Sierra Shooting from A-Z

[Guest bsruther]

Here's a pic for General to check, for resemblance of his beast.

http://www.nimbacreations.com/library/bigfoot-photo.jpg

If I saw something like that, I don't think I could move, let alone, pull the trigger.

[Guest wtwest]

Source? Link? Anything?

Aren't you speculating that he is primate? How does this make you different?

Second post that was just rude for no reason to some people who are pretty kind. Why would you say something so belligerent?

I'm not speculating either way. I'm saying that we don't know for sure, so we can't make definitive claims as so many of you do.

You saying you looked bigfoot in the eye is like me saying that I shook hands with Optimus Prime. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, of which, we have none.

[Guest HairyGreek]

I'm not speculating either way. I'm saying that we don't know for sure, so we can't make definitive claims as so many of you do.

You saying you looked bigfoot in the eye is like me saying that I shook hands with Optimus Prime. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, of which, we have none.

I am still waiting for you to provide your primate DNA sample results. No joke. By the way, no extraordinary evidence is required. Simple evidence will do. I don't think Prag has anything to prove to you nor do I think he is here to prove anything to anyone. Some of these guys you may want to get to know before you try shredding them.

[Guest wtwest]

I am still waiting for you to provide your primate DNA sample results. No joke. By the way, no extraordinary evidence is required. Simple evidence will do. I don't think Prag has anything to prove to you nor do I think he is here to prove anything to anyone. Some of these guys you may want to get to know before you try shredding them.

Considering the fact that there has been no slam dunk, home run evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot, I'd say that we do indeed need extraordinary evidence. Either way, its arguing semantics. Evidence is needed. Prag telling me that he knows Bigfoot is human because he has looked in their eyes is a laughable form of evidence.

Bigfoot DNA Dr. Curt Nelson, a biologist with the University of Minnesota. We saw that the footprint and its study were only a part of the show.

Narrator: Dr. Curt Nelson has also been doing DNA tests on the blood, hair, and tissue samples and suspects there is an unknown substance, or inhibitor, present that is interfering with the DNA extraction. Nelson must first identify the inhibitor and remove it from the sequence. The inhibitor has been identified. The galvanizing on the screws was mixed in with the animal DNA. Nelson can now nudge DNA from the purified samples.

Nelson: Scientific evidence, at this point, is now suggesting there really is an animal there. I cut it out, I re-purified it, and amplified it again using the same primers, and I got a very strong reaction. When I did that I got rid of the inhibitory stuff by running it out that way. And I found it was identical to human DNA, except it had one nucleotide polymorphism. That nucleotide that was different was a difference that is shared with chimpanzees. I got DNA that was primate DNA, and I knew that I might be looking at the DNA of a sasquatch.

Narrator: The DNA says primate, but not quite human and not quite nonhuman primate. One of the base pairs is deviated.

Nelson: What we have to do now is look at more DNA. We have to sequence more of it. We have to design primers to amplify different regions of the DNA so that we can get sequence across the mitochondrial genome and determine whether or not it is just human DNA, which seems unlikely that something -- like a human -- would step on that board like that.

Narrator: Great apes share nearly identical DNA with man except for a 35-base-pair deviation. The Snellgrove DNA sample has only 1 deviation. According to Nelson, there is only a 1 in 5,000 chance this is human DNA.

Nelson: What we're looking at is the blood so far. So if we can find that same sequence exists in the tissue and hair, that indicates that an animal that bled there and left the tissue there and the hair there was all the same animal, and produce the same sequence. That's important to tie it all together. And that could take a year.

Narrator: It appears science may support the probability of a primate that is not quite human and not quite ape. But just what left the bloody footprint at that Snellgrove Lake cabin?

Nelson: Is it possible that the creature of Snellgrove Lake was a real animal? You add it all up, and it's very interesting.

Josh Gates interview with Dr. Melba Ketchum on DNA sample

(Here is the transcript of Josh Gates' 11/5/09 interview with Dr. Melba Ketchum, a forensic analyst with DNA Diagnostics, Inc., from the an episode of Destination Truth)

Ketchum: I didn't think we would have anything to talk about here, to be honest. I was just going to rule out yeti and be done with it. I submitted the sequence that we obtained from this hair sample to a large international database that scientists use to deposit their sequence data. Well, at first I was very skeptical, because we've had these things come into our lab in the past, and they never panned out to be anything interesting. However, this sample did test very clearly on the human panel of markers. That makes it a primate, and it makes it a large primate.

Gates: And how are we sure that it isn't just human contamination or that it's just DNA from human hair?

Ketchum: The hair, visually, is not human. It's courser than horse tail hair.

Gates: (voiceover) what she told me next seemed unbelievable.

Ketchum: Initial searches indicate that it's an unknown sequence. There are literally millions of sequences in this database. And we're really shocked that it didn't match any of the species exactly in the database.

Gates: What would be required in order for us to say, from a DNA standpoint, the yeti is a real animal.

Ketchum: If we're going to prove that there potentially is a new species, with this first hair sample, we really need more hair samples like it. And once you establish there is a group of animals, that will go a long ways towards proving that there is a new species indeed.

Assuming there is no chicanery involved (and with TV, how can you ever be sure?) this has to be considered a major find. And it gives us good reason to go back and find the results that we've all heard of before, of those hairs that come back unknown primate. If these hairs can be located and tested again, they might show a familial resemblance with the hairs Destination Truth found. And I'd find that pretty significant.

Those are just a few examples from prominent people in the Bigfoot community. There are a multitude of DNA tests out there that say primate DNA. As are there those that say human DNA. It's not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be.

Edited August 11, 2011 by wtwest

[Guest Forbig]

I can't bleieve this is still going on; let me know when you get the DNA evidence too CNN.

[Guest tpick]

Here's a pic for General to check, for resemblance of his beast.

http://www.nimbacreations.com/library/bigfoot-photo.jpg

If I saw something like that, I don't think I could move, let alone, pull the trigger.

Cool website...

Edited August 11, 2011 by tpick

[Guest bsruther]

Cool website...

Special effects company

http://www.nimbacreations.com/

[Guest HairyGreek]

Considering the fact that there has been no slam dunk, home run evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot, I'd say that we do indeed need extraordinary evidence. Either way, its arguing semantics. Evidence is needed. Prag telling me that he knows Bigfoot is human because he has looked in their eyes is a laughable form of evidence.

Those are just a few examples from prominent people in the Bigfoot community. There are a multitude of DNA tests out there that say primate DNA. As are there those that say human DNA. It's not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be.

Not to be a horses @$$, but you just qouted people as your proof or evidence but you won't take Prag's word for it? I give up. You win.

PS - yes, the double post his happening to everyone.

PSS - I agree with Forbig. This is boarding on the absurd until the results are back. This thread is like a car wreck. You don't want to keep watching, but you can't help it. Is there any kind of therapy for Sasquatchism?

"Hello, my name is HairyGreek....and I'm a Sasquatchaholic."

"Hi Hairy"

[Guest wtwest]

Not to be a horses @$$, but you just qouted people as your proof or evidence but you won't take Prag's word for it? I give up. You win.

PS - yes, the double post his happening to everyone.

PSS - I agree with Forbig. This is boarding on the absurd until the results are back. This thread is like a car wreck. You don't want to keep watching, but you can't help it. Is there any kind of therapy for Sasquatchism?

"Hello, my name is HairyGreek....and I'm a Sasquatchaholic."

"Hi Hairy"

You asked for links to people claiming primate DNA, I supplied them. I did not comment on the veracity of those claims and if I have to explain to you the difference between physical hair samples that test for primate DNA and a hearsay account from a random poster, well, I don't know what to tell you.

Edited August 11, 2011 by wtwest

[Guest HairyGreek]

You asked for links to people claiming primate DNA, I supplied them. I did not comment on the veracity of those claims and if I have to describe to you the difference between physical hair samples that test for primate DNA and a hearsay account from a random poster, well, I don't know what to tell you.

That's funny...I don't remember asking for that. I thought I asked for you to point me to primate DNA evidence in Bigfoot's favor. It's all good though. I am sure it's out there. Thanks anyways.

Oh, by the way, your just a random poster with an opinion as well. If no one else's is worth listening to, why bother sharing your own? Just a question.

I got some time to kill and no one has told us to get back on topic yet, so....

I'm actually out of time now. Have a nice evening. By the way...you really, really need to read your last post and think on what you wrote there. You gave qoutes that are a hearsay account about primate DNA. Can you not see that? Anyways, like I said, you win chief.

Edited August 11, 2011 by HairyGreek

[Guest wtwest]

That's funny...I don't remember asking for that. I thought I asked for you to point me to primate DNA evidence in Bigfoot's favor. It's all good though. I am sure it's out there. Thanks anyways.

The accounts I provided all had DNA testing from Sasquatch hair/blood/etc... that pointed towards primate DNA. Am I missing what you are saying here?

Oh, by the way, your just a random poster with an opinion as well. If no one else's is worth listening to, why bother sharing your own? Just a question.

I'm not trying to claim that I've looked bigfoot in the eye, nor making any outrageous, unverifiable claims. Nor any claims at all.

I got some time to kill and no one has told us to get back on topic yet, so....

[Guest wtwest]

I'm actually out of time now. Have a nice evening. By the way...you really, really need to read your last post and think on what you wrote there. You gave qoutes that are a hearsay account about primate DNA. Can you not see that? Anyways, like I said, you win chief.

Hearsay accounts about primate DNA from verifiable sources and credible individuals. It would take two seconds to look up these peoples numbers, call them and have them tell me the same thing.

Straw man fallacy much?

[southernyahoo]

Those are just a few examples from prominent people in the Bigfoot community. There are a multitude of DNA tests out there that say primate DNA. As are there those that say human DNA. It's not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be.

Alot depends on what type of testing is done, most testing I've seen or heard of sounds as though the test was aimed at a small segment of DNA to do an ID. The problem is that this wouldn't be sufficient to definitively establish a new species. I've not seen any that say it is closer to other great apes than it is to humans. Some tests are for mtDNA and some are for nuDNA. Some tests come back as "no match", like nothing close even exists.

[Guest vilnoori]

I don't think you can prosecute someone for murder of a human being if that being did not "exist" legally beforehand and happens to be all covered in "animal-like" hair and 100 yards away. But I digress.

One could argue that BF do exist to science but that they are considered extinct forms of humans. Kinda like the ceolocanth was discovered not to be extinct after all. But we did know about coelocanths, and that they were a form of lobe-finned fish.

And yet again I have to point out that modern humans are primates, but they are the only modern primates that have a foot quite like ours and are bipedal, if you don't count bigfoot. You can make a case that sometimes bears and gorillas (and other great apes) go bipedal, but there aren't any bipedal wild gorillas, chimps or anything like that in North America and just because a bear stands up doesn't mean it is going to come at you. A hunter should always be sure of his animal identification before taking a shot, anyway. General himself admits he made a mistake. All I am saying is that IF law enforcement gets proof of the incident and proof that the subjects were indeed human, of any kind, that justice will prevail in the end.

It might become a lose lose situation. If the proof comes out that BF are real, and are a form of extinct human or another species of human then law enforcement will have a case against General because ALL kinds of humans are protected by law (well except for fetuses but that is another issue altogether). They have a potential witness and they have a potential DNA sample. Looks like General will be forthcoming about a confession and will be cooperative. Lets just hope a jury will be merciful given the potential importance of the incidents. We're not in the Wild West any more. At least I hope not. I believe in justice.

[Guest wtwest]

Alot depends on what type of testing is done, most testing I've seen or heard of sounds as though the test was aimed at a small segment of DNA to do an ID. The problem is that this wouldn't be sufficient to definitively establish a new species. I've not seen any that say it is closer to other great apes than it is to humans. Some tests are for mtDNA and some are for nuDNA. Some tests come back as "no match", like nothing close even exists.

Exactly. There are a multitude of different variables and not all of them give definitive answers one way or another.