Ep. 334 - DNA, Discovery, and the "Unknown Primate" Myth!

deeply weird things go to Phenomicon in Vernal Utah. And my god, my biggest regret about the Vernal gig was that I didn't have an extra day or two because there's so much to do in Vernal Utah. It's in the middle of this big bowl shape thing, like the big bowl shaped valley, and there's dinosaur stuff everywhere. It's spitting distance, like thirty minutes from Dinosaur National Monument or whatever that's called. And I have a fossils I'm a dinosaur guy. I'm still a seven year old little boy.

I mean, what seven year old boy or a girl doesn't live dinosaurs. I wish I just had more time. There's two or three museums in town, and it's just gorgeous there, absolutely gorgeous.

It was just absolutely beautiful, you know, because Utah has that kind of red soil and it looks like, you know, coyote versus road runner territory, you know, with these maces all over the place, and it's just absolutely awesome. But to answer your question, it was sold out. Not only was it well attended, it was literally sold out in the in the convention center.

places like that, or you know, Provo or wherever. But there were people from most states there, you know, because the MC of course pointed that out, like we were represented by X number of states and things and people from other countries were there as well. People were there from the UK and Denmark and other places. Yeah, it was a very well attended job or gig or event.

get out in the woods a little bit. It's been like two weeks, three weeks now since I've been out in the woods, and I think legitimately this is as long. It's not true. I was in the blues two weeks ago, but that's different than what I was thinking. But still two weeks getting the shakes, the shakes, oh yeah, exactly, the yeah, the yeah. I don't know as I call it,

but I definitely am getting the shakes on that one. Withdrawals, the withdrawals, for sure, the yetty withdrawals but yeah, it's been a long time, like two weeks is probably as long as it's been in two years since I've been out to the woods. So I need to get out. Hopefully this week I can find some time. But being gone from Tuesday to Sunday last week, I'm drowning in things that are overdue and I should have done last week. So we'll see what I can get away with.

squashed on the brain. He's just been camping out there, not really camping, just living in his van and just like hanging out. And he's right below a really well known bigfoot spot. He didn't he didn't know at the time. He just picked it randomly. So yeah, we went out there and we've been him in town and he just uh kind of he looked he reminded me of Zach

Gaffnaculis from The Hangover. He had like the same same look, same body, like same every It's not like a dead ringer, Like the face wasn't the exact same, but same, you know, bushy beard, hair kind of style and just.

of my truck and walked everyone it's going on. He was pumping some gas and he goes, we go out there here to introduce yourself, formerly introduced some tell all your credentials and every podcast and TV show you've ever been on, so they know who you are. I go all right, like all right, this is getting a little weird. And then we went and so then we followed him back up to where he was. He's out in there. He was out in the sticks. He was up real remote area, up pretty far. We get there at this

point it's dark. We get out where show. He's showing us sort of some stuff happened off the main road where you went down this like old logging road out in the middle of nowhere, and we're getting our boots on and stuff like that. He comes walking up on us, like this guy's a trip man, Like yeah, he's kind of yeah, you know, he's kind of a different character. He comes walking up to us and he had this big sword thing, like machety sword looking thing with like

look like at some medieval war weapon. He comes walking up with us in the dark, and I was like, oh geez, like what the hell is going on?

didn't know that at the time. He just walks up with it on me and PAULI, and PAULI was like jumps back and that's when I always had my phone out to record audio. I guess I said it on the bumper, the back bumpers. I was at the back of the truck and as we were kind of shut going whoa, like that's that's kind of like I hope this guy just go crazy, you know, And he was cool.

But yeah, I guess I put my phone down on the back bumper and then we walked around and say we looked for tracks where he'd had some stuff happen up there and where we heard some stuff. We were walking around with flashlights looking around and said, well, we'll come back in the daytime sometime. I want to blow up a bunch of tracks at night, like walk in and can't see something step on it. So we went down to where he'd been sleeping in his van and we got down there and I turned around and I

backed up. It was, you know, it's like really steep, you know, steepid as out of those like it's just vertical canyon walls. I think what happened was when I backed up, I backed up, I could see my tailgate camera. When I was back up, I was my wheels were still on the flat ground, but my tailgate was over the edge, like it was already over the edge, like where it drops off and there's like a tree root

in the ground there. And I bumped up over it and I kind of gunned it to come back over it like it truck bounced and I think it dropped

and bounced off there. Because when we finally were able to pinpoint it because it didn't have a good reading on the GPS where it was exactly, then we would the coordinate where it was and get the GPS lined up because the GPS, for whatever reason on Apple phones, through Google Maps and Google Streets and all that, it kept changing the road names on us, like as you drove through this one area, it would change.

I jumped across and I landed lower down. I put my left leg up totally straight and stiff when I landed, and totally like felt I could feel the exact say. I was like, oh, like the second I did, like that was stupid. Then I impacted like right at the same exact moment, and I just got that same jarring like I could feel right in my back where I just cave those her need to those discs before, And I was like, it didn't happen, but I could feel like we're it was close. It tingled pretty hard but

didn't get hurt. I was like, God, I think I almost got hurt walking taking walk in town.

we talking about today? Well, you know one of the topics that comes up a lot, not just in the Q and as but with listeners suggested topics is the idea of DNA, and there's a couple of different threads there that comes through, like one of which is the sort of mythos that there exists a number of like previously tested quote unquote unknown primate DNA samples, which is totally a myth and so we could cover some of that.

But a lot of people think now that DNA technology has come along so far and we have things like the North Carolina study getting so heavily involved that I know Doug Hichek was going to get some testing done as part of legendmede science that discovery will occur as the consequence of DNA testing, and that's looking more and more promising. You know, a body might still be needed down the line one day to study like a skeletal

structure or a respiratory system or something like that. But I think a lot of peop people really want to hear what discovery might look like were it to happen today.

in a peer reviewed journal. Almost every other animal human beings don't have one, because we're pretty sure we're real. Although there's some argument there too, I guess, especially a phenomicon. But on top of that, well, actually they say Linnaeus, the guy the scientists back in with the early seventeen hundreds, I think the guy who made up the taxonomic system of naming animals like genus species stuff. They give Linnaeus the credit of being the type specimen for Homo sapiens,

which I think is kind of fun. You know, there's also a monkey. I understand that was deemed too rare to even spare one because it would upset the balance. So they don't have a type specimen. But they have enough documentation of various sorts and I believe including hair samples that could be wrong on that, So they don't have a type specimen or a holotype for that one. And I thought there was another species just recently that

is something similar. But the basic gist of a holotype is that you need a body or a piece of a body. Well, the good news is that DNA is a piece of the body. It's a very very small one, but it literally is a piece of a body. And some species were proven to be real by DNA so far, most notably and most pertinent our Field Denisovans homodenis Ovan human and probably not ancestrab well some of us, because they did interbreed with Homo sapiens, but a relative human

relative a Homo Sapien relative. It was discovered by a DNA They found a small segment of a fingerbone in a cave, and they it was recent enough that they could test it for DNA, and sure enough, it wasn't Neanderthals like they thought it was. It was this brand new thing, Denisovans. So that's encouraging for us that DNA can be used to prove a species as present now

with Bigfoot. It might take a little bit more than that, you know, just because so many hoaxes have been perpetrated through the year, so many wild and borderline or full on paranormal claims have discredited the subject for so long, so it might take more than just a DNA hit. It's probably going to take repeated DNA hits, honestly, by several different sources. But that is a piece of the body, and I believe that will do it, that at least

start the avalanche. You know, picture the DNA hit, a positive DNA hit as a pebble that starts an avalanche, and the avalanche will look like a lot of different things. And one of those rocks, one of the big boulders falling down the hill in that avalanche, and that metaphoric avalanche will be collection of not just one, but probably

several types like specimens. Unfortunately, but I think that's what's going to do this because we've had a long time of people walking around in the woods and maybe seeing sasquatches and having the opportunity to take a shot, and they never have, or if they have, they never collected the specimen and brought it in. But DNA, with that North Carolina State University thing going on right now with Darby or cut, that is where my money is at

the moment. I think that has a much higher chance of bringing back what we need than just depending on some hunter to not be so scared to pull the trigger essentially, and again, just to be clear, I don't necessarily advocate for the collection of the species because I'm

not the guy who's going to pull the trigger. It's kind of like Game of Thrones, right that very first episode of Game of Thrones, if you remember, I forget all the characters names like the ned Start guy or whatever his name is, he told his son who was a king, you shouldn't sentence someone to death unless you're willing to swing the blade, you know. And I feel the same way about sasquatch stuff. I know it has

to happen. I'm not going to be the guy to do it, so I feel a little hypocritical by advocating for it because I'm not willing to do it myself. It's going to happen, bottom line. So but I can do the DNA thing, and I am doing the DNA thing. It turns out with Darby, and now that I'm allowed to talk about it, it's kind of nice. And I've talked about it on the podcast before. But DNA, I think, is the avenue to start that avalanche.

But there seems to be this sort of belief that there have been in the past a host of DNA samples that were collected or you know, genetic samples that were collected and subjected to DNA testing and the results were quote unknown primate and that's just frankly not true. And as far as I can tell, what's generally occurred is that when it does come to physical evidence, you know,

the most abundant of which being hair. You know, as a source of physical evidence that you know, you look at hair under a microscope to determine its anatomy, and so by studying its anatomy you might be able to

determine its source. And so of the hair samples that are attributed to sasas Squatch, or at least categorized as like purported Sasquatch or potential Sasquatch hair samples, they do share a suite of characteristics with each other that are also characteristics that are analogous to those found in other apes.

But they're idiosyncratic enough from the known apes and from humans that the analyzes might say something like, well, they don't seem to be attributable to any known ape or humans, but they certainly share primate characteristics, and they're not attributable to any known animal, So we don't know what this is from, but it seems to be from a primate.

And that's strictly looking at the physical structure of hair morphology anatomy etc. Now, some of those samples have been subjected to DNA testing, these very you know, low resolution, surface level DNA tests that usually produce the most you know, homology or the biggest hits on like human primers and things.

not human hair. It's not like any human hair that's ever been collected or studied. And they'll say, well it was you know, it's either human hair or it was mishandled and therefore contaminated because the only DNA is human. But there's no DNA result that has given that moniker like, well we're looking at the DNA of a quote unquote unknown primate. So it seems like those two have been conflated.

But I see that come up time and time again in our emails and other places online where people are commenting saying like, well, what about all of the unknown primate DNA samples that have already been tested and that just it frankly doesn't exist.

be given or just didn't exist. And of course, if if it's they're not given the data, that tells you something, you know, that's that's a sign of maybe there's nothing there or don't don't want you to run independent results. But science is about reproducibility, you know, like peer reviewed sort of stuff. You know, if there's data that indicates there's a new species, you think you would be over the moon to share it with somebody else so they can get the same results or find out if you're

incorrect about something. But apparently that it just does not has not happened. So these are all rumors.

i'm seeing, but it's never really been formally published. But the same is true of the claims that the DNA was tested and quote unquote came back as human, you know, Homo sapiens, either that the source was human or that it was contaminated. And you know, I don't want to be too disparaging, but there's a number of really interesting samples that were discussed heavily. There was one from the Pacific Northwest that was a blood sample from a light

bulb that comes to mind. There's a handful of others, including some from the Kentucky project. And when you dig into the claims they were sent to be tested, and the results always come in the form of claims given to the media or in personal correspondence. Hey, I looked at this. It's just human Well none of that data has ever been published, you know, the sequences aren't released, not that they were fully sequenced genomes, but it's nothing

more than a set of claims. And the other frustrating thing is the majority of those claims all come from a single source. We don't know exactly what tests were used, how in depth they were, if there were anything more than like cursory or preliminary tests. And also those kind of claims very often feed the skeptics to such a degree where they go, hey, look, these boneheads thought they had something, but it turns out it was just human DNA. Lol,

you know, lmao. And it's it's kind of funny because it's like, well, if we're going to play the game where you know, you have to have evidence to support claims. I think any of us would be justified in saying, okay, well, where's the evidence that that was quote unquote just human, because as it stands, actually those are claims. We don't have the proof that. You know, we know the sample existed,

we know that it was supposedly tested. While we know that sample existed, we know it was sent to this person to be tested, we can't see the results of the tests. We can't see the data. All we know is that the person who claims they tested it claims

that it came back just human. Now I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying that, like, if claims have no value in no place here, then every skeptic that says, well, you know, every time they come up with a sample it's just human, it's like, no, you can throw that out because that's a claim. It's unsupported by evidence and data. So Darby was right to point out that every time he chased one of these things down, the sample is

gone and the test results are gone. There's like nothing to show that these tests even actually occurred, you know, which is frustrating.

one another. Obviously, Well it turns out that sasquatches and humans also look visually very similar to one another. So that's where the resolution thing really comes in here, because if you take a picture of a human or a sasquatch at five hundred yards, maybe the resolution of the photograph isn't isn't great enough for you to tell the

difference you know you need. I don't know how many megapixels you would need or whatever, but imagine it just like a nineteen ninety five digital camera versus your iPhone today. The resolution on your phone is a lot better than a camera back then, and the tests are the same ways. The lower the resolution of the test, the more approximate the results. Just like a lower resolution of in a photograph, the more approximate that picture is, you can tell it's

a human shaped thing. But if you have a high enough resolution camera, you can see the eyeballs and the hair cover in the body if it's a sasquatch or the you know, the member's only jacket or whatever one happens to be wearing if it's a human. Right, same

thing with tests. The lower resolution tests can get you in the ballpark, and almost all of those are going to say human on them, because that's the ballpark of what we're expecting, at least with the sasquatch thing, being that they're some sort of great ape species, you know, just like humans or anything else. So the resolution of the test needs to be great enough to differentiate. And there's no evidence that such a test has been run. Really at this moment, all of the other ones have

to come back human. I think it's reasonable to assume, and the lack of evidence at this point because there is no data to examine unfortunately that those low resolution tests. But any test on a DNA sort of thing where you get a human hit is very encouraging and should be tested to a higher level. To a higher resolution so we can see what exactly it is instead of approximately what it is.

this d anything. Because people are always asking, well, what about all the previous unknown primate samples? Can't Darby test those, and so trying to like weed out, well, actually, there are no real previous unknown primate DNA samples. There are unknown primate hair samples or other you know, evidence that was deemed that. But anyway, I know that's a bit of a diversion there, but it comes up so very

often that I thought it'd be worth clarifying. Oh yeah, but as I understand it now, like I don't know this would I'd love to ask Darby this, but you know, I've heard it said that the technology has come so far now that you can sequence a full genome from as few as three cells. Now, whereas you know, previously you needed a fairly sizable sample, like a pretty decent amount of blood or a chunk of the animal, you know,

like a diagnostic portion. They would say, you know, a big piece of the animal, and that now, like you know, if you had a droplet of blood and there were three intact cells in it, you could sequence in it full genome just from that.

effect on the results. And so that's where this idea that we differ from chimps by only one percent, that you know, there's ninety nine percent of our genetic material is homologous, and that we are we share ninety nine percent of our DNA, but that this full genome sequencing comparison shows that we're more like fourteen point nine percent different, which is, you know, fairly like an exponentially larger difference.

Oh yeah, So I don't know. Obviously I'm not a geneticist, and so I have no idea, Like once I access the paper and try to read it, I still don't know how qualified I will be, probably very little to interpret it correctly. But it was it was very interesting, but just showing like if you get higher and higher resolution, you're going to get more and more of these fascinating results.

You know, if that result is correct, that no, there's a lot more differences than we initially thought, now that we can see a lot more of the data.

that the technology is getting better and better. We should be promising for sasquatch researchers, Like we started this conversation that well, maybe now the technology is such that a small sample would be enough to fully quote unquote discover you know, the species, discover the sasquatch from as few as a couple of fibers or maybe a little bit of tissue or a drop of blood or something of that nature, whereas before, you know, obviously you needed a

lot of material. You know, the problem with those earlier physical samples that were subjected to DNA testing is that, you know, they were collections of fibers in a lot of those cases, and testing was really destructive, and so even to do just those low resolution preliminary tests, you would destroy the sample in the process, and so what

you're left with is that low resolution thumbnail. And even if it seemed to be promising, like oh maybe there's something here where you can't retest it now, I mean it's gone. The stuff is gone, And it seems like that's becoming less and less of a problem for discovering new species from very limited physical evidence these days.

spent a lot of time with Darby. Now I consider I'm a good friend, I really do, and I have faith in the man. And one thing I'm very very happy about is that he's already thinking ahead. He's looking for the pitfalls, he's looking for the problems in the future that might come his way or institution's way. If

this is done. I mean, there's gonna be a lot of great things that come out of it, but there's gonna be a lot of problems that go with it too, And he's already thinking and trying to get ahead of that stuff. And he Dearby in my opinion, truly understands the gravity of the situation, his responsibility not only to academy, but also to the animals themselves, which is something that I think gets lost in all of this. Not to everybody, Bigfooters in particular have a certain soft spot, a certain

compassion or empathy to the animals. But when they are quote unquote discovered, even though I don't like that term, I don't think it quite fits, but for lack of a better one right now, when they are discovered or recognized, it may be the worst thing that ever happened to them, But also at the same time, it might be the only way to save the species if they're going extinct. An that's the only path towards legal protection of any sort of way. But there are dangers with it as well.

I mean, and it's not hunters in my opinion, it's not hunters because they're not going to be any easier to run across and shoot once they're proven to be real animals. You can shoot them now, but nobody really does, so it's not going to be an easier at that point.

danger are from places like the pharmaceutical companies. You know, it's from corporations who are going to when who want to exploit them for medical reasons and do testing and doing all that sort of stuff, which would amount to torture as far as I can see, at least from my perspective. I've always said that, Well, you're always right than Bobo.

the ability to like track them at some point. Sure, But over the years, you know, my perspectives have changed, you know, I've grown up, I've had different experiences. You know, I've been influenced by certain arguments and then swayed by other arguments and learn new things and discover new things, and so it has changed. But at this point, yeah, I don't think that it is to be undertaken by

the citizen scientist at all. I think, you know, if such a thing is to occur, it would be best carried out by an institution with a lot of resources. I don't think the individual citizen would be able to survive the aftermath. And I don't mean that in a literal sense, but reputationally, financially, legally, I don't think that

is for the citizen to try to take on. And I think it might be very different if there was an individual whose home was being you know, threatened and took some action and self defense, or if someone you know, hit one with a truck or a vvehicle or something like that. But in terms of like someone intentionally hunting one, collecting it and turning it into the public and thinking that the world would smile upon them for the discovery.

I've been swayed a lot by some things that I've seen and encountered that I think this is not for the citizen scientists to take on in my opinion, and I know, people assume that they, you know, would have

access to some degree of anonymity. But you know, a lot of the people that I discussed this with, you know, they do hold the belief that this would be the biggest scientific discovery of all time, or at least the biggest biological discovery of all time, and that they could just hand over the specimen and keep all the details to themselves and you know, let the discovery unfold through

these institutions. And you know, from my perspective, especially studying cases like the case of Ed Wiseman, the man who was attributed with killing the last of the Colorado Grizzlies in nineteen seventy nine, it's like, you think that you're going to make the biggest biological discovery of all time, and it's not going to be accompanied by the biggest federal fish and wildlife investigation of all time. Like there's no way that those two things don't go hand in hand.

That you know, if you're going to claim like, oh, well, I don't have to tell anyone where I got it or how I got it, you know, no, you're going to have to you know, and what happens If it's collected on public land, who does it belong to? Does it belong to the state, Is it on national forest land? Does it belong to the federal government. If it's on someone else's private land, does some degree of that belong

to the landowner. I mean, there's going to be so much and none of these things can really be sussed out. I mean, some states do have rules of like, you can't collect anything that isn't a recognized game species. So whether that's something like a cougar in a state where they say, well, we have no cougars, there are no cougars here, but if you kill one, it's illegal because the cougar is also not a recognized game species in

this state. That's played out in multiple states where there are supposed to be no surviving cougars, and yet every once in a while someone collects one and they get into a lot of trouble for it. Would the sasquatch fall into that category? Let alone, like Bobo said, if post hawk they're found to be closely related to us, Let's say, if they are something of that African lineage like paranthropists, and they're closer to us than chimpanzees are.

Are there going to be laws that are applied you know, post hawk, even though it's like we didn't know they existed yesterday when you shot it, But now that we know that they're potentially like within our genius or closely related genus whatever, are those laws going to be applied retroactively? I mean, there's so much there that it's like, man, this isn't for the citizen scientists to try unless you're just ready to throw everything away.

you can do instead of what you cannot do. And they specifically say what you can hunt or fish or whatever and when you can do so, and if it isn't specifically said so, then you can't do it. Yeah, So they're very specific on what you are allowed to do, so they don't have to write what you're prohibited from doing. And Sasquatch isn't on the list.

State thing. So everybody could be collecting samples and submitting them or at least submitting them to be screened, you know.

State Long Beach in ninety three or ninety four. This has always been the draw that this is going to be a field where the amateur scientists, like the amateur investigator, like us, we will always have a role there because there's a way more of us than there are professional scientists, or even in the future there will be professional scientists looking into this, and most evidence will therefore be probably

collected by citizen scientists. So if we all kind of up our game and do the right thing and submit things to the appropriate folks when it comes in, we're going to be learning a lot about it. Like say tomorrow the whole thing's over and sasquatches are recognized species, well, I'm going to still go out there and a lot of people are still going to go camping and see these things, and maybe you have the possibility of collecting hair or footprints or whatever. And if there's a standard

protocol that's very simple for the tourists. Kind of like if you see a sasquatch and there's a footprint, you get all the dirt in a bag and you send it into.

be the way to study them. It's like going to be a group collaborative effort, hopefully because small teams deployed out in the remote areas are going to learn some stuff for sure. But even more data coming in and we're okay, we tested this DNA because there was a sighting in the Assemite National Park and there was a footprint and so and so on vacation from Florida collected all the dirt underneath, and here's the DNA that we're

looking for. Oh, that's that one individual that's big earl or whatever we call that one that hangs out in twelve of the meadows. Then they're oh, why is it doing.

there might be genetic material. Essentially, so with the cards are already stacked against us, so to speak, because the part of the hair that we need isn't present in the species that we're looking at unless you have the follicle along that unless the course of follicle. Yeah, in which case they both sides of the DNA in mitochondria and nuclear. But still that that would be fantastic. Yeah,

I think hair hair traps might be better utilized. Like I know, I haven't really been doing hair traps so much, but I also despite having places where I've found recurring footprints and things, I'm not sure how to set up a hair trap to keep the bears out. You know,

some sort of attractant which is illegal. So I wouldn't be doing that anyway, but like you need some sort of like attractive But I think if you don't use food attractants, that's probably in the legal realm, you know, squeaky toys or something might be of interest, because you aren't allowed to use food attractants for animals because they think you're luring bears in and stuff like that. But some sort of visual attractant or something might be useful.

I think Doug Hicheck, I think he suggested using velcro tape, you know, like the tape that the Volco thing, and just using the prickly hard plastic side and taping those on things like what did he use, like beach balls or something like that. He may have maybe he told me he had some success with that or something. But what kind of visual or non food attractant might be used? I guess that's the hard part.

to look forward to. I think as far as the DNA thing goes as an alternative for collecting a type specimen, it's certainly less aggressive, and the less aggressive we are, I think, the more human we are in a lot of ways. So I'm looking forward to what comes on the other side of that, where the real learning starts happening.

I think it was a good discussion today. But before we do go, before we hand it over to Bobes to close us out here, I do want to push I'm speaking in New York on October third and fourth for the first ever New York Bigfoot Conference is going to be in John's Town, New York, and if you live within spitting distance, feel free to come on and well, don't spit on me, but you know what I mean,

come on down and hang out. It's going to be October third and fourth, twenty twenty five in Johnstown, New York. You can go to ny Bigfoot Conference dot com for all the information your eyeballs are asking for.