Jump to content
Yetie9

It's time

Recommended Posts

norseman
5 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

So, entire genomes are sequenced only on occasion? It's a common practice to only sequence those genomes that fit what one is looking for, perhaps? Then the mystery stuff is simply ignored?

 

Well, sasquatch DNA might not be jumping out and waving in distress, but something sure is..........

 

Chicken? Meet an egg.

 

Or, Egg? Meet a chicken..........

 

This must have been happening all along. And it puts the experts in poor light when things like hair are found in a nest in a rainforest purported to be sasquatch habitat comes back repeatedly as "human".

 

Actually its a sperm meeting an egg.....😜

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
16 hours ago, Huntster said:

So, entire genomes are sequenced only on occasion? It's a common practice to only sequence those genomes that fit what one is looking for, perhaps? Then the mystery stuff is simply ignored?

 

Correct-ish, but wrong assumption behind it.    Generally they're looking for known species markers which separate one known thing from another.   Using those, species identification can be done on much less than the full sequence.    This works very well until you are trying to identify something new and don't know what the identifying markers will be.   It's quite a bit more expensive to sequence an entire genome ... however, you have to separate mtDNA from nuDNA when making comparisons.    So when  you're doing a mtDNA exam to determine species, there is no "mystery stuff being ignored", rather, it is not being examined at all .. unless  you have something you suspect is new and have to sequence the whole thing.

 

If bigfoot matches human on a high percentage of the locations used to separate human from chimp, for instance, then bigfoot DNA, even though different, will "test positive" as human.    Its all gray scale anyway since human DNA varies ... that's how Ancestry / 23andme / etc figure out where your ancestors come from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter
1 hour ago, MIB said:


Correct-ish, but wrong assumption behind it. 

 

 

This describes so very much of what is said and thought in this world...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

To further MIBs description,  the results of my DNA test showed I have certain markers indicating my ancestry.    Markers are unique sequences of DNA that vary individual to individual.    Humans living at that time and place had markers that are unique and since I have them that indicates that my ancestors where there at that time and place.   Those markers can only be determined by sequencing DNA from individuals found buried at a specific location where the date can be determined by carbon dating, artifacts etc.    The real problem dealing with DNA and bigfoot is that the accepted bigfoot  DNA genome has not been sequenced.    Will take a body or bones in the lab to do that.   When that is obtained we can start determining common and different markers to determine similarities and differences from the human genome.   There are likely common intersections and markers, but since BF does not look like us, there are differences.    I am 3 percent Neanderthal.    I wonder how much of me is bigfoot.   I do have big feet   :)

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

.........The real problem dealing with DNA and bigfoot is that the accepted bigfoot  DNA genome has not been sequenced.    Will take a body or bones in the lab to do that.........

 

Why the carcass ir bones? Why can hair not provide enough to sequence?

 

If current "science" is accurate, then all it would take would be a single finger bone, even one some 40,000 years old, to determine the amount of sasquatch ancestry in all of mankind, because they are now doing so with a 40,000 year old Denisovan finger bone, found just 8 years ago, and of a previously unknown hominid species.

 

Sorry, but I remain suspicious of many aspects of either the science, the scientists involved, or both. Frankly, as I get another blanket to warm myself, I'm smelling some global warming style science. The warmists want tax dollars. The sasquatch DNA guys want a fresh carcass, they want it delivered, and they want it for free. They won't even pay delivery costs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

First of all how do you tie a hair to BF unless you pull it  out out of a bigfoot.  You cannot find one and just expect it to be BF.    Most have been found to be something else.    The only way is to pull it out of a  bigfoot you have already declared was a bigfoot through morpholoy, xrays, cat scans or DNA testing.    At that point why bother to test a hair that may or may not have any DNA to test?   Many hairs do not have DNA unless the root is still attached.  

 

The Denisovan finger bone exhibited the morphology of a human finger bone, and the layer in the cave dated it as old.     So it was DNA tested, sequenced out to be other than modern human and did not match DNA of any known human ancestors.  As of yet no one has produced a BF finger.   If they do, that will be all that it takes.  Just don't sent it to Sykes because he will claim it to be a rare bear that has human like fingers.  

 

 

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
4 hours ago, Huntster said:

Why can hair not provide enough to sequence?

 

Part A:   Henner Fahrenbach said one of the identifying characteristics of genuine bigfoot hair was the lack of a medula.    That means no DNA.    I'm not convinced that is an absolute every time thing, but it might take a lot more bigfoot hair to get enough DNA to test than would be required from something that had a medula in the hair.

 

Part B: Even if you have enough to test and the results are repeatable, getting science to accept that it came from a bigfoot rather than some weirdly abnormal person whose ancestors had a distinct gene pool without a body might be real hard.   I think the failure of Ketchum's study increases the difficulty because everyone competent is even more wary of hoax and mistake than they already were.  

 

So logically, it might be difficult but should be possible to get bigfoot DNA from hair but getting science to accept that it is bigfoot, especially if it is very close to human, is an uphill battle, a rather steep one at that, at least without the body present that the hair came from.

 

MIB

 

 

Edited by MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
4 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

First of all how do you tie a hair to BF unless you pull it  out out of a bigfoot........

 

I suppose the same way you tie a bone to a hominid that wasn't cut out of the hominid.

 

How about hair found in a "nest" in a PNW forest that comes back as "human"? Of course, the only possibilities are that person slept there, built it as a hoax, or it's a bear nest (even though bears don't build nests) and the hair DNA was contaminated by the foolish bigfoot amateur investigator.

 

.......The only way is to pull it out of a  bigfoot you have already declared was a bigfoot through morpholoy, xrays, cat scans or DNA testing.    

At that point why bother to test a hair that may or may not have any DNA to test?.......

 

Uhmmmmm.......duh? 

 

First of all, the majority of the reason why these "scientst" a$$*****s are playing this game is because there appears to be no shortage of fools willing to providebthem with a carcass for free.......eventually. It's similar to government agencies using BFRO to collect data for them. Eventually, some idiot will do your job for you if you're patient enough.

 

Secondly, their religious principles will simply not accept anything that you don't force them to accept. They're the experts, and you're the dummy who needs to fork over tax money to pay them to save the environment. In short, they're Pharisees.

 

.........The Denisovan finger bone exhibited the morphology of a human finger bone, and the layer in the cave dated it as old.     So it was DNA tested, sequenced out to be other than modern human and did not match DNA of any known human ancestors........

 

But they dodn't say anything about a mystery hominid signature prior to finding the finger bone in 2010, and now they're saying that their signature is in 3%-5% of all of humanity. So why is that? Where was the recognition if the mystery hominid prior to 2010?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
14 hours ago, Huntster said:

Where was the recognition if the mystery hominid prior to 2010?

 

Probably hidden behind the limits of testing accuracy given the technology of the time.    Maybe also hidden behind limited funding being directed towards something expected rather than something unexpected.    Testing is more accurate, cheaper, and can be done with ever smaller samples ... and continues on that track.    Who knows what we might find now that was  missed before if we had some of those old samples available to test?   But DNA testing is sample-destructive, so unless you have twice as much as you need to begin with, you probably won't have anything left to retest when you're done.

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

I think it was most likely hidden behind the fear of pronouncing that an unknown hominid exists in the dna record. If one wants to see what happens to those who make such proclamations, I introduce you to Melba Ketchum and her associates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
1 hour ago, Huntster said:

I think it was most likely hidden behind the fear of pronouncing that an unknown hominid exists in the dna record. If one wants to see what happens to those who make such proclamations, I introduce you to Melba Ketchum and her associates.

Ketchum provided a comedy of errors during her entire 15 minutes of fame. So many unforced errors as to be ridiculous.

I'm FB friends with her for comedy gold.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

In the realm of hair DNA? One really should consider morphology as maybe the strongest indicator. Even without a medulla or a skin tag for DNA testing most of the samples wouldn't have even made the cut to DNA had they not appeared odd. The hair samples from the OP nest site were collected and sent to an expert and the same analysis was made with the same conclusions: the hair matched no known animals, were similar to Human hair even without a medulla and most importantly.......did not have cut ends. The latter IMHO is the most telling of all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
41 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Ketchum provided a comedy of errors during her entire 15 minutes of fame. So many unforced errors as to be ridiculous.

I'm FB friends with her for comedy gold.

 

And the next "scientist" to proclaim unknown hominids in the dna record without a sliver of bone or carcass wull get the same treatment.

26 minutes ago, hiflier said:

In the realm of hair DNA? One really should consider morphology as maybe the strongest indicator.......

 

It is more than the strongest indicator. It is clearly required. Only extinct hominids can be created by man in our image and likeness. Remaining hominids must be killed and presented to our current gods for recognition, and with their magic powers these gods will make them disappear.......or make you disappear.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
17 hours ago, Huntster said:

But they dodn't say anything about a mystery hominid signature prior to finding the finger bone in 2010, and now they're saying that their signature is in 3%-5% of all of humanity. So why is that? Where was the recognition if the mystery hominid prior to 2010?

You kind of have things backwards with respect to that.    Sure DNA evidence in humans showed the Denisovan markers before the finger bone was found.   But it was not until the Denisovan finger bone was sequenced that science knew it was significant and what those markers were.    Much of human DNA appears to be junk but likely is related to some ancestral animal.   The same process will happen when BF DNA is sequenced.    The first comparisons will be to human, neanderthal, and other pre modern human DNA sequences to look for similar markers and determine who is related to who and when that was.   It would be very unlikely there are no similar markers at some point in time.        The only way that could happen is if bigfoot is alien.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
5 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

You kind of have things backwards with respect to that.    Sure DNA evidence in humans showed the Denisovan markers before the finger bone was found.   But it was not until the Denisovan finger bone was sequenced that science knew it was significant and what those markers were........

 

Lots of folks are telling me that I have things backwards, but I feel my feet firmly planted on terra firma, my compass still says that I'm facing forward, my skepticism remains, and while people are freezing their gonads off, "science" (we are told) is overwhelmingly telling me that I'm getting warmer.

 

The high priests of Scientism look to me to be just another cult of Pharisees. I regard their BS now as meaningless as that of other clergy, politicians, and lawyers. They all smell alike, and the stench (which permeates the planet now) is as bad as that of sasquatches is said to be (which I've never had the opportunity to detect).

 

If Denisovan DNA wasn't significant in 2009, it isn't significant today, unless of course one wishes to propound that they were killed off by Homo sapien racists or climate change. If Denisovan DNA showed up in 3%-5% of humanity before 2009 (and it obviously did), then it was unknown hominid DNA, plain and simple. And the fact that nobody said anything about it is the most significant thing about the entire affair. I openly say that they didn't because they're ideological cowards, understanding the basic truth of Niccolo Lorini and Lodovico delle Columbe vrs Galileo Galilei.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×