Sasquatch Genetics and Dr. Todd Disotell

[Huntster]

After the second dna test and publication on Zana, I started reading on feral humans. Internet articles repeatedly discuss "feral children" despite key words of "feral humans". I'm learning that there are reasons for that. 

 

I plan to pick up an old thread on this forum on feral humans with my eadings and thoughts. I'm not quite ready yet.

 

Feral humans go a long way towards explaining this phenomenon. Maybe not 100%, but close.

[hiflier]

It's pretty difficult for my to watch the PGF and think feral Human. Not that they don't exist, mind you, but so much gets reported about being 7-9 ft. tall, very heavy, and with massive musculature and 3-4 foot wide shoulders, not to mention 14-18inch footprints. It may be just me, but I would expect feral Humans to not be nearly so robust?

[Madison5716]

On 11/23/2021 at 6:28 AM, wiiawiwb said:

What I've always found puzzling is that DNA results that are determined to be close to human, but not 100%, should be catalogued and kept to measure against the next time such a finding is made. Then, if several results are fairly similar, can't a  further genetic/genomic analysis be undertaken on those similar samples to get into the real tiny differences to isolate those specfic markers that are not quite human?

 

Sounds very reasonable to me. If you're finding THESE particular markers in various places around the country, and they are not H. sapiens, then what are they?

[Huntster]

On 11/29/2021 at 6:28 PM, hiflier said:

It's pretty difficult for my to watch the PGF and think feral Human. Not that they don't exist, mind you, but so much gets reported about being 7-9 ft. tall, very heavy, and with massive musculature and 3-4 foot wide shoulders, not to mention 14-18inch footprints. It may be just me, but I would expect feral Humans to not be nearly so robust?

 

Agreed. In fact, as Krantz and others posited, Patty's shoulder width was likely outside the parameters of homo sapien proportions, especially for a female. Her sheer bulk looks impossible. But Zana was described very similarly. And the stories of children left to the wilds and raised by animals are absolutely fantastic, including running on all fours as fast as a man can run bipedally. And children going feral isn't uncommon. At the very least, a significant percentage of sasquatch reports are feral homo sapiens. Numerous old newspaper reports even call them "wild men" and "wild Indians".

[hiflier]

Might be interesting to know what Zana's paternal line was. Kwit? Human father. But Zana?

[Huntster]

37 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Might be interesting to know what Zana's paternal line was.........

 

This line of thought brings one near the aboriginal legends of wild men stealing women and children. This presents a parallel line of wild homo sapiens, and does away with the problem of viable breeding population as well as fits the tiny density of these creatures.

 

 

[hiflier]

Yes, but how does it relate or resolve the issue of existence today? There's no question that it's interesting to go down these avenues of thinking, however, we have this conundrum called proof that stares us in the face every day. Working out the solution for securing that proof is what I'm all about and choices for success are limited. It comes down to what NEEDS to be done vs. what CAN be done. It's the can part that either includes many researchers or only a few. IMHO we need the many, but since the many do not wish to pull the trigger that leaves few options. Identifying those options, therefore, has been the thrust of my endeavor toward discovery.

 

Not shooting one, but still getting physical proof, leaves two options: Physical remains or genetic investigation. The latter is something that has the potential of presenting many opportunities for success. And in this day and age, it would certainly seem to be a fairly good pursuit in the road to discovery, either by sampling a snow trackway or through scrapings of debris from the bottoms of cast footprints. Researchers still cast prints, but I doubt few, if any, think that the smoking gun could be present in the dirt or mud that gets lifted with the mold. Casting a track may destroy the track but it probably does not destroy the genetic material that adheres to the cast. I think of the thousands of prints that have been cast over the years and can only think of all of the missed opportunities. In retrospect, I'm convinced discovery could have happened 20 years ago had that one idea taken root.

Edited December 1, 2021 by hiflier

[MIB]

20 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Yes, but how does it relate or resolve the issue of existence today?

 

I think it is absolutely necessary if you're to have any chance at all of resolving the question of existence.    Without first imagining what the answer might be you have no rational way to focus your search efforts, everything is random.    By discussing the possibilities then you can imagine which hay stack the needle should be in before you search for it.   Without that, you haven't even limited the number of haystacks to search.   That said, 'til we know where the needle is, we can't totally eliminate any haystack as its possible location but at least we can take a guess at prioritizing where to search in what order.

 

MIB

[Huntster]

48 minutes ago, hiflier said:

....... It comes down to what NEEDS to be done vs. what CAN be done.........

 

We've known that all along. What NEEDS to be done is to hunt one down, kill it, and get its carcass to the best authority. And that CAN be done........but it won't. 

 

So my personal option is to simply pay attention to events and enjoy the show. Others prefer to invest more time, energy, and money, and I salute them. 

[wiiawiwb]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Agreed. In fact, as Krantz and others posited, Patty's shoulder width was likely outside the parameters of homo sapien proportions, especially for a female. Her sheer bulk looks impossible.

 

Back in May 2005, Gigantofootecus started presenting information here on BFF about Patty's shoulder width when presenting his ASH ratio analysis. I believe the final result estimated it to be 1.30+, in other words her wingspan was 30% more than her height.  

 

Here are a few comparisons of known human dimension. I once found a website that listed every NBA player's height and armspan. Didn't save it and now can't find it but I did locate this article discussing wingspan of NBA players... By far, Kevin McHale's ASH ratio of 1.17 is the highest of any one I've read about.  Still, that leaves another 13%+ which is formidable unto itself.

 

https://www.thesportster.com/basketball/top-15-most-impressive-wingspans-in-nba-history/

 

 

[Huntster]

3 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

........Gigantofootecus started presenting information here on BFF about Patty's shoulder width when presenting his ASH ratio analysis. I believe the final result estimated it to be 1.30+, in other words her wingspan was 30% more than her height.........

 

Yup. This, among other physical traits common with reports, makes the feral homo sapien theory extremely difficult to accept as a 100% solution. Moreover, feral homo sapiens as a partial explanation (as it almost certainly is) makes other options even more unviable as a breeding species, and thus making extinction even more assured.

[hiflier]

7 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

Back in May 2005, Gigantofootecus started presenting information here on BFF about Patty's shoulder width when presenting his ASH ratio analysis. I believe the final result estimated it to be 1.30+, in other words her wingspan was 30% more than her height.

 

I think you meant: "in other words her wingspan was [30% or more of her height]."    

[hiflier]

16 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Others prefer to invest more time, energy, and money, and I salute them.

 

I think maybe it may be a wee bit more than just a preference? In the case of science, it's a necessity.

 

 

42 minutes ago, MIB said:

Without first imagining what the answer might be you have no rational way to focus your search efforts, everything is random.

 

Respectfully, MIB, I don't think that is entirely true as it leads some into confirmation bias. As far as a "rational way to focus your search efforts, everything is random" goes, we have trace evidence in the way of footprints. I'm saying that that particular piece of trace evidence isn't being investigation to its fullest, beyond studying morphology. We have encounters that are current, and the witnesses that report them are current. They say there's a large hairy biped out there. And there is, and it's in this current time. We have trace footprint evidence by the hundreds if not thousands in the way of castings.

 

What I'm saying is that the debris stuck to those casts, before they get cleaned up, contains DNA and could very well have put this all to rest 20 years ago. Therefore, I strongly suggest that researchers start keeping that in mind when casting a track. Cast if one must, but harvest Nature's medium from the bottom of the cast for testing. Surely, I can't be the only one who has EVER come up with this??

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by hiflier

[Huntster]

5 minutes ago, hiflier said:

I think maybe it may be a wee bit more than just a preference? In the case of science, it's a necessity.........

 

Sorry. As an industry, science is in near complete denial. Science chases funding, not the other way around, and there is absolute proof of that everywhere.

[hiflier]

17 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Sorry. As an industry, science is in near complete denial. Science chases funding, not the other way around, and there is absolute proof of that everywhere.

 

Correct which is why WE are out there, right? Although there are a handful of scientists in our court, and we in theirs. What I'm getting at is that we have current trace evidence from current research people along with current witnesses. And I'm convinced that with the proper approach to that trace evidence the question of existence can be nailed down. It should have been done two decades go. The technology was there and the trace evidence was there. The trace evidence is STILL coming in and that technology is not only still there, it's better than it ever was. Just apply it to the dirt and muck that casting a print picks up. That should be a no brainer in this day and age. One would think that some scientist somewhere would either be already doing that or at least had thought of doing it??

Edited December 1, 2021 by hiflier