DNA samples

[guyzonthropus]

It seems to me that somehow there should be established a bank of all these DNA results that come up as human contaminated, and unknown primate,such that over time there would accumulate enough samples to begin a systematic comparison .  it seems like every time such results are arrived at that's the end of it. The samples are destroyed and the results dismissed. Sure, theres no real centralized unknown primate DNA analysis center, but there must be a way to obtain the direct data of the studies(ie genetic markers present in sample, or not present, for that matter) I dont know what it costs to complete a genome mapping, but it seems like they are getting done for more and more species, maybe its time to try it on a couple of these unknown primate sample. Eventually these samples will begin to fall into groups with shared traits or similarities.

 

Are there anything like this already in existence? Ones that included a variety of different regions samples? I can't say what Dr Disotell does with the data he sees sample by sample,  It seems like Dr Sykes threw out half at the get go then destroyed the rest after he proclaimed the resurgence of the Himalayan grizzly(or was it a polar bear)

 

It just strikes me there's bound to be distinctive commonalities within all these samples , which if fully charted out could at least lend itself to some degree, towards some form of classification or taxonomic placement, or at least "oh yeah, that goes in that pile over there..." 

 

Of course this is presuming the government doesn't grab up any samples of significance and already "doesn't have any such data bank  whatsoever! Thank you very much"!

[MIB]

23 minutes ago, guyzonthropus said:

Are there anything like this already in existence?

 

Not to my knowledge.    Remaining samples and data were discarded when the presumed North American Great Ape was not clearly identified.   As far as I know, nothing remains from the "failures" .. as if there was a fear that failure to prove was evidence for non-existence so they were "hidden."    I wish that data were available to a skilled genetic researcher.   I think there are commonalities in the "contamination" which are not contamination at all .. but we'll never know now, the past is gone, we're starting over at zero.

[iacozizzle]

Almost like there's a shadowy faction of the government doing their best to suppress and disinform.  I mean, if there were samples that "might be a new manatee" I don't think they'd be getting swept under the rug.  Please take that with a grain of salt coming from me as I'm no scientist.   Still it reminds me of one of my favorite X Files scenes.  Enjoy.

 

 

[wiiawiwb]

On 11/8/2024 at 10:14 PM, guyzonthropus said:

It seems to me that somehow there should be established a bank of all these DNA results that come up as human contaminated, and unknown primate,such that over time there would accumulate enough samples to begin a systematic comparison . 

 

I've thought the same for years. Perhaps all of the human contamination or unknown primate results are each a dead end but in the interest of finding the truth it seems logical to keep test results where they can be accessed at a later date.

 

We've all read about the number of unsolved murder cases being solved decades later as a result of new technology.  The truth would have disappeared for eternity had the samples not been kept.

[hvhart]

I totally agree that results, if not samples, should be saved in raw data form.  I have recently presented my eDNA results at the Texas Bigfoot Conference, and the slides are available to view on the FB Group  Critical Thinking in Bigfoot Research.  I am about to submit these results in more detail in a paper in Relict Hominoid Inquiry, Jeff Meldrum's online journal at: www.isu.edu\RHI.

 

 

 

[Trogluddite]

^^

Mr. Hart - someone recently provided me a copy of this presentation (on DNA samples in creeks and such, I believe) and while I'm a fairly intelligent (though not always smart) individual, it was like Greek to me - Greek translated into Mandarin, and then translated into Romulan.  Is there any chance you are willing summarize your report in simple terms that even a Trogluddite can understand?  Thanks!

[guyzonthropus]

One would think that if we had all those different samples submitted down through the years, that we would surely be seeing groups forming from similar results/characteristics, and maybe some would indeed prove to be actually contaminated by the humans that collected them, but I'd bet baboons to bushbabies, that a good number of those discarded were in fact genuine unknown hominids, and of those there are bound to be clusters indicating either distinct species or populations that breed only amongst themselves, as well as forming a gradient in regards to how closely related to us they are.

[Catmandoo]

On 11/10/2024 at 12:03 PM, hvhart said:

and the slides are available to view on the FB Group  Critical Thinking in Bigfoot Research. 

 

Thank you hvhart. I checked  FB and downloaded the files. I don't know much about DNA and I have questions.

I will lead with excerpts from slide 51:

• No uniquely Ape-like sequences
• Unusual, rare, and nonhuman mutations were found in otherwise human samples
• 5 0f 6 rare and unique mutations found in Alabama were also found in Oklahoma
• Evidence consistent with, but does not prove, existence of a human-like primate, very distant from Apes genetically    

Mutations were found in human samples. Is it possible to separate the mutations into distinct groups by using the respective molecular charges? DNA molecules have electrostatic forces. I believe that fact is used to pull apart DNA. We learned from the Danish work in Greenland that DNA sticks to clay, quartz and other minerals via the electrostatic forces and is protected. eDNA older than 2 million years has been preserved.

We have anecdotal comments about Sasquatch cloaking, magnetism and radioactivity. Is the electrostatic force between Sasquatch base pairs greater than humans? I am wondering if the distance between the base pairs and electrostatic potential details are measured during the test procedures? 

 

For slide 54, I have a different suggestion:

"Hunter of Invisible Game" by Bruce Springsteen from the 2014 album "High Hopes".

 

 

Edited November 15 by Catmandoo

[9-dot]

On 11/10/2024 at 1:03 PM, hvhart said:

I totally agree that results, if not samples, should be saved in raw data form.  I have recently presented my eDNA results at the Texas Bigfoot Conference, and the slides are available to view on the FB Group  Critical Thinking in Bigfoot Research.  I am about to submit these results in more detail in a paper in Relict Hominoid Inquiry, Jeff Meldrum's online journal at: www.isu.edu\RHI.

 

 

 

Thank you Dr. Hart.  With your involvement we are creeping along shedding light on the "Existence of Bigfoot" issue with DNA analysis.  I wish we had 20 others like you examining evidence, but we are lucky to have 1 (you)!

[hvhart]

Mutations do not separate by "electrostatic charges", rather they appear in separate sequences and are detected and categorized by base position and original and final base, e.g. C1048T, which says that at reference position 1048 a C base was changed to a T base.  BTW my 2024 Texas Bigfoot Conference slides (PowerPoint), with my comments, can be viewed/downloaded on the FB group "Coalition for Critical Thinking in Bigfoot Research."  The file is too big to upload here.  However, the PDF version, without comments, is uploaded HERE.   Also, I submitted a paper with much more explanation to RHI: isu.edu\RHI, a free access online journal edited by Jeff Meldrum.

TexasBigfoot Conference 2024-10-26.pdf

Edited November 21 by hvhart
more info

[hvhart]

On 11/15/2024 at 11:45 AM, 9-dot said:

Thank you Dr. Hart.  With your involvement we are creeping along shedding light on the "Existence of Bigfoot" issue with DNA analysis.  I wish we had 20 others like you examining evidence, but we are lucky to have 1 (you)!

Thank you!  I wish we had at least 20 more like YOU!  

[MIB]

On 11/10/2024 at 12:03 PM, hvhart said:

I totally agree that results, if not samples, should be saved in raw data form.

 

No disagreement.

 

One of the problems we face today is that in the past, the expectation was bigfoot was some sort of North American "gorilla", the DNA should reflect that, and anything not supporting that paradigm was contaminated and not worth the cost of completing testing.   According to the lore of our interest some number of samples were started, then testing ceased, data discarded, and samples destroyed when the preliminary results didn't match expectations.  

 

I very much wish we still had those to retest with today's methods and technology by people more willing to spend the money to find the answer whether it fit their preconceived notions or not.   Wishing does not make it so but maybe wishing will stop us from repeating the mistakes of the past.

 

That said, people seemingly are pushing forward with testing of newer samples yet the puzzle remains unsolved.    A potential implication is that maybe those older samples really were junk, really didn't include a solution.   If so, maybe the puzzle is even harder than we think.   Sometimes I wonder if the folks going down the woo rabbit holes, folks I often roll my eyes at, aren't closer to right than I am.  Not a good feeling.

[hvhart]

You are RIGHT ON!  My recent eDNA findings indicate that BF is very close to human (one mutation away in 220 bases), and previous studies probably did not dig deep enough to realize that, instead just concluding "human."  See my recent post with attached PDF slides on a presentation I made in October.  Annotated PPT slides can be found on the FB Group "Coalition for Critical Thinking in Bigfoot Research." 

[Huntster]

21 hours ago, hvhart said:

.........My recent eDNA findings indicate that BF is very close to human (one mutation away in 220 bases)..........

 

Can you tell us how this would compare to a Neanderthal and to a chimp for comparison?

[hvhart]

Neanderthal differs from human in this 220 base region by one mutation, chimp by 10 mutations.  So chimp is definitely distantly related, but Neanderthal and my samples (with one mutation each) are closely related to the modern reference sequence.