Poll: When Would An Announcement Of e-DNA Positive For Sasquatch Be Made?

[WSA]

I don't dislike him, but I have to say his schtick is off-putting. Just one more out-sized Personality in a field that needs far fewer of those.  The field has a huge PR issue that is working against any chance of mainstream legitimacy, and it is not helped at all by the personal weirdness of many of the principals. I'm not saying they all need to be dressed out in Class As or white lab coats....but fewer funny hats, unfortunate haircuts and the whole "I'm a rebel outsider" (Does that even MEAN anything anymore?) vibe. And angels. Far fewer angels would be welcomed.      

[Twist]

Lol I hear you on the Angels thing.  As far as tattoos and “rebel” look, I definitely think that’s just a more modern thing..   I meet with a lot of professionals in a variety of fields for work, tattoos, odd colored hair, piercings etc are not all that uncommon in office environments anymore.   I’m not at all shocked anymore to meet with someone in a 3 piece suit that is tatted down to their knuckles and have gauges ears.

[SWWASAS]

Colorful characters is a good way to describe most of the principal characters in BF research.  .    While I think Distotell  is pretty dismissive of BF in public,   perhaps that is a performance to keep his peers off his back.  After all he is concerned about his image in the scientific community.   He should have thought of that before his Mohawk phase.      Characters abound.     Those that run out of actual events and start to make puppets.    Someone who wears shorts year round often in sub freezing temperatures.      A couple  who dress in African Safari costumes to do field work.   Those that start crying when they relate their first encounter at conferences then later see demonic figures guarding portals.    Those that are now claiming that perhaps BF is a quantum creature.  Those that wonder if BF are extra-terrestrial.      These are the people that are asked to speak at conferences.   A commonality is that many of these are trying to get other people to fund their research so they can in some cases become directors of their foundations.     Someplace along the line, self importance and making money has crept in.   From the outside we look like a bunch of nut jobs.  

[Twist]

He has a point though, if his assertion is correct that him and Sykes are two of the only geneticist that will give BF an honest look.  You don’t have a lot of options and a large part of that ties in directly with what SWWASAS.   In topics of woo they are best to remain or appear neutral.   

[MIB]

2 hours ago, Twist said:

Has he ever done anything negative or made comments detrimental to Bigfootery?

 

Yes.   A couple years ago he did a seemingly intoxicated pod-cast where he was disparaging of the research community and the topic in general.    I came away from listening to him with the idea he would most likely toss aside samples and report negative rather than actually go to the work of testing.

 

2 hours ago, Twist said:

Has he ever produced false results?

 

No way to know, to prove, one way or the other.

 

I don't have any confidence in him. 

 

I also do not trust Sykes.   There were "holes" in his work that leave enough room for doubt to drive a semi truck through .. if you understand the subject matter.

 

There is, at this point, no one individual, no one lab, I have any trust in.  The only way to get reliable results is to have your sample tested by multiple facilities, "blind", and compare results afterwards.

 

MIB

 

[norseman]

27 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Yes.   A couple years ago he did a seemingly intoxicated pod-cast where he was disparaging of the research community and the topic in general.    I came away from listening to him with the idea he would most likely toss aside samples and report negative rather than actually go to the work of testing.

 

 

No way to know, to prove, one way or the other.

 

I don't have any confidence in him. 

 

I also do not trust Sykes.   There were "holes" in his work that leave enough room for doubt to drive a semi truck through .. if you understand the subject matter.

 

There is, at this point, no one individual, no one lab, I have any trust in.  The only way to get reliable results is to have your sample tested by multiple facilities, "blind", and compare results afterwards.

 

MIB

 

 

Can you explain how to go about doing this?

 

Are you contacting a genetics lab like Ancestry.com or 23andme.com? Or are they animal labs?

 

I did a saliva kit for my own DNA once. What if you have hair or scat samples?

[Twist]

30 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Yes.   A couple years ago he did a seemingly intoxicated pod-cast where he was disparaging of the research community and the topic in general.    I came away from listening to him with the idea he would most likely toss aside samples and report negative rather than actually go to the work of testing.

 

 

No way to know, to prove, one way or the other.

 

I don't have any confidence in him. 

 

I also do not trust Sykes.   There were "holes" in his work that leave enough room for doubt to drive a semi truck through .. if you understand the subject matter.

 

There is, at this point, no one individual, no one lab, I have any trust in.  The only way to get reliable results is to have your sample tested by multiple facilities, "blind", and compare results afterwards.

 

MIB

 

 

Thanks, I’m going to look for that podcast. Just curious if the dislike for him here is personal or professional.  

[NatFoot]

2 hours ago, Twist said:

Lol I hear you on the Angels thing.  As far as tattoos and “rebel” look, I definitely think that’s just a more modern thing..   I meet with a lot of professionals in a variety of fields for work, tattoos, odd colored hair, piercings etc are not all that uncommon in office environments anymore.   I’m not at all shocked anymore to meet with someone in a 3 piece suit that is tatted down to their knuckles and have gauges ears.

 

Maybe you're in a trendy industry, but what you explained is not the norm in mainstream America/business.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Bigfooters [proponents] are like Toronto Maple Leafs fans.

 

Sooner or later the only conclusion to be drawn is the inevitable disappointment that comes with membership in either camp.

 

No monkey no Stanley Cup — just unwavering fandom.

Edited December 7, 2018 by Squatchy McSquatch

[WSA]

Squatchy, what say you to the idea it might not be a monkey at all?

 

Maybe proponents(largely)  and opponents are both wrong?

 

[Twist]

Detroit sports fans as well ^^ 

 

I would not call my industry trendy at all lol and I typically meet with people that are not in my industry, I’m a service provider that services a lot of different types of industry.   I see a large variety of styles.   

[southernyahoo]

4 hours ago, Twist said:

 

Has he ever done anything negative or made comments detrimental to Bigfootery?   Has he ever produced false results?  Not liking his results is hardly a reason to not like him if he’s reporting truthfully on actual results.   

He only wishes to falsify the gigantopithicus theory for bigfoots existence. He can't use a human result to falsify the wildman theory for bigfoots existence. That's what is frustrating about his assertion that a human result is negative. He can't know this for certain.  At least Sykes was prepared to look further into a human result.

[Arrowhead]

Do you think the availability of eDNA might promote a whole new wave of evidence collecting?  Footprints seem to be the most  identifiable "hard evidence" and from what I understand the substrate that they are made in would provide adequate material for an eDNA test.  And you would think collection would be pretty straight forward and less prone to contamination.  It's even something that could be tested with a control sample by making your own footprint in the same vicinity as the suspect footprint and pulling a sample from that too.  It just seems that a sighting corroborated with footprints that could be sampled would have a much better chance of a successful eDNA test - what ever the result.

[WSA]

Good thought Arrowhead, yes. Like with all things, DNA testing seems to be getting quicker, cheaper and more accurate.  We went from sequencing the human genome (A big, BIG deal) in 2003, at a cost of billions, to now you are able to get your DNA read for a $100, mail order.  Eventually, it might be worthwhile for a group to take a credible sample and see if the entire genome is present, and sequence the whole thing. Only then I expect you'll be able to truly get an idea of what this animal is/isn't. I imagine nobody is willing to go there yet due to this persistent idea that BF DNA must be readily distinguishable from human's and anything that isn't is of course contaminated with human DNA or just a human's.

 

So here's a wicked thought that I'm sure I'm not the first to think of. IF you somehow got a swab of highly likely BF DNA, why not submit it to one of the mail order DNA services? That result might be pretty interesting, and a cheap down and dirty result. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 20 years or so there might not be a hand-held, portable DNA reader for the field that runs on AA batteries..  You'll hold it down to sniff for available genetic material and brrrrrppppttt...up pops your ID.

 

(The suits upstairs in Legal are going to have a kitten about it though) 

Edited December 7, 2018 by WSA

[MIB]

28 minutes ago, norseman said:

Can you explain how to go about doing this?

 

Are you contacting a genetics lab like Ancestry.com or 23andme.com? Or are they animal labs?

 

I did a saliva kit for my own DNA once. What if you have hair or scat samples?

 

I was thinking the only way I'd go to the cost of testing is if I already knew exactly what I had with 100% certainty it was bigfoot so that the question is not "what is the sample", but rather "what is bigfoot?"   I had not thought about ancestry or 23andme .. those are comparatively low cost ... very creative ideas!  Awesome.

 

I do not think I'd have a scat sample done.   That seems like a "later" step after existence is proven.   While a scat sample would have epithelial cells, it would also have DNA from food sources and GI tract organisms.   I think it would be pretty hard to establish existence of a new species with only that DNA to work from.   Later, with existence established, i think they'd use scat samples' DNA mix to match to known bigfoot but I don't think they'd be used for the initial identification.  Like many things the best they could prove is "we don't know what left this."  

 

If it was a hair sample I'd hope it was large enough to subject it to morphological exam first.  No point in spending money testing gopher fur.   I know of a person or two who is doing that.  Other options would be local university biology programs if they have faculty with relevant interests.   (Surprisingly, most specialize so greatly they are not really competent to comment on more general things.)   State F&W department.   Attempt to engage the USF&WS forensics lab.   Samples to Sykes and Disotell.   Then for my controls I'd look to a couple of universities that have graduate level vet medicine programs and the ability to do the necessary DNA testing.

 

One thing I think would be important would be to talk to friends who are, or were, faculty in the biology departments of a couple of local universities and get their assistance regarding proper procedures.   I know them well enough to know that whether they believe bigfoot is real or not, they are sticklers for doing things "correctly", dotting the i-s and crossing the t-s, so that the science stands up to scrutiny.    They might be able to point me to resources for testing that I haven't thought about, open doors that aren't otherwise open, etc.

 

MIB