Bigfoot Discovery - Kill or No Kill

[hiflier]

A DNA sample may show existence, and an approximate region the creature lives in or has been in. THEN go get one A lot can be determined from a sample such as lineage, location on the "family" tree etc. I would be happy with just KNOWING scientifically that it's out there. Plans can always be made afterwards with plenty of money and personnel to back up what the sample is telling science and the world.

 

BUT if someone's in a rush? Then the risk of shooting one and then dealing with the consequences has to be be carefully thought through. I mean we can look down on a dead one and say, "Yep, that's a Sasquatch alright." But it would only be the beginning what could turn out to be a real nightmare, especially if the carcass (or the hunter?) goes missing. And there's been more than enough talk about that kind of an outcome.

[Wooly Booger]

2 minutes ago, hiflier said:

A DNA sample may show existence, and an approximate region the creature lives in or has been in. THEN go get one A lot can be determined from a sample such as lineage, location on the "family" tree etc. I would be happy with just KNOWING scientifically that it's out there. Plans can always be made afterwards with plenty of money and personnel to back up what the sample is telling science and the world.

 

BUT if someone's in a rush? Then the risk of shooting one and then dealing with the consequences has to be be carefully thought through. I mean we can look down on a dead one and say, "Yep, that's a Sasquatch alright." But it would only be the beginning what could turn out to be a real nightmare, especially if the carcass (or the hunter?) goes missing. And there's been more than enough talk about that kind of an outcome.

Agreed.  If the species is a type of hominid, then the hunter risks falling victim to reprisals from enraged clan members.  Even some apes such as chimpanzees have been observed to wage organized warfare against rival clans.  As a higher primate, a Sasquatch likely has the intellectual capacity to engage in a concerted vengeful attack against a hunter.  Going into the woods armed and prepared that their might be more than one lurking nearby is essential. 

[Marty]

22 hours ago, hiflier said:

OOOOOR, finds irrefutable DNA evidence that there is a primate other than Human that inhabits the wildernesses of North America. From what I've been able to ascertain, this is doable as long as the right person gets involved. Eventually I'll find such a person, I know they're out there.

For this to work you would need to prove it came from a Bigfoot, which means reliable data, not just one DNA test. Again, DNA is evidence not proof unless you know it for sure came from a Bigfoot because if the reports are correct they are indistinguishable from human DNA. 

Also, great post norse

Edited February 12, 2021 by Marty

[John B]

19 minutes ago, hiflier said:

A DNA sample may show existence, and an approximate region the creature lives in or has been in. THEN go get one A lot can be determined from a sample such as lineage, location on the "family" tree etc. I would be happy with just KNOWING scientifically that it's out there. Plans can always be made afterwards with plenty of money and personnel to back up what the sample is telling science and the world.

 

BUT if someone's in a rush? Then the risk of shooting one and then dealing with the consequences has to be be carefully thought through. I mean we can look down on a dead one and say, "Yep, that's a Sasquatch alright." But it would only be the beginning what could turn out to be a real nightmare, especially if the carcass (or the hunter?) goes missing. And there's been more than enough talk about that kind of an outcome.

As noted before they are usually not alone.

[hiflier]

21 minutes ago, Marty said:

For this to work you would need to prove it came from a Bigfoot

 

In a sense you're correct, Marty. But DNA can show primate other than Human which, in North America, would be all that would be required. If it's primate DNA but it isn't Human, then what else but a Bigfoot could it possibly be telling a geneticist? It means one wouldn't have to actually KNOW it came from a Bigfoot, all anyone would have to know is that the sample didn't originate from Homo Sapiens sapiens. How many other candidates on this continent, other than us, would there be? Answer? One.

 

And since the cytochrome oxidase 1 has a fast mutation rate, it would the genetic barcode one would deploy in the lab for closely related  intraspecies identification. Even if the Sasquatch is so close to Human that a general metabarcoding protocol wouldn't distinguish the creature from a Human, the CO1 barcode would.

Edited February 12, 2021 by hiflier

[Wooly Booger]

2 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

In a sense you're correct, Marty. But DNA can show primate other than Human which, in North America, would be all that would be required. If it's primate DNA but it isn't Human, then what else but a Bigfoot could it possibly be telling a geneticist? It means one wouldn't have to actually KNOW it came from a Bigfoot, all anyone would have to know is that the sample didn't originate from Homo Sapiens sapiens. How many other candidates on this continent, other than us, would there be? Answer? One.

Skeptical scientists would probably try and claim that the DNA sample came from an ape that escaped from a zoo or private collection.  But these doubts could easily be dispelled when the samples don't match any known primate.

[Marty]

I understand your point but people will always claim human contamination 

[hiflier]

15 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

Skeptical scientists would probably try and claim that the DNA sample came from an ape that escaped from a zoo or private collection.  But these doubts could easily be dispelled when the samples don't match any known primate.

 

BINGO! And that's the point I've been trying to get across all of this time. And since science by and large do not believe in the Sasquatch's existence, it doesn't think twice about tossing a "Human contaminated" sample that resulted from the usual metabarcoding process. Metabarcoding will probably ALWAYS show Sasquatch DNA as Human contamination. Only the CO1 process will make the distinction and be able to determine a difference in a closely related species investigation.

 

Science DOES use CO1 for targeting normal organisms that physically look identical like the huge moth study out of Nigeria where moths looked identical but after CO1 barcoding it was discovered that even though a certain moth appeared to be the sole representation of the species it was in fact MANY species that just looked the same. CO1 is used on our ancient ancestors as well when comparing them (Denisovan, Naledi, Neanderthal and so many others) to modern Humans. Because the process WORKS.

 

7 minutes ago, Marty said:

I understand your point but people will always claim human contamination 

 

That's why I've been on a mission to find that right person who uses the right barcoding process and understands why it is critical in this hunt. Needle in a field of haystacks

Edited February 12, 2021 by hiflier

[Wooly Booger]

29 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

BINGO! And that's the point I've been trying to get across all of this time. And since science by and large do not believe in the Sasquatch's existence, it doesn't think twice about tossing a "Human contaminated" sample that resulted from the usual metabarcoding process. Metabarcoding will probably ALWAYS show Sasquatch DNA as Human contamination. Only the CO1 process will make the distinction and be able to determine a difference in a closely related species investigation.

 

Science DOES use CO1 for targeting normal organisms that physically look identical like the huge moth study out of Nigeria where moths looked identical but after CO1 barcoding it was discovered that even though a certain moth appeared to be the sole representation of the species it was in fact MANY species that just looked the same. CO1 is used on our ancient ancestors as well when comparing them (Denisovan, Naledi, Neanderthal and so many others) to modern Humans. Because the process WORKS.

 

 

That's why I've been on a mission to find that right person who uses the right barcoding process and understands why it is critical in this hunt. Needle in a field of haystacks

CO1 barcoding would be ideal.  If would satisfy the scientific requirements of classifying the animal while avoiding the killing of an almost certainly endangered species of primate.  You are right that it will be difficult in finding a scientist who has the skill set to complete this research and who would be willing to use this skill set to prove the existence of Sasquatch.  Most scientists scoff at the possibility of the species existence (with a few notable exceptions). If the skeptical scientists actually took the time to research the available evidence rather than simply dismissing the possibility off hand, I can guarantee that many would conclude the subject is worthy of further investigation. 

[norseman]

I welcome the day in which we don’t have to collect type specimens in order to discover them. But I don’t think we are there yet.

[hiflier]

56 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

You are right that it will be difficult in finding a scientist who has the skill set to complete this research and who would be willing to use this skill set to prove the existence of Sasquatch.

 

There's plenty with the skill set, WB. The universities are full of them. Willing though? You're right, very few. I've been trying to find just ONE simply to have a consistent dialogue with. They kind of disappear after a fashion
 

53 minutes ago, norseman said:

I welcome the day in which we don’t have to collect type specimens in order to discover them. But I don’t think we are there yet.

 

We may not be, Norse. We may not be. But I'm convinced there is someone out with a definitive answer on that. Dr. Disotell would consider whole cells with intact nuclei a good sample as would any geneticist. The simplest thing? Count the chromosome pairs. It gets harder after that. Then, zero in on the 'q' arm of chromosome one and look for Human NOTCH2NL gene variations. OOPS! None there? Rut Roh! And there would be any number of Human-specific or ape-specific genes to look for after that. It would be great to have that one scientifically independent person to talk to about all of it.

Edited February 12, 2021 by hiflier

[Trogluddite]

7 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Eh.  Let's just use the forum as a reference material and stop new discussion then.  The older threads are difficult to navigate, especially since most of the former members handles are removed.  

 

New discussion, even of older topics, kind of helps keep the forums feel fresh...at least it seems that way to me.  But, if it a pain in the neck to the core members...the newer members can migrate elsewhere for active discussion and just read the old threads here.

I had mentioned this solely to highlight for newer members that a lot of topics have been covered and that they might find answers there .  That being said, I wonder if there is any way to provide an index of threads - the Squatopedia that Gigantor is starting is what something like that would look like.

 

Knowledge management is a problem across a wide spectrum of organizations.  Information that is critical, and known to the organization, can become critical and hard to find, then forgotten until something makes it critical again. 

 

This all sort of a philosophical mumbling (or just an old guy shaking his fist at the cloud)

[Moonface]

I wouldn't want to see one killed, but I'm a soft fluffy type.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

2 minutes ago, Moonface said:

I wouldn't want to see one killed, but I'm a soft fluffy type.

I am not. If they exist and if I ever encounter one. I am taking the shot. My niece is an attorney. I will deal with the fallout later.

[hiflier]

33 minutes ago, Trogluddite said:

This all sort of a philosophical mumbling (or just an old guy shaking his fist at the cloud)

 

What's the difference?