Can't discuss bigfoot with friends, and family.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

On 12/14/2019 at 5:04 PM, hiflier said:

 

I've noticed you never miss a single chance to use the word "mythical".

 

But as a scientist what have you done to see if the creature really exists outside of being here promoting "mythical"? In the spirit of that question, you have said you have friends who are biologists. Do you think any of them would be open to the idea of using e-DNA to put the issue to rest. It could ultimately bring you to a position of certainty beyond only having an opinion that it doesn't exist. Oh yes, P-G, this is me challenging you. I don't have biology friends or I would have asked them a long time ago. So sure, I'm taking advantage of your connections. But I would do that if I knew any biologists but since I don't, I'm singling you out because you do.

 

Of course, if any other members here know biologists then the question would go out to you as well. Denying is easy. Taking action isn't. If there is a biologist who also knows and is willing to test samples then that would be even better. Especially a biologist who really wants to know the answer but also knows that the procedure needs to be covert. And I mean C-O-V-E-R-T. And everyone here pretty much knows why.

 

I have been guilty of just talking about this myself. But I am on the verge of trying to re-connect with the F&W biologist in my state, who I spoke to last May, for the same reason. Because I am 100% CONVINCED it is the best, safest, most accurate, most nonintrusive, approach available to us for discovery. So why not go for it.   

I am very much interested in e-DNA. I have spoken to my friends about that subject. They are on board as well. When I brought up the possibility of Sasquatch being discovered that way. 

One of them said it would be difficult to prove with no known DNA for comparison. In an area where they are known to frequent would be very helpful in determining if something unusual closely related to human .

I still think the only way to once and for all to answer the question without dispute is you guessed it . A specimen to examine test. 

On 12/13/2019 at 9:50 AM, starchunk said:

 

Pretty close minded. So, meh.

No more close minded than insisting  a creature exists without scientific proof.  

[wiiawiwb]

This is something I don't understand about "no known DNA". Maybe someone can enlighten me.  

 

A sample is submitted but its genetic markers are not quite human and do not match anything else known.  It's given the generic title, "no known DNA". If you could assemble every "no known DNA"  and compare them to each other, what would it tell us if 50% of them matched to each other? It would be instructive.

 

Why aren't labs in this country collaborating and sending  "no known DNA"  profiles to each other, or to one organization, to match them against each other?

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I understand your dilemma .One would think that in this time we are living in. 

With the wonderful world of technology that should be exactly the case 

I am  not qualified to say if that happens or not or why.

 

Pethaps, it is not considered of great importance. Certainly not on the level as it is in the world of solving crimes 

 

 

[hiflier]

Unless too many samples matching the same unknown sequences are seen as some kind of threat to the status quo?

[Huntster]

23 hours ago, MIB said:

........I would say that is low, but I'm not sure by how much.    There are concentrations and there are areas seemingly without any.    The thing is, the concentrations in different areas appear to occur at the same times meaning it can't be the same sasquatches.    At the moment, my guess is there are different times of year when their behavior makes them more noticeable than other times.

 

I think that 150 sasquatches might be low, too, but not by much. 

 

Below is a map of black bear density in Oregon. There are areas of high density, areas of moderate density, and areas of low density. 

 

I've also attached an SSR map of sasquatch reports in Oregon. Note that it matches the highest black bear density areas perfectly. 

 

So with those 150 or so sasquatches moving about, or becoming less active, or people going into the woods less often in winter, or all of the above, all contributing to a variance in the timelines of encounters, 125 to 200 sasquatches with a lifespan of 35-55 years seems to fit those maps quite comfortably.

[Huntster]

17 hours ago, georgerm said:

........When I go in and around the clam beds some months, the wood knocks start up.........

 

Would that be in the wintertime?.........Say, late November through mid March?

6 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I am very much interested in e-DNA. I have spoken to my friends about that subject. They are on board as well. When I brought up the possibility of Sasquatch being discovered that way. One of them said it would be difficult to prove with no known DNA for comparison........

 

Well, with that statement as a guide, Homo Denisovan, Homo floresiensis, and other hominid species never existed.

[MIB]

10 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

No more close minded than insisting  a creature exists without scientific proof.  

 

I don't think that is a correct analysis.   Not for the person who has observed one.  

 

A person who has truly studied the evidence .. in detail .. will, without exception, conclude there is something going on worthy of further inquiry.    It is circular logic, absolutely: a person who does not conclude that IS NOT, despite their possible claims to the contrary, sufficiently familiar with the evidence.   

 

The process of scientific discovery necessarily includes looking for things before we have proof they exist.    Anything less requires all discoveries to be made by accident.

 

MIB

[hiflier]

10 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

No more close minded than insisting  a creature exists without scientific proof

 

Boy, there's a Catch-22 if I ever heard one. Or would it be a Catch-33? Or -44? IOW, there could be a reason there's no scientific proof.

 

35 minutes ago, MIB said:

The process of scientific discovery necessarily includes looking for things before we have proof they exist.    Anything less requires all discoveries to be made by accident.

 

MIB

 

Yeah. I like this. DANG IT! Outa plusses.......Hmmm, I have an idea........

Ha, ha, yep, it worked. I just went back and "borrowed" one back from an earlier post LOL.

Edited December 22, 2019 by hiflier

[Redbone]

39 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Yeah. I like this. DANG IT! Outa plusses.......Hmmm, I have an idea........

Ha, ha, yep, it worked. I just went back and "borrowed" one back from an earlier post LOL.

You run out because you hand them out like halloween candy.

I was going to suggest that you can go back and remove them. I had to do that the other day, except I was removing downvotes to do upvotes elsewhere.

I plussed MIB in case you need that one back lol.

 

[hiflier]

Hmmm, creative plussing. What happens is I get so intent on reading posts to catch up I forget to hand them out. When it dawns on me to do so I end up with a flurry and end up peppering posts. I have never counted votes up or down so don't know what my daily quota is. Curse of a busy mind.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

10 hours ago, MIB said:

 

I don't think that is a correct analysis.   Not for the person who has observed one.  

 

A person who has truly studied the evidence .. in detail .. will, without exception, conclude there is something going on worthy of further inquiry.    It is circular logic, absolutely: a person who does not conclude that IS NOT, despite their possible claims to the contrary, sufficiently familiar with the evidence.   

 

The process of scientific discovery necessarily includes looking for things before we have proof they exist.    Anything less requires all discoveries to be made by accident.

 

MIB

Obviously,  I am a proponent of further study. I was merely pointing out that to simply conclude large man apes walk among us is not  proven. Therefore it is close minded to blindly state the creature exists . 

As far as people observing one. That can't be trusted either. People see lots of things that are simply not real. 

 

I agree with  looking for things that are not  yet proven. Many new species are discovered and documented often. Living man-apes are not among them. 

15 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Would that be in the wintertime?.........Say, late November through mid March?

 

Well, with that statement as a guide, Homo Denisovan, Homo floresiensis, and other hominid species never existed.

How many of these have been discovered in North America 

11 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Boy, there's a Catch-22 if I ever heard one. Or would it be a Catch-33? Or -44? IOW, there could be a reason there's no scientific proof.

 

 

Yeah. I like this. DANG IT! Outa plusses.......Hmmm, I have an idea........

Ha, ha, yep, it worked. I just went back and "borrowed" one back from an earlier post LOL.

Lol. I actually agree. 

[hiflier]

23 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Lol. I actually agree. 

 

So science doesn't investigate anything that doesn't already have scientific proof? That makes no sense. What is science for? Or were you simply agreeing that it's a Catch-N. Just curious because I'm certainly not looking for any serious arguments about it.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

3 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

So science doesn't investigate anything that doesn't already have scientific proof? That makes no sense. What is science for? Or were you simply agreeing that it's a Catch-N. Just curious because I'm certainly not looking for any serious arguments about it.

Not at all. Just the opposite. Of course they do . That is how  the unknown become known. I think you misunderstood. 

No argument here. I welcome the discovery of this subject. It is only my opinion that  large man apes are not in the here and now. 

I have explained many times why it is highly unlikely the creature is roaming the forests in the here and now. 

Keep on keeping on . I wish you all the best in proving otherwise. Have a great safe holiday. 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Have a great safe holiday

 

You as well, my friend. Just a couple of more things  

 

1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Of course they do . That is how  the unknown become known. I think you misunderstood

 

I didn't think I misunderstood because that doesn't seem to apply to this subject. At least not currently. I would like to also know whether or not your biology friend(s) has access to the data on what markers are used to show Human. As opposed to say, Denisovan, or Neanderthal, or anything else. What specifically is looked for? Would your people know that or could access that information?

 

Because if it's something rather obvious over say, a deer (and it must be!), then I don't understand the big deal with having Human "contamination" in an e-DNA sample. I am curious if I can open up that part of the dialogue with CALeDNA as well. Reason? I think it's obvious, if Bigfoot is in the branch of Homo then there WILL BE MARKERS unique to it. Because I would be disappointed to think that "Human" DNA in North America that has markers that don't line up with Human typically get tossed.

 

For a scientist in any discipline, seeing this happen when anyone investigates supposed Sasquatch DNA should raise a flag or two. This could be a "light" conversation to have with your buddies over this holiday season, LOL. Because I think really zeroing in on the issues of DNA markers WRT to this subject is an important conversation to have. When I revisit my own state biologist after the holidays you can bet I will be asking these questions and bring up several of these points.

 

In truth, I think it's a conversation many should think about having with their own state biologists- or ANY biologist who works with DNA for that matter

Edited December 22, 2019 by hiflier

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I will certainly have that conversation. Honestly, only one of them showed any interest at all in the subject. She is fascinated about the possibilities.