Nothing On The Internet About Bigfoot Environmental DNA

[hiflier]

And you don't understand this how? There are genes that are common to both Humans and other primates which is why the percentage of differences is so small. BUT, there are differences. There was an alteration in one type of gene that occurred after the last Great Ape (Chimpanzee) split from the evolutionary line leading to us. That type of gene alteration gave us bigger brains and cognitive abilities. Something which I truly think is lacking in a Sasquatch. That gives us a target to test for. The hominid line has four variations of those genes that Great Apes do not have. Any suspected Human contamination in an e-DNA field sample that lacks those four Human variations will be a DIFFERENT PRIMATE. Period. It doesn't even have to be the Great Ape genes. All it has to be is that the "Human" DNA in the sample lacks one or more of the Human gene variations.

 

Go try to find anything on that kind of thinking or an article that links e-DNA to Sasquatch investigations or studies. There is ZERO out there. Truth be know,I have only run across a couple and they were from this Forum. Surely I can't be the only one who has ever considered this possibility. The internet otherwise is completely void if ANY information or even opinions on simply the subject of Sasquatch and e-DNA- except for the old indiegogo site and Cliff Barackman's nest info from two or three years ago. I have been talking about Sasquatch and e-DNA since last fall. One would think SOMEONE "out there" would at least consider the concept, even if to slam it if nothing else. But nope. Nothing.

 

The internet, F&W, and nearly all of academia are complete dead ends, unless, and until I begin another round of attempts to open dialogue. But the emptiness of the subject on the internet, to me at least, has been the biggest teller. Because if there's any interest, it isn't being publicized anywhere.

Edited May 9, 2020 by hiflier

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

......Bigfoot isn't Human, there will be differences........

 

On 8/23/2019 at 8:44 AM, Huntster said:

.........But uf the Zana story is accurate, shooting a sasquatch is essentially murder. They are clearly not Homo sapien, but they are of the genus Homo if they can successfully interbreed with us. By definition, they are every bit as human as Neanderthals and Denisovans..........

 

They are human. And my statement from last year has been strengthened by Bryan Sykes, pages 128 & 129 of "The Nature of the Beast":

 

.......... Where does that leave us? Collateral human species, like the Neanderthals, have traditionally been defined by their appearance deduced from fossils. However, it is quite impossible to tell from the appearance of the skeleton whether Neanderthals were a different species from

Homo sapiens by the strict biological definition of genetic incompatibility. But now all that has changed. We now believe that Neanderthals, Denisovans and our own  Homo sapiens did interbreed both successfully and in the wild. If the offspring of the occasional inter-species human x chimp liaisons, possibly like the unusual individual encountered by Paul de Chaillu in the Congo, chromosome incompatibility would have prevented the parent DNA being passed on to the next generation and we would not have been able to detect it in modern humans. But with the Neanderthals and Denisovans, we can. So , to my mind, this means that by a strictly applied biological criteria insisted on by modern taxonomy, we are all, Neanderthals, Denisovans and the rest that have left a trace of their DNA in our genomes, members of the same species. While this will appear to many to be a semantic distinction, there is one very practical implication. While it is not illegal to kill an unknown species or indeed a hybrid, if we are all in the same species that there can be no hybrids. By this reasoning, to kill a Bigfoot, a yeti, a Neanderthal or a Denisovan, as well as being a travesty, might also be classed as homicide..........

 

My only disagreement with Dr,. Sykes us that it is indeed illegal to knowingly kill an unknown species in many areas under hunting regulations. I forgive his unfamiliarity with hunting regs and the corrupt aggression of American government lawyers.

[hiflier]

52 minutes ago, Huntster said:

They are human

 

I completely disagree. Any concessions I would make would be only in the area of physical similarities. My thinking is that, as far as Sasquatch goes, it was the last branch, AFTER Chimpanzees to, separate from the primate line. What was left to continue on were the Human prototypes. What I don't know is if the NOTCH2NL genetic copy variations that were manifested in proto-Humans were the reason for the split. It think probably was, otherwise we would either still all be dumb Sasquatches living a primitive existence with no fire or tools, or Sasquatches would be competing with us to get to Mars. It was those genetic variation copies that made the early Humans........Humans.

 

And like I've said, the last common ancestor of those Sasquatches and Humans, succeeded in it's own evolution toward a more advanced primate body. That advanced primate body gave similar physical advantages, that no Great Ape has to this day, to both Sasquatches and Humans by the time the final split occurred. So one of two things could have happened: Either there were two branches with one of them eventually developing the Human genetic NOTCH2NL mutations that lead to larger brains with higher brain function, or There was a generation of Sasquatches that developed the genetic mutations which facilitated the split. In the end it may not matter whether the physical split happened first with one getting brain mutations, or that the genetic mutations were the reason for a split. The reason it doesn't matter is because I'm the only one I know who thinks this to be even plausible. All I know is that it's another thing that one won't find on the internet, except in references to the subject stemming from this Forum.

 

So that's two things that are only here on the BFF: The new idea behind looking for primate genes in North America (and why) and the new idea regarding the origins of Sasquatches. Not on the internet. Nowhere on the internet. Only here. Lucky us, eh?  So this thread is about the internet and what's not available on it. Even from our own scientists that have used e-DNA in their BF exploits with BF only select groups. Scientists who apparently though e-DNA to be of some value. Where are their reports and results? Or ANY scientific thoughts on the issue. It's not out there anywhere on the web

Edited May 9, 2020 by hiflier

[Twist]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

And you don't understand this how?

Thats just like your opinion, man!

 

Your acting like This is a commonly known fact and not just your opinion or theory.    

[Arvedis]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

They are human. And my statement from last year has been strengthened by Bryan Sykes, pages 128 & 129 of "The Nature of the Beast":

 

 

I'm not going to nitpick but I don't see that reference in my version of his BF book. There are 2 versions of this book, even has a different title I think for international reasons.  It's not bad reading. Sykes has done his research not just on his testing but on the BF phenomena in academics. So I think his knowledge is very good but his testing did not seem to have a valid BF sample come out of it.  A lot of academic wrangling but in the end, (without reading all of his papers fully through) I recall his testing detected some ancient animals but not BF.

 

This is the same book: The Yeti Enigma

 

I don't dispute BF is part human, just cautious of Sykes' testing.

Edited May 9, 2020 by Arvedis

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

I completely disagree. Any concessions I would make would be only in the area of physical similarities. My thinking is that, as far as Sasquatch goes, it was the last branch, AFTER Chimpanzees to, separate from the primate line. What was left to continue on were the Human prototypes. What I don't know is if the NOTCH2NL genetic copy variations that were manifested in proto-Humans were the reason for the split. It think probably was, otherwise we would either still all be dumb Sasquatches living a primitive existence with no fire or tools, or Sasquatches would be competing with us to get to Mars. It was those genetic variation copies that made the early Humans........Humans........

 

Behavior, like tool use, really has nothing to do with it. For example, chimpanzees went into Earth orbit before American astronauts. Are they human?

 

Biologically, if they can successfully mate with us in the wild, and if their DNA markers can survive through the generations for thousands of years, we are clearly of the same genus (Homo, or human) if not the same species. The one major physical divergence which evidence suggests is a different foot structure (mid-tarsal flexibility) which suggests the only significant morphological difference between you, me, and a sasquatch.

[hiflier]

13 minutes ago, Twist said:

Thats just like your opinion, man!

 

Your acting like This is a commonly known fact and not just your opinion or theory.    

 

Yeesh, Twist, will you please, lighten up and move away from your attack phase? I've explained the science behind my reasoning. You did this same thing the first time around telling me you were bored with my repetition. My repetition was done because a lot of what I was saying was new to everyone. A lot of people, scientists included, draw conclusions based on science and, in that, I'm no different. I didn't dream up e-DNA science, nor did I dream up the NOTCH2NL mutated copies that led to our brain size or power. Nor did I dream up what science says about our lineage from a common ancestor. I plugged Sasquatch into the equation because the creature didn't come from Gigantopithicus as there isn't enough of a timeline for Sasquatch stemming from there to develop the body that it has, or its bipedalism. It had to come from the line that led to Humans.

 

And since nothing else has procured proof of the creature I have put forth this hypothesis, and I've ALWAYS SAID it was hypothesis, for how someone, because of advancements in e-DNA technology and capability, could use it to find a North American primate other than Human. And, more importantly, why I think my hypothesis has merit based on the science as well as our genetic history. Of course, some years of looking at the history of BF reports regarding the primitive nature of Sasquatch's behavior helped. It has taken those four things (and more): studying e-DNA's capabilities, looking at Human evolutionary history, understanding what the two NOTCH2NL's papers were telling us about our brains, and reading Bigfoot reports, to put this hypothesis together. Logically it works. The only thing missing is Proof of Sasquatch's existence. But then, that's what the whole thing with e-DNA should be able to do- prove existence.

 

I didn't invent those four criteria because I felt like it. The four cornerstones of my hypothesis already existed. All I've done is weave everything together into a method for Sasquatch discovery. There is no reason it wouldn't work. BUT, one needs an existing Sasquatch population for it to work. And here's the rub that no one wants to look at: this method also has the capability of proving the creature DOESN'T exist. I would like science to at least look at this hypothesis and evaluate what I'm proposing. They won't do it and there's nothing on the web (WHICH IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT!) that says anyone even has this dialogue. So, forget about the viability of my hypothesis. The purpose of this thread is for discussing the lack of dialogue regarding Sasquatch and e-DNA.

 

So, can we PLEASE keep with that topic?

[Huntster]

17 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

I'm not going to nitpick but I don't see that reference in my version of his BF book. There are 2 versions of this book, even has a different title I think for international reasons.........

 

........This is the same book: The Yeti Enigma..........

 

Amazing! Same ISBN, same cover, different title, different publishing date!

 

https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/The-Yeti-Enigma-by-Bryan-Sykes-author/9781444791266

 

Agreed on the good reading. I was particularly impressed with his version of the Minnesota Ice Man story, which convinced me that the original was a sasquatch that had been shot, and when the threat of legal interest came up, the original as replaced with a fake.

 

I purchased the book to read Sykes words on his Zana investigation. That is at the end of the book. I hope to leave on a 10-14 day bear hunt on Tuesday. The second half of this book will be excellent reading for the woods.........

[hiflier]

19 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Behavior, like tool use, really has nothing to do with it. For example, chimpanzees went into Earth orbit before American astronauts. Are they human?

 

Biologically, if they can successfully mate with us in the wild, and if their DNA markers can survive through the generations for thousands of years, we are clearly of the same genus (Homo, or human) if not the same species. The one major physical divergence which evidence suggests is a different foot structure (mid-tarsal flexibility) which suggests the only significant morphological difference between you, me, and a sasquatch.

 

Animals can be taught to do just about anything, even go into space and make fire.

 

And morphology definitely isn't the issue I've been tackling. I've already said the advanced primate body is shared by both Humans and Sasquatch. I even hypothesized where on the primate evolutionary line Sasquatch may have been to even get such an advanced body. To take it further, it goes to why some think the creature is so close to us genetically than anything else. I hypothesize it's because we stemmed from the same ancestor AFTER the Chimp/hominid split. But I also hypothesize that because Sasquatch didn't get the NOTCH2NL genetic variations that hominids have, it is still in the mental dark ages with the rest of the Great Apes, regardless of it's more advanced physicality. We got the advanced brain, they didn't. So, as a friendly reminder to everyone once again:

 

**THIS THREAD IS ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT WHAT IS AND ISN'T ON THE INTERNET and WHY NO ONE ON THE INTERNET IS DISCUSSING SASQUATCH AND e-DNA   

[hiflier]

17 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Amazing! Same ISBN, same cover, different title, different publishing date!

 

 

Pretty sure one of them is a second edition that has minor updated revisions which, under certain criteria .,one can do without changing the ISBN

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

Pretty sure one of them is a second edition that has minor updated revisions which, under certain criteria .,one can do without changing the ISBN

 

Now this is getting interesting. "The Yeti Enigma: A DNA Detective Story", and "The Nature of the Beast" is the same book with a different cover? But read a review where a Canadian owner of "The Nature of the Beast" was telling people not to buy "Bigfoot, Yeti, and the Last Neanderthal: A Geneticist's Search for Modern Apemen" because it turned out to be the exact same book as "The Nature of the Beast! Again, different cover, but same chapters according to him, and even same page numbers. What I did notice though was that the ISBN's were different, unlike Huntster's and Arvedis's copies.

 

So it would appear that there are three identical copies of the same book, a couple of different ISBN numbers, and three different covers. Arvedis, you mentioned it was because perhaps for international reasons and you are probably right on that. But typically, changes to a title, different covers, or a different numbers of pages, would require different ISBN numbers. I saw evidence all three of those changes, especially in cover design. I still thing there were slight revisions made from the oldest incarnation, "The Yeti Enigma: A DNA Detective Story" and perhaps the newest: "Bigfoot, Yeti, and the Last Neanderthal: A Geneticist's Search for Modern Apemen"?

 

Hmmm. Book isn't selling? Just change the cover and the title and stick it out there again. Looks like Sykes did just that, once in 2013, again in 2015, and once again in 2016. I think I've just learned something    

Edited May 9, 2020 by hiflier

[Arvedis]

3 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Amazing! Same ISBN, same cover, different title, different publishing date!

 

https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/The-Yeti-Enigma-by-Bryan-Sykes-author/9781444791266

 

Agreed on the good reading. I was particularly impressed with his version of the Minnesota Ice Man story, which convinced me that the original was a sasquatch that had been shot, and when the threat of legal interest came up, the original as replaced with a fake.

 

I purchased the book to read Sykes words on his Zana investigation. That is at the end of the book. I hope to leave on a 10-14 day bear hunt on Tuesday. The second half of this book will be excellent reading for the woods.........

 

 

I actually got confused with Sykes' other book, Bigfoot, Yeti, and the Last Neanderthal: A Geneticist's Search for Modern Apemen.

 

A few years ago Sykes came to the U.S., somewhere in Washington state, to check out a site with reliable activity. There is a female bigfoot researcher,  I cannot remember her name and too lazy to look it up.  She was married briefly to Adam Davies and wrote a few books.  Her location is on top of a subterranean chamber where a BF will reply to her knocks. This allegedly older male BF seems to know it is her because he doesn't respond to other people's knocks.  Of course all he does is grunt, never anything else but the knock response.  Sykes was hoping to get a tissue or hair sample, came up empty. 

Edited May 9, 2020 by Arvedis

[MIB]

36 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

There is a female bigfoot researcher,  I cannot remember her name and too lazy to look it up.

 

I think that might be Lori Simmons.  

 

MIB

[ShadowBorn]

IMO,  The one thing I would say about EDNA is that it is not a reliable source to prove these creatures existence. Unless you have the actual creature in the lab on a slab ,Edna will not do. It might help in knowing what might be in a given area of study in kowing what animals may be roaming in those areas . It Is just not the effort in using it in the field. Oh, is this study not expensive to do as well. The other thing how will it be match with any real DNA that is unknown to man. If that DNA has yet to be found. If the samples do keep coming back as human Then we would have to get DNA from every Human on earth in order to find out that this DNA did not belong to anyone on this planet in order to make a discovery.. Again this is just my opinion.

 

So this could be why nothing is said about Edna on the internet. Since there are way to many factors involve with this Edna. Not just that but a researcher would have to get extremely lucky to get a fresh sample of a creature drinking from a creek ,lake, trail or anything that the creature could leave it's DNA on.

[hiflier]

Keep those downvotes acomin' folks. They actually make me smile a lot. So, what about Sasquatch vs. e-DNA vs. the internet?