Why can't we find and study Bigfoot?

[SWWASAS]

 

Breaking precedent is not easy to do in the field of science.   

 

I am going to find someone that will give me a tour of of a DNA testing lab.      I am curious physically how it works and what is done to determine what species has been sequenced.    My gut feeling is that there is more human involvement and subjectivity that most of us believe.     It is not like you put the sample in one end and it grinds away for hours and unknown primate appears on a computer screen.      

[hiflier]

53 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

It is not like you put the sample in one end and it grinds away for hours and unknown primate appears on a computer screen.

 

True. But then no one has designed a test to specifically tease out that answer either. And that's what my goal is: To get science to design the specific test protocol that will detect ape genes in the environment. A general, across the board, test kit used to find ALL animal DNA including Human (metabarcoding) could do it if the Human DNA was in good enough shape to look for the Human-specific NOTCH2NL genes.

 

On that note you may find this interesting: When Dr. Disotell, a little over a year ago now, announced his conclusions on Laura Krantz's "Wild Thing" podcast series, he siad things in a certain wy. Scientists are nothing if not precise and he told us about the animals that the e-DNA samples detected which were all of the animals we should expect to see in the nesting area: bears, deer, elk, raccoon, birds, etc.

 

Then he went on to say that the samples also contained Human DNA.  BUT IT WAS TOO DEGRADED TO SHOW A NOVEL PRIMATE. Lets's look at that statement. The samples were taken from soil beneath the centers of the nests. And the samples showed degraded Human DNA. What is important to note about that is that Dr. Disotell never used the term "contaminated". The Human DNA was only too degraded to show novel primate. That's what he said.

 

It led me to think that even though he claims to be a skeptic, he left the door open to Sasquatch DNA being very close to Human DNA. He did NOT say that the samples were Human contaminated and therefore no good. He only hinted that the Human DNA was not good enough to show Sasquatch. Practically everyone hollered that Dr. Ketchum's Sasquatch Genome Project was loaded with Human contaminated samples. Dr. Todd Disotell did NOT say the same thing for the samples from the OP nesting site.

 

This is only ONE of the reasons I have been pursuing academia to see if I can get someone on board to design a specific protocol as an e-DNA search method. I'm not doing this because I think it would be a nice idea. It's way more serious and thought out than that, which includes all my research behind the scenes in order to support the concept. As far as I'm concerned, it would be a pinpoint approach to discovery. But it won't be MY discovery because I'M NOT CREDIBLE ENOUGH. My research and work has been specifically aimed at getting science to make the discovery.

 

*NOTE* Dr. Todd Disotell could design such a protocol and distribute the test kits his "more trusted" Sasquatch researchers.

Edited February 10, 2020 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

hiflier  "Then he went on to say that the samples also contained Human DNA.  BUT IT WAS TOO DEGRADED TO SHOW A NOVEL PRIMATE. Lets's look at that statement. The samples were taken from soil beneath the centers of the nests. And the samples showed degraded Human DNA. What is important to note about that is that Dr. Disotell never used the term "contaminated". The Human DNA was only too degraded to show novel primate. That's what he said."      

 

If human DNA was too degraded to show as novel primate it was also too degraded to show as human.  He is basically doing double talk.  They would be nearly identical except for specific markers especially if BF is anywhere in our family tree.      He is showing extreme bias by that statement.    He has repeatedly stated "show me the body".  You might think he left the door open but it seems to me that he slammed the door shut on him declaring anything unusual there.       Quite frankly I don't blame him.    As you mentioned above,  the floor of the wettest rain forest in the lower 48 is probably the worst place to look for viable DNA.    Feet of rain and rot rapidly deteriorate DNA.     Find a cave or lava tube that has harbored BF in several decades and you might be successful.   

Edited February 10, 2020 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

If human DNA was too degraded to show as novel primate it was also too degraded to show as human.

 

I will take the high road here. I would like to know how Dr. Disotell knows what novel primate DNA would even look like? What is it that he would specifically look for in order to make his novel primate determination? I would like to be informed of that little detail, wouldn't you? This is where I get a wee bit testy, because people don't fill in those blanks. And people don't think to ask D. Disotell especially about it.

 

I would but, historically, he doesn't answer my emails. Someone who knows Disotell personally could? Or someone who knows Dr. Meldrum (he doesn't answer my emails either) personally could have him ask Dr. Disotell?

 

Knowing you, I'll answer for you, :"That would be useless." There, that should make you happy. It plays right into your negative wheelhouse

Edited February 10, 2020 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

I will take the high road here. I would like to know how Dr. Disotell knows what novel primate DNA would even look like? What is it that he would specifically look for in order to make his novel primate determination? I would like to be informed of that little detail, wouldn't you? This is where I get a wee bit testy, because people don't fill in those blanks. And people don't think to ask D. Disotell especially about it.

 

I would but, historically, he doesn't answer my emails. Someone who knows Disotell personally could? Or someone who knows Dr. Meldrum (he doesn't answer my emails either) personally could have him ask Dr. Disotell?

 

Knowing you, I'll answer for you, :"That would be useless." There, that should make you happy. It plays right into your negative wheelhouse

On the contrary you have excellent questions.    If BF is as close or closer to us as chimpanzees,   then the DNA is 99 percent the same.    The only differences are specific markers for each species.   What I get from what Disotell said is that the DNA was so degraded he could not find such markers to say if it was human or something else.  He likely assumed unidentified DNA was degraded human.   He or Meldrum have to have the answers,   but knowing Meldrum from my interactions about infrasound,   something outside his area of expertise like infrasound or genetics for that matter, he would defer the question to someone else like Disotell whose specialty was genetics.      If Meldrum knows anything about this case he had to have learned it from Distotell.   Probably the only way to get anything from Disotell would be to find when he is speaking in public and pin him down with the question.    Meldrum knows me on a casual basis and will not answer my emails either.  The only way I can get to him is approach him at a conference.    He will talk to you there.  Find him yourself or ask someone attending to ask your questions.    It would be just like him to refer you to Disotell if you ask him the question.      

 

But say you do get Disotell to list off the missing markers.     What do you have then?    The only way he could trip up is if he mentions specific marker finds that humans do not have,   that our ancestors have.     The problem with that is we do not know what markers are common to BF and humans or not found in humans but are in BF.    Surely there are geneticists that can answer what markers define human.     Research should tell us that too.   Perhaps reading papers about the non human DNA finds like Denisoven and others discuss the differences.     Too bad we do not have DNA from gigantopithecus.  Find markers from that in Washington State and they would have some explaining to do.     The nest DNA at this point is missed opportunity and water under the bridge.    Hopefully the next such find will be handled differently.  

Edited February 10, 2020 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

Thank you, SWWASAS, great post and I concur with just about everything you said. Plus you clarified very eloquently your own understanding of the subject. I would like to comment on a couple of points if I may.

 

21 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

What I get from what Disotell said is that the DNA was so degraded he could not find such markers to say if it was human or something else.

 

Dr. Disotell was very clear that he found Human DNA in the samples but the DNA was too degraded to detect a novel primate.

 

24 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

But say you do get Disotell to list off the missing markers.     What do you have then?

 

How would Disotell know what the missing markers should be? And don't forget, markers aren't necessarily the same thing as loci which is where genes are.

 

27 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

The only way he could trip up is if he mentions specific marker finds that humans do not have,   that our ancestors have.

 

Our ancestors, as far as Homo goes, all have the NOTCH2NL genes. Great Apes do not. Those genes play a very important part in our brain size and in the advanced ways that our brains work and think. Apes don't have 'em. Result? Great Apes have smaller brains, don't have fire, and don't have the wheel- never did, and never will.

 

32 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

The problem with that is we do not know what markers are common to BF and humans or not found in humans but are in BF.

 

In a specific way, BF, like the Great Apes, should have the same missing NOTCH2NL genes. Because BF also has no fire, and no wheel. It tells me that BF DNA should present the same brain genetics as the Great Apes. In other words, BF's won't have our Human NOTCH2NL genes.

 

38 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Surely there are geneticists that can answer what markers define human.     Research should tell us that too

 

Indeed there are! I was speaking to one of them   But our dialogue didn't cover the genes I am speaking of because I asn't aware of them until after we spoke. I have since emailed to try and set up a good time to go through that subject.

 

41 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Perhaps reading papers about the non human DNA finds like Denisoven and others discuss the differences

 

With all due respect Denisovans WERE Humans as were Neanderthals, as was Homo Erectus and others. As such, they all have, or should have had our NOTCH2NL brain genes because they has fire and tools....and bipedalism. So far, the science shows that to be true.

 

44 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Find markers from that in Washington State and they would have some explaining to do.

 

LOL, indeed they would, my friend, indeed they would! I don't think, in light of what I've been studying, that we would be too far off the mark to say that, as far as their brains go, Gigantopithicus would be dissimilar to the Great Apes. IOW, genetically, if we had Giganto's DNA? It souldn't show our Human NOTCH2NL genes either, unless Giganto had fire and tools that we don't know about. As it stands science thinks the ape was just that, a species of Great Ape.

[SWWASAS]

When I say human I mean modern human rather than ancestral ones who are genetically different.     Humans have not had the wheel for most of their existence.      Most of the first known civilizations of modern humans were developed without the wheel.    NA did not have the wheel either.    Fire and cultural artifacts are more defining.   

 

 I have to say that a better understanding of DNA should be part of the search for BF.    We have to know when we are being fed a line excrement of by scientists with another agenda.    Be that Melba Ketchum on one side and Sykes on the other.  

[hiflier]

16 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

 Humans have not had the wheel for most of their existence.      Most of the first known civilizations of modern humans were developed without the wheel.    NA did not have the wheel either.    Fire and cultural artifacts are more defining

 

Points well taken.

 

17 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

 I have to say that a better understanding of DNA should be part of the search for BF

 

Absolutely agree. There are many who understand DNA. Today, in a general sense, I can now include myself in that.

 

19 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

We have to know when we are being fed a line excrement of by scientists with another agenda.    Be that Melba Ketchum on one side and Sykes on the other.

 

Neither one of whom are in the picture today and haven't been for several years. So. Who's left?

 

Ketchum got pulverized. Sykes initially said "Yeti" and was (if I may say as much) forced to admit bear or face Ketchum's punishment and be likewise professionally, and personally, ruined. He chose bear. The Indian Army "Yeti" prints? The jury is still out......

 

Krantz, Bindernagel, Moody, Fahrenbach, Heuvelmans, Ketchum, Sykes. Sykes played along, Meldrum is playing along, and Disotell plays along. Their careers and personal lives will survive. Ketchum didn't play along and NEVER played along. She's toast......anyone see a pattern here?

[NatFoot]

Yes. We see the pattern. That's why this conversation gets tiresome.

[hiflier]

2 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

Yes. We see the pattern. That's why this conversation gets tiresome

 

Look at it from my perspective. I'm out to break the pattern. How tiresome do you think that gets?

[NatFoot]

4 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Look at it from my perspective. I'm out to break the pattern. How tiresome do you think that gets?

 

I get it. I admire your tenacity. Doesn't mean that it doesn't get tiresome to read! 

[hiflier]

.

3 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

Doesn't mean that it doesn't get tiresome to read! 

 

LOL, yeah, the DNA stuff and my talking about it gets boring, NF, I really do get that. The only way I get through it myself is to keep focusing on the chance for real discovery that such a strong scientific methodology could bring to the table. VERY exciting to think about. And, it might only be a beaker or two away  

[Huntster]

6 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

.......If BF is as close or closer to us as chimpanzees,   then the DNA is 99 percent the same.    The only differences are specific markers for each species.......

 

But chimpanzees aren't of the genus Homo. They are Pan, yet still 98% or 99% identical to homo sapiens.

 

So, then, what about other homo species like Neanderthal or Denisova? Are they 99.8% identical to homo sapien? 99.95% Just how is Neanderthal or Denisovan dna different than ours?

 

It could be similar for sasquatches. The difference is so slight that any degradation at all makes their dna indistinguishable from ours.

[Twist]

7 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

I will take the high road here. I would like to know how Dr. Disotell knows what novel primate DNA would even look like? What is it that he would specifically look for in order to make his novel primate determination? I would like to be informed of that little detail, wouldn't you? This is where I get a wee bit testy, because people don't fill in those blanks. And people don't think to ask D. Disotell especially about it.

 

I would but, historically, he doesn't answer my emails. Someone who knows Disotell personally could? Or someone who knows Dr. Meldrum (he doesn't answer my emails either) personally could have him ask Dr. Disotell?

 

Knowing you, I'll answer for you, :"That would be useless." There, that should make you happy. It plays right into your negative wheelhouse

Most  likely your novice understanding and knowledge of DNA, Genetics, or whatever does not warrant Disotell or Meldrum responding to your questions.   Neither owe any explanation or reasoning to us laymen.   It’s not a knock on you personally, if I personally read on the subject for sometime I wouldn’t expect to put a tenured or veteran scientist on the hot seat about BF DNA. 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Twist

[hiflier]

8 hours ago, hiflier said:

"That would be useless." There, that should make you happy. It plays right into your negative wheelhouse

 

Should have saved that for you

 

Look, I don't have to know everything there is to know about, or understand, everything when it comes to DNA. I targeted my research to finding out what makes us different than Chimps and Gorillas. During the latter part of that research, I found the two recent papers that talked about brain size and function between Great Apes and Humans. It's a topic that has been discussed at length here on the BFF so I thought bringing what those papers had to say here would be a good thing. In studying those papers they shed light on the evolutionary aspects of what makes us US and what makes the Great Apes THEM. The papers were fascinating reads in that they spoke to the genetic brain differences between us and apes as well as when it all happened and how.

 

So. All I needed to know was the fact that Humans and apes have different brain genes, and e-DNA can target those genes. I learned we don't need a whole genome to do that and we definitely don't need a Sasquatch genome. Why? Because we are the ONLY primate that's supposed to be on the North American continent. So all we should find in a targeted search is only our own Human brain genes. If there is supposed Human contamination in a sample and our brain genes aren't in it? Guess what? NEW PRIMATE.

 

It's really wasn't that hard to figure that out once I got deeper into the DNA world of Humans, Great Apes, and what separates us. And that's it in a nutshell. I'm not special, folks, anyone could have done this who wanted to. It's just that I did want to, and thought everyone would like the knowledge for themselves so I passed it on as best I could.

Edited February 11, 2020 by hiflier