starchunk Posted September 20, 2019 Posted September 20, 2019 9 minutes ago, NatFoot said: Even if homo, the majority of the world would not see them as humans. Treehuggers would, opportunistic lawyers would, whereas the industries effected by their recognition and possibly religious types would freak out in the opposing direction. 1
Huntster Posted September 20, 2019 Posted September 20, 2019 23 hours ago, hiflier said: .......In any case someone who looks at the genomes from the sample MUST look for more than just the usual Human genetic markers. That's where the expense is which is why I started a thread about what those markers might be and if they could be determined ahead of time to help defray costs so more samples could be tested..... Both Sykes and the Sasquatch Genome Project have unique markers to compare future samples with. If markers are present in samples taken from a sasquatch sighting or trace evidence site like a nest that match the unique African markers found n Zana's progeny, the denialists will be deep on defense. 15 minutes ago, NatFoot said: Even if homo, the majority of the world would not see them as humans. That's because most of the world pays lip service to the God of Science, but they're more worshipping their own whims than any god whatsoever. If these creatures are of the genus homo, they are human. Only an abortion-style ideology and judicial ruling would keep these creatures non-human in terms of human rights.
hiflier Posted September 20, 2019 Posted September 20, 2019 (edited) ^^ True. BTW, on a different (but related) note, I was researching timber harvesting revenues for the US and this came up. Now why wouldn't a .gov website be secure??!!??: Edited September 20, 2019 by hiflier
Huntster Posted September 20, 2019 Posted September 20, 2019 19 hours ago, 17x7 said: I'm sure we have killed bunches of them. Even in recent times. There are plenty of reports of people shooting at them, only to have them disappear into the woods. So far, nobody seems to have had the required balance of large reproductive rocks and/or low IQ to chase a wounded squatch into the brush it ran off into. If such a person has had those basic requirements, we've not found their body either. What I know is that if such an animal (or whatever it is) gets gut shot, or even a 'pass through' deep wound without any follow up medical treatment, it's almost guaranteed to succumb to blood loss or infection. The problem is just how far and deep it ran before it died....... In my life I've lost a big black bear and a caribou bull like this. Both were solidly hit with an appropriate cartridge/bullet. I'm quite confident both died before nightfall. I looked for hours each time, but didn't find them. It is just a sad reality of hunting. It happens. 2 minutes ago, hiflier said: .......Now why wouldn't a .gov website be secure??!!??....... Maybe it was a website cleverly disguised as a government site.
norseman Posted September 20, 2019 Admin Posted September 20, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, starchunk said: No I just think "being on TV" isn't really anything that sets the bar very high. On that we agree. In fact if your seriously hunting? Your not bringing a 6 man camera crew with you.... 1 hour ago, NatFoot said: Even if homo, the majority of the world would not see them as humans. They must be scientifically classified in the genus Homo first...... that hasn’t happened yet. Edited September 20, 2019 by norseman
gigantor Posted September 20, 2019 Admin Posted September 20, 2019 1 hour ago, hiflier said: ^^ ... why wouldn't a .gov website be secure??!!??: Incompetence. Happens all the time. 1 1
hiflier Posted September 20, 2019 Posted September 20, 2019 (edited) On 9/19/2019 at 11:26 AM, hiflier said: I'm firm in the idea that e-DNA could be the easiest and strongest method available to science or us. But I also think WHERE samples are taken is highly critical to the outcome. One wouldn't take samples from a campground. One WOULD take samples at say the area around a headwaters deep in the environment that is unlikely to see Human activity. In any case someone who looks at the genomes from the sample MUST look for more than just the usual Human genetic markers. That's where the expense is which is why I started a thread about what those markers might be and if they could be determined ahead of time to help defray costs so more samples could be tested. I'm convinced that eventually something will be found. E-DNA certainly has the potential to canvass more area than someone walking trails hoping to see some kind of sign or the creature itself? What stood out for me in this article: https://www.sciencealert.com/there-s-a-bunch-of-eel-dna-in-loch-ness-raising-questions-about-nessie-s-identity is the fact that soooo much DNA was found that belonged to land mammals. Needless to say, no Nessie: "There was - and this may or may not be a surprise, depending on your feelings about the Loch Ness Monster - absolutely no evidence of any Jurassic-era animal DNA, including plesiosaurs, in any of the samples tested.......We find a large amount of eel DNA. Eels are very plentiful in Loch Ness, with eel DNA found at pretty much every location sampled - there are a lot of them," the researchers wrote on the project's website. "Researchers had earlier suggested that a giant eel might explain some sightings. That idea then lost popularity as theories about extinct reptiles became more common. But there have been ongoing reports of very large eels by a number of witnesses." Specifically, the DNA is from European eels (Anguilla anguilla), which does present another problem. As far as biologists know, these fish don't grow any larger than about 1.5 metres (4 feet, 11 inches). To be consistent with Nessie reports, an eel would have to be quite a bit bigger. The data doesn't reveal the size of the eels shedding their DNA into the loch, but the whole idea is not without precedent. Another strange beast sighted in a highland loch could have been an eel. In 1865, a huge "sea serpent" was reported in a loch in Leurbost, eel-like in appearance - leading to the conclusion that it was, probably, an eel. More research will need to be undertaken to understand how an eel fits in with Monster sightings, if it does at all, but the team's findings revealed more about the loch than just ruling out Nessie candidates." What this really means for us Sasquatch researchers is that soil samples needn't be the ONLY place to search for Sasquatch DNA: "One of the more intriguing findings was the large amount of DNA from land-based species in the Loch system," the researchers wrote. "These included high levels of DNA from humans and a variety of species associated with us, such as dogs, sheep and cattle. We also detected wild species local to the area e.g. deer, badgers, foxes, rabbits, voles and multiple bird species. These findings show eDNA surveys of major waterways may be useful for rapidly surveying the biological diversity at a regional level." There has been a lot of water sampling done everywhere at minimum in the last five years. I think some deeper research needs to be done by folks here into just what F&W and academia is finding for land mammal DNA in their local ponds and lakes. It's something we never really hear about. Just stick with the science and all will be well. https://labs.wsu.edu/edna/documents/2015/05/field-protocol.pdf/ Edited September 20, 2019 by hiflier 2 1
Celtic Raider Posted September 23, 2019 Author Posted September 23, 2019 I read up a little bit on the DNA search up there in Loch Ness and it's quite fascinating and surprising how much information they have been able to squeeze out of what little genetic information is contained in the water samples. When you think about how peat rich the waters are it's really fascinating they can pull information out about the various species and even land based animals. Makes it even more puzzling with regards to the regular reports back of contaminated or mysterious results from the supposedly sasquatch hair DNA tests. As we progress every year and the relative costs and complexity goes down in line with our technology I'm pretty sure there'll be a DNA App out for your iPhone 21 😀 1
Huntster Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 17 minutes ago, Celtic Raider said: ........ it's quite fascinating and surprising how much information they have been able to squeeze out of what little genetic information is contained in the water samples. When you think about how peat rich the waters are it's really fascinating they can pull information out about the various species and even land based animals. Makes it even more puzzling with regards to the regular reports back of contaminated or mysterious results from the supposedly sasquatch hair DNA tests.......... The regular returns of "human" and "contaminated" ding the bell each time it occurs now. If identifiable dna floating or laying on the bottom in Loch Ness isn't contaminated, contamination doesn't occur. 1
Franco Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 It is hard to Define, What is Human these days? No Matter where you stand on the Issue..... We all Can Agree, it is "A Catch 22".
Franco Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 7 hours ago, Huntster said: The regular returns of "human" and "contaminated" ding the bell each time it occurs now. If identifiable dna floating or laying on the bottom in Loch Ness isn't contaminated, contamination doesn't occur. I believe that issue is that they are only doing the basic DNA Test... Somewhere I heard that they need to do a deeper scan of the DNA.... Correct me if I am wrong.
hiflier Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 I think any future DNA testing should go to Dr. Scott Moody at Ohio State University. As of 2013 he thought the PGF showed a real creature. That says a lot. 1
WSA Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 One standard reply I give to people who ask this question is, "So, what you are saying is IF somebody HAD killed a Sasquatch, you think you'd necessarily know about it"? The reply is usually, "No, I'm not saying that". To which the only logical response is: "Then how do you know somebody hasn't"? End of discussion. It is a conceit of the digital age to think that somehow EVERYTHING important is flashed out over the web as soon as it happens, to all points. You can see why we think that, but thankfully a whole lot of what occurs in our world is out of view, and shared only locally. For instance, we'll never know how many Class A sighting occur each year, only the numbers that show up in the BFRO's and similar databases. I'd be willing to estimate that as high as 60% go unreported and undocumented. 1
MIB Posted September 23, 2019 Moderator Posted September 23, 2019 1 minute ago, WSA said: I'd be willing to estimate that as high as 60% go unreported and undocumented. And a substantial number more have publication delayed if the group they are reported to do due diligence in investigating reports rather than just spewing them out there ala Ray Crowe leaving it to the reader to do their own investigation if they want the report investigated. That can take weeks, months, even years depending on how busy the investigators in an area are, whether they want to stop at a phone interview vs traveling to the site to investigate, and whether or not the investigator thinks the report is such that they want to do long term followup (habituation, etc) prior to publication. The really "good" reports may well be the slowest to come out. MIB 1
hiflier Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 6 minutes ago, WSA said: It is a conceit of the digital age to think that somehow EVERYTHING important is flashed out over the web as soon as it happens, to all points. You can see why we think that, but thankfully a whole lot of what occurs in our world is out of view, and shared only locally..... I think I can safely say that that would apply to DNA testing as well;, either past, present, or future. There may be testing going on now which I reasonably suspect is what is happening. I've mentioned that possibility with the Olympic Peninsula nesting site several times.
Recommended Posts