Jump to content

Did a Squatch do this?


Rockape
 Share

Recommended Posts

I put this here instead of the video section because it's not a sighting, just documentation of something interesting. I think this guy a few years back did have a sighting on video while bow hunting? Anyone remember that?

 

Anyway, it's video of broken saplings and stomped out grass, the guy later does a good comparison to what it looks like for an Elk or Moose to do this sort of damage with antlers scraping. I just thought it interesting and decided to share it here for all to discuss.

 

The video is over twenty minutes long in it's entirety, so I have it prompted to start at the part where he shows the video of the event. You can just run it back to watch te entire video if you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a very interesting video.  I've found something similar, what we call a nesting area.  We find small areas all the time where deer or bear create a flattened down area in high grassy spots.  It is obvious that is was something relatively small, but this one was huge.  It was approximately 10'x10'.  No clue what made it.  We didn't find any hair or evidence of what possibly could have done it.  A couple of years earlier, we did find moose tracks in the area, but even for a moose, that is huge.  

 

We found this in 2021, and is approximately 1/2 mile from where we found this print:  

 

DSC05771.JPG

DSC05766.JPG

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That looks like a great spot for e-dna to be collected if it weren’t already contaminated.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2023 at 6:34 AM, Twist said:

That looks like a great spot for e-dna to be collected if it weren’t already contaminated.   


Why would it be contaminated? Can’t they parse out Elk, Moose, Human and undiscovered primate?🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, norseman said:


Why would it be contaminated? Can’t they parse out Elk, Moose, Human and undiscovered primate?🤷‍♂️

 

Because these things commonly return as "human", and everybody knows that we can't have that. It musta' been contaminated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, norseman said:


Why would it be contaminated? Can’t they parse out Elk, Moose, Human and undiscovered primate?🤷‍♂️

 

Excellent question! Truth is, they don't really need to parse out anything at all, Norse. Everything has it's own DNA and will show up in the results. Typically science uses metabarcoding protocols which will pick up every organism in a sample whether the organism is large or small. By running a sample through a process called BLAST: https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi then ALL sequences in a sample will get matched to their respective organisms. 

 

Picking up Human DNA that is loaded with mutated anomalies can be part of those sample results. The rub is that most scientists will not be looking for those mutations even though they are present. It takes scientists actually being aware of the possibility of a Sasquatch in the mix to dig in further to see if an inordinate amount of rare mutations are not associated with normal Human DNA sequences in any of the GenBanks. The more mutations that are present the less chance that the sequence will line up with a normal Human genome.

 

The bottom line here is that a scientist cannot simply disregard those mutations but actually be looking for those anomalies on purpose. And those types of scientists are more rare than the anomalies themselves, otherwise this creature would have been scientifically nailed down long ago. But since it has been my contention that government knows about this creature then I am certain that government already knows what Sasquatch DNA looks like.

 

 

 

Edited by hiflier
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Because these things commonly return as "human", and everybody knows that we can't have that. It musta' been contaminated. 

 

Ah, Huntster, man after my own heart. Pretty sure that even if the results come back as MOSTLY Human that anyone paying attention, and not glazing over because they see so much Human DNA come in from e-DNA samples, would catch that the Human sequence is rife with strangeness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, hiflier said:

........the Human sequence is rife with strangeness.

 

Humanity itself is rife with strangeness.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Because these things commonly return as "human", and everybody knows that we can't have that. It musta' been contaminated. 


Well if they can tell I am 98.5% NW European and 1.5% Central European? Surely they can figure out who is Human and who is Sasquatch!

 

Who has size 12’s and who has size 40’s? Who wears flannel and who wears a full time fur suit? Who is 6 feet tall and who is 8 feet tall?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, norseman said:


Well if they can tell I am 98.5% NW European and 1.5% Central European? Surely they can figure out who is Human and who is Sasquatch!

 

Who has size 12’s and who has size 40’s? Who wears flannel and who wears a full time fur suit? Who is 6 feet tall and who is 8 feet tall?

 

 

 

All true. But one needs to remember that the services that offer ancestry tracing have a very limited library. They are only dealing with a maternal lineage by using mitochondrial DNA from a cheek swab in order to determine one's haplotype to match similar haplotypes originating from different regions of the globe. The point being they are simply not set up to go deeper into DNA analysis. Nor is that their intent. Even in Ketchum's study the female mitochondrial results were 100% Human female. It wasn't until Dr. Hart pointed out the extremely rare Human DNA mutations found in the study that things really got moving. As stated before, one of those mutations is extremely rare, three is virtually impossible, though common in other primates, and out of 20,000 Human genomes in the GenBank there were no instances in which two of those mutations showed up together in a Human genome- never mind all three. This is important stuff.

 

And two other mutations weren't in any of the GenBank at all for ANY known primates including Human. Government may have Sasquatch genome sequences, but after Dr. Hart's work and what he's shown us, then we ALSO have seen Sasquatch DNA sequence mutations. I have looked at, and studied, his chart a hundred times and am convinced that it shows the truth about the existence of this creature. The hair on the back of by neck raises just at the thought of it.

 

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

All true. But one needs to remember that the services that offer ancestry tracing have a very limited library. They are only dealing with a maternal lineage by using mitochondrial DNA from a cheek swab in order to determine one's haplotype to match similar haplotypes originating from different regions of the globe. The point being they are simply not set up to go deeper into DNA analysis. Nor is that their intent. Even in Ketchum's study the female mitochondrial results were 100% Human female. It wasn't until Dr. Hart pointed out the extremely rare Human DNA mutations found in the study that things really got moving. As stated before, one of those mutations is extremely rare, three is virtually impossible, though common in other primates, and out of 20,000 Human genomes in the GenBank there were no instances in which two of those mutations showed up together in a Human genome- never mind all three. This is important stuff.

 

And two other mutations weren't in any of the GenBank at all for ANY known primates including Human. Government may have Sasquatch genome sequences, but after Dr. Hart's work and what he's shown us, then we ALSO have seen Sasquatch DNA sequence mutations. I have looked at, and studied, his chart a hundred times and am convinced that it shows the truth about the existence of this creature. The hair on the back of by neck raises just at the thought of it.

 


That was not my point. My point is is that if a Sasquatch and a Human lay in the grass in the same spot? Then the grass should have both species genetics waiting for collection. It’s not contamination. Otherwise every time an Elk or a Deer lays down in the same spot as a Sasquatch it would also be contaminated. 
 

Using this logic? Scientists would never be able to pull anything from EDNA. It would all be contaminated because the ecosystems is buzzing with thousands of species. It would be worthless.

 

Im glad your study has found novel DNA. Is there any word on getting some movement from science on this? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Well if they can tell I am 98.5% NW European and 1.5% Central European? Surely they can figure out who is Human and who is Sasquatch!........

 

Yup. But sasquatches don't exist. Therefore it's just strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, norseman said:

........if a Sasquatch and a Human lay in the grass in the same spot? Then the grass should have both species genetics waiting for collection. It’s not contamination..........

 

Correct. But "contamination" is the back door escape from declaring the existence of something that the ideology refuses to accept.

 

 

 

Edited by Huntster
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, norseman said:

That was not my point. My point is is that if a Sasquatch and a Human lay in the grass in the same spot? Then the grass should have both species genetics waiting for collection. It’s not contamination.

 

And I think explained why I agreed with you on that.

 

34 minutes ago, norseman said:

Otherwise every time an Elk or a Deer lays down in the same spot as a Sasquatch it would also be contaminated.

 

An EXCELLENT way to argue against the idea that Human contamination ruins a sample- it does not. And labs get ahead of this with their normal procedures to eliminate Human contamination. These days however it is as you say, Human DNA would no more contaminate an elk sample as elk DNA would contaminate a Human sample. BUT, And it a big BUT, if labs routinely filter out Human DNA from e-DNA samples ten I have no doubt that the Sasquatch DNA, being so close to Human disappears from the sample in the process. So maybe it isn't that science doesn't see Sasquatch DNA because the filtering process tosses out the Sasquatch DNA baby with the Human DNA bath water? So they never see the creatures presence in a DNA result? All they have to do is use a computer algorithm that deletes Human DNA from the results.

 

44 minutes ago, norseman said:

Im glad your study has found novel DNA. Is there any word on getting some movement from science on this?

 

Thank you, but it was DR. Hart's study- I'm simply running with his results. And no, sorry to say, I've really dragged my feet here but now that the busy holiday times are well behind me, including my screenplay work and contest submissions, I'll bet back on the bandwagon. Thank you for the reminders, my friend.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hiflier said:

..........it was DR. Hart's study........

 

Do you have a link or reference to any publication on that study?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...