Why is Bigfoot still a joke to so many people?

[BC witness]

The post from SWWASAS 3rd from top of page 8 addresses tools, or lack thereof. Tools may well have been found, and of course attributed to early humans, rather than an unknown hairy biped.

 

Regarding DNA, just how close is Denisovan to ours, and is there a possibility that the reportedly very large and robust Denisovans are in fact the source of Sasquatch? I saw a recent map of the world showing the extent of Denisovan DNA occurrence in modern humans, and it roughly corresponds to the supposed range of Sasquatch, Almasty, and Yeren. Coincedence?

Edited August 6, 2019 by BC witness

[hiflier]

3 minutes ago, BC witness said:

I saw a recent map of the world showing the extent of Denisovan DNA occurrence in modern humans, and it roughly corresponds to the supposed range of Sasquatch, Almasty, and Yeren. Coincedence?

 

Maybe, BC witness. There again lies the matter of the midtarsal break if Sasquatch does in fact have such a physical feature. The PGF would suggest that it does. Denisovans are a species of Homo which signifies again a foot morphology designed for spring forward when running. Not a design that is typically made up to demonstrate a divergent toe which leans into a more arboreal climbing/grasping kind of foot design. IMHO the feature in a bipedal creature further removes Sasquatch from the Homo line. If it is in the Homo line though then a midtarsal feature increases the odds that the creature is a species entirely isolated unto itself. Large, full-haired, bipedal, but no tools and a midtarsal break.

 

Things we all know about and yet these attributes suggest that Sasquatch is a unique mammal. Homo Naledi has bipedal modern Human foot morphology but the hands still possessed a morphology more like a tree climber with long fingers for gripping. It means that combinations of old and new physical attributes did occur as Nature sorted itself out in the quest for the perfectly adapted hominid. Are we that final design that incorporates all the characteristics for success? It would appear so once the brain advancements are factored in.

 

A a last thought ALL othe Homo species have died out. We remain. But Sasquatch remains as well. Makes me wonder if its reclusive nature that keeps it away from us also kept it away from other ancient Homo species which is why it has been able to live on. I would think it would have been killed off a long time ago since it didn't apparently have weapons such as spears etc. It would seem that keeping its distance from all other Homo species may have been the key to its survival?

[Arvedis]

7 hours ago, Huntster said:

If there is no carcass forthcoming, it will be because somebody is actively ensuring that it never surfaces, and that is likely because they, too, fear herds of lawyers.

 

If it comes to that it will be interesting to see how that part plays out. It would depend on circumstances. Like you said in a previous thread, if the body was dragged off federal land then we'll never get any answers.  If it comes from native american land then they will lawyer up and who knows how that will go.  If it is from private land though....

 

7 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Krantz, and Bindernagel were out there on the fringe before Meldrum.    Part of the problem with Ketchum's or anyone else's DNA samples are the way in which they were collected. stored, and transported.      You cannot expect much scientific credence when your DNA sample was collected off a barb wire fence or plucked out of a nest by bearded, maskless, and hatless researchers.    The only gun in use was the one in which they shoot themselves in the foot.  

 

Krantz and Bindernagel never had any biological evidence at all. Meldrum doesn't either but the question is, IF, he was involved in a DNA study, would that give any more credibility to the study?  I think he is extra careful about associating himself with DNA testing without having firm facts, which could be why he never involved himself with the Ketchum testing. I think he  was sort of but not fully associated with the Sykes study which produced nothing notable (and I would bet Meldrum knew that is how it would end up beforehand. He played the safe hand).  

 

 It has been said before, DNA from the field is really hard to get with this species. Then, to scientifically extract it into a sterile environment seems impossible.  If anyone wants to hack off a limb and have that stand scientifically, it would just raise more speculation whatever the DNA results from it.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Arvedis

[Huntster]

35 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

........the Sykes study which produced nothing notable.........

 

I strongly disagree. First, there is an unknown bear in the Himalayas. But all we hear is the relief and catcalls about "no extant hominid", as if that is the end-all, be-all of science..........which it might be, if you really think about it...........

 

Secondly, his work on Zana was quite notable:

 

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/dna-evidence-suggests-captured-russian-ape-woman-020288

 

..........According to International Business Times , Bryan Sykes, former Professor of Human Genetics at University of Oxford has analyzed the DNA of Zana’s descendants and has discovered West African genes,

but surprisingly, her DNA did not match any known modern African group.

 

Sykes theorizes that her ancestors may have lived in the Caucasus Mountains for generations after leaving Africa over 100,000 years ago.......

 

Voila'! I present to you DNA evidence of an almasty.

 

[Arvedis]

9 minutes ago, Huntster said:

.........According to International Business Times , Bryan Sykes, former Professor of Human Genetics at University of Oxford has analyzed the DNA of Zana’s descendants and has discovered West African genes,

but surprisingly, her DNA did not match any known modern African group. 

Sykes theorizes that her ancestors may have lived in the Caucasus Mountains for generations after leaving Africa over 100,000 years ago.......

 

Voila'! I present to you DNA evidence of an almasty.

 

Forgot about Zana. Sounds interesting. If memory is accurate I think our good friend Dr. Burtsev did considerable field work on Zana. We should leave the follow up investigation in his capable hands.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Arvedis

[Huntster]

More importantly, perhaps accepting the possibility that DNA analysis of sasquatch hair follicles will produce "human" hits every time is in order? Clean room extremes in evidence collection might end up like everything else thus far; an exercise in futility.

 

Oil up your 458 Winchester Magnum before the you-know-who party takes it away, because that's the only way proof of their existence will be achieved. After they get over themselves with a bonafide specimen staring up at them with lifeless eyes, my bet is that they'll finally get with the program and start "researching".

[hiflier]

Zana was 6'6" tall and covered in auburn hair. Hmmm, a Russian "Patty"? So would Patty's DNA have come back Human? Probably.

Edited August 6, 2019 by hiflier

[bipedalist]

17 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

You 

You are probably right.     I hope I did not step on any toes but impressions are impressions.   If false impressions spread from pictures maybe the pictures should not have been released.   LIke you say contamination is always a first reason to throw out DNA evidence.   ;For heaven sakes don't publish pictures that suggest it.      The only way to get science on board is dump a body on a lab table and have enough of the right people see and test it before it gets confiscated.   Even that might not work if factors are at play that I suspect.  

 

You don't have to make excuses SW, even one of the visitors to the site said they laid in at least one of the nests.   Some science. 

[hiflier]

14 minutes ago, bipedalist said:

even one of the visitors to the site said they laid in at least one of the nests.   Some science.

 

That in no way means the samples were compromised unless you have proof that the nest that was laid in was where the samples were taken. DNA filtering protocols are clearly stated and even a novice in the field know how to handle and filter samples to eliminate contamination. It's time for everyone to stop using Human contamination as an excuse when protocols demand every sample be weighted against a control in order to weed out any individuals who may have come into contact with a sample. SOP. So stop blaming and pointing fingers to try and explain away Human results from EVERY supposed BF sample ever submitted. It's as bad as saying all reports are fakes.

[bipedalist]

^ It still does not present well prima facie or on it's face.  We will likely never see a paper from that exercise if it has taken this long. 

 

This is after all a thread on why others perceive bigfoot as a joke. 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by bipedalist

[NCBFr]

I am far from an expert on DNA, but I did read a book on it once a few years ago.  The details escape me but the conclusion I drew at the time was you could not use DNA to prove BF as a species because there is no BF DNA for comparison.  A related problem is if BF did cross breed with a Homo Sapien at some point in its evolution you will probably get enough DNA readings that look exactly like HS contamination.  What DNA will tell you is whether the sample is from a known creature such as bear, dog, or whatever.  That is probably all.  If you are bound and determined for scientific proof, there is only one real way to do it.  Just ask Norse.

[hiflier]

7 hours ago, bipedalist said:

^ It still does not present well prima facie or on it's face.  We will likely never see a paper from that exercise if it has taken this long. 

 

This is after all a thread on why others perceive bigfoot as a joke. 

 

 

 

^^^ QFT.

[Arvedis]

19 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

^^^ QFT.

 

A ran a search to see what QFT means and Google says it is quantum field theory.

[Twist]

Quoted for truth.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Twist

[wiiawiwb]

On 8/5/2019 at 5:39 PM, Huntster said:

The hair is found where it was left. One cannot expect a sasquatch to hand the scientific mystery men a clump of hair from a golden comb that has been washed in alcohol.

 

And this expectation of sterile "researchers" in the field is just more BS. As I posted just last month, I found a potential crime scene in the woods while searching for a list gun. I contacted the Alaska State Troopers and went to the site where a federal law enforcement officer met us. They started picking up bones and laying them out for a photo. No gloves, no washing their hands with alcohol, no surgical masks, no tools. These were potential murder victim bones.

 

Very astute observation Huntster.  Who's to say a strand of hair submitted by someone, and represented to be perfectly handled according to an evidence protocol, hasn't already been touched or sneezed on by someone else or who came across it earlier in the day? Ditto with a carcass. Touched, examined, sneezed on, then left alone for the next person to come along and take a sample for DNA purposes and claim it is pristine. 

 

Short of shooting something then immediately taking a sample, what assurance that no contamination has occurred can ever be given of any DNA sample submitted?