Doug Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 Sea otters and birds use tools, so, I would assume that an animal that was more intelligent than an otter, which I also assume a Sasquatch would be, would use tools in some capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 On 5/30/2019 at 11:26 AM, Franco said: If they dont exist, explain the Footprints, thousand of sighting, Howls a legends going back thousand of years. Just because we dont have a body - Doesnt mean the dont exist. Less then 20 yrs ago, we thought we were the only Solar system in the Universe. Turns out a star not having planets around them is the odd ball. We spend a lot time believing in the existence of heaven yet there is no evidence, except for writing of it. But billions of people believe in some sort of God. we have no real proof, that a god exists You cant discount what evidence we have. That would be most closed mind. Apes have been shown to use tools... and with frequency I and many others have explained everything you pointed out. The no body, no bones ,no viable DNA has not been explained adequately. All other extant large animals have been filmed,documented ,DNA ,, examined etc. If not then they are certainly are rare and not reported all over the world like man apes. Closed mindness works both ways Saying these creatures exist without proof is perhaps even more closed minded than saying they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: no viable DNA has not been explained adequately I agree. My issue is that I think the DNA actually WAS viable in one recent case. This is NOT to say it ended up contaminated. It's more to say it was mishandled. Why and how can I say that? Because there WAS enough viable DNA for certain large animals and Humans. But for some reason the DNA was too degraded for BF? I don't see how one DNA story is OK and another not....out of the same samples. How can scientists say that all the normal animals are there and yet the samples are too degraded for a Sasquatch discovery? You're a chemist but as a scientist does such an outcome make any sense to you? 55 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: Closed mindness works both ways Indeed it does which could be a reason why the argument I wrote above will go nowhere. I think there are people who don't WANT I to go anywhere. One can always tell because that's when the face-slapping character assassinators show up. Edited June 1, 2019 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 11:20 PM, Redbone said: I followed up and started a thread. The spreadsheet (as of today) is available for download here, but no real instructions yet. It seems important to get it out there to be sure it is never lost. I did clean it up (A LOT) so it makes more sense to others. Here is the web archive site where the original data can be downloaded. https://web.archive.org/web/20170422234346/http://sasquatchdatabase.com/ I have a deep background in data modeling and can offer to help. I just downloaded the csv and took a look and immediately see a bunch of things I can suggest. I can PM if you like. If I understand correctly you are still adding to this from another source. If that is the case, we should make the changes on your end. If this a complete dataset then I would go ahead (I have SQL Server but not Access - I'll download that and see if it will import). One thing I'll mention is this would be nice to map in Power BI. If columns BV and BW are lat/lon this should work well! 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 (edited) I think the DNA argument is a false flag. We've heard repeatedly that chimp and bonobo DNA is 99% the same as ours, so it is very reasonable to expect sasquatch DNA to be essentially the same as ours. Show me the difference in DNA of a Denisovan and a native Kazak. 11 minutes ago, Rainshadow said: I have a deep background in data modeling and can offer to help......... PM Redbone, Bobby O, and gigantor. Welcome! Edited June 1, 2019 by Huntster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Huntster said: I think the DNA argument is a false flag A big BINGO for you, Huntster. A really BIG bingo. And I'm gonna tell you why. You can't have woven nests out in the middle of nowhere that were constructed from 1200 sq. yds. of broken off huckleberry bushes and say "Human", even if the e-DNA tells you that Humans and normal animals were all that was there. It simply...doesn't...shake...out. Edited June 1, 2019 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 1, 2019 Admin Share Posted June 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Huntster said: I think the DNA argument is a false flag. We've heard repeatedly that chimp and bonobo DNA is 99% the same as ours, so it is very reasonable to expect sasquatch DNA to be essentially the same as ours. Show me the difference in DNA of a Denisovan and a native Kazak. PM Redbone, Bobby O, and gigantor. Welcome! https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/dna-remnants-of-three-separate-denisovan-populations-found-in-human-genomes Not only can they tell that Homo Sapien interbred with Denisovans? They can tell they interbred up to three separate times with different Denisovan groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, hiflier said: I agree. My issue is that I think the DNA actually WAS viable in one recent case. This is NOT to say it ended up contaminated. It's more to say it was mishandled. Why and how can I say that? Because there WAS enough viable DNA for certain large animals and Humans. But for some reason the DNA was too degraded for BF? I don't see how one DNA story is OK and another not....out of the same samples. How can scientists say that all the normal animals are there and yet the samples are too degraded for a Sasquatch discovery? You're a chemist but as a scientist does such an outcome make any sense to you? Indeed it does which could be a reason why the argument I wrote above will go nowhere. I think there are people who don't WANT I to go anywhere. One can always tell because that's when the face-slapping character assassinators show up. I agree as well. I am familiar with the case you speak of and others. The problem is human contamination and if by chance the creatures exist and or are feral humans then the DNA conclusion of human is logical.. As well as the closeness of DNA we share similar to other great apes Edited June 1, 2019 by Patterson-Gimlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7.62 Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 5 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: I and many others have explained everything you pointed out. The no body, no bones ,no viable DNA has not been explained adequately. All other extant large animals have been filmed,documented ,DNA ,, examined etc. If not then they are certainly are rare and not reported all over the world like man apes. Closed mindness works both ways Saying these creatures exist without proof is perhaps even more closed minded than saying they don't. We have members here that have seen them clearly . No mistaken identity . One of the staff on this forum has posted his sighting while slowing down in his car and being withing a few yards of the creature . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 (edited) I respect their opinion. Not there. Didn't see what they saw. So,this is not proven. Sightings are not new. Been reported for countless years. The mythical creatures remain just that. Who reports them is of no significance. The only thing that matters is real proof. There is none. Edited June 1, 2019 by Patterson-Gimlin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatFoot Posted June 1, 2019 Author Share Posted June 1, 2019 4 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: I respect their opinion. Not there. Didn't see what they saw. So,this is not proven. Sightings are not new. Been reported for countless years. The mythical creatures remain just that. Who reports them is of no significance. The only thing that matters is real proof. There is none. Those frickin liars. 🙄 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 7 hours ago, norseman said: https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/dna-remnants-of-three-separate-denisovan-populations-found-in-human-genomes Not only can they tell that Homo Sapien interbred with Denisovans? They can tell they interbred up to three separate times with different Denisovan groups. That's a really neat article, but I'm afraid it's the same gobbledegoop that I used to sucker for as a kid in the early 1960's. It's not a bit different than any sasquatch article one might find in a newsletter or website. It's a review of a claim written by one or a few people and accepted by a publication to publish. These same people, just like judges on an appeals court, have the right to simply refuse to hear arguments or suggestions for any reason whatsoever, and they do it all the time. The DNA game boils down to the same demand we know so well: they want a carcass, they want it for free, they want it delivered, and they want to be able to look down on the cretin who killed the creature. Then, and only then, will they extract DNA that will magically enable them to locate ancestral sasquatches everywhere, tell us all about their history, tell you that you are related to them, and make decisions that will chart their (and our) futures. Until then, any and all DNA found in crude nests in PNW rainforests that comes back as "human" will be considered "contaminated". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Huntster said: Until then, any and all DNA found in crude nests in PNW rainforests that comes back as "human" will be considered "contaminated". Funny how even though Denisovans can be so amazingly articulated from the DNA soup WITHOUT ANY Human contamination but the nesting samples and all the rest FAIL on that front. i.e., ALL are contaminated by Humans. It makes no sense whatsoever. Who determines this stuff anyway? Denisovan DNA thousands of years old and other hominid finds are always just fine but, nope, not Sasquatches. It's beginning to sound like the old neither confirm nor deny game? Samples are contaminated unless they happen to come from Denisovans? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 They must really think I'm stupid. How many times do they think they can do this? They've been doing it with dinosaur fossils for over a century, and nothing has changed. In fact, this is really round two. The first gorilla skulls and then carcass were brought out of Africa right as Darwin published "On the Origin of Species", and the games with gorillas continued well beyond his later publication of "The Descent of Man". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 (edited) Heh, they must think I'm stupid, too, which I am NOT. But just try and get science to address the inconsistency and obvious subterfuge on the BF front. IMHO using the "samples contaminated by Humans" excuse no longer holds water. Even a low level scientist has to question that kind of double standard oxymoron. But how does one get through that door to even bring it up without the door abrubtly being closed in one's face or the usual end result of non-answered emails. Why doesn't Meldrum or Disotell ever wade in on such an obvious discrepancy? Do they think I'm stupid as well? I'm not too stupid to bring it up but does that even mean anything to them? Two scientists who......I can't and really shouldn't go there though I very much want to. I don't want to start pushing people to start sending emails to them but when is enough ENOUGH? Edited June 1, 2019 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.b5c8420ce01458630cf89afd9b1fd29c.thumb.jpg.08a17e7147aee99ef1824b1f4b9a5c70.jpg)
Recommended Posts