Leaderboard

Thought it important to keep the BFF informed on some things. As you now I've been hot on the trail of e-DNA in the search for The Bigfoot. My recent research while going through some papers involves a very interesting genetic topic. Namely what genes would be unique to Humans (Homo Sapiens sapiens) as opposed to say Chimpanzees (Pan) And Gorillas/Orangutans (Pongo). There is such a gene that is unique to Humans. My reasoning for wanting this information is to help determine how geneticists know when an e-DNA sample is contaminated by Humans or whether the "contamination" is a misidentification of possible Sasquatch DNA. so it seemed like a good avenue for research. The gene in question is called NOTCH2NL. The NOTCH2NL gene is called that because, as a defect, it produces a notch in the wing of a fruit fly. But the NOTCH2NL gene was also present in the common ancestor of Humans, Chimpanzees, and Gorillas before the split occurred between the three species. Just before, or at the time of the split, The NOTCH2NL gene duplicated itself but the duplicated version was defective. The NOTCH2 gene and its defective duplicate has stayed with Chimpanzees and Gorillas ever since. After the split, though, the gene created another duplicate which replaced/repaired the defective duplicate gene and became part of the Human genome. The original defective/unrepaired Notch2NL duplicated gene is still in the Chimpanzee and Gorilla genomes. This is important to know this because the NOTCH2NL gene and it's repaired duplicates (of which there are now three) is believed to be responsible for the larger brains in Humans. But also in Humans, if the gene creates a defective version is shows up as a brain defect. For Humans there are now four versions of the gene: NOTCH2NL, NOTCH2NLA, NOTCH2NLB, and NOTCH2NLC. NOTCH2NLC doesn't really do anything but the others do and more importantly, those three genes are unique to Humans. This may not be exciting for you but it is for me. WHY? Because, if an e-DNA sample is considered contaminated by a HUMAN, but it doesn't have a NOTCH2NLA, B, or C gene? Then the DNA is NOT from a Human. It's from another primate. Now granted, we supposedly don't have Sasquatch DNA that we are aware of, to compare this idea to, but, regardless, ALL Human DNA should have those four Notch2NL gene variations. For me, it's another avenue of pursuit that gets me closer to the North American primate question. I've been searching for some definite identifying factor for Sasquatch. At this point I think it's just as valuable to have a unique identifying factor for Humans. As a process of elimination it could turn out to be critical because as a design for an e-DNA protocol, having a known unique gene as a control proxy for unknown species discovery, it could be right down science's alley.

I have a nagging feeling that most BF researchers are using the wrong tactics. Bigfoot are hunters and I know from my field experience that they do not like to be hunted. Even if that is with a camera. Perhaps it is some sort of pride on their part at avoiding us, or simple fear of us. I don't know. But it is pretty obvious to me when members of this forum are accomplished hunters, but have yet to have bigfoot contact, that hunting might not be the answer. BF so far has proven to outsmart that tactic. Perhaps some of the old stories that first peoples tell of trading, or the story of the prospector in Oregon, the USGS mapping crew encountered, living with a group of BF is the real answer.? That implies to me that perhaps they have needs beyond what the forest provides. It could be something as simple as salt or this time of year in the PNW a good rain pancho might be a prize possession. Figure out their needs that we are capable of providing, establish some trust at trading, and that might be all that is needed to befriend one or more of them. Trading partners might be OK with pictures and having their mouth swabbed for DNA. For sure the hunt has been on for over 50 years now by individuals and groups with no success. The secret of establishing contact has to be something else other than hunting them.

We're in the same situation as we were in 1958 when Crew got his footprints covered in the news, in 1967 after the PG film, in 1993 after the Freeman film, and we will be in the same situation at the Second Coming of Christ. That is because those running this world have determined that the best interests of all involved, especially the sasquatches, is to leave them alone.

Isn't that true of every ones efforts thus far, no matter the method? At least the habbers come up with the best stories

I was reading with some interest about Sasquatch's ability to detect trail cameras. One explanation that seems to be missed is the make up of modern plastics. A recent problem that has cropped up is the growing problem of rodents attacking the electrical components of newer cars. The problem appears to be that many plastics and electrical insulation is soy based to help environmental decomposition over time. Do you think it's possible they are smelling soy beans like the rodents?

Not only that but the middle manager types, knowing what happened to the First Peoples of North America, under the benevolent care of the US Government, may believe as I do, that putting them under government oversight might be the worst thing that could happen to them.

I wonder if this was the advanced algorithm that the show used? " You can enjoy your morning cup of coffee without the unwanted side effects of excess cortisol and stomach acid. One way to achieve this goal is to wait until mid-morning to consume your first cup of joe. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine reports that a United States Army sleep study has come up with an algorithm to determine the optimal time for caffeine consumption. This algorithm is based on an individual’s sleep-wake cycle. However, waiting until after breakfast or until the early afternoon doldrums set in may be helpful for making the most of the dose of caffeine in your coffee beverage."

Seeing that this is Russia I’ll have to re-watch and look closely for signs of it wearing an Adidas track suit. That may be the clue we need!

Nice research @hiflier!

Be that as it may, It’s at the same place it was 5 years ago. Most likely will be in the same place 5 years from now. Other than the millions that have been made by TV.

Obviously, the history of this subject and how it has been approached in the past would firmly support your take on things. And you're not alone in that way of thinking. It's why some folks get frustrated enough to 1) leave the subject, and 2) take action. Outside of going into the woods, which is kind of the usual historical approach, we need more 2's aiming for modern scientific applications It really is time to step into this millennium with the aim of using MODERN scientific tools. At least one of us has to do that I mean, it's obvious that everywhere we look the scientific community is in the field and using e-DNA, and they're using it EVERYWHERE every chance they get. Also, new protocols for targeting specific taxa are being developed all the time now. But since no novel primate DNA seems to be being found then we should realize more so than ever that the field needs the Bigfoot's DNA in the data banks to run samples against. So, for myself, I have seen this for several years as the most important piece of data that is needed. I have also surmised that there may be ways to determine a projected hypothetical DNA genome, and this is where my focus is and why I needed to speak in person to someone in that discipline. Believe me, it has taken a lot of time to narrow down this focus because every time that I thought I had a plan I realized that I had to keep asking about the steps to succeed. And then those steps required more and more background research in order to get to the meat of the issue. The meat of the issue is the development/procurement of a genome......or shoot one/find a carcass. I've come to the conclusion that there is almost nothing in between those two extremes that will result in proof. Shoot one it's a done deal. Get DNA and science will go get one and it's a done deal. The difference? ZERO risk for the DNA side as opposed to ALL of the risks associated with killing one, or even finding a body, with finding a body carrying much less risk of shooting one. Since I do not hunt, the e-DNA path is the one that I've chosen to pursue. And even then, it needs to be handled as delicately and as scientifically as possible because credibility is at stake. Talking to someone in the field of animal/DNA studies requires educating oneself in the language scientists will listen too. It also gives one a better understanding of process and protocols which means stepping into a conversation much further ahead than just going in cold knowing nothing about the subject. It's just like anything else. People here that talk about guns, ammo, loads, grains, and other item leave me in the dust. And that's fine. I have just focused on learning different stuff but we all have the same goal: Solve For Bigfoot

I described it as odd, but disturbing is a better word. Watching the girl on all fours and the guy above spider crawling was disturbing. I showed the videos to several others who were equally disturbed. I’m not sure why imagining a sasquatch doing this is creepy to me. There are a lot of very good reasons why both would be helpful skills. Maybe I’m projecting a little too much human onto His Big Hairiness. At first I said to myself “oh that’s just a.....wait, no hooves...so it’s a....no, that has claws....“ and ended with “what is it?!” Interesting!

If you go to that forum you might notice strange similarities between what some guy posts there and what I post here. Hmmm. (If you catch me contradicting myself us contradicting each other, please let me us know so I we can clarify.) iFish is good. Lot of hecklers when BF comes up, but it still does come up. As above ... MIB

As an experienced and accomplished bear hunter, I can attest that the phrase you used is perfect. Bears are actually much like people; some are smart, some stupid, some aggressive, some shy, etc. "The average bear", however, was recognized by "science" well before science existed........primarily because "the average scientist" appears to be unlike bears. Few scientists are aggressive in predictable ideologies, yet they tend to be belligerent in others, and bears/animals don't bother with ideologies at all. These creatures are like no "animal" I have ever known of, including humans. Even when considering aboriginal peoples and how in tune with their environment they are, these creatures shine like the sun. Yet, it's still possible for the average motorist to come across one lumbering across a road like the average animal, or a pair of cowboys on horses to spook one from behind a root ball after numerous other men tried to hunt said creatures down for a decade beforehand, even with the use of dogs. And even said aboriginal people hold these creatures in a special status, sometimes lending them powers that defy biology and even spirituality. These creatures are literally and collectively making monkeys out of scientists of all disciplines, as amusing as that sounds. My deductions involving these creatures has evolved over a lifetime of paying attention to sasquatchery. In the 1960's, I accepted the term "bipedal ape" that the few scientists involved then used. No more, even though it might be accurate. With growing confidence, I now accept these creatures as hominids, admitting that proof of this hasn't quite been delivered in accordance with the ideologies of science, but I believe it will be soon, despite science fighting it every inch of the way.

Perfectly said.

Let's give him a Hooyah ! Bravo Zulu for speaking out and speaking the truth. The ones that know understand what is going on. The ones who do not just are speaking in circles believing they know all there is to know. It is to bad that I can not swear cause I be bringing up all kinda of profanity . But We have to be care full for the kids who are risking them selves searching for these creatures and seeking the truth. Some times seeking the truth is not a good thing some times it should just be left alone. Hey I am all for it and if he is going out there to put an end for those self promoting seekers well I am all in. We should be helping those that need help who cannot find help anywhere else. No one has no idea what these creatures do to a person life after it has been seen. We are not the same after wards and it changes us on the way we see our world. Remember that it cannot be unseen what has been seen . It has now become a part of your soul. Only those who know can understand .

Cant say about those specific instances but it is definitely common human behavior. You will see this many places where people hang out by rivers / streams. I've watched the rafters along the Rogue and tubers along the Applegate do this when their groups stop for lunch. To me, it seems a form of graffiti, a message "you were NOT here first", a kind of gloating disrespect for subsequent users / visitors, so I kick them over whenever I find them. Where were they on Quosantana Creek? Between the river and the "highway", or on upstream above the bridge? Flumet Flat is one of the places I go to fly fish for steelhead. MIB

well if you followed what I said, all kinds of noises are possible. Whether that matches what was experienced or recalled or believed to have been experienced is up to the interpreter - but probably not accurate. I don't believe you have any such perfectly aligned evidence nor did you try to understand what an auditory hallucination is. Sometimes a 5 second web search to confirm your tired attempt at baiting will work wonders before responding.