Jump to content
Yetie9

It's time

Recommended Posts

hiflier
BFF Donor
12 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

You have a hard time because you don't want to........Process this: there is nothing compelling the people you ask to answer and to answer truthfully......if there is anything to lie about.......Knowing this,  you are wasting your time.I'll do something else with mine.......Good luck in your quest.   I can't take it seriously, but good luck.

 

MIB

 

Thanks for the well wishes :) but wasting my time is something yet to be seen. I don't see two measly emails as anything close to being a persistence squeaky wheel. People in business can and do deal with upwards of 90 emails a day. The movie and music industries? Hundreds if not thousands. So one email to a busy office like the Commissioner's isn't going to work and I think everyone pretty much knows that. I sure do.

 

And my "hard time" revolves around why people wouldn't take an active roll in finding out what the DNR in their own back yard thinks about the Olympic Peninsula nesting site. It's really just that simple. Thanks to the Olympic Project this opportunity is fresh and ready for investigation and since the DNR was there it's pretty much a no brainer regarding who to tap for information right? I mean it's not like trying to find some nameless, faceless individual in some agency buried somewhere in the DOI. There IS a name, there IS a face and the DNR is located in Olympia which is probably less than 60 miles from the nesting site in Mason County.

 

Ruling out Sasquatch still doesn't answer who or what built the structures. It's a science question and a science mystery. Shouldn't be to hard to find out who else was there besides the DNR as far as biologists or anyone in some other capacity. So, again, I don't understand your push back on something that is so simple and easy to do, and with so many good reasons for doing so. I think the reasons for getting an answer are much stronger and far outweigh the reasons for not trying to get an answer. Especially when considering the proximity of the DNR to the site, its reasonably recent discovery, and how little time and effort is involved.

 

@WSA: I thank you kindly for the encouragements.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I would imagine if asked about what made the nesting sites the DNR could and would answer honestly by saying they do not know.   To the best of my knowledge nothing there has been found that ties them to BF.   Because DNA found in the nests is human,   the most logical conclusion is that they were made by humans.   With humans involved you never can rule out hoaxing.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
15 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

I would imagine if asked about what made the nesting sites the DNR could and would answer honestly by saying they do not know.   To the best of my knowledge nothing there has been found that ties them to BF.   Because DNA found in the nests is human,   the most logical conclusion is that they were made by humans.   With humans involved you never can rule out hoaxing.   

 

And that kind of hoaxing would include going back several times, onto private timberland, over perhaps years, to make new groups of nests in a remote difficult location, virtually hidden from view, by performing the biggest hoaxing maneuver of all: Breaking off 1200 square yards of huckleberry bushes by hand just to fool a public that might not come across the structures ever before nature takes over.

 

Even for hoaxing it would be very odd Human behavior in an even odder location. It merits an effort to get to the bottom of it and Randles and Co. are doing just that. But are they doing it with or without the blessings or approval of the DNR? There is much yet to be know about this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

To me the nests are not any different than rock stacks, pole tepees or anything else we cannot tie to BF.       While I think they likely are related to BF, the fact that the nests were found at all on remote private land is interesting.   That really restricts who can be there to find things.     I think hoaxing is odd behavior but hoaxers are willing to do a lot of work to pull it off.     You have to admit that hoaxing has always been a big part of the problem with acceptance of existence of BF and can never be discounted completely.    To do so puts too much into belief and not enough into science.    

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

I have very little doubt they are BF artifacts. I'm equally convinced the nDNA of a Sasquatch can only be discerned from a human  after a high percentage of the genome has been sequenced.  This is waaaaaay to big a leap for anyone who isn't even reasonably certain BF exists. The number who can entertain that idea though is growing.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
9 minutes ago, WSA said:

.........I'm equally convinced the nDNA of a Sasquatch can only be discerned from a human  after a high percentage of the genome has been sequenced........

 

How can there be DNA differences from Homo sapiens with Denisovans, Neanderthals, Red Deer, and the difference with sasquatches doesn't jump out and wave?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Exactly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Not for me to know, nor for any of us to know at this point. As I've said, when the theory doesn't fit the data, don't blame the data. Although the data set is minute, this is what the data so far is telling us. For each time someone submits a credible BF sample that results in "human" DNA the theory grows in validity. It is right now more valid than any other theory because the data says so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
1 minute ago, WSA said:

Not for me to know, nor for any of us to know at this point. As I've said, when the theory doesn't fit the data, don't blame the data.......

 

I feel justified in blaming the analysis.......or analysts. This is especially so with all the smoke and mirrors that have come with the vaunted DNA circus.

 

If they couldn't see Denisovan DNA in people before the finger bone was found in 2010, how dothey know so much now? One finger bone revealed so much that scientists now know that 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians and around 6% in Papuans derive from Denisovans? Why couldn't they say that an unknown hominin was the ancestor of these people in 2009?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Consider this too. The mtDNA from the Denisova Cave differs from that of modern humans by only 385 bases/nucleotides out of approximately 16,500. The difference between modern humans and Neanderthals is around 202 bases (H. sapien to chimp is about a difference of 1,462 bases). That is a very, very small differentiation and only discerned when the entire genome is sequenced. No, those differences don't jump out and wave at you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by WSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Because it just shows up as "junk dna". They absolutely do not know what every single strand of DNA is or does or where it came from.

 

Its an absolute learning curve.

 

But sometimes they catch a break and a whole piece of the jigsaw puzzle falls into place.... like Denisovans. Or Neanderthals.

 

They think their is another cousin still lurking in our DNA somewhere that is shared with Denisovans and Neanderthals..... Homo Erectus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

You also raise a good point Hunster. They didn't know there were Denisovan or Neanderthal sequences hidden in plain view in our genome until we had those genomes to put side by side with ours. Who knows what other sequences are hidden in our genome, waiting to be discovered? If a BF genome is fully sequenced, would fragments of it also turn up in ours? Who am I to say I know for sure?

Share this post


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

Consider this too. The mtDNA from the Denisova Cave differs from that of modern humans by only 385 bases/nucleotides out of approximately 16,500. The difference between modern humans and Neanderthals is around 202 bases (H. sapien to chimp is about a difference of 1,462 bases). That is a very, very small differentiation and only discerned when the entire genome is sequenced. No, those differences don't jump out and wave at you.

 

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..........

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Because it just shows up as "junk dna". They absolutely do not know what every single strand of DNA is or does or where it came from........

 

Chicken? Meet an egg.

 

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

1 hour ago, WSA said:

...........They didn't know there were Denisovan or Neanderthal sequences hidden in plain view in our genome until we had those genomes to put side by side with ours.........

 

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
3 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Then the mystery stuff is simply ignored?

 

Not at all! It gets paid attention to long enough for someone to toss it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
10 hours ago, hiflier said:

persistence squeaky wheel.

 

I guess that's a difference .. .I don't see that persistence or squeaky-wheelness :) is relevant or beneficial.   If you don't get a response the first time, what makes you think you'll get one the 100,001st time?  

 

If Derek and Co don't have answers, you're not going to get answers.   It's really as simple as that.

 

 

In the end, perhaps the truthful answer is "I don't know."    How "logical" a thing seems to you has no bearing on whether it is true or not.   Frustrating but real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×