Why can't we find and study Bigfoot?

[hiflier]

My apologies to you SWWASAS, and to everyone. I realize this should all stay in my own thread and I should allow it to spill onto others. Again, please accept my apologies for being such a boor.

[georgerm]

12 hours ago, hiflier said:

My apologies to you SWWASAS, and to everyone. I realize this should all stay in my own thread and I should allow it to spill onto others. Again, please accept my apologies for being such a boor.

 

Your interest in eDNA is part of this thread and has to do with why we are not finding bigfoot which includes live ones, dead ones, and their eDNA. Testing mountain streams for bigfoot's eDNA is probably out of the price range for small time researchers. 

 

Environmental DNA (eDNA) is nuclear or mitochondrial DNA that is released from an organism into the environment. Sources of eDNA include secreted feces, mucous, and gametes; shed skin and hair; and carcasses. eDNA can be detected in cellular or extracellular (dissolved DNA) form.

In aquatic environments, eDNA is diluted and distributed by currents and other hydrological processes (fig. 1), but it only lasts about 7–21 days, depending on environmental conditions (Dejean and others, 2011). Exposure to UVB radiation, acidity, heat, and endo- and exonucleases can degrade eDNA.    https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/environmental-dna-edna?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

 

[SWWASAS]

Standing in the back of the classroom lecture on the abilities of E DNA testing and raising my hand.   If E-DNA works as well as hiflier and others are saying,   why was nothing revealed from testing the Olympic Peninsula Nests?  

 

hiflier you owe me no apologies.     You unlike most have a fire in your belly to make things happen.     I find no fault with that.  

Edited February 8, 2020 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

Yes, you in the back  Setting the record straight, things were revealed from the DNA nest samples. The method used is called "metabarcoding" casts which a fairly wide net in order to detect many different species types. So what was found was DNA from bears, deer, small mammals like raccoon, I think coyote, birds and other DNA. What was also announced by first, Dr. Meldrum a year and a half ago, and then, four months later by Dr. Disotell, was that Human DNA was also found in the soil samples taken from beneath the nests along with everything else. They said the Human DNA in the samples was too degraded from freezing and moisture to show anything like a novel primate. But the samples were good enough to show Human along with other types of creatures.

 

The technology did work by showing what is, or was, IN and AROUND the nest area as well as the nests themselves. Yes, there was degradation but not to the extent that nothing was usable because Human DNA and other organisms were in fact detected. My issues with that whole thing are well known here on the BFF. I see no need to drag them up again.

Edited February 8, 2020 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

But professor,  if the nests were constructed by sasquatch,   that means that we have to do the e DNA testing pretty soon before it degrades.    If that is necessary,  that means that it is nearly as hard as finding the bigfoot in the nest.    As a matter if fact since finding a place frequented by sasquatch on a regular basis has proven very difficult,   disturbing this location,  and removing nests without definitive results, has probably eliminated one of the few places known to be visited frequently by sasquatch because now they will not return after finding it has been discovered by humans and disturbed.    I even wonder if that was considered when they began investigating and removing things.         That has not furthered research but set it back in my opinion.      Our problem now and always has been finding them.  When we do that we can collect viable DNA.   Makes me wonder what in the hell Meldrum was thinking to be part of that.     

Edited February 8, 2020 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

22 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

But professor,  if the nests were constructed by sasquatch,   that means that we have to do the e DNA testing pretty soon before it degrades

 

THANK YOU!! Those have been my points all along. Potentially the biggest discovery of the CENTURY and the samples were held up for a year and a half waiting on $7,500 to test them. An "indiegogo" fundraising effort was generated which raised $4,700, and they ran the tests. The results came back as I already stated. There was so much wrong with how things got handled- and reported.

 

26 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

 As a matter if fact since finding a place frequented by sasquatch on a regular basis has proven very difficult,   disturbing this location,  and removing nests without definitive results, has probably eliminated one of the few places known to be visited frequently by sasquatch because now they will not return after finding it has been discovered by humans and disturbed.    I even wonder if that was considered when they began investigating and removing things.         That has not furthered research but set it back in my opinion

 

BINGO!

 

27 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

 Our problem now and always has been finding them.  When we do that we can collect viable DNA.

 

I think this may be where folks struggle with the concept. We don't have to find Sasquatch! We just need to sample the creeks and streams in what is believed to be an active area. Or an area that looks good or is remote with water flowing out of it into areas we can more easily access. No one ever even has to ever see a Sasquatch to do that. This is what my rather elaborate discussion on the NOTCH2NL genes is so important. Bigfoot has not advanced any further than the Great Apes. It's in a different environment with different environmental influences and forces that include us and our type of habitat intrusions. It has needed to adjust to those things and pressures to survive.

 

It's why I think it possesses the Great version of the NOTCH2 gene and not the larger brain/higher thinking of the four-variation NOTCH2NL genes. Good e-DNA targeting of those genes will be able to detect either the Great Ape version or the Human versions. I'm convinced it can be done by marking the gene with a fluorescent tag of sorts like the one I posted in that Black image with the highlighted "bar" of DNA.

 

You're right about one thing though, the Olympic Project kept going back to investigate and brought in more and more people. And they put up trail cameras to monitor the area. Al of that was probably a mistake. Now, Derek Randles said early on that they had learned from past mistakes and so knew enough how to not repeat them. They repeated them and then made some serious ones of their own on top of that. Mainly in the area of DNA collection and storage for lack of funding. 40 Olympic Project members, a professor, a geneticist, to agents from the WADNR, and bear experts.....and no one could raise $5000 to get the e-DNA samples tested immediately. Ah well.......

[SWWASAS]

5 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

I think this may be where folks struggle with the concept. We don't have to find Sasquatch! We just need to sample the creeks and streams in what is believed to be an active area. Or an area that looks good or is remote with water flowing out of it into areas we can more easily access. No one ever even has to ever see a Sasquatch to do that. This is what my rather elaborate discussion on the NOTCH2NL genes is so important. Bigfoot has not advanced any further than the Great Apes. It's in a different environment with different environmental influences and forces that include us and our type of habitat intrusions. It has needed to adjust to those things and pressures to survive.

 

 What you say sounds simple but as noted eDNA in water degrades within 7 to 21 days and seems to have degraded in often frequented nests.    When my research area was active,   since I never found a bedding area, or anyplace I could be confident that they frequented,  the only place I could could test with any probability of success,   were footprint finds, and the artesian springs that I believe they frequented,  and the location I got zapped and found the depression in the vegetation where I assume that the BF had been laying down by a log.    I don't know how often they frequented the springs,   and it if was not more frequent than 7 to 21 days, then there would be little likelyhood of getting a viable sample.    Footprint finds do not last long in the PNW between rainstorms,   and are very irregular in occurrence.  The depression samples could have been taken that day.      So other than take samples willy nilly at random locations,  without a location known to be frequented,   in the 10 years my area was active,  there were only a few instances where I would have much probability at all at success had I taken DNA samples.   This was in an active area I knew very well.     Some area where activity level is unknown stands little chance of having a viable sample taken just because you have to have some idea of where BF has been,  to know where to take the sample.  

 

As far as the Olympic project,  I approached them twice,  told them of my successes and offered my talents and abilities,  and they simply blew me off.   I could and would have written a check for testing.   I don't see much dedication on the part of their members if they cannot raise $5000.     I have spent a lot more than that doing my research.    But their egos cannot allow any dilution of their self importance by bringing in anyone else.       Beyond that they discovered that adventure tourism brings in money so they seem to have lost their sense of purpose.  The nest fiasco is hardly surprising to me.  

[Twist]

You touch on a major issue SWWASAS,  if Bigfoot is as rare as I believe it to be even E-DNA is a needle in a haystack. It has uses but maybe not as much and easy as Hiflier lays out.   Where I do see it being a viable option is situations like the rancher in CO. In another thread or Marks situation in OK.    Take a hotbed site and test around.

[hiflier]

33 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

 What you say sounds simple but as noted eDNA in water degrades within 7 to 21 days and seems to have degraded in often frequented nests.    When my research area was active,   since I never found a bedding area, or anyplace I could be confident that they frequented,  the only place I could could test with any probability of success,   were footprint finds, and the artesian springs that I believe they frequented,  and the location I got zapped and found the depression in the vegetation where I assume that the BF had been laying down by a log.    I don't know how often they frequented the springs,   and it if was not more frequent than 7 to 21 days, then there would be little likelyhood of getting a viable sample.    Footprint finds do not last long in the PNW between rainstorms,   and are very irregular in occurrence.  The depression samples could have been taken that day.      So other than take samples willy nilly at random locations,  without a location known to be frequented,   in the 10 years my area was active,  there were only a few instances where I would have much probability at all at success had I taken DNA samples.   This was in an active area I knew very well.     Some area where activity level is unknown stands little chance of having a viable sample taken just because you have to have some idea of where BF has been,  to know where to take the sample

 

True, time, moisture, temperature, and other factors, like soil composition, do come into play. But then so does remaining positive. So what if results take a year or more? It's been 52 since the PGF. Sampling a mountain stream once and be]never going back isn't going to amount to much. DNA from many sources is constantly being deposited in the environment. Washington State uses it to look for wolverine. Agencies use it to monitor for invasive plants and insects. DNA in wild habitat is where most of the work is being done! That's what the technology is for.

 

DNA lasts longest in a cool dry cave. Might not be a bad place to consider but watch out, everyone and their brother (and sister too!) is already doing that looking for ancient as well as modern evidence of cave users (including feral Humans?) and all manner of other troglodytes. This technology needs to be implemented in the search for our Hairy Friend. Samples from water sources, caves, berry patches, bogs, and other such habitat that scientists are ALREADY taking samples from. All of the agencies both state and federal that I mentioned plus academic institutions that  offer biology, zoology, and microbiology courses and their specialty branches. Getting them on board takes a delicate touch and that is much easier if we educate ourselves in the fields of not only DNA but the e-DNA processes themselves.

 

11 minutes ago, Twist said:

You touch on a major issue SWWASAS,  if Bigfoot is as rare as I believe it to be even E-DNA is a needle in a haystack. It has uses but maybe not as much and easy as Hiflier lays out.   Where I do see it being a viable option is situations like the rancher in CO. In another thread or Marks situation in OK.    Take a hotbed site and test around.

 

e-DNA can canvass a much wider area that people realize. Entire watersheds can be sampled just by collecting the water downstream. Even small amounts of DNA can be amplified a thousand or a million times over to increase the sample size through a process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

[SWWASAS]

 

hiflier   "e-DNA can canvass a much wider area that people realize. Entire watersheds can be sampled just by collecting the water downstream. Even small amounts of DNA can be amplified a thousand or a million times over to increase the sample size through a process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR)."    

 

 I bet amplification thousands or millions of times is very expensive because of the increased processing time.    Then again,   when any DNA enters the watershed, it is a race in time for it to be still viable when tested.    Test too soon and it may not have reached you yet.    Test too late and it might have already washed out of the watershed or become too degraded.    So you would have to initiate a regular testing schedule and hope you tested at just the right time.   As Twist says,   it is better to find where BF are and test there.    Oklahoma,  habituations situations,  etc.      I think it pretty unlikely to get a good sample from a footprint.   Hair left is not likely to have any DNA,   unless the BF has peed or slobbered on his foot,  or stepped in it,  a dry foot is not going to have much free DNA.    There is a reason that for human testing they swab the inside of your cheek.    It is wet, has lots of DNA,  the probably the most likely place accessible to get some DNA.    If we look at police agencies trying to get DNA evidence on a criminal,   they try to get soi gmething that has been in his mouth like a cigarette butt, or coffee cup.   I think Bigtex is finding roots that have been chewed.    Testing those would be ideal if you can get them soon enough after being chewed.    The more I think about what could have been done at the Olympic nesting sites, the angrier I get.   If they monitored and found a fresh nest,   they could have sampled fresh DNA without detection and just slipped away.  

 

 

 

 

 

[georgerm]

Maybe getting eDNA is not out of reach for the independent researcher. Hiflier you are on to something.

 

"Not only is the “Go Fish eDNA” (environmental DNA) tool fast, it costs just $15 per sample for one species, and $8 for additional species. In a few years time an early morning water sample from a beach could tell lifeguards by midmorning if tiger or white sharks were around, Ausubel said.Dec 3, 2018"    https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNRkNLARSTxQjLv9g0pgizU_aBOw3g%3A1581204937284&source=hp&ei=yUU_XrHmDZet-gTg1bH4DQ&q=

cost+edna+water+sampling&oq=cost+edna+water+s&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.33i22i29i30l5.6322.24171..28788...2.0..0.385.2287.2j14j0j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....

10..35i362i39j0i131j0j35i39j0i10j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j33i160j33i299.URbMIL_szXE

 

Method: Skin cells are shed as a polar bear walks through the snow (Fig. 1). Scooping up bear tracks in the snow, allowing it to melt, and filtering out the cells (Figs. 2a and 2b) provides the genetic materials that can be used in genetic population estimates. This method is in its earliest stages, but once it has been refined, it will be completely NON-invasive. It will also be possible for local residents to collect the snow from tracks as part of a large scale regional approach to monitoring polar bear abundance, movements, and habitat use. A larger sample size improves the population estimate.    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl

[ShadowBorn]

If it does not cost that much for the testing of EDNA then how will they know what to look for in a sample like Bigfoot? If there is nothing to compare it to then there is no way to say what it could be. There fore they are going to toss it aside and call it a false reading.Since this is environmental and it is mixed it can be considered contamination there fore tossed.  Only real DNA will stop this and stop this cross contamination. The only way to do this is with a body on a slab. But then who is in control of what goes into this gene bank data . I am not going to go any further then how controlled all this can all be. But lets just say that it may or can.  

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

 The more I think about what could have been done at the Olympic nesting sites, the angrier I get.   If they monitored and found a fresh nest,   they could have sampled fresh DNA without detection and just slipped away.

 

Believe me, my friend, this is what I got so hot about back a year and a half ago. I saw the failings, the mistakes, the gross lack of any sense of urgency for something so potentially earth-shaking as DNA proof of a Bigfoot. I watched, read, and listened to every video, website, and podcast. My disappointment grew as did my frustration and anger (like yourself) while I followed the whole thing into.......nothing? With the errors in misjudgment and mishandling of the soil samples, I watched what, I thought at the time, was the closest thing we had to discovery get frittered away. And I had said that it was the closest we had come. People wondered why I was so passionate about emailing the WADNR......5 emails and no responses.....and then began asking the Forum for help in emailing. We know how that went so I won't go into it.

 

I always felt kind of bad placing so much pressure on the BFF members at that time a year ago. But I also though time was running out and striking while the iron was hot, samples were fresh, and the events were relatively recent all weighed in our favor. It really doesn't matter much now but as a result I realized that the e-DNA aspect, which I was hoping would be applied at the nesting site, was a technology I needed to educate myself on. And we know that the technique was applied at the site. But because of what I was learning, I saw the mistakes that were made. Obvious mistakes that even student DNA field samplers wouldn't make. But the ones that were doing the testing were professionals, RIGHT? The way things were handled was awful in light of what was riding on using proper procedures.

 

I began to doubt if discovery was something that anyone really wanted to really happen and started seeing what appeared to be failure that looked more and more intentional. Everything I tried to do, and everyone I tried to contact utterly failed. There was no way to get at the truth, and that's when I decided to get on my own horse and pursue my own push for finding someone to had a dialogue with. It took a long time and a lot of research but most of you know that I did succeed a couple of weeks ago with getting a two hour meeting with a PhD. Right now, I'm waiting for the next meeting which I hope will be soon. Soon, because I want to discuss the whole DNA targeting of the Human NOTCH2NL gene variations in environmental DNA applications. In the meantime I've been working at bringing everyone up to speed on that subject.

 

The nest samples may have been degraded but no mention of any mtDNA was ever mentioned, and certainly the Great Ape NOTCH2 and Human NOTCH2NL genes weren't mentioned. In other words, we, along with the public, weren't considered educated enough for those details? Nothing was important enough that Dr. Meldrum nor Dr. Disotell wouldn't come onto the BFF and tell us direct? Nor Derek Randles, or Shane Corson, nor Cliff Barackman, nor anyone else??

 

Sorry folks, What I think? Is that SWWASAS and I have every right to be angry. A beautiful opportunity, with nests that when found still had greenery on the materials used to construct them. The whole thing squandered, the few, meager, repetitive updates given only at conferences, data hidden, proprietary agendas for a documentary......And no Bigfoot. As I always say at moments like this.....Ah well.......

 

(off soapbox)        

[7.62]

I find a fresh nest I'm setting up a trap .      

 

 

[hiflier]

12 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

If it does not cost that much for the testing of EDNA then how will they know what to look for in a sample like Bigfoot? If there is nothing to compare it to then there is no way to say what it could be.

 

That's what I've been trying to explain, ShadowBorn. I truly think there is a way. We know what to look for. You have to admit, there MUST be something that gets seen in a sample that tells a scientist that it's Human DNA, Right? Some marker, or gene, or protein, that Humans have and that must always crop up in order to even call a sample contaminated. What tells a scientists that the DNA doing the contamination is Human? That's what I've been talking about WRT to these NOTCH2 genes. Great Apes have two genes that we don't have. We have four genes that Great Apes don't have.

 

Set up an environmental sampling kit that will test for the genes, or proteins, that are unique to one species or the other- Humans or Apes. We don't need Sasquatch DNA in the GenBank to do that. We DO HAVE the genomes for Humans and Great Apes, however, and so......If a sample comes back with suspected Human contamination but it DOES NOT contain one, or all of our four, of the genes unique to us, then the sample was contaminated by....another type of North American primate. In other words, we USE our own Human genome for comparison to the contaminated sample. If our genes aren't there? Then science has just discovered a new (to them) North American Ape. TBH, I don't think I could clarify this any better.