"Ghost" DNA in West Africans

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

.........Just say you have positive evidence that chimpanzees,  gorillas or a similar novel primate is roaming the woods of the PNW........

 

Big deal. It has been proven that an unidentified 425 lb male tiger was roaming the suburban Simi Valley near the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Los Angeles in 2005.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7017901/ns/us_news/t/trackers-kill-roaming-tiger-california/#.XnFDIMqIahA

 

That stuff happens all the time. Never mind what's foraging in south Florida. Tell the "scientists" that there's a chimp or gorilla wandering the forests of the PNW, and you'll get a blank stare with some kind sounding insults on your intelligence in reply.

 

It's probably best to just let the smart fellers bask in their superior intelligence and stop trying to educate them. They really don't want to know.

[SWWASAS]

You very well could be right.      I would not send a dam thing to  Sykes or Disotell.   They can and do ignore a lot already.   Something has to be crammed down their throat.    I would bet there is a good chance that if you independently tested a sample before sending it to Sykes,  the results of his testing might not be the same.   If you could prove these people have an agenda then their opinions would mean nothing. 

[hiflier]

Sorry, Huntster, no can do. But that's just my make up. And also, I'm not convinced yet that science is a lost cause. Money, however is a powerful thing. Or the LOVE of it I should say.

Edited March 17, 2020 by hiflier

[Twist]

2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

You very well could be right.      I would not send a dam thing to  Sykes or Disotell.   They can and do ignore a lot already.   Something has to be crammed down their throat.    I would bet there is a good chance that if you independently tested a sample before sending it to Sykes,  the results of his testing might not be the same.   If you could prove these people have an agenda then their opinions would mean nothing. 

 

Is there a link or site that documents why you or others may feel this way?    Curious what case or reasoning there is for this opinion.  

[hiflier]

For myself? I have an avenue of thought that I have been pursuing. It's not something I've heard thought of by anyone else no matter who it is. And the two papers on the NOTCH2NL gene variations and implications have been published for nearly two years now. This isn't to say "someone" could crop up and say they've been looking at this very concept and then give a date that precedes the time the idea came to me and I presented it here on the BFF. But so far I haven't seen any statements to that effect. This is why I posted this:

 

5 hours ago, hiflier said:

Where's Disotell when I need him? Where's Meldrum? Where's Mayor?

 

Edited March 18, 2020 by hiflier

[CallyCat]

What is the NOTCH2NL? Why is it important?

[hiflier]

The NOTCH2NL is a DNA gene that is present along with an incomplete defective copy of itself that ONLY in Chimpanzees, their cousins, and Gorillas. In Humans on the other hand, the NOTCH2NL has four variations that two recent studies have shown are responsible for our larger brains and higher cognitive thinking. I think the distinction it's important because, unlike Chimps and Gorillas, Sasquatch, has an evolutionary advanced primate body more like Humans. But it demonstrates cognitive thinking that is far more ape like.

 

My hypothesis, therefore, is that Sasquatch has what I call the ape gene- the NOTCH2NL with it's defective copy. So what I'm saying is that if a scientist looks for the NOTCH2NL ape gene in the North American environment, and finds it, then it means we either have a great ape out there in the habitat or a Sasquatch.

 

We've had several supposed Sasquatch DNA examples over the years that have shown Human contamination. There has been so much discussion on how theoretically similar Sasquatch DNA could be to Human DNA but the supposed Human contaminated samples always get tossed. I'm proposing that some of the samples weren't contaminated, and since Human and Sasquatch DNA may be very close, the more obvious difference may lay in the possible presence of the NOTCH2NL ape gene. Of course, if the four Human NOTCH2NL variations are present then the samples are definitely Human contaminated. But if not, then it could make things VERY interesting indeed.

Edited March 18, 2020 by hiflier

[MIB]

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

But it demonstrates cognitive thinking that is far more ape like.

 

In this statement, your belief contradicts my experience.      Remember, when theory contradicts the data, the theory is flawed.    If your assumption about the genetics behind the difference are as wrong as your assumptions about the cognitive capabilities, then the test you are proposing is invalid as well and will not produce the results you hope to find.    Whatever they are, they are not a lost ape.   They will either test so near human you'd have to have one on a slab to be sure you're not testing a person, or they're going to be something pretty different with convergent characteristics .. perhaps like the south american mara and a european hare, molded physically by the niche even though the genes are quite substantially dissimilar.

 

I'm not trying to discourage you, just suggesting caution in your faith in your untested assumptions.  

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

Whatever genetic difference,   the largest difference I see beyond physical appearance and size, is the ability to fabricate.    Meldrum pushes lack of cultural artifacts as putting them in the ape camp as descendants of  giganto.   But the level of intelligence and even speech that I have observed seems to indicate that he is at least partially wrong.    While apes make vocalizations etc no one suggests that they converse with a language.     How Meldrum can share the stage with experts in language who say they communicate with speech recorded in the Sierra Sounds and still tag them as apes is beyond me.   Someplace and some time they diverged from the human family tree.   Their morphology is too similar to have never been in the same family tree.      Perhaps a genetic defect in BF caused the lack of the ability to fabricate tools, shelters,  clothing etc and set them on a divergent path away from the human family tree. Certainly genetic isolation on this continent over two ice ages would enhance the differences.    Another sign of this ability to visualize  and fabricate might have been lack of vision in the benefit to migrate across the land bridge in the first place.    Who knows!       In this period of genetic isolation of the bigfoot line,   humans were interbreeding with various branches of their family tree in Eurasia and the best traits of each were likely to survive the two ice ages.    Maybe Bigfoot was stuck with what they had when they diverged? 

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, MIB said:

Whatever they are, they are not a lost ape

 

This has been a continually difficult thing to get across. I do not think they are LOST APE. But I also don't think they are a LOST HUMAN. The whole idea is that the creature is a third species that has the advanced primate body of a Human, but the relatively primitive brain of a great ape. This is something I have proposed here for over three years. To illustrate the point, what if the already super intelligence of animal like a Gorilla or a Chimpanzee was poured into a creature shaped like the more physically advanced Sasquatch? Don't forget, Gorillas and Chimpanzees are vocal too. 

 

This has been my thinking for a long time now. It what drives my hypothesis that NOTCH2NL ape gene has been what has kept Sasquatch cognitive level in a more primitive state- like Gorillas and Chimps. So Sasquatch builds nests instead of skyscrapers. Still intelligent.....but certainly not Human. This is why I lean hard towards the differentiation in the NOTCH2NL genes between us and them. Yes, it's only a hypothesis but I think it's the best one going and that it opens up a potentially successful avenue for proving existence.   

[MIB]

On 3/18/2020 at 1:56 PM, hiflier said:

Yes, it's only a hypothesis but I think it's the best one going and that it opens up a potentially successful avenue for proving existence. 

 

Only if it is correct.   If it is as wrong as my experiences tell me it is, you're hopelessly off track wasting your time. 

 

MIB

[hiflier]

8 minutes ago, MIB said:

Only if it is correct

 

I surmise there's only one way to find out. With the way things are shaping up in the US it could be a while.

[MIB]

10 hours ago, hiflier said:

I surmise there's only one way to find out. With the way things are shaping up in the US it could be a while.

 

Depends on what you believe that one way is.   The way you've presented it so far it seems you think it is the only angle worth pursuit.   I suggest that is wrong.   I certainly think your idea should be considered, pursued, but not to the degree of putting all the eggs in one basket, especially one that experience says is not where the answer lies.    Go ahead and pursue what you think is the right answer.   However, the more people you engage in that red herring pursuit, the less likely proving existence becomes because you're taking people who might be on the right track and putting them on a wrong track.  

 

MIB

[hiflier]

What IS the right track, MIB? Nearly 60 years have gone by so I would certainly want to know what you or anyone else thinks the right track is. You call this pursuit a red herring but no one has EVER tried it so I think it's too premature to call it that. As far as putting all my eggs in one basket goes. The basket is huge and everyone who has tried their approach within that basket has failed. I have failed as well. What is left? Not much as far as I can determine. Even the OP nesting site has failed unless something is going on there that most everyone is not privy to.

 

Environmental DNA has great chances in my opinion but how does it get implemented and how would one determine anything like a new novel primate without reference DNA? Say what you like. There IS a difference in NOTCH2NL genes between Great Apes ad Humans. And this is the important part: All that needs to be determines is that any NOTCH2NL gene found in a sample that doesn't indicate Human contamination has to show a novel primate. And it DOESN'T even have to be an identical NOTCH2NL ape gene although I'm nearly 100% certain that that is what a Sasquatch will have. Either way, as long as the Human contamination doesn't show NOTCH2NL Human gene variations then what else could it be? This to me is sound logical reasoning.