The Nabs’ Role In The Ongoing Sasquatch Dna Study

[Guest]

I contacted them about the upcoming Honobia Bigfoot Festival and Conference and hit them up on a couple of other questions like this while I had their attention:

Some in the community have expressed concerns over the NDA issue. There are those who have experience submitting peer reviewed material and say NDAs were never a part of their process. I’m wondering if you can address the need for NDAs concerning this DNA study? In particular, people have commented that this is an attempt to control the purse strings and keep all the profits. Do you anticipate that the study will lead to opportunities to make money or is that even a concern?

They were good enough to take the time to answer - The NABS’ role in the ongoing Sasquatch DNA study

[bipedalist]

All I can say is that if Sasquatch turns out to be a tribe of people, then the physical descriptions and amazing physical feats observed, described and documented short of video recording.....will require somebody to do alot of 'splainin'.

Appreciate the questions into these relationships (and the answers).

I hope the data supports the rhetoric with this "teaming approach" to the study of Sasquatch.

[Guest RioBravo]

Awesome work rwridley!

NABS is an interesting organization. There seems to be some kind of Native American bias underlying all their work. I assume it's because Paulides has already made an investment in the theory through his two books.

I'd be happy to acknowledge the Bigfoot-Native American connection if we had undeniable proof of their existence and exhaustive knowledge on their behavior, but we don't. Currently, all we have is hearsay, and no amount of signed affidavits changes that.

[Guest]

That's not a bias RioBravo, the NA and First Nations perspective is actually the core of historical interaction and relationship between our species. Paulides along with a few others have simply been bold enough to recognize this important relationship. Remember who the newcomers to the continent are. Recognition of the traditional views is the way it should be.

The problem really has been the same ole European perspective which has neglected & omitted this pure traditional relationship the Indigenous People once had, in favor of modern sterile scientific concepts & research, that are about as compatible as oil & water with Sasquatch. This new considerate view is actually akin to modern science finally recognizing that traditional medicines of lost tribes hold answers to many of the world's uncured diseases.

Its good to see there are those in this field who recognize the importance of Indigenous views, but I also understand why many elements thereof are also being held back. As Native People are fully aware, modern government & science can also screw it up because greed and exploitation of new discoveries usually follows. Many fear that the proof of bigfoot will spell their end.

[Guest]

I don't think any contributing group has the answer yet as to what they have. We won't know until we understand the process used to identify the species in her study. I think that is what all of the NDA's are about, she must have used a new process for ID, hence the reason she is sending stuff out to other labs. You would need to verify that you got the same results with the same samples. DNA is not a cut and dry process, it depends on what pairs you choose to include or exclude as to how close something looks to be in comparison to another species, hence the reason you can't do it with a spread sheet. Here is an example of the comparison of chimpanzee DNA to human to give you an idea of what I'm talking about:

[Guest HairyGreek]

I contacted them about the upcoming Honobia Bigfoot Festival and Conference and hit them up on a couple of other questions...

I would just like to publicly say "thank you" for not falling to wild speculation and actually using your talents as a writer correctly, not sensationalizing, but trying to uncover truth. You a are diamond in the rough as far as this whole fiasco is concerned. Awesome job in all the threads and helping everyone stay honest on both sides of this.

Edited August 20, 2011 by HairyGreek

[GuyInIndiana]

That's not a bias RioBravo, the NA and First Nations perspective is actually the core of historical interaction and relationship between our species.

Of course it's biased. NA's didn't *originate* on this continent. They came from diverse regions like Asia and Europe. Many of their beliefs are steeped in simple superstitions and a need to grasp and explain the world around them like many other cultures do and have done throughout history. That they have lived longer on this continent than "white men" is a stereo-typing to validate some sort of intimate knowledge of the sasquatch.

"core of historical interaction and ..." ... what is THAT?

[Guest HairyGreek]

There seems to be some kind of Native American bias underlying all their work. I assume it's because Paulides has already made an investment in the theory through his two books.

Everyone researching this animal seems to make a bias of it of some sort. It is either a man or an ancient ancestor, some variation of giganto, or para-normal. Everyone has a bias they put in their work. Let's be reasonable here.

[Guest]

I would just like to publicly say "thank you" for not falling to wild speculation and actually using your talents as a writer correctly, not sensationalizing, but trying to uncover truth. You a are diamond in the rough as far as this whole fiasco is concerned. Awesome job in all the threads and helping everyone stay honest on both sides of this.

Seconded. Huzzah, RW!

Edited August 20, 2011 by notgiganto

[Guest]

Of course it's biased. NA's didn't *originate* on this continent. They came from diverse regions like Asia and Europe. Many of their beliefs are steeped in simple superstitions and a need to grasp and explain the world around them like many other cultures do and have done throughout history. That they have lived longer on this continent than "white men" is a stereo-typing to validate some sort of intimate knowledge of the sasquatch.

"core of historical interaction and ..." ... what is THAT?

I don't think that anyone here is falling into romantic stereotyping. The point was that it seems that more and more the ideas of the peoples who have been living in North America the longest are finally being taken into consideration, and not passed off as complete superstition. I think that what everyone here is advocating is a balanced approach, recognizing that in previous times the approach has been less than balanced because First Nations legends/stories/ideas have not been taken into serious consideration. Paradigm change toward a more accepting approach need not be wholesale acceptance....

[bipedalist]

Everyone researching this animal seems to make a bias of it of some sort. It is either a man or an ancient ancestor, some variation of giganto, or para-normal. Everyone has a bias they put in their work. Let's be reasonable here.

And some biases cut across two or more of the above?

[Guest HairyGreek]

And some biases cut across two or more of the above?

Sure. There are even people like me who have a bias of allowing any other bias to shape their opinion. LOL!

[Guest]

Going to be interesting to see how the results are interpreted and accepted. I enjoyed the nationality variation of H. sapiens description in comparison to the wide phenotypical range described for sasquatches/bigfoot/forest people or whatever reference the reader prefers. The fractional knowledge we have is perhap beginning to come together a bit. Also interesting is the view many take pubicly regarding the taxonomical position of the species. I wonder sometimes if that is more for political/financial purposes since at this time authors such as Green, Bindernagel and Meldrum continue to push the great ape/anthropoid avenue rather than the possible people level.. for those out there who still harbor a difference between the tropical great apes and H sapiens. To me apelike people or peoplelike ape seems complicated in difference..at least from an observational point of view. If the native languages from the past are employed, among other variations, and many feel strongly about this, some accept complete validation of it via what is out there so far, that is another step in a direction maybe off the charts. Just a Saturday reaction from a long time away .

[Guest]

I would just like to publicly say "thank you" for not falling to wild speculation and actually using your talents as a writer correctly, not sensationalizing, but trying to uncover truth. You a are diamond in the rough as far as this whole fiasco is concerned. Awesome job in all the threads and helping everyone stay honest on both sides of this.

Awe shucks! Thank you.

And to you too, notgiangto.

[Doc Holliday]

congrats to rwridley & his efforts in the search for answers.

the biases as some have mentioned are kind of funny,yet, imo detrimental to the field as a whole.

i understand these opinions may be based on personal observations of some on both sides of the man/ape debate, but in all honesty without the type specimen or at least credible DNA to go on,its all potentially just speculation .

if these DNA studies in question produce something tangible & the man vs ape battle is settled once & for all maybe,just maybe,both sides can work together in whichever direction the dna points, if it points anywhere at all.

I suspect that maybe if a little more cooperation existed in this field the world would already have the proof some search to provide.

maybe, idk.