Sasquatch "Nest" Question

[hiflier]

If this tread is devolving into diversion then there's no point in me being here. Back on topic then I'm here but in the mean time? See ya

Edited May 18, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

40 minutes ago, hiflier said:

And if she did make nests and a soil sample was taken would it come back with Human DNA, too? But too degraded to show a "novel primate? They might if the samples were sat on and frozen for a year and a half waiting for money for testing, like what happened with the Washington site's samples.

 

Human as in Homo Sapien Sapien? No.

 

Human as in Homo Heidelbergensis Americanus? 🤷‍♂️

 

 

13 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Bobbie Short reported that Lyle Laverty found a nest on Scorpion Ridge, directly above the PG film site.

Nice memory!

[hiflier]

48 minutes ago, norseman said:

Human as in Homo Sapien Sapien? No.

Maybe. Because it would seem that the Human DNA collected in Washington was apparently too degraded to even detect Homo Sapiens sapiens. But since we're the only recognized North American primate one COULD assume that The DNA was Homo Sapiens sapiens. The issue isn't that though, the issue concerns that little item called "novel primate." Because, in truth, just because the DNA was degraded? It didn't mean there WAS novel primate DNA present. It was only said that the samples were TOO DEGRADED to show whether or not novel primate DNA was present. The BF community was led around by it's nose and had its mind infused simply by having someone SAY too degraded to show a novel primate. That statement planted a seed in people's minds that should have never been planted. In reality the statement of what was discovered should have never even contained the phrase "novel primate." It should have just stuck to the facts: "We found DNA of all the normally known organisms in the area along with degraded Human DNA....Period...FULL STOP right there.

 

48 minutes ago, norseman said:

Human as in Homo Heidelbergensis Americanus? 🤷‍♂️

Who can know? Because like above, apparently degraded Human DNA won't even show Homo Sapiens sapiens. It could only assume such for reasons stated in the sentence bolded above.

 

Edited May 18, 2023 by hiflier

[MIB]

12 hours ago, hiflier said:

Maybe. Because it would seem that the Human DNA collected in Washington was apparently too degraded to even detect Homo Sapiens sapiens. But since we're the only recognized North American primate one COULD assume that The DNA was Homo Sapiens sapiens. The issue isn't that though, the issue concerns that little item called "novel primate." Because, in truth, just because the DNA was degraded? It didn't mean there WAS novel primate DNA present. It was only said that the samples were TOO DEGRADED to show whether or not novel primate DNA was present. The BF community was led around by it's nose and had its mind infused simply by having someone SAY too degraded to show a novel primate. That statement planted a seed in people's minds that should have never been planted. In reality the statement of what was discovered should have never even contained the phrase "novel primate." It should have just stuck to the facts: "We found DNA of all the normally known organisms in the area along with degraded Human DNA....Period...FULL STOP right there.

 

Why?   I don't see where that matters.    Why get wrapped around the axle over minutiae?    Meldrum + Disotell + Olympic Project + nest clearly adds up to searching for bigfoot.    "Does not show novel primate" means just that: "no monkey found here."    The operative word is FOUND.    Does not mean bigfoot was not there, means bigfoot can't be proven based on whatever was found there.   I don't think anyone has missed that.  I don't think lack of conclusive DNA, or even clear but inconclusive DNA, moves the needle either direction.

 

Why is it so important to you to convince people here that there's something of value here rather than a choice of words that you don't approve of?   What's the end game?   Where does the puzzle piece fit for you?   What makes you think it is relevant?    Why are you arguing it here on the forum rather than discussing with the scientists involved?    How is convincing the forum of this thing going to move the needle?

 

MIB

 

[Huntster]

14 hours ago, hiflier said:

.........That statement planted a seed in people's minds that should have never been planted........

 

That seed has grown a forest over the past 35 years. The promise of DNA species identification, begun (at least as far as I know) with the Eric Muench nest discovery on Prince of Wales Island in Alaska in 1988, has repeatedly and consistently returned four results, and four results only:

 

1) Return of a known species

2) Return of unknown species (with escape clauses like "degraded" or "we threw it out")

3) Human contamination (as in a consistently unknown human injected his own DNA into the sample)

4) The sample was too degraded to return anything at all

 

#1 is completely understandable, acceptable, and should be provable.

#3, in many or most cases, should come with the identification of the guilty contaminant, or an explanation if why he/she cannot be identified.

 

The "degraded" excuse demands an explanation of how 40,000+ yer old fossils can yield DNA that can identify a human species while repeated samples a year or less old cannot.

[MIB]

21 minutes ago, Huntster said:

The "degraded" excuse demands an explanation of how 40,000+ yer old fossils can yield DNA that can identify a human species while repeated samples a year or less old cannot.

 

The only answer that makes any sense is that bigfoot is so close to us .. essentially IS us .. that identification as a separate species is either a) impossible or b) must be done via nuclear DNA comparison, not mitochondrial DNA comparison.    Or the differentiation between the two is at gene loci other than those currently used for separating human from other species .. which is a strong possibility.     I guess to put it another way, I think we have to consider the possibility they're a sort of "lost 8th daughter of Eve" or at least descended from Eve's hirsute cousin.    When we finally do have "proven" bigfoot DNA, I expect we're going to find 23, rather than 24, chromosome pairs and fusion at the same location our fusion is found.     Other options are possible and I'm open to them if that's where the science goes at the time but for now, that's the best fit for the available data.   The only arguments against it are rooted in the dogmatic view that they "can't" be that close to us because to be so offends our belief in our uniqueness.

[norseman]

47 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

The only answer that makes any sense is that bigfoot is so close to us .. essentially IS us .. that identification as a separate species is either a) impossible or b) must be done via nuclear DNA comparison, not mitochondrial DNA comparison.    Or the differentiation between the two is at gene loci other than those currently used for separating human from other species .. which is a strong possibility.     I guess to put it another way, I think we have to consider the possibility they're a sort of "lost 8th daughter of Eve" or at least descended from Eve's hirsute cousin.    When we finally do have "proven" bigfoot DNA, I expect we're going to find 23, rather than 24, chromosome pairs and fusion at the same location our fusion is found.     Other options are possible and I'm open to them if that's where the science goes at the time but for now, that's the best fit for the available data.   The only arguments against it are rooted in the dogmatic view that they "can't" be that close to us because to be so offends our belief in our uniqueness.

I also will go wherever GOOD science leads us. I reject that they are Homo Sapiens based on morphology alone. With the caveat that what I have seen is REAL morphology. (Patty is real, and not a hoax)

 

I have no bias as to what they are or were they land on the tree of life. Obviously they are bipedal. So the assumption would be they are closely related to us. If they are not? Then this would be convergent evolution within primates. Which may explain why they are so much like us in certain areas and not at all in others. After all the Homo Erectus hand axe is 1.8 million years old, and we dont see this behavior at all.

 

I went back to page 1.

[hiflier]

Really only need to address a couple of your questions, MIB:

8 hours ago, MIB said:

Why get wrapped around the axle over minutiae?

 

Minutiae you say. Let's put it this way, ask a primatologist which would be more of a shake up, a novel primate? Or a novel Human.

 

8 hours ago, MIB said:

Does not mean bigfoot was not there, means bigfoot can't be proven based on whatever was found there.   I don't think anyone has missed that.

 Agreed. Then who broke off 1200 sq ft of huckleberry bushes in order to fabricate nests that researchers had to literally crawl to though thick under story? The way I see it there's two choices here, Bigfoot wasn't there because there was no other genus but normal animals and Humans? Or Bigfoot was there and ITS DNA was what was degraded. And that, my friend is a huge door to open up, because if what was found WAS degraded Bigfoot DNA then there would be no doubt that it is genus Homo. Whichever way it went down regarding who, or what, was there, the fact of the matter is that the DNA was degraded HUMAN DNA which means that if there was a novel primate there then it was Human. The DNA assessors targeted that degraded Human DNA and stated that it didn't show a novel primate.

 

For scientists, not one but two, who are pretty accurate and precise when it comes to wording on any possible scientific revelation, especially something as important as this. So ONE of them at least could have been more accurate regarding what DNA was found by saying "too degraded to show novel Human" since only Human DNA was found. Because when it comes to Human DNA, primate is way too broad a term, especially for a scientist who would, or should, know better. In my opinion, they dangled the Bigfoot carrot by saying primate and pandered to the community. Either that or what they did was drop a huge hint for those paying attention (me) that Bigfoot IS A HUMAN judging by the unusual details present at the nest site, since Human DNA was all that was there.

 

Dr. Disotell and Dr. Meldrum don't answer my emails if you must know. Well, Dr. Meldrum did. Once, about seven years ago when I asked if I could reference his Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science in my own book: The Sasquatch Hunter's Field Manual, to which he said 'yes.' Other than that? Crickets and ghosts from both of them.

 

6 hours ago, Huntster said:

The "degraded" excuse demands an explanation of how 40,000+ yer old fossils can yield DNA that can identify a human species while repeated samples a year or less old cannot.

^^ This 110%!!

[hiflier]

6 hours ago, MIB said:

 

The only answer that makes any sense is that bigfoot is so close to us .. essentially IS us .. that identification as a separate species is either a) impossible or b) must be done via nuclear DNA comparison, not mitochondrial DNA comparison.    Or the differentiation between the two is at gene loci other than those currently used for separating human from other species .. which is a strong possibility.     I guess to put it another way, I think we have to consider the possibility they're a sort of "lost 8th daughter of Eve" or at least descended from Eve's hirsute cousin.    When we finally do have "proven" bigfoot DNA, I expect we're going to find 23, rather than 24, chromosome pairs and fusion at the same location our fusion is found.     Other options are possible and I'm open to them if that's where the science goes at the time but for now, that's the best fit for the available data.   The only arguments against it are rooted in the dogmatic view that they "can't" be that close to us because to be so offends our belief in our uniqueness.

Yep, that's a good post, MIB. Thank you.

 

I might add a comment on this if I may?

6 hours ago, MIB said:

The only answer that makes any sense is that bigfoot is so close to us .. essentially IS us .. that identification as a separate species is either a) impossible or b) must be done via nuclear DNA comparison, not mitochondrial DNA comparison.

Remember back, oh, three or four years ago, when I was talking about the NOTCH2NL ape brain gene? I was making an evolutionary comparison to the NOTCH2NLA, B. and C Human brain genes Well if someone DID get a sample good enough that it contained whole cells, good enough to extract nuclear DNA? Then that would be the DNA to look through and assess if the NOTCH2NL gene was ape of Human. Because the ape variation and the Human variations are mutually exclusive. And you might like to hear this, both ape and Human variations appear both on the number 2 fused Human chromosome as well as the non-fused 2a and 2b of a Great Apes

 

In my other post when I said Drs. Disotell and Meldrum ghost my emails? I sent them BOTH a paper I had written on this very subject....never heard back.

 

[Huntster]

7 hours ago, MIB said:

 

The only answer that makes any sense is that bigfoot is so close to us .. essentially IS us .. that identification as a separate species is either a) impossible or b) must be done via nuclear DNA comparison, not mitochondrial DNA comparison.    Or the differentiation between the two is at gene loci other than those currently used for separating human from other species .. which is a strong possibility.     I guess to put it another way, I think we have to consider the possibility they're a sort of "lost 8th daughter of Eve" or at least descended from Eve's hirsute cousin.........

 

Agreed. I remain skeptical, however, that dna can be extracted from a small, 40,000+ year old sliver of bone that can yield enough to identify a novel human species with only 3 or 4 other such fossils known. Had the dna sample been taken from a sasquatch chunk instead of mud at the bottom of a nest, the "degraded" excuse runs out of believability.

 

Another example:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genetics

 

Quote

........The project first sequenced the entire genome of a Neanderthal in 2013 by extracting it from the phalanx bone of a 50,000-year-old Siberian Neanderthal..........

 

 

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

Had the dna sample been taken from a sasquatch chunk instead of mud at the bottom of a nest, the "degraded" excuse runs out of believability.

But the sample WAS taken from mud under the nests and that's what this thread is addressing. It is addressing the results brought forth from testing that mud- the HUMAN results. Because even if it was the Sasquatch's DNA that was degraded it wouldn't have mattered. The results said Human regardless. And it's the Human DNA that is at issue here. The correct, and only, assessment of concern is that the DNA was Human. In other words, modern Humans building the nests is one thing. But if Sasquatch built the nests then It is a Human of some kind because Human DNA was all that was found. Key word being, as MIB said, found.

 

The point being: If Sasquatches built the nests then their DNA was at the site. But the only DNA at the site was Human. So yes, they would be a novel primate but only in the general sense. And since only Human DNA was there, the scientifically precise response is that if Sasquatches built the nests then they are, and therefore can only BE, a novel Human. And this, again, is only because Human DNA is what was there. So if anyone thinks Sasquatch built the nest? Then the one and only conclusion that can be drawn is that Sasquatch is novel Human. Period. Which is far more than just saying primate. Human being the only correct assessment that can be made.

 

The alternative is way simpler: Modern Humans built the nests. The degraded Human DNA must have come from modern Humans. Tough enough to get ones head around that conclusion? You betcha! Modern Humans or Sasquatches. Pick one. Either way the answer comes out Human. Accurately and precisely stated with respect to a Human DNA result? Either there's a novel Human or there isn't a novel Human. "Human" being the correct qualifier regardless where the nests are concerned.

 

So which one built the nests? This is the very dilemma that Drs. Meldrum and Disotell found themselves wrestling with. Knowing that to suggest that the Sasquatch, if it had been there, had to actually be a Human, they played it safe and used the term primate. Because they knew that the TRUE statement would have been too explosive to say out loud. They simply could not bring themselves to say "novel Human." Even though the nest construction site, with all of its unique particulars, strongly suggested Sasquatch- by default- with test results to back it up. So, novel primate was the slippery way out of saying novel Human. And even though their announcements came three months apart from each other, they both used the same wording: Novel Primate. Easy, safe, and everyone in the BF community simply walked away. Those two professors, under so much pressure, must have been relieved.  

 

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by hiflier

[Twist]

6 hours ago, hiflier said:

So which one built the nests?

 

Based on what is known and tested,  humans built the nests.  Most often times the simplest answer is the right answer.  

[hiflier]

3 hours ago, Twist said:

 

Based on what is known and tested,  humans built the nests.  Most often times the simplest answer is the right answer.  

Modern Humans, Twist? Because that's the question on the table here. Or, you could be more ambiguous, Like Meldrum and Disotell, and just say primates built the nests And therefore what was found in the samples, generally stated, was degraded primate DNA.

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

23 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Modern Humans, Twist? Because that's the question on the table here. Or, you could be more ambiguous, Like Meldrum and Disotell, and just say primates built the nests And therefore what was found in the samples, generally stated, was degraded primate DNA.

 

How many primate species does science currently recognize in North America?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

How many primate species does science currently recognize in North America?

How many genders does science currently recognize in North America?