We’re going to see the discovery – if we ever do – thanks to long, hard, dogged field work, that hardly anyone will hear a word about before the proof is in.

Watch.

If it happens, of course. Don’t hold your breath.

Still, it would take a broad coalition of experts (scientists) to get this published in a respectable journal.

However, analysis of a tooth along with comparative DNA analysis based on material from said tooth wouldn’t be a bad place from which to start.

The so-called “steak” is problematic as a biological specimen given it’s hazy provenance.

No it ain’t.

No one who knows how much evidence there is would consider taking you up on your offer. Because even though the evidence says they’d collect from you, nothing is certain.

If someone told me that I had to – it would have to be HAD to – bet MY life savings, up or down, on the existence of both sasquatch and yeti, I’d bet yes.

Evidence is like that. Going against it is what’s crazy.

I’d read up before you take that on. ‘Cause you need to.

You’re right. There is no need to compare kipunji with sasquatch. Kipunji was a MUCH dicier situation. I am frankly somewhat surprised that a photo holotype was accepted. That photo is blurrier than P/G. The sasquatch – unlike the kipunji – is so morphologically unlike anything else known to exist that a photo SHOULD be enough, if it was for kipunji. That P/G didn’t make nearly the waves it should have speaks to scientific pigheadedness and refusal to see what’s right there more than anything else. Now I’m not saying that P/G should have been enough, because I think photo holotypes a smelly precedent. I think that a severe standard should apply to photo holotypes, and I’m not sure kipunji met it, never mind sasquatch.

That aside: I think that if the TBRC (the most likely candidate) or anyone else doing intensive research – the only ones with anything more than a lottery-winner’s chance of getting a good photo rendering – come up with good close-up photo or video, it will be fairly compelling, and will get numerous scientists, possibly the critical mass needed for confirmation, interested, proof or not.

Now if you’re just saying that Scientific Pigheadedness Demands More, well, that’s on science. It’s one thing not to change your minds on a dime. But not showing a shade of interest in an “ape suit” into which a human doesn’t fit? That’s something entirely different. As scientists will retroactively acknowledge when (OK, if, which it might be at this rate) the sasquatch is confirmed.

This discovery should not “require the reordering (rewriting) of every evolutionary theory and paleoarcheological textbook.” OK, maybe you stick a chapter in there. Maybe you add a limb to the evolutionary tree. But all will be OK with them ‘till that’s done. Ah, save it for the next edition, no big. There’s in all probability nothing contrary to any scientific holding (except “the sasquatch isn’t real”) going on here. The Giganto hypothesis is something that echoes what many species over time have done: expand their range as conditions warranted. The worldwide Miocene expansion of apes presages this one. We just missed one (at least) that managed to make it to the present day. Any random fossil find has a greater chance of reordering the world than the discovery of this animal, from a strictly scientific standpoint. People make this proposition out to be considerably more amazing incredible foltollooogical! than it really is.

And a body part – including a tooth, or a bone or a fragment large enough to identify where on the subject it came from and the relative dimensions of the subject – is all that is needed. There is no requirement for one “to objectively prove what it came from.” But of course, one can, at least broadly. We and the aye-aye and the mandrill and the tarsier are all primates for a reason. If a part is found sufficiently intact to come back “primate” – and no current primate fits – you have a far different situation that with DNA testing, which can fail on a number of points. Having a physical shinbone-connected-to-the-kneebone is a far different animal, if no current shins and knees match. How else are fossil fragments turned into species? No else. That’s how it’s done.

All we have for Gigantopithecus blacki – and you’ve seen all kinds of pictures of what “he looked like” – are a jawbone and about a suitcase full of teeth.

Here is the quote from Siddall

”But aren’t there some hard and fast rules for declaring a new species? Can’t we just agree on some set guidelines? Absolutely not, argued Siddall:

The rules for naming a new species were established about a century ago, but if we used those rules today we couldn’t use confocal data and DNA because that technology didn’t exist. It would be an authoritarian code not authoritative. The rules of taxonomy have to be flexible in terms of data brought to bear, while still having basic guidelines.”

In the case of sasquatch there his a huge amount of evidence and history which as a whole could be described as a body of evidence along with whatever samples or bits of it which are available, capable of being examined for characteristics other than DNA. Then there is the DNA, that wonderful substance encapsulating everything there is to know about its source. The statement by LS certainly condemns by faint praise its value in this situation

”DNA is an interesting tool for comparison, but not proof of a species’ existence in and of itself…..”

In this day and age DNA is an almost miraculous tool to throw light on many natural mysteries, including species identification in appropriate cases even without the ideal of a body and indeed there is precedent.

For those who read mine and others’ posts regarding the before last announcement by Ketchum and as well separate conclusions offered by Richard Stubstad (Cryptomundo; Sasquatch DNA Project Update) This was easily and accurately predicted.

DWA—Regarding your opinion that a physical body is not needed or required for classification—I strongly disagree. One cannot compare the highland mangabey (Rungwecebus kipunji) with sasquatch. The mangabey’s discovery and taxonomic classification did not require the reordering (rewriting) of every evolutionary theory and paleoarcheological textbook. (thus proving the pompous overconfidence common in the typical —gist’s own mindset.)

@norman-uk The human contamination is definitely a significant problem because in this case humans with 100% mtDNA are testing a hypothetical sasquatch sample believed to contain a high percentage (100%) of maternal (X-chromosome / mtDNA), which by cross comparison to other samples is believed to be 100% human genomes. Without a comparable known Y-chromosome sample from a validated specimen it is very difficult to sort things out with the very high certainty needed to prove sasquatch’s existence. I don’t think the example of Neanderthal DNA being contaminated by non-human bacterial elements is a valid comparison.

@DWA A body part is not enough as there is no way (in the case of an unknown) to objectively prove what it came from. The entire conundrum reminds me of the book “The Bone Peddlers ‘s”; i.e. Paleontologist have been playing this game for a hundred years. “ we found this toenail in strata B therefore it must be from a phoniboneosaurus: circa Cretaceous —Strata B is of the Cretaceous period because it contains phoniboneosaurus toenails.” Good researchers recognize and avoid circular reasoning at all costs.