iacozizzle Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 Maybe the same way it was determined that neanderthal, denisovans etc were deemed human? DNA maybe? I voted "yes". Very little upside for ""the government"" if the cat got out of the bag. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 1 hour ago, Backdoc said: Bigfoot - if real -is an ape in my view not much diff than a gorilla at the zoo. However, what happens if I’m wrong and Bigfoot is more advanced. How advanced must Bigfoot be to be called human? If I accidentally shot a bald Eagle I would be in some trouble because of laws in place. But, no one would say I shot anything other than an animal which is a large bird. If I shot a Bigfoot and it’s an animal only then I would guess whatever trouble I might be in would be less than if it’s a person. If such an animal could think or talk well never know as it’s dead. But, how human might it need to be to get me in real hot water? How would we determine how human it would be esp if it’s dead and can’t tell us. if Bigfoot close to human how would we even know unless the thing was caught alive? It’s all gray area. Right now it’s legal to own another great ape. Civil rights only applies to Homo Sapiens. So Sasquatch would need to be Homo Sapien. People like Huntster argue that civil rights would apply to anything in the genus Homo. Which may end up being the case? We just don’t know. Sasquatch is bipedal, it’s undoubtedly closer to us than a chimp. But how close? It’s my personal opinion that Sasquatch who does not seem to flake stone tools or start fire? Would be excluded from the genus Homo. Regardless of its place in biology, once discovered? It’s should be protected. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 1 hour ago, iacozizzle said: Maybe the same way it was determined that neanderthal, denisovans etc were deemed human? DNA maybe?........... Here is the key realization. Science has deemed both Neanderthals and Denisovans as Homo and chimpanzees as Pan, and DNA has established the borders. They've painted themselves into a corner from which they cannot escape without messing up their floor. I believe that the only way they can keep sasquatches out of basic human rights is to create a new genus just for them, and DNA might not allow it. Considering the obvious desire to keep this species in the realm of mythology, I'm guessing that they've trapped themselves tightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iacozizzle Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 (edited) 5) The tissue and blood samples were first examined for DNA by Dr. Todd Disotel. He could find NO DNA and said he thought it had all been degraded. Then Dr. Nelson (a microbiologist) tried his hand at it, concluded that something was inhibiting the testing, and isolated out the galvanizing substance from the screws. Then he was able to obtain DNA and sequence it. His finding was for human, but with one variance that appears in chimpanzee, not human, DNA. Dr. Nelson said that he will perform additional tests over the next year, and that he thinks perhaps his results may show Bigfoot to be some sort of human. Meldrum was not quoted at all on the DNA results. https://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2013/11/former-report-on-bigfoot-dna.html From the Snelgrove Lake incident. Messy floor indeed. Although I think there may be more than one genus/species out there. Edited January 7 by iacozizzle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 (edited) 4 hours ago, Backdoc said: Bigfoot - if real -is an ape in my view not much diff than a gorilla at the zoo. However, what happens if I’m wrong and Bigfoot is more advanced. How advanced must Bigfoot be to be called human? It has to have the all 3 Human variations of the NOTCH2NL brain genes. That's why I brought all that up about three or four years ago after reading the 2018 Belgium and US papers that came out of two different studies after they asked how Humans got their bigger brains and higher cognitive skills. It's also what science should be looking for if they ever get whole Sasquatch tissue cells to test because those genes are only present in a cell's nuclear DNA, not its mitochondrial DNA. And to add fuel to this particular fire? If Sasquatch exists then gov has its DNA. If that is the case then my hunch is that the test results reside at the National Fish and Wildlife's forensics lab in Ashland, Oregon and that they would therefore already KNOW about the NOTCH2NL dynamic. The late Bryan Sykes of Yeti-hair fame had gone there when his study was in full swing. Edited January 7 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 (edited) On 1/3/2024 at 6:10 PM, Huntster said: So an area biologist with a state fish and game agency gets called in to see a strange nest on private property. We know this has happened at least twice (documented) over the past 35 years. He’s intrigued. The property owners are intrigued. That’s why they called him in. One of these guys has seen gorilla nests with his own eyes earlier in his life. In one case, a scat sample and hair sample is recovered at the site. It gets analyzed at the state crime lab……..not a pinhead science department or private lab operating in the game of science, but applying science in the game of justice. The biologist did it that way because it was “free”. Those analysts determine that the dna doesn’t match any known indigenous animal, record that for the biologist, and throw out the rest of the sample. Their duty has been done. This was posted as a hypothetical scenario. But in the real sense hair HAS been collected. One can only hope that Darby Orcutt's hair morphology/genetics team at NCSU is up to their necks in samples to test and hopefully ARE doing some investigations into those samples. People claim to have Sasquatch hair, or at least what they THINK is Sasquatch hair. But what about other non-Human hominid hair? I was just on Loren Coleman's International Cryptozoology Museum's website. It was actually my first time reading through everything. There is a section titled "Exhibitions" and I clicked on it and read what was written there. I had no idea so, boy, was I ever surprised. I italicized, bolded and underlined some key words: https://cryptozoologymuseum.com/exhibitions/ "The International Cryptozoology Museum has many rare and unique pieces of remarkable evidence. Some of the items on exhibit are actual hair samples of Abominable Snowmen, Bigfoot, Yowie, and Orang Pendek." It made me wonder if Darby Orcutt knew about this stuff. All I know about is with regard to some suspected Yeti hair that supposedly was tested with a result of "unknown"? Or maybe at least inconclusive? Edited January 13 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 21 minutes ago, hiflier said: This was posted as a hypothetical scenario........ No, it wasn't. It was the Eric Muench nest find on Prince of Wales Island in Alaska in the late 1980's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Thank you for the correction, Huntster. My error in not reading further back in the thread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 2 hours ago, hiflier said: Thank you for the correction, Huntster. My error in not reading further back in the thread. Having been found over 30 years ago, and with advances in lab analysis, and with a better chance of getting such samples to better labs, your point is very valid. Moreover, Sykes and Ketchum accepted samples from various places, but my bet is that lots of such hair samples were not submitted and never even got tested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 (edited) 8 hours ago, Huntster said: Sykes and Ketchum accepted samples from various places, but my bet is that lots of such hair samples were not submitted and never even got tested. Ergo, the call for submissions for Darby Orcutt's team. So, would gov shut down any results? Darby said that ACADEMIA wasn't hiding anything but what about the next tier up? Edited January 13 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 3 hours ago, hiflier said: .......would gov shut down any results?......... I don't believe they would because (1) their efforts to discourage discovery aren't overt and desperate, and (2) skepticism is too great to automatically allow sasquatchery with a DNA discovery, so overt action won't be motivated. I believe that a dna discovery is not going to be THE discovery. It will be A discovery which will lead to more determined effort. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 40 minutes ago, Huntster said: I don't believe they would because (1) their efforts to discourage discovery aren't overt and desperate, and (2) skepticism is too great to automatically allow sasquatchery with a DNA discovery, so overt action won't be motivated. I believe that a dna discovery is not going to be THE discovery. It will be A discovery which will lead to more determined effort. Pretty much my thinking as well. But I also think that any more DNA discoveries will serve to validate previous results. I mean, if the results of genus Homo from testing the soil under the nests Washington site is indicative of the creature's true nature then we could be in for quite a ride if those kinds of results keep coming in. What we need are samples taken in the area after an encounter....which has already been done. That result said genus Homo. I think it's time to get some folks motivated to say 'yes' to this stuff and create a broad canvassing of some historically key areas. Because as much as genus Homo keeps popping up there WILL BE, and ARE, differences that can be seen in the mtDNA genomes collected. And those differences can be seen in as few as a 150 base pair sequence or less. One does not need all 39,569 mtDNA base pairs and their 37 genes to see that. One only needs to see consistent outcomes. One test study in the mid 1990's was on The Coy/Green sample of wrist hair from the creature called Fox in Tennessee. The results came back Human. They even mixed in cat and dog hair and the result, as expected, still came back Human. I think we all know and have heard/read enough to now say what is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 45 minutes ago, hiflier said: Pretty much my thinking as well. But I also think that any more DNA discoveries will serve to validate previous results........ Agreed, and that is a very important observation. The skepticism, opposition, and denial surrounding dna discoveries has been much more overt than government secrecy and inaction. It must be conquered, but it will take time, consistent results, and increasing realization and acceptance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, Huntster said: It must be conquered, but it will take time, consistent results, and increasing realization and acceptance. What I've seen is that results are already consistent and it's high time we all accept the fact that we have had the truth all along. All that's left is what are we supposed to do with it? I would say at the very least that results from ALL Sasquatch DNA testing that has been done since 1990 be compiled into a list that we can all see and evaluate. Off the top of my head I would say that in the last 30 plus years that at least ten test results have come back positive for genus Homo. And those are the ones we know about. Who knows how many there are have been that we DON'T know about. Seems ridiculous at this point that when results come back Human that our first thought is to question it when the track record is so blatantly clear. Edited January 13 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 36 minutes ago, hiflier said: .......All that's left is what are we supposed to do with it?....... As you learned officially, recreational sasquatch "hunting" on federal lands is perfectly legal. That might not include "harvest" of a living animal, but it certainly includes dna, trace evidence (footprint casting, photographivpc, and hair recovery. Quote .......I would say at the very least that results from ALL Sasquatch DNA testing that has been done since 1990 be compiled into a list that we can all see and evaluate......... I would agree. The Relict Hominoid Inquiry would be an excellent repository. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts