Operation Persistence

[norseman]

Actually, that's not true. "We" (meaning us humans, not the NAWAC in specifically) have found scat that didn't match that from any other animal and "we" have found hairs that belong to primates but not any known primate. The problem with this evidence (as opposed to proof) is that without the type specimen, all it can ever be is from an unknown source.

It seems that lots of evidence collected by Bigfooters comes back as 'Unknown', why do you think this is? Explain your answer.

Because, I can read through lots of studies where they collect scat, and hair, and it comes back as an animal. Why is this so difficult for Bigfoot groups?

I mean, the ONE wolverine in California, they got like 20 samples of scat and hair, and tested it, it didn't come back unknown. Why is the most basic analysis an issue when it comes to Bigfoot?

We obtained both photographs and noninvasively-collected genetic evidence (scat and hair). DNA analysis revealed the animal was a male and not a remnant of a historical California population. Comparison with available data revealed the individual was most closely related to populations from the western edge of the Rocky Mountains. This represents the first evidence of connectivity between wolverine populations of the Rocky and Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3955/046.083.0207

well it sure helps when your studying a classified species and not a cryptid.

[BeachFoot]

I watched the entire video and found it very compelling. Since I haven't seen one myself I can't really draw the same conclusions as you have, but you definitely have SOMETHING (or some incredibly stupid "someone") screwing around with you out there. The "rain of rocks" was damned interesting.

Although I chafe at the idea of your end goal, Bipto, I admire you and your organization's approach and methodology. Someone has said it before and I agree completely that you guys are the front-runners, in my opinion, for solving this mystery.

I do have a question, though. The mountainside behind the cabins is, apparently, a very active area at night. Have you considered the possibility of posting people (or even equipment) in a concealed position on the mountainside prior to nightfall in an attempt to see what's going on? I know it's a rocky area, but could a fox-hole (even a shallow one) or something similar combined with a ghost blind be put together to aid in this?

I think it would take an individual with a certain amount of cajones to man such an OP, but I'm sure you might be able to find a volunteer out of that group.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Wha? You will assume that anyone stating they are speaking for someone actually IS ...????

People! Announcement. I speak for ohiobill; his views are mine. As he says, you may safely assume this. Since he can't follow my posts (they employ stuff deliberately tossed in to throw him off, like logic, humility and syntax), we should have no problems agreeing from now on. OK? When you read DWA, just think: ohiobill. We're In Lockstepâ„¢.

Sure why not? I'm already used to thinking you and WSA are one and the same.

I could see people actually meeting us and thinking that. I'm not nearly as handy with tools or prosecution witnesses though.

[Guest]

It seems that lots of evidence collected by Bigfooters comes back as 'Unknown', why do you think this is? Explain your answer.

Because until a type specimen is produced, especially with hair morphology, it can only be "unknown." By definition, if the animal who shed the hair is not known (as in, described by science, etc.), it's...wait for it...unknown​. Good enough explanation for you?

[Guest DWA]

Actually, that's not true. "We" (meaning us humans, not the NAWAC in specifically) have found scat that didn't match that from any other animal and "we" have found hairs that belong to primates but not any known primate. The problem with this evidence (as opposed to proof) is that without the type specimen, all it can ever be is from an unknown source.

It seems that lots of evidence collected by Bigfooters comes back as 'Unknown', why do you think this is? Explain your answer.

http://www.bioone.or...55/046.083.0207

He GIVES YOU THE ANSWER. Read it again.

There is no type specimen! When there is no type specimen, how the heck can one say what the specimen is from? It is unknown.

This is why all those people are making all those utterly pointless posts over on the Ketchum and Sykes threads. We have all these Amachoor Geneticists going for their merit badges or something. And not a one seems to have the foggiest idea of a fundamental fact:

With no type specimen, it's just a DNA string that came from some kinda something.

If "primate, unknown," doesn't pique curiosity, it speaks to one's lack of information on the subject.

[Guest]

The mountainside behind the cabins is, apparently, a very active area at night. Have you considered the possibility of posting people (or even equipment) in a concealed position on the mountainside prior to nightfall in an attempt to see what's going on? I know it's a rocky area, but could a fox-hole (even a shallow one) or something similar combined with a ghost blind be put together to aid in this?

We've tried a variety of these tactics and will continue to try them in the future, but so far, no dice.

During one of the weeks I was there, we created a distraction while two of our guys cozied up to some boulders in ghillie suits to await nightfall. After several uneventful hours, they had a rock thrown at them and got growled at from over the ridge. Busted.

[dmaker]

^^ I understand that. So then could you explain what Dr.Ketchums' DNA study was all about if using DNA to identify BF without a specimen is a futile effort?

[Guest]

If "primate, unknown," doesn't pique curiosity, it speaks to one's lack of information on the subject.

Word.

[NitroSquatch]

Although I chafe at the idea of your end goal, Bipto

The end goal is conservation, if I understand correctly. You don't chafe at the idea of conservation, do you?

[Guest]

^^ I understand that. So then could you explain what Dr.Ketchums' DNA study was all about if using DNA to identify BF without a specimen is a futile effort?

DNA is different. As Dr. Todd Disotel said on my show, you can determine quite a lot about an animal by looking at its DNA. Much more than you can by looking at its poo or hair (which, of course, contain DNA if collected and analyzed appropriately). I'm personally not convinced it will be enough to list the species, but it's a tantalizing possibility. Therefore, we seek to collect DNA evidence as well as remains.

The issues with Ketchum's work are all her own. The concept of conducting a DNA study with viable, documented samples isn't a crazy one.

Edited April 3, 2013 by bipto

[Guest DWA]

^^ I understand that. So then could you explain what Dr.Ketchums' DNA study was all about if using DNA to identify BF without a specimen is a futile effort?

What I been saying. Ketchum has been bad news from the beginning and this is precisely why.

I never, ever ever, get over, and never will, how bigfoot skeptics take the many bad apples on the proponent side and think they speak for everybody. ohiobill even has anyone who asserts the right speaking for bipto! In what other science are such things presumed?

This is why I think mainstream science needs to get involved. That tends to weed out the bad apples and focus people.

[dmaker]

^^ This is where I lose track. One the one hand, DNA is useless without a type specimen. It will only come back as, at best, primate unknown. At worst, contaminated or bear-pig-dog-human-rug. But then on the other hand, you get the DNA is great, it can tell us a lot about a creature.

So how can it lead to a dead end ( albeit an intriguing one, I agree) on the one hand in the absence of a type specimen, and then tell us lots on the other? That is a bit confusing.

[Guest]

The end goal is conservation, if I understand correctly. You don't chafe at the idea of conservation, do you?

Some people confuse conservation with animal rights (h/t to David Mizejewski for clarifying that point for me.) Conservationists are concerned with habitat and animal populations, not individual animals. That's the NAWAC. Some people, for philosophical reasons, have a hard time reconciling that POV.

[Guest DWA]

^^ I understand that. So then could you explain what Dr.Ketchums' DNA study was all about if using DNA to identify BF without a specimen is a futile effort?

DNA is different. As Dr. Todd Disotel said on my show, you can determine quite a lot about an animal by looking at its DNA. Much more than you can by looking at its poo or hair (which, of course, contain DNA if collected and analyzed appropriately). I'm personally not convinced it will be enough to list the species, but it's a tantalizing possibility. Therefore, we seek to collect DNA evidence as well as remains.

The issues with Ketchum's work are all her own. The concept of conducting a DNA study with viable, documented samples isn't a crazy one.

What I'd say to this is

1) gathering DNA samples now can be of great value after the animal is confirmed. It can help with studies of potential habitat and range, among other things. It might even flag potential species delineations if such differences are found with the type specimen.

2) For a sample to identify a new species, the mainstream has to agree on extremely compelling circumstances surrounding the collection of the sample. If, that is, the sample doesn't come from that big guy right over there [points to cage/slab].

[Cotter]

Conservation and preservation are 2 very different things.

Convservation is sustainable use of a habitat and it's denizens, preservation is NO consumptive use.

Preservation can lead to some very terrible outcomes such as overpopulation leading to habitat destruction and disease if a proper predator/prey balance isn't in place.

Sorry for the lesson.

Bipto - good luck, keep up the great work.