Chimpanzee/Bonobo/Human/..........Sasquatch?.........DNA

[hiflier]

3 hours ago, Huntster said:

.....but with the addition of eDNA from water that filled some of the footprints. The DNA test results showed a human genetic line that was previously unknown.....Do you think that Dr. Science (whoever that is) would then publish a press release admitting that sasquatches exist?

 

Eventually, yes. But only after any results culminate in a white paper- including access to the raw data- and then goes on to be published AFTER it has been peer reviewed. It would require either private or public funding. At least that's the normal process. In fact, the biggest complaint among scientists is that the length of the queue for publishing is around two years.

 

Anyone good enough to find a novel primate in their DNA samples KNOWS all of this already. Meldrum, Disotell and a myriad other very smart, very bright, primate geneticists. So am I worried? NAH!

 

Here's a non-Human primate genetics team: https://nprcresearch.org/primate/genetics-genomics/genetics-genomics-working-group.php

Edited November 19, 2022 by hiflier

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

..........But only after any results culminate in a white paper- including access to the raw data- and then goes on to be published AFTER it has been peer reviewed. It would require either private or public funding. At least that's the normal process. In fact, the biggest complaint among scientists is that the length of the queue for publishing is around two years.........

 

So secrecy is part of the process.

[hiflier]

 

29 minutes ago, Huntster said:

So secrecy is part of the process.

 

As it is with almost all those in academia who desire "first to  market." Example: when the two papers came out about the air DNA studies- one in the UK and one in Copenhagen- neither science group conducting their programs at their respective zoos knew that the other was doing a nearly identical study.  The to papers were published at about the same time. It happens. I think the bottom line here is that if someone can come up with a proof-of-concept first then they have a better chance at getting funding to continue.

 

So my prediction is this: More and more Sasquatch researchers, or even scientists who are not (in the traditional sense), are going to go the DNA route for proof of existence. First one there........wins. The next round of funding will go to academia groups to try and do the Jan Goodall approach in the field. But if it ever comes to that then after the initial announcement the momentum will have to come from support by the public sector. It would be good if science knew ahead of time that it would have that kind of support waiting for them. Could have some bearing on motivation and help shed some future misgivings about following through with the goods.

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by hiflier

[bipedalist]

On 11/19/2022 at 5:11 PM, Huntster said:

 

So secrecy is part of the process.

 

Crowdsource the funding if one will allow it, ditch the privacy but find somebody besides the Falcon Project dude to run the thing so they don't abscond with the funding and leave researchers holding the bag (in and out in left field). 

Edited December 16, 2022 by bipedalist

[Huntster]

 

[Huntster]

^^^

An absolutely powerful interview. Listened to with part if my mind on sasquatchery, it helped me solidify many of my own theories about them.

[hiflier]

Indeed, Huntster, and I thank you for putting it up. It solidified much for me as well and I'm certain you may agree that there was a curiously obvious thread beneath it all that rang true. I found it rewarding that someone could articulate so well many things that have, for me, been almost an instinctive knowledge of critical societal dynamics. It is also apparent that we have a ways to go still and one cannot help but wonder if we'll get "there" sooner if the area of our brains that carries emotional weight shrinks further allowing for greater altruism to rise to the surface. Maybe after that happens the Guardians of the Galaxy will allow us off this planet to join them as fellow space travelers. If there are Guardians of the Galaxy anywhere out there to begin with that is Apologies for waxing somewhat esoterically philosophical.

 

Now, about that Sasquatch. Apparently NOT as aggressive at their respective territorial boundaries as Chimps? Unless a deeply rooted social trigger or "norm" requires that these creatures also outnumber an intruder at a ratio of 8:1 before initiating any violence?

 

Edited January 10, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

12 hours ago, hiflier said:

........one cannot help but wonder if we'll get "there" sooner if the area of our brains that carries emotional weight shrinks further allowing for greater altruism to rise to the surface. Maybe after that happens the Guardians of the Galaxy will allow us off this planet to join them as fellow space travelers. If there are Guardians of the Galaxy anywhere out there to begin with that is Apologies for waxing somewhat esoterically philosophical.........

 

We're already there. The Kingdom of *** is at hand.

 

Quote

.......Now, about that Sasquatch. Apparently NOT as aggressive at their respective territorial boundaries as Chimps? Unless a deeply rooted social trigger or "norm" requires that these creatures also outnumber an intruder at a ratio of 8:1 before initiating any violence?

 

I think it's the social structure. Homo sapiens, and African apes like chimps, bonobos, and gorillas, organize on broader social structures. Larger densities are important for such a structure. Asian apes/humans, like orangs, almasties, and sasquatches, organize on an immediate family structure. Smaller densities are the ideal under such a structure. There is little to no offensive aggression. It's too dangerous to an immediate family structure. You can't afford the loss. All aggression is defensive, and primarily directed at the main threat; bears and great cats, which are lone predators also based on an immediate family structure. The great size and strength of sasquatches is due to this ecological strategy. The 'other' humans (Man) are simply too dangerous due to their numbers, technology, and aggression.

[hiflier]

Good observations. I guess my point with Sasquatch boundaries wasn't so much boundaries with Sasquatches on either side of a defined territorial area as much as as a boundary more or less controlled where Sasquatches and Humans may encounter each other. Most encounters speak of the creature walking away. But if it was 8:1, Sasquatches vs. Human would that passive Sasquatch walk-away happen or would something more akin to Chimp aggression take place? It may not be a kill situation but perhaps more of an abduction scenario? Where Sasquatches in numbers may be more emboldened and not simply disappear into the woods. Thinking of tree knock behavior where witnesses claim more than one creature is knocking from different locations, or possibly hunting in parties- especially during winter even though trackways in snow typically only indicate one individual.

[Explorer]

@Huntster

 

Thanks for sharing that excellent YouTube video of Jordan Peterson interviewing Richard Wrangham (anthropologist and primatologists).

 

I have not read those 3 books (Demonic Males, Catching Fire, and The Goodness Paradox) from Wrangham, but his summaries were very clear and provided excellent insights into human aggression tendencies.

 

While I had read about chimpanzee aggression towards other chimpanzees, I did not know the details and the actual research done.  Amazing research and disturbing observations!

 

No doubt some of those aggressive chimpanzee genes explain a lot in our human potential for evil aggression.

 

His explanation of proactive and reactive aggression expressed by humans (and the displacement of proactive aggression over reactive aggression over time) was cogent and made sense.  

 

I think chimpanzees got it right; if you are going to go to war, you better have overwhelming force and ensure you got the odds to win.  Hard power matters among humans and a strong military force is needed.

 

I don't like bullies and fully understand the need for humans to develop proactive social groups to take care of bullies.  Nonetheless, some of the socio political constructs (that developed and evolved to take care of bullies and maintain social order) can also lead to autocratic nations that bully their population.  Thus, humans still have a long way to go and probably more wars to go thru before we reach steady state equilibrium.

 

With regard to sasquatch, I agree with your observation that their aggression towards humans (as observed and reported by others) tends to be more human like than chimpanzee like and more reactive.  I don't recall reading of any proactive (planned) aggression towards humans (unless you consider the Ape Canyon Cabin attack as one example, but I am not sure about the reliability of that case). 

With regard to observed sasquatch aggression towards other sasquatches, there are very few reports (and I can't recall any that I can quote).   But the few that I recall reading about were between parent and juvenile (or between male and female) and not between big alpha males.  Still very human like.

[hiflier]

the only one I remember reading was the report where a guy heard some kind of commotion up a hill and saw two Sasquatches wrestling. They tumbled down the hill to a road and then stopped, looked back at the guy hiding in the rocks, and then just walked away: https://reports.woodape.org/data/?action=details&case=03080019#CaseNum