LNT Canada is a national non-profit organization dedicated to promoting responsible outdoor recreation through education, research and partnerships.

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

12/06/2017 11:16 am  #18


Re: Squatch'in

I wanna believe but the biggest problem is, in all these years, there has never been any DNA evidence presented:  fur/hair, scat, remains. We have DNA of dinosaurs but not of a Sasquatch. The argument that they live in remote areas not visited by humans doesn't hold, IMO.  If you believe in their existence then you must give credence to some of the reported sightings which were not in these remote, never visited areas so there is the opportunity for DNA trace evidence there. Also, there are many previously remote areas that we do now have a presence - logging, exploration, surveying - where the opportunity to find some evidence should exist. We humans have expanded our footprint on this planet greatly in the last 100 years. I don't think humans would be able to hide there presence so well.


Edit: Just reread this thread and see  Methye  mentioned this problem as well.  Great minds think alike?

Last edited by Algonquintripper (12/06/2017 11:34 am)


Dave
 

12/06/2017 12:40 pm  #19


Re: Squatch'in

I wonder if the DNA has actually been found and dismissed, several years ago I helped some biologists place hair traps; pieces of boiled (to clean it) barb wire attached to the top of fallen trees, or under suspended "widow-makers" that tangle and pull out hair strands from passing animals, which are then DNA tested.
What amazed me were how many samples were tossed due to being "inconclusive", "degraded", or "contaminated"! Basically, if it showed any human or primate markers, it was contaminated, or if it didn't match something in the database it was "inconclusive"
It makes me wonder if any of those hairs were from a squatch, after all, only about 20 years ago they discovered a 600lb "cowlike" creature(Pseudoryx nghetinhensis) in Vietnam that the locals had described for decades!

Last edited by scoutergriz (12/06/2017 12:41 pm)

 

12/06/2017 6:36 pm  #20


Re: Squatch'in

Hmmm.....ain't that interesting , unidentified hair samples in Algonquin Park ?
I'm curious , which of the regular.... deer , moose , bear and wolf counts in Algonquin was that there from ?
Considering Algonquin Park is far cry from the jungles of Vietnam , one might think , with the years of continual test tube like research , ongoing in Algonquin something more scientific would have showed up ...... Eh?
I'll through this out ta ya believers .... ya get some trail cam footage , a skull and or some scat from one of them there Algonquin Samsquanches  , and I'll show ya to a  real vein of gold in the park .

Now if ya want to open up another thread about short , wrinkled skinned , three fingered wendigo that  was scratching on my tent up @ Foys Lake a few years back , that's another thing , and the bet is off .
I figure that sighting had more ta do with what  I thought were fresh chantrelle mushrooms I sprinkled on my fettucine Alfredo , a few hours previous .

 

 

12/07/2017 9:23 am  #21


Re: Squatch'in

I don't see this recent news posted on this thread yet. The Sasquatch's Asian cousin the Yeti has been proving to be a bear:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/yeti-dna-tested-1.4417918 

In terms of the DNA tests that ScouterGriz mentions, it is quite easy for DNA in hair samples to become "degraded". In fact unless you get the root of the hair it likely won't contain useful DNA to start with:

https://www.forensicmag.com/article/2013/04/challenges-dna-testing-and-forensic-analysis-hair-samples

Given the nature of collecting field samples, particularly using unattended methods such as barbed wire hair traps you can also expect a fairly high percentage of contaminated samples even before the human researcher comes along to collect them. For example a bird collecting some of the hair to line a nest would be likely to contaminate the rest of the hair sample by contact. Air born seeds or spores could also get caught in the hair without any animal intervention. 

I would interpret the "inconclusive" category as just that - it doesn't match a known species with enough statistical confidence (typically 99% for this kind of research) - and neither is it either complete enough a sample or distinctly different enough to be 99% confident that it is not a known species.

In other words the "inconclusive" group leaves the door open for something new to be discovered but doesn't have enough evidence to make scientifically justified claims of identifying a new species. 
 

 

Board footera