either on the bigfoot show or maybe monster talk. I enjoy those old shows anyway so I'll go through and find which one(s) mentioned that specifically. There was also a youtuber who was talking about it and if I can find that one I will also. I love this dna stuff.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

We do have to consider that bigfoot DNA may be so close to homo sapiens DNA as to be indistinguishable based on some analysis techniques

 

DNA analysis is extremely accurate when it comes to species identification.  I've personally never heard of any DNA analysis that can't tell the difference between two closely related species. 

Edited January 29, 2016 by OntarioSquatch

[Bodhi]

 

A genetics proffesor from NY University was on The Bigfoot Show podcast a few years ago. One of the things he made clear was that there's no such thing as unknown DNA if you have the sequences. Once you've successfully tested a biological sample, you can figure out exactly what the organism is, where it fits in the tree of life and can compare the DNA sequences to that of other known organisms. It seems like even the term "unknown primate" wouldn't make sense if you have the DNA results.

So according to the professor's way of looking at DNA the conclusion to me is that we have no bigfoot DNA. I bet the skeptics love that. But I'm thinking the professor was talking about a full DNA test, like a genome test, and not one of the minimum ones.

He did mention successful, which would be opposed to unsuccessful. Which is where the degraded DNA would fall.

 

I don't love that and while this is off topic I think it's a common misunderstanding of the skeptic position (at least mine). I see no evidence for the existence of sasquatch. I'm not HOSTILE to the idea of being wrong, I would love to be wrong. But, whereas some people see a set of footprints as definitive, I see it as a question mark. Folks who think that scientists are against the idea of sasquatch baffle me, scientists are curious people who love a good mystery. IF someone actually did come up with an interesting dna sample disotell, sykes, and host of other geneticists would be all over it. I know we're easy targets but obviously it's interesting or else I wouldn't be a paid member here. I'm not rooting against you, I'm just looking for evidence that is strong enough to interest science. Stories are nifty, a thousand stories are nifty but they don't amount to evidence.

[BigTreeWalker]

Bodhi, I wasn't directing that at you, just skeptics in general. I'm curious as to how much a test like that professor was referring to costs compared to the usual testing procedures. Not the ones that come back as bear or whatnot, because it must have been a bear for them to determine that. The ones I'm curious about, as are others, are the tests that come back as human contaminated. If a more extensive test was run as MIB mentions, would they find more?

Edited January 29, 2016 by BigTreeWalker