Jump to content
Arvedis

Relict Hominiod Theory - Comparison with Russian Scientists

Recommended Posts

hiflier
11 hours ago, NatFoot said:

I haven't seen much meaningful research from the US either

 

I've given up the constant internet search for any new info on the Olympic Project's nest find in WA. That's probably what I'm supposed to end up doing, get frustrated and give up looking. And as much as I hate doing that there is no other choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Do you think they really want you frustrated or could they just be doing their thing and don’t feel the need to keep you in the loop?  Ala not concerned if you have updates on their potential work?   Or perhaps there are no updates? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I thought it was a bust? Samples came back Bear? Maybe I’m wrong?

 

Either way we gotta keep on keeping on! 

 

After my big heart attack I find my time in the mountains that much sweeter. I’m so blessed to live where I do. I hope Derek and the crew keep hitting the Olympics and have fun doing it.

 

Maybe this mystery will be solved in our lifetime or maybe those craggy peaks will continue to keep their secrets close to their chests.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, norseman said:

Samples came back Bear?

 

You are correct, bear and a lot of other animals. The sample(s) also showed Human which is the only reason I hold out hope for the investigation. SOMETHING wove those structures over how many years. SOMETHING broke all those huckleberry bushes to use in the construction of the artifacts. So IMHO ruling out Humans as the culprits is the goal. Human presence in the eDNA samples taken from the soil beneath the center of the "nests" is the real crux of the matter AFAIC. That and 1200 sq. yds. of broken off bushes. Add in that bear experts were there and stated that it wasn't typical bear behavior- or at least it was undocumented behavior. And even if it WAS bears it would involve a lot of thought, time, and energy to create those structures. Something isn't adding up.

 

The find was announced in the mainstream news media. The results of the e-DNA testing was not. It was instead announced on two tine podcasts. Once by Dr. Meldrum on one of them and another by Dr. Disotell on a different podcast....to small audiences- not mainstream media. What am I missing here because the facts don't line up with the follow ups.

 

1 hour ago, Twist said:

Ala not concerned if you have updates on their potential work?  

 

Not concerned if ANYONE has updates. Why single out me in this? I really get tired of that. The subject of Sasquatch discovery isn't about me and just because I bring up these issues doesn't mean there's open season on 'hiflier'. EVERYONE should be asking these questions and bringing up these issues. Why it doesn't happen is seriously beyond me. The general apathy about this kind of stuff really sucks around here sometimes.   

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot

He's right. It doesn't add up. They did all this work and then chose to release it the way they did?

 

C'mon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
42 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

You are correct, bear and a lot of other animals. The sample(s) also showed Human which is the only reason I hold out hope for the investigation. SOMETHING wove those structures over how many years. SOMETHING broke all those huckleberry bushes to use in the construction of the artifacts. So IMHO ruling out Humans as the culprits is the goal. Human presence in the eDNA samples taken from the soil beneath the center of the "nests" is the real crux of the matter AFAIC. That and 1200 sq. yds. of broken off bushes. Add in that bear experts were there and stated that it wasn't typical bear behavior- or at least it was undocumented behavior. And even if it WAS bears it would involve a lot of thought, time, and energy to create those structures. Something isn't adding up.

 

The find was announced in the mainstream news media. The results of the e-DNA testing was not. It was instead announced on two tine podcasts. Once by Dr. Meldrum on one of them and another by Dr. Disotell on a different podcast....to small audiences- not mainstream media. What am I missing here because the facts don't line up with the follow ups.

 

 

Not concerned if ANYONE has updates. Why single out me in this? I really get tired of that. The subject of Sasquatch discovery isn't about me and just because I bring up these issues doesn't mean there's open season on 'hiflier'. EVERYONE should be asking these questions and bringing up these issues. Why it doesn't happen is seriously beyond me. The general apathy about this kind of stuff really sucks around here sometimes.   

 

I think if the results had been “unidentified primate” you would have heard it on the main stream media. But they were not so it fizzled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot

But still....no press release? Bears with hands making nests would be interesting too, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
53 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Human presence in the eDNA samples taken from the soil beneath the center of the "nests" is the real crux of the matter AFAIC. 

 

Definitely a piece of it, but still potentially misleading.   Without a definite type sample for the DNA comparison, bigfoots might well test out as human.   Remember that the mtDNA tests focus on specific gene loci for making the determination, they don't check the whole strand.   If the differences between human / sasquatch mtDNA fall at some locations other than what we currently test, we're not going to tell one from the other until the testing changes.     I'd expect that if they dig deeper than just trying to do species identification and get down to the level of testing used for determining paternity, etc then differences should appear .. should come across as some unknown haplogroup.    That's pretty close to what one of Sykes' samples said, some kind of rare eastern European DNA found in a very unexpected location.   I think that's worth a 2nd look.   

 

53 minutes ago, hiflier said:

That and 1200 sq. yds. of broken off bushes. Add in that bear experts were there and stated that it wasn't typical bear behavior- or at least it was undocumented behavior. And even if it WAS bears it would involve a lot of thought, time, and energy to create those structures. Something isn't adding up.

 

I got to examine 1-2 pieces of the huckleberry that was broken off .. already contaminated, so no issue regarding DNA.   Anyway, what I saw looked to be right at the limit of what humans could break by hand w/o tools as sharply as they were broken which points to very considerable hand strength.   I was told that some of the huckleberry branches were considerably thicker than those I was shown.    I think that puts it out of the realm of bear behavior, clearly and cleanly, and beyond the strength of the very vast majority of human hands.   I find that intriguing as well.    I would like to do some experimenting this fall.   The huckleberry near me is a different species with pretty different characteristics but down by my dad's house the huckleberry is the same as the OP has.   Then, as a side note, that first trackway I found back in '74 lead into a huckleberry "jungle" very much like what was shown on video taken when Meldrum went to the "nests" site.   Again, very intriguing.

 

There are definitely dots that connect.  Some that should not, too.  Caution is in order in drawing conclusions but there are conclusions and insights that can rightly be drawn, IMHO, from what the OP folks did, and did not, find.

 

MIB

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis
On 7/9/2019 at 7:33 PM, hiflier said:

Well, I for one am not going to "spring" for any more books. What's the point of it? To date they have all been basically dead ends as far as proof goes anyway. My next Sasquatch book purchase will be one issued from a study done by a chief primatologist at the Jane Goodall Institute. Which, again, is really saying I will be buying no more books. I mean, are we supposed to think that the U.S., in all of its scientific capacities with billions spent on wildlife research, doesn't have one single dime to spare for Sasquatch? Is that what I'm supposed to think? The glaring question is "why" are we being led to think that? Is there an honest, concrete, believable answer for  that incongruity beyond just a proponent's speculation?

 

I find it nearly impossible to think no one in science can put two and two together with the PGF or even will take the time to study it. Not one scientist outside of our own rather non-committal Dr. Meldrum? Not one other anthropologist? Not one other zoologist?, Not one other primatologist? The carrot that some are interested isn't good enough. Heck, My 10 year old grandson is interested so to say any scientist in those fields is interested simply isn't good enough. What is the DEGREE of interest. Interested enough to fund research? Nah, so it would seem no one is all THAT interested. Biggest find of the century and no takers.

 

It's the same story as it has been for a while with academics. Those that take a chance on the fringes get ostracised. It's a career killer. Some academics not named Krantz  or Meldrum, dip their toe in the water, like John Napier did and a few others since. It's not worth the effort, especially for people seeking tenure. Meldrum was able to do it with a thick skin and support from his particular University with a particular set of circumstances. Can't do that in every school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
6 hours ago, hiflier said:

Not concerned if ANYONE has updates. Why single out me in this? I really get tired of that. The subject of Sasquatch discovery isn't about me and just because I bring up these issues doesn't mean there's open season on 'hiflier'. EVERYONE should be asking these questions and bringing up these issues. Why it doesn't happen is seriously beyond me. The general apathy about this kind of stuff really sucks around here sometimes.    

Edited 6 hours ago by hiflier

 

Hiflier, Its not about you, but when I post in response to your post about your frustration of course I'm going to reference you.  Common sense. 😣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)

Does that mean that my frustrations aren't valid? I would much rather you understand why I question these things and whether or not you agree that the questions are based on any anything close to sound reasoning. For one thing I fully understand that an individual or a group will become silent in order to keep a certain guard on a proprietary documentary with no spoiler alerts. I get that. I would be nice to hear that it is the case instead of just leaving the community hanging with these questions. Heck, even the Loch Ness e-DNA study said they needed more time to go through the data and so pushed back any announcements. Might be nice to hear at least that from the nest researchers.

 

Bottom line here is......I don't think the Human e-DNA from the nest core samples means that the culprit is a Human as we know a Human to be. Period. I think someone is going to, or has, unzipped the DNA to match it to the Human genome. I also think the result will be , or is, what has been holding everyone up. The parties involved want to be sure. Because it would seem to me that if a series of soil samples for e-DNA testing can be harvested once then the samples can be harvested many times from the same location. Harvested and not frozen for a year and a half but be field tested ON THE SPOT- like they do with pond water kits. No one should think for a minute that the five samples originally taken were a one time shot never to be repeated again. That is simply not true. Fresh samples can be taken at any time.

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
7 hours ago, hiflier said:

........Human presence in the eDNA samples taken from the soil beneath the center of the "nests" is the real crux of the matter AFAIC.......

 

Somebody took a leak there before the sasquatch built his nest on the spot. But it couldn't have been me, because the DNA results would have come back as Neanderthal with a high level of alcohol in the urine.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Couldn't have been me either as the results would have come back idiot which is the only obvious reason for why I stay here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Couldn't have been me either as the results would have come back idiot which is the only obvious reason for why I stay here.

 

Paranoid, old and ego-centric, idiot if we are getting into the weeds here.

 

😂

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...