Poll: When Would An Announcement Of e-DNA Positive For Sasquatch Be Made?

[hiflier]

41 minutes ago, WSA said:

Don't let your preconceptions about what a Sasquatch genome "should" look like get clouded by preconceptions or by how the animal appears.

I don't think that I am when I say that a physical examination is what would be the determining factor- DNA not withstanding. There are tribes of Humans that , while identical in genome and brain morphology, have not left the level of fire use, hut building, and the bow and arrow. Sasquatch evidently, for however long it has been in existence isn't even close to that. Nor is the Gorilla- which builds large nests. And that is the point. Nest building, rock throwing/clacking, vocalizing, and maybe tree knocking is a far cry from the bow and arrow and hut building level. DNA may indeed come back Human but will there be enough of a difference to say that modern Man didn't build those nests in the Olympic Peninsula? It goes back to the choices given in the Poll. IF modern Man didn't build the nests WILL that outcome be given to the public? Or would it be simpler to say, nah, it was bears after all therefore implying that the bear experts were wrong? There will be, after all, DNA evidence of bears around the nesting site. People have pretty much already admitted that fact as it is.

 

Another question is that DNA in modern Humans has certain markers. So would the presence of a relaxed opsin gene, which might be an indication of having a tapetum lucidum and therefore eye shine? I don't think it is an absolutely certain indication but it did cross my mind. Since Humans and other Great Apes do not have a tapetum lucidum would having one say not Human- or Great Ape either- but something......else?

 

I know this is all piled onto the cart way before the horse but EVERYTHING needs to be plugged into the puzzle, not just a few things that would steer one's thinking in certain directions.

Edited November 28, 2018 by hiflier

[norseman]

21 minutes ago, WSA said:

Norseman...until you make a side-by-side genetic comparison, morphology don't mean squat to a geneticist.  I could put a Kalahari bushman next to a Victorian Lord and superficially they would look as different to the eye as Patty is to you.  Conclusions like these that are based on superficial morphological differences are like that...prone to error.  When other data supports a different conclusion, morphology needs to take a back seat.

 

But to go where you are going...are you saying Neanderthal was not a human, in the broadest sense of the term? If a Neanderthal was, why not a BF? Only our innate xenophobia keeps us from making this very small step to a very logical conclusion.  

 

Hiflier....IF the DNA is identical, what difference is it to us if one human species uses technology, and one does not? That is one question we need to ask, I think. As I said, it would challenge our criteria of what defines a "human".  Tool use, or not, is a sociological adaptation. Yes, it is enabled by biological adaptations...thumbs and brain stucture to name just two, but if an animal had everything but the technology AND identical DNA, is the animal still human? I'll not offer an opinion on that, as it is a different question than the one I pose: Is it possible, or even likely, the BF shares our genome? My answer is, it is certainly possible and the more DNA samples thought to be from BF that are sequenced and found to be nearly identical to human we get, the more probable it becomes. Don't let your preconceptions about what a Sasquatch genome "should" look like get clouded by preconceptions or by how the animal appears.

 

BALONEY.  If you are willing to throw out all evidence we have of Sasquatch!? Go ahead! Something is making footprints in the woods that are outside of HUMAN physical sizes. GLOBALLY. It resides in an area of the US? That without warm clothes, shelter and fire? Humans wood freeze to death and starve! No human being walks around British Columbia naked, with no tools, no fire AND survives. NOT NOW and NOT when the first paleo Indians crossed the land bridge. 

 

Sorry! These are the FACTS! Morphology doesnt take a back seat to anything! It is what it is! And you can continue to attempt to beat a square peg into a round hole if you would like to? But we are not dealing with our own species in this woods...... 

 

And Neanderthals were a seperate species from us....correct. The official name is Homo Neanderthalensis. We are cousins because we both belong to the same genus....Homo.

 

 

 

 

[WSA]

Your conclusion is entirely subjective Norse, no way around it. I don't doubt that your decision to try and shoot one doesn't turn on what this animal ultimately is, but if you were honest I think you'd have to admit the decision is made that much more simpler by the idea it isn't human.  How could it not? I have no qualms at all about murdering one of these things in cold blood, although I'm not the man for the job, and if you are, I  hope you get your chance.  If you are not prepared for this outcome though, I do think you might reconsider as it is an outcome that history tells us is absolutely on the table.   

 

So it has big feet? Big deal. It has five toes, five fingers, teeth, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, mammary glands....on and on. That you don't think it could be a human variant? Well, really, what you conclude, or I conclude, does not matter anyway.  Until you collect genetically differentiated DNA, you are stuck with that very real possibility.  What is more logical?  That somehow all the DNA collectors in the world so far have just failed to get a sample, or that they have and it is not distinguishable? We'll see eventually, but my money is on the second possibility.

 

And Neanderthals? If a population of them were running around the woods today, my bet is they would be viewed just the same by you (and most others) and not as a "cousin". 

[WSA]

 

Hiflier, given that the only real choices for an outcome are these, and if each is of equal probability:

 

1. Ursine

2. Man

3. BF

 

AND if the DNA for numbers 2 and 3 are indistinguishable? If DNA is all you are going by, the probability is 2 to 1 it was not a bear. That will leave you with an equal probability it was a man or a BF. If so, where does that leave you? That's right.

[hiflier]

If Neanderthals WERE running around in the woods today and occasionally sighted during road crossings would the public who accidently sees them be the only ones aware of their existence? It is the one sticking point that keeps gnawing on my brain with regard to Bigfoot's reality or non-reality. And as much as folks think I drum away on government awareness, or the lack thereof, it is nonetheless a rather important and succinct sticking point IMHO. 

[norseman]

Again. My decision to shoot one is not based on what I think it is. My decision to shoot one is based on the exasperation of failed returns.

 

Men kill other men all the time. The largest expediture in our nations government is dedicated to killing our own species..... not others.

 

I do not wish to be a murderer. But if there is a 8ft tall 800lbs Ape man running around our woods? People have a right to know. And the most expedient method is the right one. If some other method like DNA accomplishes that? Then I applaud it and will hang up the rifle concerning this species. 

 

Big deal? A Gorilla has all of the traits you listed! So I guess that makes Gorillas and Humans the same species in your eyes right?!

 

You dont seem to grasp that the devil is in the details. Bigfoot has two hands, two feet, two eyes, teeth, two nostrils and mammary glands.........there fore? Homo Sapien!

 

Show me a Homo Sapien that leaves naked tracks in deep snow at 5000 ft in winter.

 

Show me a Homo Sapien that breaks the neck of full grown Elk by pulling on its chin.

 

Show me a Homo Sapien that is 8 feet tall and 800 lbs.

 

Show me a Homo Sapien that looks like Patty.

 

Its all subjective until its proven to exist. But it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see where the evidence is pointing. 

[hiflier]

3 minutes ago, WSA said:

That will leave you with an equal probability it was a man or a BF.

 

And that would be incorrect. There are about 7.4 million Humans in Washington State, 4.1 million in Oregon and 1.7 in Idaho.  Estimates vary on Sasquatch but it could be safe to say no more than 1-2 thousand in the entire PacNW to include BC. So there is nothing near equal probability it was a man or BF. Olympic Peninsula has a BF population of MAYBE 80 individuals- certainly no more than 300. Black bear? 25,000. Those again are not anything near equal odds. 

[norseman]

8 minutes ago, hiflier said:

If Neanderthals WERE running around in the woods today and occasionally sighted during road crossings would the public who accidently sees them be the only ones aware of their existence? It is the one sticking point that keeps gnawing on my brain with regard to Bigfoot's reality or non-reality. And as much as folks think I drum away on government awareness, or the lack thereof, it is nonetheless a rather important and succinct sticking point IMHO. 

 

Im a Neanderthal hybrid. This fact would not have been possible if Neanderthals acted like Sasquatch.

 

Neanderthals acted like any other Human species. We must have traded with them. Made war with them. Made peace with them. Traded ideas with them. And traded sons and daughters with them. 

 

The evidence bears this out. Not only with DNA but also with Thal technology that leaped forward after contact. Not unlike the leap forward made with Native Americans after European contact.

[Big Stinky]

Sorry coming in WAY late on this... but were any hairs isolated in this investigation of the nests as it appears they really picked them apart ?

My apologies again if this has been covered already...

 

Stinky

[hiflier]

Yes, Big Stinky, hairs were taken from the nests using tape. They were sent to Cindy Dosen in British Columbia and she compared them to what is believed to be other samples of Sasquatch hair and she said they were a perfect match to the samples that she had.

 

http://www.olympicproject.com/staff-member/cindy-dosen/

[WSA]

HiFlier, that is why my premise included the qualifier "equally probable", but to go with your tweak, the population of WA is not your sample population either....it is the number of visitors to the area where these structures were discovered. I don't know, but that number might be a lot closer to the number of putative Sasquatch in the same area than we would guess. Who knows though, right? Interesting thought experiment .

 

Norse, no, I get your motivations completely, and as I said, I share them.  If you are cool with the very real possibility the one you plug is closer to us than imagined, who am I  to say don't do it? Go for it. If you succeed, and my prediction is borne out, I can help you find competent criminal defense Counsel in WA state.  As to  your challenge: You've already seen one, probably. We all have. That we lack the imagination to realize we have is our fault only. We keep doing that though. We can't seem to help ourselves. Here you are doing it now. Because it doesn't fit our idea of what "we" should look like, it isn't one of us. Very dangerous and unscientific view of the problem.  Keep that thought, you might need it sometime!

[hiflier]

7 minutes ago, WSA said:

I don't know, but that number might be a lot closer to the number of putative Sasquatch in the same area than we would guess.

 

A valid point since visitors would be restricted not only by the remoteness but also by the fact that it is and has been private land for a long time. And thern there are bears?  

[norseman]

Im quite sure I have no idea what your talking about. Im doing exactly “what” now?

 

A mid tarsal break is not born from my imagination. Neither is a 20 inch trackway and a 70 inch stride. Barring a hoax? These are very real non human characteristics. So is a coat of hair from head to toe. Very few humans suffer from hypertrichosis. And certainly not whole tribes. Whole lot of imagination? No just the facts.

 

Human meaning Homo Sapien. Or us. Just for clarification.

 

So many red flags you are ignoring to fit your narrative. All because some DNA tests have been contaminated by amateur researchers? So you throw out all the evidence pointing to the fact that Sasquatch is a unique creature.

 

To hear you tell it? Sasquatch should be applying as a greeter at Walmart after a good bath and shave. Simply preposterous!

[MIB]

6 hours ago, hiflier said:

Or are you suggesting genetically so identical as to be indistinguishable?

 

Yes, sort of.   Ish.    Functionally indistinguishable at the time the tests were done.

 

Remember that DNA testing has gotten more sophisticated and less expensive over time.    And our assumptions are less rigid ... I think.     Remember also that all of the tests we know of today have been privately funded by people who have a budget to watch, not funded by government or academic research budgets. 

 

Regarding early tests, the DNA may well have looked indistiguishable, relative to testing ability, cost, and assumption in the past to assume that correct results were mistaken for contamination.    That does not mean that the same amount of money today applied to the same sample would not pay for more detailed testing that would be pursued further based on its results given changes in assumptions.    Early tests were looking for apes very similar to current African apes; preliminary / partial results suggested something too human so contamination was assumed and testing discontinued to manage cost.    Today we can get much more detail for similar cost; that greater detail should flush out enough difference from normal human that even if it's not ape, it should trigger someone to continue on to more detailed testing.      At least one of Sykes' samples went that way.   

 

MIB

[WSA]

Norse, you are letting superficial differences cloud your ability to see the far greater similarities, is what I mean.

 

So BF is big, hairy and has bendy feet? Again, a big "so what"?  Every characteristic you describe has occurred as a variant in the human population at one time or another. Hell my wife has feet so flexible she could probably haul a line with them. (Her mother is the same, which came in quite handy when she was a trapeze artist in her youth).  

 

I'm not sure that I'm saying BF is a dyed-in-the-wool H. sapien, or not. All I'm saying is there may be genetic similarities on a level we aren't willing to entertain seriously so far. I'd leave it to the taxonomists as to what that would mean to the tree of life.

 

How many "contaminations" will it take before we realize it might not be a case of contamination at all? I'm just asking? How many already?  Again, if the data isn't telling you what you want to hear, it is not the fault of the data.