Yes – the Homo genus is where Sasquatch DNA points from not only from what I’ve been told but also from experiences in my own research… they are people.

Bobo, of Finding Bigfoot, stated on Conan last night that the DNA results from a “kill” (I assume the Sierra Kills) showed Bigfoot is in the genus Homo and the results would be available soon.
I just thought that interesting as we have not heard too many say genus Homo that might possibly know the DNA results, beyond Stubstad..or have we? I have lost track of the many claims…

genus Homo or not..killing one by a BF enthusiast group is abhorrent to me, and even the advisers would be hard pressed to defend killing one if this news is true…our closest genetic kin…besides…it’s already been done hasn’t it?

The following was the list of people left before they removed the page from their site

Board of Advisors:

John Bindernagel, Ph.D.
British Columbia, Canada

Smokey Crabtree
Fouke, Arkansas

Henner Fahrenbach, Ph.D.
Beaverton, Oregon

John Green
Harrison Hot Springs, British Columbia

Jeff Meldrum, Ph.D.
Pocatello, Idaho

John Mionczynski
Wyoming

Rick Noll
Seattle, Washington

Kathy Strain
Sonora, California

It is one of the more compelling aspects of the anecdotal evidence for the sasquatch that the people one would expect to see them are the people that do. Included in this are a LOT of hunters.

Those who weren’t so scared they forgot they had a bow or gun – or weren’t sure that the weapon that they had would be ineffective against what they were seeing – thought about it, and for a number of reasons, all good, and all speaking well of hunters, decided not to shoot. Some prepared for a possble charge, but were committed to shooting only if attacked.

One of the two fatal shootings I am aware of being reported was an accident. The hunter thought he was shooting a moose he had earlier wounded. (Very plausible. A hunter thinking a moose was a sasquatch? Negligible possibility. An elementary acquaintance with psychology satisfies that; we fill in the blanks with what we expect, not with what we know isn’t real.)

This is a good place for me to mention that I don’t consider the argument convincing that “you know one or more are going to be killed, so nothing’s wrong with killing one for confirmation.” I am adamantly against killing one for confirmation because confirmation can be otherwise had. Taking the step back from that might be the first step toward avoiding it entirely. Our species will kill itself by its own hand unless we somehow manage to deal with our uncanny ability to rationalize murder (first, by saying that only killing humans is murder).

The sasquatch discovery’s confluence with technology allowing nonlethal confirmation might give us a chance to think, for once, rather than reverting to the solution we’ve lazily reverted to for millennia. In that might lie the salvation of this species…and ours.

I’m willing to hope for that. Better than just blindly tramping down a road that is leading to oblivion, for sure.

We should be well past the point of having to kill ANYTHING just to prove it exists.

I do not care about “naysayers.” Why should I? Why should you? Why should anyone? They are ignorant. At least, I have never heard nor read one that wasn’t. (Only when it came to knowledge of this topic, now.) Should we kill a chimp to satisfy someone who thinks Jane Goodall is a crock? And yes, it is, logically speaking, the exact same thing: taking a potentiallly crucial life – how many of these are there? – to satisfy the ignorant.

We are way past that.

A scientist (Dr. Bindernagel, on the Board of Advisors) makes a compelling case that the sasquatch is a scientific discovery we have already made, meeting all qualifications except that the mainstream of science hasn’t blessed it yet. (And “blessing” is what it amounts to.) It seems odd at best that science should resort to something that is no longer necessary to confirm the animal with the most evidence in its favor that any has had in the history of science before receiving scientific “blessing.”

I was extremely uncomfortable to find out about this incident, which I have known about for some time now. I know these people personally, and the TBRC is doing the best research in the sasquatch field. Almost all of its efforts are devoted to getting the evidence without killing one.

I support the TBRC. But I wish this hadn’t been done; and hope it won’t be repeated.

No more pontification? Ok.

Dude, you’ve done it again; shrank your boundaries and cut “upright = big brains” from the mix completely! If you didn’t mean it, why’d you say it? Or, try to defend it?

An upright creature in the woods is either a Bigfoot or a human (and, more likely, a human.) I got that part. From the beginning. Really.

No argument then and I still agree with it now.

Looks like we both have made our points.