Kiwakwe Posted June 20 Posted June 20 36 minutes ago, hvhart said: Norseman, How will you retrieve a dart from a Bigfoot? It's not a whale. I gather a set-up akin to a bowfishing rig on a crossbow with low power draw and tipped bolt that has a stop, like the business end of a ski pole or somesuch. I'm sure it's doable, it's getting it into the hands of a prepared individual, in the right place, at the right time--the usual wrench in the works... 1
norseman Posted June 20 Admin Posted June 20 4 hours ago, hvhart said: Norseman, How will you retrieve a dart from a Bigfoot? It's not a whale. As a hunter, and a bow hunter as well? I would back off and give it some space for a few hours and then I would track it. The dart will be a bright color and it might be possible to place a AirTag or other tracking device to help locate it. In a forest environment the dart is either going to fall out. Or the creature may pull it out, or the brush and limbs may pull it out as it walks. I was a hounds-man 20 years ago. We used to track our dogs with Marshall collars and a Yaggi antenna. I bet that technology is better and smaller now. I have not kept abreast in that field and would have to research further. I think they use satellites now instead of radio telemetry. Anyhow I still say shoot the first one with a gun and be done with it. But being a member of these forums I understand that most researchers are just not willing to do that. So option B is we still need a chunk of the animal, real physical evidence. So how do we do that with minimal harm to the target species? Anyhow I am talking out loud right now. But I may buy a crossbow and start playing and testing with the idea. It doesn’t have to be the latest greatest crossbow. Just an old style recurve would be plenty powerful enough to get a one inch sample core from the creature. It reminds me of a bow hunting trip we were on in northern Washington. We never saw an Elk but we were killing Grouse for dinner with our judo points. We had this bull moose come through and we of course didn’t have a tag. It’s a once in a lifetime draw. So my buddy loads a judo point and we called it in and he smacked it right in the heart lung area. It ran off and we collected his arrow. Just an aluminum arrow with a big rubber tip. Didn’t hurt the Moose at all. But probably wouldn’t have impressed a game warden. But we basically called in and shot a bull moose. It was a sense of accomplishment. Any bow hunting is….very challenging. Anyhow it gave me the idea and so I started researching the idea and found they do use this in biology. 1
norseman Posted June 20 Admin Posted June 20 Canadian polar bears biopsy darting. He is using a blank fired dart gun instead of a pneumatic one.
guyzonthropus Posted July 13 Author Posted July 13 That polar bear darting is one context where you won't be following your subject around asking for your dart back! "Hey! Yeah, you, Bear! Gimme that back! ...oh dang...." 1
norseman Posted July 13 Admin Posted July 13 1 hour ago, guyzonthropus said: That polar bear darting is one context where you won't be following your subject around asking for your dart back! "Hey! Yeah, you, Bear! Gimme that back! ...oh dang...." Very germane to our subject for sure!
guyzonthropus Posted July 13 Author Posted July 13 Reclaiming ones sampling dart is certainly pertinent to the topic. As are the potential difficulties in doing so...and its quite possible a sasquatch is going to take things "a lot more personally" than a polar bear at distance, and with considerably more intent towards those involved. One might do well to prepare, as best one might, for a group response, in case it proves out that they really don't often travel alone, and that they do possess the means for quick and concise communication between themselves. Like "one of those dwarves we've been keeping an eye on, just took a freaking core sample from my arm/leg with a freaking crossbow bolt"
norseman Posted July 14 Admin Posted July 14 7 hours ago, guyzonthropus said: Reclaiming ones sampling dart is certainly pertinent to the topic. As are the potential difficulties in doing so...and its quite possible a sasquatch is going to take things "a lot more personally" than a polar bear at distance, and with considerably more intent towards those involved. One might do well to prepare, as best one might, for a group response, in case it proves out that they really don't often travel alone, and that they do possess the means for quick and concise communication between themselves. Like "one of those dwarves we've been keeping an eye on, just took a freaking core sample from my arm/leg with a freaking crossbow bolt" As with any dangerous game? Its dangerous. So contingency plans would have to be in place to secure the safety of the research team. A Polar bear can rip your face off as easily as a 800 lbs primate. And I have seen them at times congregate in numbers. So watch your six! I have had 3 cougars on my trail camera together. The crossbow bolts bounce off the target typically. They are bigger and heavier than a biopsy dart.
guyzonthropus Posted August 10 Author Posted August 10 Of anyone I might deem myself "associated with" Norseman, I would expect and trust your awareness and preperation/contingency planning to be on a level above the rest. I very been reading your perspective and experiences hunting for what, 15+ years now, and I take your word on all things hunting. Just saying in case it seemed like I was casting doubt on your statements. 1
bipedalist Posted August 11 BFF Patron Posted August 11 On 7/13/2025 at 9:17 PM, norseman said: As with any dangerous game? Its dangerous. So contingency plans would have to be in place to secure the safety of the research team. A Polar bear can rip your face off as easily as a 800 lbs primate. And I have seen them at times congregate in numbers. So watch your six! I have had 3 cougars on my trail camera together. The crossbow bolts bounce off the target typically. They are bigger and heavier than a biopsy dart. I think we have at least one, maybe more, members that have been left in the lurch on BF research teams due to the lack of pre-planning and strategic implementation of a purported detailed plan. So yah, this is serious in your face, risk your life stuff, not ready for TV necessarily at least not in the Expedition Bigfoot sense of the word. 1
Backdoc Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago DNA Q: It seems when they test for DNA they already know what a Black Bear, Wolverine, or Bobcat's DNA looks like. In this way I would think it is easy to look it up in comparison on a sample vs known DNA. After a lighting fast check the match would be in the Database. That might not be the exact way it works but essentially it has to work somewhat that way. What happens in the event of the DNA of an unknown animal? Clearly I am talking about Bigfoot. Say they have scat, hair, blood, or whatever from a Bigfoot. They test it. There is not Bigfoot in the database. Result? Animal A is known to exist Animal A is in the data base. Animal A leaves traces at a camp site. The sample is tested. "Hey guys, the sample is Animal A" Animal Z is unknown to exist Animal Z is not in the data base. The Sample left by Animal Z is tested. What is the result at the lab? What does that tell us?
MIB Posted 2 hours ago Moderator Posted 2 hours ago ^^^^ I don't think it is quite like that, not a simple yes or no, rather, I think you get back a probability-of-match score. Low probability can be interpreted as either non-match, degradation, or contamination, so it doesn't necessarily mean you've come across something novel just because it doesn't match. (I may be mistaken .. hopefully HV Hart or others with much deeper knowledge will chime in.)
hvhart Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago Good posts. The search results are a list of the closest matches, with match stats like the % of bases which matched exactly and a base by base comparison, so that you know where the mismatches occur. If you get result "Animal Z" - no match at all (too many mismatches) then either the animal is not unknown, but just not in the database or it is indeed unknown. If the search parameters are not tight the in either case you will get closest matches in the database. In the case of an unknown primate, you will get it's closest extant species. Bigfoot will match human and/ On 6/19/2025 at 12:26 PM, norseman said: We need a body or a part of one. You’re speaking my language! I found the electromagnetic search for corpses fascinating. Definitely not on my radar. On 6/19/2025 at 1:10 PM, norseman said: I took a interest in those blood samples too! Very interesting. I know many in our community do not think that TV show is legit. But with a real scientist as a member and all of the DNA sampling? I hold out hope. I don't know if I ran this past you before. But what if we used biopsy darts? People are squeamish about killing one, but many researchers claim full on sightings? What if we developed a biopsy dart kit for researchers? It would beat dental resin and grainy videos all to heck in terms of real hard evidence? On 6/19/2025 at 3:42 PM, OntarioSquatch said: There’s a long history of alleged Bigfoot samples showing modern human DNA. Were those all the result of contamination? On 6/19/2025 at 3:19 PM, norseman said: Obviously security would still be in place. With lethal means to defend the sample taker if the situation went south. Hopefully “Patty” would just keep walking and after she left the scene we go collect the dart. She wasn’t harmed and we have her genome. On 6/20/2025 at 10:48 AM, Kiwakwe said: I gather a set-up akin to a bowfishing rig on a crossbow with low power draw and tipped bolt that has a stop, like the business end of a ski pole or somesuch. I'm sure it's doable, it's getting it into the hands of a prepared individual, in the right place, at the right time--the usual wrench in the works... 23 minutes ago, MIB said: ^^^^ I don't think it is quite like that, not a simple yes or no, rather, I think you get back a probability-of-match score. Low probability can be interpreted as either non-match, degradation, or contamination, so it doesn't necessarily mean you've come across something novel just because it doesn't match. (I may be mistaken .. hopefully HV Hart or others with much deeper knowledge will chime in.) 1
hvhart Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago Just now, hvhart said: Good posts. The search results are a list of the closest matches, with match stats like the % of bases which matched exactly and a base by base comparison, so that you know where the mismatches occur. If you get result "Animal Z" - no match at all (too many mismatches) then either the animal is not unknown, but just not in the database or it is indeed unknown. If the search parameters are not too tight, then in either case you will get closest matches in the database. In the case of an unknown primate, you will get its closest species. Bigfoot will match human and/or chimpanzee, gorilla, or orangutan to some degree. My results with aquatic eDNA yielded one or two unusual mutations(mismatches to the human reference) in each sequence. My tentative conclusion(evidence, not proof of existence) is that Bigfoot is very close to human genetically. My sequences were relatively short, so it remains to be seen what a whole mitochondrial genome would show. Such a better comparison would lead to a more definite conclusion. A body part, possibly a hair root, could yield a whole mitochondrial genome, maybe even a nuclear genome or a substantial part thereof. Keep looking, friends! 1
Backdoc Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago (edited) ^^^ Thanks for the insight. I am mostly following you but the pass your class I still may have to copy off someone MIB's paper :-) I guess what I am trying it further understand is DNA certainty. If under some lab conditions they take my bloods they will be able to tell me the DNA matches in the case of paternity. Maybe they say this with certainty when they mean the odds are 99.9999999999999% positive but not 100%. Close enough. In spite of DNA being a promising investigative tool, with Bigfoot it seems there are considerations with collecting or that is the story of the nay sayers. (they might be right as a clean sample would be needed). But even assuming a near perfect collection chain of custody I have to think the results have nothing to match to. When we say the DNA is X % some primate or Y % some person and so on that tells me it's not a bear, deer, or whatever. It suggests to my comfort zone what else could it be but an unknown primate? Gotta think it is a more complicate issue if Bigfoot was more human than ape. What standard of DNA result would it take for a skeptic world accept a conclusion Bigfoot is real via the DNA? Edited 1 hour ago by Backdoc
Recommended Posts