Sasquatch "Nest" Question

[hiflier]

3 minutes ago, norseman said:

Correct me if I am wrong. But wouldn’t you need a match? To say who?

 

My wife watches CSI Miami and they are always grabbing coffee cups to try to match the suspects DNA with the DNA on the murder weapon?

 

Yes I know it’s Hollywood.🤷‍♂️

 

Technically one would need nuclear DNA to say "who." Nuclear DNA can be had from saliva but tests are prohibitively expensive for people like us. Ketchum claimed to have received those types of samples. But in the normal world of science, ID-ing animals only requires genus so mtDNA fragments from the environment are all that's required. That;s what Disotell ran in order to find all of the animal genera that was at the nest site- including the degraded Human genus's DNA.

[hiflier]

1 minute ago, Huntster said:

 

From the Margaryan study:

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ggn2.10051

 

 

Zana was buried for a tad over a century (casket?), and Khwit buried (casket?) for @ 15 years. Margaryan records "degradation" in both, yet analysis was still possible to determine the genomic background of both.

 

The Denisovan girl of the Altai cave had been dead for 50,000+ years, and there was certainly no casket. Her dna was clearly degraded, but somebody was still able to determine, not only genus Homo, but that she was another human species different from both Sapien and Neanderthal.

 

So, again, how can this be?

 

It takes deep pockets to pull of that kind of study. But most genetic ancestral services will give one a region of ancestry taken from the haplotype present in their DNA for around $200.

[Huntster]

8 minutes ago, norseman said:

Correct me if I am wrong. But wouldn’t you need a match? To say who?.........

 

Margaryan was able to tie Zana to certain tribes in both western and Eastern sub-Sahara Africa.

 

If it could be determined that the dna under the nests as "human", why can't it be tied to genetic "human" groupings? For example, was that human of European descent? East Asian? African? Native American? Inuit? Makah? Tillamook?

 

If it can't be so tied, why not?

[Huntster]

4 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

It takes deep pockets to pull of that kind of study. But most genetic ancestral services will give one a region of ancestry taken from the haplotype present in their DNA for around $200.

 

My brother had it done on his saliva for less than $100. Call it $200 today.

 

Even my pockets are that deep.

[hiflier]

7 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Margaryan was able to tie Zana to certain tribes in both western and Eastern sub-Sahara Africa.

 

If it could be determined that the dna under the nests as "human", why can't it be tied to genetic "human" groupings? For example, was that human of European descent? East Asian? African? Native American? Inuit? Makah? Tillamook?

 

If it can't be so tied, why not?

 

A VERY good question. My take on that is that there IS an answer to that but it was never given publicly as a thorough analytic evaluation by Dr. Disotell, just so people understand better why I started this thread. So my question becomes what exactly is being hidden from us? And further, who else is complicit in the scheme?

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

2 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

My brother had it done on his saliva for less than $100. Call it $200 today.

 

Even my pockets are that deep.

I had it done as well. I’m like 98% NW European and 2% Central European. I don’t know what happened to Mom’s Swiss Amish heritage.🤷‍♂️

 

It does explain the Vikings disease in my right hand though.

[hiflier]

2 minutes ago, norseman said:

I had it done as well. I’m like 98% NW European and 2% Central European. I don’t know what happened to Mom’s Swiss Amish heritage.🤷‍♂️

 

It does explain the Vikings disease in my right hand though.

 

Then would you agree that us being given that kind of info by the experts who dealt with the nest DNA might be okay to do?

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

As in "Homo sapien"? And, if so,..........who? 

 

The mtDNA protocol that was run on the nest site samples won't show a different Human species because it only shows genus, like fox, bear, raccoon, deer, elk, Human, etc.

 

Want to determine a different Human species from a genus Homo result? One would need nuclear DNA because Human genomes are so virtually identical at the mtDNA level an individual Human-like species could only be determined if its genus wasn't Homo.

 

Dr. Disotell, et al, probably thought, and probably rightfully so, that no one would ever bring this up.

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

12 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Then would you agree that us being given that kind of info by the experts who dealt with the nest DNA might be okay to do?

Well I had to spit repeatedly into a cup. I don’t remember exactly how much, but it was a decent amount. This wasn’t a soil sample. So in order to use this company they would require a different process.

 

 

[Huntster]

19 minutes ago, hiflier said:

.........So my question becomes what exactly is being hidden from us? And further, who else is complicit in the scheme?

 

Frankly, at the level of the scientists involved in the nest research, I'm pretty confidant that it's a case of unscientific language, not deception. Like karo says, "Like, it's a dude, man" instead of, "Like, it's a Homo sapien, Dude."

 

 

[hiflier]

Just now, norseman said:

This wasn’t a soil sample. So in order to use this company they would require a different process.

 

Doesn't matter, mtDNA is mtDNA no matter the source. Soil, water, snow, air, saliva? it's irrelevant, you should know this by now.

[Huntster]

23 minutes ago, norseman said:

........It does explain the Vikings disease in my right hand though.

 

Is that from swinging those huge, heavy swords and stone hammers?

21 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Then would you agree that us being given that kind of info by the experts who dealt with the nest DNA might be okay to do?

 

At least say "Homo sapien" instead of "human".

[hiflier]

2 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Frankly, at the level of the scientists involved in the nest research, I'm pretty confidant that it's a case of unscientific language, not deception. Like karo says, "Like, it's a dude, man" instead of, "Like, it's a Homo sapien, Dude."

 

 

 

Good, then should we be expecting an official clarification from somewhere, by someone? And if not, why not? Because no one that these professors would actually talk to would raise their hand?

[norseman]

Just now, hiflier said:

 

Doesn't matter, mtDNA is mtDNA no matter the source. Soil, water, snow, air, saliva? it's irrelevant, you should know this by now.

But what if no mtDNA landed from the creature where they took the soil sample? It’s not like Bigfoot spit in a cup and handed it to Todd Disotell?

 

Thats a pretty significant difference. And I think there is a lot to be desired in the case of eDNA.
 

eDNA is like running a trap line. You set 500 traps in a pattern hoping to catch a couple of animals. How many soil samples were taken at the nest site?

[Huntster]

12 minutes ago, hiflier said:

The mtDNA protocol that was run on the nest site samples won't show a different Human species because it only shows genus, like fox, bear, raccoon, deer, elk, Human, etc.

 

Want to determine a different Human species from a genus Homo result? One would need nuclear DNA because Human genomes are so virtually identical at the mtDNA level an individual Human-like species could only be determined if its genus wasn't Homo.........

 

So we're back to the Ketchum Kunundrum. That's precisely what she claimed to achieve, and she never made it to publication with the Pharisees. Her attempt to build a back door destroyed her.