"Squatchers"

I read a couple day's ago in the new's, researcher's were surprised to find Genome's in Gorilla's that are very similar to human's. It was already known, the Genome's that exisited between human's and chimp's and their similarities and how we may have evolved. "If" BF does exsist, it would be interesting to see where it fit's in the picture from a scientific viewpoint.
 
Genius, beer in a bottle.

science has come through again:thumbup:. leopard frogs with a New York/Newark NJ(suburb of New York) accent are a different specie than the other leopard frogs in the world.(of leaperd frogs).

Bigfoots live among us:eek:. that's why we can't find them, or have we already and just haven't realized it.:rolleyes:
it makes as much sense as any of the other theories.

I think the ones people are seeing must be the young or hippie bigfoots or maybe just homeless ones that are in between shaves, or just the really big ones that can't blend in with our society. maybe they should start smoking before puberty and stunt their growth. this could explain all the sightings around some of the cities and towns (visiting their more "human" looking relatives). or not;)

please refer to the first sentence in this post, Thank you.
 
That has merit. Maybe the Sasquatch went the way of the Neanderthal and bred themselves into extinction(or atleast that's one of the theories).

HTD,
Never make the last sentence in your post refer back to the first... I read it 7 times over, before breaking the cycle! It was like a repeating dream. Now, I need a beer.
 
Rick Marchand said:
That has merit. Maybe the Sasquatch went the way of the Neanderthal and bred themselves into extinction(or atleast that's one of the theories).

HTD,
Never make the last sentence in your post refer back to the first... I read it 7 times over, before breaking the cycle! It was like a repeating dream. Now, I need a beer.
Click to expand...

tequila, in a shot glass.

I forgot about this thread. 23 pages of some interesting stories.

participated all the way through it, still don't believe in bigfoot.

i did find it interesting how many people did tho.

this ones for you Marchand.(see the sentence below)

please refer to the first sentence in my post.:eek:
 
I realise this thread is old but I have always found the legend of YEti/Sasquatch interesting since childhood.

I watched a documentary on TV some years ago where the researchers were in Asia and had found some hairs on a tree that the "Yeti" had been seen by locals to be scratching his back on (similar to what bears do).

This hair was subsequently analyzed for DNA in a British university and it was found to be of an unknown animal. I consequently never heard anything further about this story, which I find strange as I thought it would be groundbreaking!

Here is a link: http://rense.com/general11/yhet.htm

Also, I think some credence has to be given to people like Les Stroud and other experinced hunters when they see/hear something they never have before.
 
nealf5 said:
I realise this thread is old but I have always found the legend of YEti/Sasquatch interesting since childhood.

I watched a documentary on TV some years ago where the researchers were in Asia and had found some hairs on a tree that the "Yeti" had been seen by locals to be scratching his back on (similar to what bears do).

This hair was subsequently analyzed for DNA in a British university and it was found to be of an unknown animal. I consequently never heard anything further about this story, which I find strange as I thought it would be groundbreaking!

Here is a link: http://rense.com/general11/yhet.htm

Also, I think some credence has to be given to people like Les Stroud and other experinced hunters when they see/hear something they never have before.
Click to expand...


This is a great thread for sure!!! That was an interesting link. I'm by no means an expert when it comes to matters of DNA, but I would have thought a squatch or yeti would have DNA similar to a primate. Kind of interesting how they said it was DNA they've never encountered. Guess the mystery continues.

As for Les Stroud, seasoned hunters and outdoorsmen & women who have had experiences they can't explain, there are way to many stories out there to dismiss what they went through.
 
There are lots of cases of "unknown" DNA. What needs to happen is a collection of DNA from all of these investigations. When common "unidentified" DNA is discovered, we start to build a case and only when a physical specimen is found and the DNA is linked can we declare Sasquatch to be real. That has yetto happen, so the only logical stance is to withhold judgement.

As I have said previously, I have a friend who wholeheartedly believes he saw a squatch and gets visibly shaken just talking about it. There is no way I would EVER consider him a liar... but I cannot dismiss the fact that human perception is easily fooled and one of the worst forms of evidence to discern truth. The judicial system may accept eye-witness accounts but true science never would.
 
Its all possible in nature.
Cryptozoologys more interesting than whats known to zoology.

P.s science is yet to exist.
 
coping said:
Its all possible in nature.
Cryptozoologys more interesting than whats known to zoology.

P.s science is yet to exist.
Click to expand...

Not everything is possible... there are limits to what nature can accomplish.

I don't get the last statement. Please explain?
 
I was really into reading about bigfoot when I was kid, enough that it would freak me out when I was out squirrel hunting alone with .22.
Bigfoot, Yeti, Sasquatch, MoMo, swamp ape, etc, etc, etc, have been reported worldwide. Native Americans and other early civilizations have stories dating back centuries of them. UFOs have been reported worldwide dating back centuries. We don't have proof of alien spacecraft, but I think it borders on insanity to think we are the only intelligent life in the universe. So why have we not found a bigfoot corpse? Because if they croak on earth they get beamed up to the mother ship so they can have a proper burial on planet Sasquation. Seriously though, what if bigfoot sightings are the pilots of UFOs? If they were smart enough to design space travel, they would likely be pretty sly when on the ground too.
 
diced said:
I was really into reading about bigfoot when I was kid, enough that it would freak me out when I was out squirrel hunting alone with .22.
Bigfoot, Yeti, Sasquatch, MoMo, swamp ape, etc, etc, etc, have been reported worldwide. Native Americans and other early civilizations have stories dating back centuries of them. UFOs have been reported worldwide dating back centuries. We don't have proof of alien spacecraft, but I think it borders on insanity to think we are the only intelligent life in the universe. So why have we not found a bigfoot corpse? Because if they croak on earth they get beamed up to the mother ship so they can have a proper burial on planet Sasquation. Seriously though, what if bigfoot sightings are the pilots of UFOs? If they were smart enough to design space travel, they would likely be pretty sly when on the ground too.
Click to expand...


There we go, another plausible theory. thats as likely as there being a bigfoot out there.

thinking about it tho, i do feel more sorry for alien abductees.

i thought it was bad when little green and grey aliens were abducting and probing people. now you throw out the bigfoot may be the alien doing the flying and by that the abducting and probing:eek: and i feel more sorry for the abductees(is that right, more sorry or is it sorrier).

just because indians or aboriginals believed in the existence doesn't make it so. they (mid west) believed in an underwater panther, haven't seen any of those swimming around.

no body, no corpse, no carcass, no bigfoot.

i do believe in life on other planets, just doubt they are coming or have come here.
 
You have never seen an underwater panther? I catch a few every year, they really like moss mouse type baits (JK) I don't believe in bigfoot but think most sightings that are not hoaxes are mis-identification of other animals. We actually had a black bear in central IL a few years back. Imagine being out hunting in early dawn or dusk and seeing a black bear standing on its hind legs in thick woods. I would probably be evacuating the area with haste, thinking I saw something other than a bear. I am open minded though, and there is a lot out there yet to be discovered.
 
I've read almost every post in this thread. Here is my Bigfoot near miss story. Well, like all good Sasquatch stories, it was related to me by a friend. I have a friend that works at a DNA sequencing company. Generally, she does not know from who or where the sample comes from, just that "sanger sequencing" has been requested for this sample. I'll not get into the details of how the sequencing is done, except to note that with this type of sequencing, the identity of the subject needs to be known- at least in the "animal, vegetable, mineral" sense. This is because the reaction requires small pieces of DNA called "primers"-that match the DNA of interest- to be added to the sample, so that the sequencing reaction can occur. And, in order to make any sense of the sequencing results, the researcher needs a reference database to which to align the new DNA sequence. Anyway, the person who submitted the DNA was very evasive about the source of the material, but did offer that it was from a "primitive human that is not very friendly." (I'll go back in my email to see if I can find her actual quote.) After many failed attempts to sequence the DNA, my friend was finally able to get a "good" sequence and to find a match in a BLAST search. It turns out that the DNA submitted was from skunk and the researcher was a Sasquatch investigator. Skunk-ape? No, just skunk.

There are several problems with attempting to set up a Sasquatch DNA database. The first, and hardest to overcome is that with current technology it is not terribly difficult to cross-reference unknown samples with known databases. All of the large mammals in the Sasquatch range have been sequenced, as they are of academic/economic interest. This would leave precious little information to add to the database. And, a rigorous scientist would not be able to classify the unidentified remainder as "Sasquatch DNA" but merely as "DNA of unknown origin." The database would most likely fill with misidentified deer, elk, moose, bear, sheep, etc samples or completely fail to have samples added. And, a large DNA database is not exactly a cheap endeavor to host.

I can only imagine the public fallout from a state or federal agency attempting to use public money to fund an investigation into the existence of Bigfoot...

State DNRs in the east do not want to acknowledge the existence of resident populations of mountain lions as management plans are expensive and time consuming to develop, implement, and oversee. And, an expanding range is counter to their "precarious" status on earth. California considers the mountain lion to be an endangered species!
 
Her main lab business seems to be doing DNA analysis of horses, cats and dogs. Her claim is that she became very alergic to animals so had to quit being a vet, her degree specialty (thus the "Dr", DVM). CFA has quit using her lab for whatever reason and BBB gives her lab an "F" rating based upon complaints. Certified DNA results could prove the existance of the creature without a body. If done properly on good samples of actual creatures. Of the samples of which I am aware, one was a bloody toenail, one was a "steak" supposedly cut from one of the two that a hunter shot. Shame so much fakery has gone on with photos and other evidence. While it is possible they exist, IMHO it is not probable.
 
Unfortunately, without a body one can point to and say "Look, here is where the DNA is from," or a reference database created from samples of known origin (bodies that one can point to), all a researcher will have at "the end of the day " is "DNA of unknown origin." One may be able to say "It has less than x homology (likeness) to Y organism based on homology mapping and is therefore not Y." One may even be able to say that "It has greater than z homology to y organism and is likely related to (but not) Y organism." However, positive identification based on DNA evidence REQUIRES a reference. In other words, if you believe the blood at the scene belongs to OJ you have to get an actual sample from OJ to prove it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top