Why can't we find and study Bigfoot?

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, hiflier said:

........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..........

 

Again, I believe there is more to it.

 

To make it more simple, its behavior (use of fire or tools) is meaningless in terms of identifying it as a species if it can successfully mate with us, even if the offspring is sterile, and there is testimony that they can. The evidence is that Neanderthals and Denisovan did mate with us, and that the offspring were not sterile. Zana mated with homo sapiens, and her offspring were not sterile. Moreover, her offsprings dna had unusual African markers, according to Sykes. Those markers should be key, or at least A key. If those markers are found anywhere outside of Africa or the Caucasus, bingo. If they are found in the New World, and in a nest in the PNW rainforest, BINGO. If those markers are anywhere in the Ketchum effort, Checkmate.

[zeebob889]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Again, I believe there is more to it.

 

To make it more simple, its behavior (use of fire or tools) is meaningless in terms of identifying it as a species if it can successfully mate with us, even if the offspring is sterile, and there is testimony that they can. The evidence is that Neanderthals and Denisovan did mate with us, and that the offspring were not sterile. Zana mated with homo sapiens, and her offspring were not sterile. Moreover, her offsprings dna had unusual African markers, according to Sykes. Those markers should be key, or at least A key. If those markers are found anywhere outside of Africa or the Caucasus, bingo. If they are found in the New World, and in a nest in the PNW rainforest, BINGO. If those markers are anywhere in the Ketchum effort, Checkmate.

 

Sorry, but the Ketchum nonsense is just that.

[Huntster]

38 minutes ago, zeebob889 said:

 

Sorry, but the Ketchum nonsense is just that.

 

Not if any of the markers match the Sykes Zana markers. It might continue to be rejected by scientific pinheads for poor procedure, poor protocol, her association with other people, her Texas accent, whatever, but those markers are evidence.......if they are there.

[zeebob889]

3 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Not if any of the markers match the Sykes Zana markers. It might continue to be rejected by scientific pinheads for poor procedure, poor protocol, her association with other people, her Texas accent, whatever, but those markers are evidence.......if they are there.

 

IF...................

[Huntster]

17 minutes ago, zeebob889 said:

IF...................

 

Yup. And so far, my questions haven't been answered:

1) Ketchum described a hybrid with a novel ape species, Sykes described a sub-Saharan African "fully human" (not "homo sapien") marker in the dna of Zana's grand daughter not known before. Both unknown. But are they the same markers?

2) Have Sykes and Ketchum compared their dna results?

3) If not, why not? What could it hurt?

 

Until somebody says they have been compared and ruled different by a qualified geneticist, I feel justified in asking that it be done, and I think my reasoning is valid.

[SWWASAS]

32 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Yup. And so far, my questions haven't been answered:

1) Ketchum described a hybrid with a novel ape species, Sykes described a sub-Saharan African "fully human" (not "homo sapien") marker in the dna of Zana's grand daughter not known before. Both unknown. But are they the same markers?

2) Have Sykes and Ketchum compared their dna results?

3) If not, why not? What could it hurt?

 

Until somebody says they have been compared and ruled different by a qualified geneticist, I feel justified in asking that it be done, and I think my reasoning is valid.

The Ketchum fiasco demonstrates a scientific turf battle better than most things.    While she dealt with DNA for horse ancestry etc,  she was not a geneticist.   But stepping into that and being interested in bigfoot,  she became a great big target for the geneticists who felt like she was infringing on their turf.    She was sloppy according to them,  and made too many claims with little or no scientific basis, and had shady sources of DNA material.    .   That is probably accurate.    But in science someone can be right for the wrong reasons.     The only way Sykes would deal with her is to cut her off at the knees to teach her a lesson.      PHDs do this sort of stuff with each other and their own graduate students on a daily basis.   Scientists often are not satisfied to just discredit each other,  they like to destroy their intellectual opponents.     Even if she was correct in some aspects,   I doubt that Sykes would admit it.    

 

I have markers on both sides of my family indicating a presence in sub-Saharan Africa about 20,000 years difference in times.    65,000 and 85,000 years ago respectively.  As I understand it,  Zana had such ancient markers but no more modern markers along with it as I do.   Her people must have led an isolated existence with little cross breeding with other humans,   where as my people kept on moving and moved into Asia with me picking up makers on the way.        In a way,  bigfoot is similar.    They made the Bering migration during the last ice age or the previous one.   If it was the previous one, they had 100,000 years of genetic isolation in North America before the NA arrived during the last one.    Even after that happened, they chose to avoid contact and either avoided or minimized sexual contact with humans.    Otherwise we could not tell the difference between them.    I am inclined to believe that they had the 100,000 years of genetic isolation to develop their size and appearance differences with respect to humans.       We will only know that when we sequence their DNA.  

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

........The only way Sykes would deal with her is to cut her off at the knees to teach her a lesson.      PHDs do this sort of stuff with each other and their own graduate students on a daily basis......

 

Yes, I understand, and that's fine. I just repeat my questions at opportune moments, let others read exchanges like this, and let them wonder. It's lawyeresque at it's foundation; instilling doubt or wonder. Essentially, if they can't (or won't) answer, the question has merit.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

If it was the previous one, they had 100,000 years of genetic isolation in North America before the NA arrived during the last one.    Even after that happened, they chose to avoid contact and either avoided or minimized sexual contact with humans.    Otherwise we could not tell the difference between them.

 

When looking to e-DNA to detect a wide variety of different organisms in a given area scientists look for the markers they call "COI". It gets involved to explain why that one so I won't go into it. Suffice it to say that the marker distinguishes nearly all species from each other including Humans. That makes it the perfect target to look at when wanting to know everything (metabarcoding) that lives in or has visited an area within a reasonable time frame.

 

Since the nesting area DNA samples detected so many different animals and birds, I'm assuming Dr. Disotell was looking at the "COI" regions of of the samples. But there is a little bit of an issue IF that was what he was looking for. "COI" markers in chromosomes are mitochondrial for the most part. Not only that, "COI", while good for most species identification, struggles to differentiate between species that are closer to each other than 2%. It means that "COI" it might not be a good candidate marker for say, telling the difference between Humans and Chimps which are 1.9% different. Ir would work better for Humans and Gorillas which are genetically different by 3.9%.

 

I REALLY doubt that if Sasquatch is closer to us than a Chimp that the "COI" markers would be able to tell the difference between us than them. That's why a very narrow target gene like the NOTCH2NL MUST be used, and that scientists search for that instead of just blanketing an area using the less, precise

 "COI" markers . 

[MIB]

I would do both .. use the coarse test to scrap everything not within 3%-5% of human.   There should be nothing native to North America that close.   I'm not sure where Central American primates would fall in that test, but they should not be in the US or Canada.   Use the finer test to look at what's left in a much more detailed way.

 

MIB   

[hiflier]

Excellent thinking MIB! What you say would very quickly rule out any DNA that could be mistaken for Human. Doing that would out the contamination on other species and not Humans. Let's just say that the target is the NOTCH2NL genes of Humans. Any new world monkeys will be easily ruled out (just to cover your comment about them. The reason is that monkeys neither have the two NOTCH2 genes of Chimpanzees OR Gorillas, and also do not have the four NOTCH2NL's of Humans.

 

NOTCH2NL's are ONLY in the Homo branch, and NOTCH2's are ONLY in the Chimp and Gorilla branches. Brain-wise, I'm convinced Sasquatch would have the NOTCH2 genes of Chimps and Gorillas even though physically it is closer to u than those two Great Apes. What that says is what some people have been saying all along: Sasquatch is not a hybrid, it is its own branch, and as I have recently theorized, it is the last branch to split off- just before the Homo branch FIXED the NOTCH2 genetic issue. Result? Sasquatch still has the ape brain because it left before the NOTCH2 gene got repaired.

 

I know the brain-gene repair thing may not seem like it should be a big issue, but it really is a VERY big issue. Science needs to look for those two NOTCH2 Great Ape genes in North America. End of story. If the genes show up, it won't be from monkeys OR Humans. They can only come from a Great Ape. And since we don't have Chimpanzees or Gorillas in the wilds of North America, it can mean one thing, and one thing only.........

[SWWASAS]

I wonder how much it would cost to develop a DNA test kit.      China rapidly developed a DNA test kit for the corona virus.       I has to have a genetic testing aspect to differentiate between that unique virus and the ordinary flu.    They swab the mouth and the kit looks for some marker that only corona has.     So develop a similar kit that looks for two NOTCH2 markers.      If those markers are found in North America and chimpanzees and gorilla presence can be ruled out, then you have a smoking gun pointed at BF.    There are reported to be escaped chimps in Florida so that could be an issue with testing there.  You could back door the project and claim that you need to develop a kit to help you find gorilla habitat in Africa.   Hell you might be able to get private charitable funding to help do that.   Share the kits with those looking to help gorillas.  

 

https://vietnaminsider.vn/vietnams-scientists-successfully-develops-quick-coronavirus-test-kit/     This testing kit developed in VIetnam costs $15 a test.    That is cheap enough for a BF researcher to test very often and not be that concerned about cost.  

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

SWWASAS, That is exactly what I've been saying. EXACTLY! The good news is there are already kits used in Africa to look for Great Ape presence. They are used to monitor the apes outside of the protected preserves. But using such a kit anywhere in North American will take some pretty convincing dialogue to get a scientist involved. That is the dialogue that I've been carefully preparing for my next meeting with the PhD.

 

It's the same dialogue that I've been saying and that you are now saying: It's about  that test kit for the NOTCH2 ape genes. One good, and one defective. It's also why I mentioned that since we have the Human genome, we can check Human contamination to see if OUT NOTCH2NL variations are present. If they aren't in the sample, then we have our Hairy Friend. I had thought of, and so hear your point, regarding Florida, though.

 

So, there are Ape kits, but what would be the chances anyone would use them here? As far as cost for development? There cost would be ZERO if we could get academia involved. Besides, no one has to really reinvent the wheel here because primate e- DNA detection kits and methods are being tried out in zoos all the time. The difficulty is putting it all together in a way that someone will agree take kits into North American habitats. It's why I say academia is already in the habitats taking samples, so tagging an ape gene protocol along with other types of sampling would be the easiest way to get the sampling done.

 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189657

 

"Funding: Long-term support for the Ugalla Primate Project is provided to AKP and FAS by the University of California, San Diego/Salk Institute Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny (CARTA; https://carta.anthropogeny.org)."

Edited February 12, 2020 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

SWWASAS, That is exactly what I've been saying. EXACTLY! The good news is there are already kits used in Africa to look for Great Ape presence. They are used to monitor the apes outside of the protected preserves. But using such a kit anywhere in North American will take some pretty convincing dialogue to get a scientist involved. That is the dialogue that I've been carefully preparing for my next meeting with the PhD.

 

It's the same dialogue that I've been saying and that you are now saying: It's about  that test kit for the NOTCH2 ape genes. One good, and one defective. It's also why I mentioned that since we have the Human genome, we can check Human contamination to see if OUT NOTCH2NL variations are present. If they aren't in the sample, then we have our Hairy Friend. I had thought of, and so hear your point, regarding Florida, though.

 

So, there are Ape kits, but what would be the chances anyone would use them here? As far as cost for development? There cost would be ZERO if we could get academia involved. Besides, no one has to really reinvent the wheel here because primate e- DNA detection kits and methods are being tried out in zoos all the time. The difficulty is putting it all together in a way that someone will agree take kits into North American habitats. It's why I say academia is already in the habitats taking samples, so tagging an ape gene protocol along with other types of sampling would be the easiest way to get the sampling done.

 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189657

 

"Funding: Long-term support for the Ugalla Primate Project is provided to AKP and FAS by the University of California, San Diego/Salk Institute Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny (CARTA; https://carta.anthropogeny.org)."

Things are even better than you know.    I have observed a stick stuck in a crevice in a rotting log. I used to have a picture of it.    Apparently BF in my research area were using the stick as tool to get termites.    If so they were licking the end of the stick and would be leaving DNA just like the chimpanzees in the study.    Nothing I am aware of other than racoons are likely to use a stick as a termite tool.    Takes a hand to manipulate a stick as a tool.    I noticed it because I left it in the log and when I returned to the area it had been moved but not removed from the log.    Apparently the BF just left it there so it did not have to look for another when it wanted a termite snack.   Here is the stick still in the rotting log.    There is your DNA!    If BF were doing it there they likely are other places.     Something that has been licked jump way up as a possible source of DNA.    If there are kits they can be purchased.   

Edited February 12, 2020 by SWWASAS

[SWWASAS]

Reading the paper these people who did the termite tool study were from UK.   Perhaps they could be contacted and would be willing to assist with a similar study here.     What a feather in your cap to be a UK scientist who finds BF?   The paper explains how by licking the stick the chimanzees are taking skin cell swabs from their mouth just like human DNA swabbing does.    A week ago I could not tell you where to look for BF DNA.     Today I know!   

 

This log was the very log that I found the depression in the vegetation next to when I got zapped with infrasound.       Perhaps I disturbed a BF having its afternoon termite snack.    It is about 3.5 feet in diameter.   

Edited February 12, 2020 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

Give his some thought: Maybe just think about some kind of hypothetical follow up on what you read in the paper. Maybe  couple it to what you found in your research area and then present the paper and you own findings as a concept to either the UK, or a US, primatology group. OOOOORRRRR, present it to both and see if they will end up competing against each other in a race to be first to publish  Personally I appreciate very much where you have taken this e-DNA approach. It's new territory and maybe something amazing could happen. I'd run wit it if I were you. It also gives other BF researchers something that could be extremely important to watch for in the field.

 

Like you said:

 

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

Things are even better than you know.

 

Looks like you could be correct in that  Thank you. Question for you, the stick notwithstanding, would those four gouge marks at the left of the hole bear claw marks?

Edited February 12, 2020 by hiflier