Guest DWA Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 All these folks that are saying how easy it is, I mean sheezh, they'e all in touch, they can all PM each other and start up a consortium to just do this thing right! Funny I never see that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 You miss the point, DWA. It's easy yet it's never been done. Just one more clue that bigfoot is a mass hallucination. QED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 D'OH! "Duplicate Patty. Child's play. I AM NOT A CHILD...!" Yep, and those proponents. With all their excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 /\/\/\ The pulled DNA from a bone found in a cave. The bone was buried in dirt for 30000 years. They get DNA from hair, no follicle needed. Skin flakes, spit, and poo are other ways to get DNA. bone is great..... but unless one is found dead we can rule that out. its my understanding that the folicle is needed as the squatch hair lacks a full medulla. spit from a fruit bait ot poo would also be great, but both degrade pretty fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 its my understanding that the folicle is needed as the squatch hair lacks a full medulla. From what I've been told, newer techniques can extract DNA from the shaft in certain situations. spit from a fruit bait ot poo would also be great, but both degrade pretty fast. Yes they do. Very fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 its my understanding that the folicle is needed as the squatch hair lacks a full medulla. Does it? What are you basing that on? Oh yes, it's just that easy. REALLY. Ask Melba Ketchum. No thanks, I already asked people who analyse DNA all the time, accurately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 its my understanding that the folicle is needed as the squatch hair lacks a full medulla. Does it? What are you basing that on? Putative wood ape hair lacks a full medulla. No thanks, I already asked people who analyse DNA all the time, accurately. Do they help you understand the real world difficulties of collecting useable specimens from elusive and rare animals living in wilderness areas, or do your conversations with them remain in the abstract and theoretical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) Count on the latter. I'm gonna try one more time: When the animal is not confirmed by science, and there is no type specimen, the best one can get is "primate, unknown." With the best specimen one can get. Drew, start talking to people who know more about this. DNA is not "magic" in Sanskrit. Edited April 4, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 /\/\/\ The pulled DNA from a bone found in a cave. The bone was buried in dirt for 30000 years. They get DNA from hair, no follicle needed. Skin flakes, spit, and poo are other ways to get DNA. A lot of things appear simple from an armchair. Now that DNA has been and is being tested a body of information will begin to form that tells us about what we are chasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) ^^^ Supposed "Squatch" DNA has been tested for years now. Nothing new is happening regarding bigfoot research except it has returned a profit for some for the first time since the PGF. One group or another has been on the edge of discovery for at least the past decade only disappear into irrelevance being replaced by the next enthusiastic group with a clever acronym claiming to have a better place, technology and determination than the last. I keep hoping that one of these groups get the job done and I have no reason to think Bipto would mislead anyone but so far there seems to be nothing new to see here. Edited April 5, 2013 by BigGinger To Remove Quoted Content Directly Above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 ^^ Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Do they help you understand the real world difficulties of collecting useable specimens from elusive and rare animals living in wilderness areas, or do your conversations with them remain in the abstract and theoretical? I asked a member of the team that confirmed the ONE Wolverine in California, how they managed to get DNA samples on the wolverine. They got over 20 scat samples, and several hair samples within one week of the trail cam shot that tipped them off. I asked a prominent Genetic Anthropologist: If you had DNA from an unclassified animal,would you be able to use those results to place where it belongs in phylogenetic tree? He answered Yes, that would be no problem at all. So, he wouldn't say "unknown primate", he would say this is a primate that had a common ancestor with Chimpanzees X-million years ago, it shares x% of it's DNA with humans, and it's last common ancestor with humans was approx. Y-million years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 ^^^ Supposed "Squatch" DNA has been tested for years now. Nothing new is happening regarding bigfoot research except it has returned a profit for some for the first time since the PGF. And years ago, folks were attempting to sequence whole genomes? And major universities like Oxford have been involved in long term studies? Can you please point me in the direction of where I can see where a world class geneticist has put forth as much effort as we're seeing today from say....Sykes? One group or another has been on the edge of discovery for at least the past decade only disappear into irrelevance being replaced by the next enthusiastic group with a clever acronym claiming to have a better place, technology and determination than the last. Sometimes that's how discovery works bud. I keep hoping that one of these groups get the job done No you don't. and I have no reason to think Bipto would mislead anyone but so far there seems to be nothing new to see here. Well, I'm not so sure about that. Far as I can tell, Bipto's crew has put forth magnitudes more transparency, approached it with much more of a science based approach, and have exhibited a near superhuman patience on a forum where other groups would have long dismissed based on the comments of some posters. I feel if you don't think there is something new to see here, you may not be looking in the right place. With all of that said, I can see and understand your frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 I asked a prominent Genetic Anthropologist: If you had DNA from an unclassified animal,would you be able to use those results to place where it belongs in phylogenetic tree? He answered Yes, that would be no problem at all. So, he wouldn't say "unknown primate", he would say this is a primate that had a common ancestor with Chimpanzees X-million years ago, it shares x% of it's DNA with humans, and it's last common ancestor with humans was approx. Y-million years ago. Yes, and if you'd read what I've said, you'd know I actually agree with you on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 I asked a member of the team that confirmed the ONE Wolverine in California, how they managed to get DNA samples on the wolverine. They got over 20 scat samples, and several hair samples within one week of the trail cam shot that tipped them off. Again. (AGAIN.) Known species. So what? "Look mommy I blowed up a balloon!" Cool! She's three. But it's sort of expected that when one blows in a balloon that's gonna happen. I asked a prominent Genetic Anthropologist:If you had DNA from an unclassified animal,would you be able to use those results to place where it belongs in phylogenetic tree? He answered Yes, that would be no problem at all. Financial tip: never pick anyone to renovate your house who gives that, and only that, as his response. As to Genetic Man: He's wrong, and all you would have to do is put him in front of me. Or ask him the question properly, which, um, YOU DIDN'T. So go back to him. "Um, sir, excuse me. Forgot to tell you. We have no body. No animal. Just hair and poop." Let's see what he says to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts