Sasquatch "Nest" Question

[hiflier]

5 hours ago, norseman said:

The nests were built by Sasquatch and their DNA resides somewhere in the genus Homo.

 

And the 2nd two options could also be contaminated by human researchers. Ive seen several photos of people laying in them as a size comparison.

 

Your first comment would seem to be closer to the mark since no other primate genera was apparently in the test sample results, even though the genera of nearly every other common animal were detected, as opposed to the non-Human primate genus that Dr. Mayor supposedly collected in eastern KY.

 

Your second statement needs to go back to what Derek Randles et all said regarding the criticisms received after people saw Cliff Barackman and David Ellis's daughter laying in the nests. IIRC the Olympic Project's statement claimed that soil samples were collected before anyone had lain down in any of the structures.

 

Lastly, the researchers weren't there long enough to have their DNA degaded.

 

[hiflier]

3 hours ago, hvhart said:

It depends on the experience of the researcher, the laboratory instrumentation used, the methodology employed in the sequencing, and the software and method employed in interpretation.

 

That would need to be taken up with Dr. Meldrum who collected the samples and Dr. Disotell who, as an expert geneticist, ran the samples.

 

Would "too degraded" apply to genus the nest case? All that was said was Human DNA was too degraded to show a novel primate. That doesn't seem like it would address a different primate genus.

 

People need to understand that this isn't just about genus Homo vs. some other primate genus. This is about whether or not to actually shoot one. Genus Homo? Don't shoot. If the Sasquatch built the nests then any indication of it being a non-Human primate wasn't there an any of the samples collected. This is an extremely critical point in all of this.

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Your first comment would seem to be closer to the mark since no other primate genera was apparently in the test sample results, even though the genera of nearly every other common animal were detected, as opposed to the non-Human primate genus that Dr. Mayor supposedly collected in eastern KY.

 

Your second statement needs to go back to what Derek Randles et all said regarding the criticisms received after people saw Cliff Barackman and David Ellis's daughter laying in the nests. IIRC the Olympic Project's statement claimed that soil samples were collected before anyone had lain down in any of the structures.

 

Lastly, the researchers weren't there long enough to have their DNA degaded.

 

You’re assuming that the nests were sterile until Randles found them. Did a forester or hunter lay in one? Mick Dodge? And how long before? Weeks? Months? 
 

Also if none of the researchers laid in the nests and the area was cordoned off? Like a crime scene? They could go back and take more samples as needed. Once you lay down in the nest?🤷‍♂️

 

And this is in no way a smack down on Derek or Cliff. I like those guys. They work hard and do their best. But I think we need a Dr. Mayor or a Forensics expert if this DNA route is gonna work. People who do this for a living all the time. I can put rubber gloves on and scoop dirt into a vial. But I have no idea what to look for, the best spot, etc. Cliff is a school teacher and Derek is a landscaping company and Dr. Meldrum studies primate feet. 
 

Just frustrating.

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

If the Sasquatch built the nests then any indication of it being a non-Human primate wasn't there an any of the samples collected.

 

Being the typical critical thinker that I am, though I have been painted as somewhat of a troublemaker, I really need to take this a step further to drive my point home. Other animals DNA evidently wasn't to degraded to show which animals were there. And even though the Human DNA found was said to bee too degraded to show a novel primate (novel SPECIES?) Th Human DNA wasn't evidently so degraded that it showed only family (primate) because it SHOWED genus Homo. And it showed it along with all the other genera that were there: bear, elfk, deer, raccoon, birds etc.

 

But of the collective genus results of everything that was there, including Human, nothing apparently in the data results showed a novel NON-Human primate. In other words NO other primate was there that had a non-Human genus. Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutan, Gibbon, Bonobo, Bili Ape, Baboon, Howler monkey, or ANY monkey for that matter, the ONLY primate DNA that was collected was Human- degraded or not- and that the point. So what am I supposed to conclude from that? I only see one answer, either a Modern Human or NOT a modern Human.

 

But we are led to think that the DNA was too degraded to differentiate between the two? For me that doesn't matter one bit. What does matter is that a NON-HUMAN primate genus wasn't there. Period. the nests at the time were built recently enough to comfortably say that. But there's yet another issue here to bring up. Why did the discussion basically halt after the "degraded Human DNA" announcement. These are smart scientists, so why does it take me to pursue this line of thinking when the concept I'm bring out should have been brought out by others way more educated that I? Why didn't Dr. Meldrum offer more expert opinion on what the lack of a non-Human primate genus meant? Why not Dr. Disotell? They both said Human DNA too degraded to show a novel primate when BOTH would have to know that GENUS would be part and parcel of what would be the truth!

 

So, why didn't they say ONLY the primate DNA for genus Homo was found? Along with all other animal genus DNA? And even though Humans are Great Apes neither of them said NO NON-HUMAN PRIMATE GENUS WAS FOUND?

 

iMAGINE WHERE THIS DISCUSSION WOULD BE TODAY IF THAT WAS MADE CLEAR FOUR YEARS AGO!!! And if anyone thinks this is a trivial matter then I would advise that they reread everything and think again. Because when it sinks in you'll be saying and asking the same things.

 

 

[hiflier]

50 minutes ago, norseman said:

You’re assuming that the nests were sterile until Randles found them

 

That would be ridiculous to think so. Or else I wouldn't have been asking early on, way back, if the presence of Human DNA could have been from past SERE training.

 

50 minutes ago, norseman said:

But I think we need a Dr. Mayor or a Forensics expert if this DNA route is gonna work

 

Scientists collect DNA from the wild every day. Dr. Mayor got Chimp DNA from eastern KY. What makes you think that if there was Chimp, or any other primate genus DNA in those nests that an expert in that field (primate evolutionary genetics) like Dr Disotell, who's basically Dr. Mayor's peer in that discipline, wouldn't see it in HIS lab results? Ya know, sometimes I think people simply like to debate when trotting out stuff like, "You’re assuming that the nests were sterile until Randles found them." That only tells me that you're either dancing around in order to not address the points I've been making (for whatever reason) or you not getting the message of the points I've been making. This isn't my first rodeo on discussing what's behind what these "experts" have said and what they have not said. This is about both- what they've said which easily presents what they haven't or won't say.

 

My whole thing boils down to this: Either Sasquatch built the nests or it didn't. If it did and it isn't Human then its DNA would show a different genus no matter HOW DEGRADED. The fact that only the DNA of genus HOMO was found really says it all, Norseman. I repeat- It says it all. Only genus Homo was there! That's what everyone needs to fully understand. No other primate but genus Homo, degraded or not. And that's the point- that's what needs to sink in. That's why I'm bringing it up. Burn it into your brains folks.......genus Homo was the only primate at that nest site. No great Apes outside of genus Homo. And that's what we should have been being told by our own scientists. We weren't. What we were told only left the carrot dangling between Human and novel primate. No one ever said NON-HUMAN novel primate (different genus entirely). One of those experts should have clarified that for everyone right from the get go. Novel HUMAN, or novel NON-HUMAN. No one ever said even though they knew how huge that difference was and how much it would have affected the narrative. And you folks know I'm CORRECT about this.

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

48 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

That would be ridiculous to think so. Or else I wouldn't have been asking early on, way back, if the presence of Human DNA could have been from past SERE training.

 

 

Scientists collect DNA from the wild every day. Dr. Mayor got Chimp DNA from eastern KY. What makes you think that if there was Chimp, or any other primate genus DNA in those nests that an expert in that field (primate evolutionary genetics) like Dr Disotell, who's basically Dr. Mayor's peer in that discipline, wouldn't see it in HIS lab results? Ya know, sometimes I think people simply like to debate when trotting out stuff like, "You’re assuming that the nests were sterile until Randles found them." That only tells me that you're either dancing around in order to not address the points I've been making (for whatever reason) or you not getting the message of the points I've been making. This isn't my first rodeo on discussing what's behind what these "experts" have said and what they have not said. This is about both- what they've said which easily presents what they haven't or won't say.

 

My whole thing boils down to this: Either Sasquatch built the nests or it didn't. If it did and it isn't Human then its DNA would show a different genus no matter HOW DEGRADED. The fact that only the DNA of genus HOMO was found really says it all, Norseman. I repeat- It says it all. Only genus Homo was there! That's what everyone needs to fully understand. No other primate but genus Homo, degraded or not. And that's the point- that's what needs to sink in. That's why I'm bringing it up. Burn it into your brains folks.......genus Homo was the only primate at that nest site. No great Apes outside of genus Homo. And that's what we should have been being told by our own scientists. We weren't. What we were told only left the carrot dangling between Human and novel primate. No one ever said NON-HUMAN novel primate (different genus entirely). One of those experts should have clarified that for everyone right from the get go. Novel HUMAN, or novel NON-HUMAN. No one ever said even though they knew how huge that difference was and how much it would have affected the narrative. And you folks know I'm CORRECT about this.

 

Did Dr. Disotell collect the samples? No. Did something go wrong in the sample collection? Have any of the researchers present found a new novel primate before?

 

So what your beating the long way around the bush is that there is some sort of conspiracy as to why the nests did not test positive for a new novel primate species? 
 

It’s possible as I have said before. But its also possible that evidence is slipping between our fingers….
 

 

 

 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

That would be ridiculous to think so. Or else I wouldn't have been asking early on, way back, if the presence of Human DNA could have been from past SERE training..........

 

If SERE personnel used the nests, or if the nests were built or used by feral humans or homeless citizens or foreign nationals, I bet the private land owner would want to know about that every bit as much as they might want to know about a primitive human species doing it.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Did something go wrong in the sample collection?

No. And even if it did, it wouldn't have mattered. Looks like I have to repeat myself again. Genus Homo would still be genus Homo no matter how degraded. It won't turn into something else.

 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Have any of the researchers present found a new novel primate before?

You're obviously not getting this. Beside all of the normal animal genuses [sic] that were discovered there? Genus Homo was the ONLY primate genus found. Homo is Human, how else can one say that any clearer than that. Human DNA, degraded or not, is HUMAN DNA. So what is it exactly that you don't understand about that?

 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

So what your beating the long way around the bush is that there is some sort of conspiracy as to why the nests did not test positive for a new novel primate species?

Of course not, Norseman. It's because Drs. Meldrum and Disotell said that the DNA was too degraded to show a novel......PRIMATE. Period. No one ever differentiated between novel HUMAN primate or novel NON-Human primate. When it comes to the Sasquatch its genus is either going to be Human or not Human. If the Sasquatch is not Human then its unique genus would have shown up just as individually clear as any other non-Human animal's genus...such as any other Great Ape. The fact that only genus Homo showed up, degraded as it supposedly was, SAYS that if the Sasquatch exists and built the nests then it can only be, and MUST only be, HUMAN. Which would mean  NOT a new, novel, primate species. A new...novel....HUMAN....primate species.

 

Because in this Bigfoot biz, when just saying novel primate most will THINK non-Human. But the evidence clearly said Human DNA at the nest site. So what was up with leading people astray by saying "novel primate" when novel Human would have been more accurate if the test results were true.

 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

It’s possible as I have said before. But its also possible that evidence is slipping between our fingers….

The evidence isn't slipping through anyone's fingers. The evidence where the public was concerned had been clouded by the grossly ambiguous announcement that the DNA from the nest soil didn't show a novel primate. But it's pretty obvious now that the only novel primate that NON-DEGRADED HUMAN DNA could show, would be a novel HUMAN primate. That's the part that never got said. And that's the part that would;ve had the biggest impact on the community and its entire dialogue concerning the genetic outcome of the soil testing.

 

It came down to only this by Dr. Disotell: We got DNA from every genus that was there including Human DNA. But the Human DNA was too degraded too show a novel primate. DONE! Stick a fork in it as you would say, Norseman. Disotell, ot Meldrum for that matter, never once explained that genus Homo, even degraded, would never show anything other than genus Homo. They never said it. No one did. But I'm saying that very thing right now. ANY genus Homo DNA will NEVER show any other ape outside of genus Homo. If Sasquatch built those nests then the DNA results from the soil testing leaves no doubt that it must have been a species of Human. It can't be anything outside of that.

 

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by hiflier

[MIB]

6 minutes ago, hiflier said:

It can't be anything outside of that.

 

I'm not sure I get your point.    If it is what it sounds like, I don't know why you think it is new.     Yes, there are still some stuck in "ape camp" thinking but ... they're not at the front of the pack so far as real research.    

 

At the same time, I question the validity of your logic.   I'm not disagreeing with the belief that bigfoot is genus Homo, I just don't think the logic for asserting that is valid because it appears that you're trying to use lack of evidence (of a non-Homo primate) as evidence for bigfoot being a human (Homo) primate.    The connection seem logical on the surface but logic is false.

 

I think the conclusion is most likely true .. I think the simplest solution that considers all of the evidence without having to cherry pick pieces to leave out is that bigfoot is genus Homo, or if not, technically should be.   I won't take the leap to say it is "proven", that's a step too far.   I merely predict what the answer will be, but I will consider whatever evidence comes my way whether it supports that notion or not.    We can't eliminate the possibility that the correct answer truly comes from left field, whatever that means, when we don't have proof of existence yet.    Getting to the truth requires patience, sometimes plodding and meticulous actions, which do not satisfy our society's current 30 second attention span.   :(

 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

No. And even if it did, it wouldn't have mattered. Looks like I have to repeat myself again. Genus Homo would still be genus Homo no matter how degraded. It won't turn into something else.

 

You're obviously not getting this. Beside all of the normal animal genuses [sic] that were discovered there? Genus Homo was the ONLY primate genus found. Homo is Human, how else can one say that any clearer than that. Human DNA, degraded or not, is HUMAN DNA. So what is it exactly that you don't understand about that?

 

Of course not, Norseman. It's because Drs. Meldrum and Disotell said that the DNA was too degraded to show a novel......PRIMATE. Period. No one ever differentiated between novel HUMAN primate or novel NON-Human primate. When it comes to the Sasquatch its genus is either going to be Human or not Human. If the Sasquatch is not Human then its unique genus would have shown up just as individually clear as any other non-Human animal's genus...such as any other Great Ape. The fact that only genus Homo showed up, degraded as it supposedly was, SAYS that if the Sasquatch exists and built the nests then it can only be, and MUST only be, HUMAN. Which would mean  NOT a new, novel, primate species. A new...novel....HUMAN....primate species.

 

Because in this Bigfoot biz, when just saying novel primate most will THINK non-Human. But the evidence clearly said Human DNA at the nest site. So what was up with leading people astray by saying "novel primate" when novel Human would have been more accurate if the test results were true.

 

The evidence isn't slipping through anyone's fingers. The evidence where the public was concerned had been clouded by the grossly ambiguous announcement that the DNA from the nest soil didn't show a novel primate. But it's pretty obvious now that the only novel primate that NON-DEGRADED HUMAN DNA could show, would be a novel HUMAN primate. That's the part that never got said. And that's the part that would;ve had the biggest impact on the community and its entire dialogue concerning the genetic outcome of the soil testing.

 

It came down to only this by Dr. Disotell: We got DNA from every genus that was there including Human DNA. But the Human DNA was too degraded too show a novel primate. DONE! Stick a fork in it as you would say, Norseman. Disotell, ot Meldrum for that matter, never once explained that genus Homo, even degraded, would never show anything other than genus Homo. They never said it. No one did. But I'm saying that very thing right now. ANY genus Homo DNA will NEVER show any other ape outside of genus Homo. If Sasquatch built those nests then the DNA results from the soil testing leaves no doubt that it must have been a species of Human. It can't be anything outside of that.

 

 

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

But Chimps and Humans share 98.9 percent of the same DNA. That means that a measly 1.1 percent of DNA is shared between the two species. So what happens if the DNA has degraded 5%? 10%? I suppose it matters which of the DNA has degraded, yes?

 

And so if the 1.1% is GONE because of the elements or a Coyote hiked its leg on it? Then how would Disotell or any lab be able to tell what species it was?

 

Assuming that Bigfoot is in the genus Homo? That 1.1 percent is cut in half? Smaller yet.

[hiflier]

7 hours ago, norseman said:

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

But Chimps and Humans share 98.9 percent of the same DNA. That means that a measly 1.1 percent of DNA is shared between the two species. So what happens if the DNA has degraded 5%? 10%? I suppose it matters which of the DNA has degraded, yes?

 

And so if the 1.1% is GONE because of the elements or a Coyote hiked its leg on it? Then how would Disotell or any lab be able to tell what species it was?

 

Assuming that Bigfoot is in the genus Homo? That 1.1 percent is cut in half? Smaller yet.

 

It doesn't work that way, otherwise Denisovan or any other determined ancient Human branch wouldn't get categorized as Human. And rather than go down that hypothetical rabbit hole let's look at it this way, ancient fauna's DNA, no matter the animal, has been sequenced relatively well without turning a Human into a Chimp or anything else. Or turning a Chimp into a Human. It makes me curious how degraded or not degraded that supposed Chimp DNA was when Dr. Mayor found it. Or how degraded or not degraded any Human DNA that was there had been and why it wasn't somehow confused with Chimp? Because that kind of genus swap or overlap, like what you're describing, doesn't happen. Sure, we share DNA with lots of things, that's Nature, but for science species distinction (identification) has been fine tuned so precisely that a creature's identifying genus DNA will always be that creature's genus DNA.

 

The nest soil's genus Homo DNA will never be anything but genus Homo DNA no matter how old or degraded. And since it was the only reported primate DNA picked up in the samples what is one supposed to think about the Sasquatch if in fact it was the builder? Because like I said, if the Sasquatch wasn't the builder then the only other candidates are Humans- which, as stated, would be a whole other story in and of itself. Again, bottom line, no non-Human primate DNA was detected. But I'm the only one that I know of that has brought out the glaring more precise conclusions and obvious implications of those test results. To me there is no other avenue to pursue on those nest structures outside of Human.......or novel Human. I have not heard of any of our esteemed PhD's step up and clarify that for the general believing public which, of course left "intelligent ape" not only on the table but in our imaginations as well.

 

This whole issue regarding the Olympic Peninsula nest builders, i.e. not apes but instead Humans or novel Humans, should have been settled years ago. Why wasn't it?

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by hiflier

[hiflier]

I rest my case.

 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

It doesn't work that way, otherwise Denisovan or any other determined ancient Human branch wouldn't get categorized as Human. And rather than go down that hypothetical rabbit hole let's look at it this way, ancient fauna's DNA, no matter the animal, has been sequenced relatively well without turning a Human into a Chimp or anything else. Or turning a Chimp into a Human. It makes me curious how degraded or not degraded that supposed Chimp DNA was when Dr. Mayor found it. Or how degraded or not degraded any Human DNA that was there had been and why it wasn't somehow confused with Chimp? Because that kind of genus swap or overlap, like what you're describing, doesn't happen. Sure, we share DNA with lots of things, that's Nature, but for science species distinction (identification) has been fine tuned so precisely that a creature's identifying genus DNA will always be that creature's genus DNA.

 

The nest soil's genus Homo DNA will never be anything but genus Homo DNA no matter how old or degraded. And since it was the only reported primate DNA picked up in the samples what is one supposed to think about the Sasquatch if in fact it was the builder? Because like I said, if the Sasquatch wasn't the builder then the only other candidates are Humans- which, as stated, would be a whole other story in and of itself. Again, bottom line, no non-Human primate DNA was detected. But I'm the only one that I know of that has brought out the glaring more precise conclusions and obvious implications of those test results. To me there is no other avenue to pursue on those nest structures outside of Human.......or novel Human. I have not heard of any of our esteemed PhD's step up and clarify that for the general believing public which, of course left "intelligent ape" not only on the table but in our imaginations as well.

 

This whole issue regarding the Olympic Peninsula nest builders, i.e. not apes but instead Humans or novel Humans, should have been settled years ago. Why wasn't it?

 

Explain your first sentence. 
 

It doesn’t work that way, otherwise…..

 

If they can extract a complete genome out of a bone? Great. But usually they cannot. Why? Because the DNA is too degraded.

 

Only 3 out of 10(?) species in the genus Homo do we have their complete genome. Most extinct species are categorized by morphology…. Not DNA.

[hiflier]

41 minutes ago, norseman said:

Explain your first sentence. 
 

It doesn’t work that way, otherwise…..

 

It's simple, an ancient Human's DNA will be genus Homo. It can never be genus Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutan, or any other great ape of non-Human primate. In other words, ancient Denisovan DNA, no matter how degraded showed genus Homo. Period. And genus Homo could never be confused with "otherwise" some other ape or monkey. And that goes right to the heart of what I've been saying about the nest builders: Genus Homo, which was the result of the testing done by Disotell. And my other argument on that was that neither Disotell nor anyone else ever delineated that those results could ONLY mean that a Human in some form built the nests since there was no other primate DNA but Human found there. It makes the argument that Sasquatch, if it exists, and it was what built those nests, MUST be of genus Homo- which means it's a HUMAN species of some kind. I hope you're starting to get that.

 

I will clarify this by saying this argument can ONLY be applied to the genus Homo DNA that was found at the nest site. And ONLY because no other primate DNA was found within the samples tested. But it also brings up another point: Cliff Barackman (a pretty smart guy) placed a reconstructed sample of a similar nest into his BIGFOOT museum that he and another guy built in about 45 minutes IIRC. Did he ever quantify whether or not his was an example of nests that were built in the Olympic Peninsula were constructed by any non-Human primates? My guess is he really didn't say one way or another in order to keep the public's imagination off center. Better for the Bigfoot biz if the public doesn't get around to thinking for a long, long time that the Sasquatch is a Human of some kind? Or members of the Bigfoot community? Are there members of the Bigfoot community that still think the Sasquatch is just an ape- as opposed to a Human? Because if it built the nests then according to the DNA collected from the site then it can only be genus Homo.

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by hiflier

[hiflier]

44 minutes ago, norseman said:

Most extinct species are categorized by morphology…. Not DNA.

 

Agreed, otherwise the Tyrannosaurus Rex would've been a chicken long ago