Arvedis Posted December 8, 2020 Posted December 8, 2020 2 hours ago, SWWASAS said: Stroud showed them to Meldrum and Bindernagel without identifying them as fakes until Meldum noticed that the prints were mirror image of each other. Meldrum was visibly angry. I would put Stroud on my list of people not to trust if I were Meldrum.. Stroud could use a lot of help if he is serious but at this point I would not want to have anything to do with him because of his association with Standing. The company you keep can sure soil your reputation. Meldrum doesn't like it when his time is wasted. I've seen interviews with him trying to be cordial but he runs out of patience. Mentioned this in the survivorman thread as well but at that time Todd had reliable area of activity. Meldrum doesn't want to beat a path through the forest. He would want to just go to a location, collect evidence and go home. The Finding Bigfoot crew even brought Standing onto the show to try and convince him to share the spot. Same reason of obtaining easy evidence. Not surprising that Stroud would link up with Standing as well.
wiiawiwb Posted December 8, 2020 Posted December 8, 2020 I think Stroud has earned his stripes when it comes to outdoor adventures. I can understand that someone, confident in their ability, would be willing to take a chance with Standing. In the 2-hour special, which just aired a few days ago here and I recorded, Stroud is pretty clear about his position. He'll give Standing a wide berth but will make his judgment based on his own sense of propriety.
Arvedis Posted December 9, 2020 Posted December 9, 2020 8 hours ago, norseman said: I watched it. And that is how I KNOW he has taught Bigfooters proper specimen collection as well as completely novel ways to collect DNA. Fast forward through the drama..... Or don’t. I don't doubt Dr. Todd contributed to that show and I have heard him on a few podcasts. Even in quarantine I would not be able to stand watching 10 million bounty. Though I am curious now how much Stacy Brown Jr. actually came away with since he won. My only point was that it seemed a good point for Cliff to get into that discussion a bit more. He usually steers the conversation away from DNA talk because he is out of his expertise (his explanation).
ShadowBorn Posted December 9, 2020 Moderator Posted December 9, 2020 1 hour ago, Arvedis said: My only point was that it seemed a good point for Cliff to get into that discussion a bit more. He usually steers the conversation away from DNA talk because he is out of his expertise (his explanation). I believe that allot of us DNA is a little bit out of our expertise. I find myself at a constant google search looking over meanings on DNA. I mean you have mdna, rdna, cell breakdown. Ndna. This just goes on and on. Then now we have Edna and this just throws every thing else through another loop. So now if we find a fresh print we might be able to get DNA of that print. Not just that we might be able to pick up DNA right from a creek bed. But all we need is the proper filters with the proper pump and wam bam and there we go. We have have what ever drank from that creek. So if we cannot find this creature now. That means that we are not looking hard enough. I truly believe that Les is doing a good job looking for this creature. He is not letting others influence his mind and he is keeping that skeptical mind set. Bot everything is Bigfoot. It is good to test people since that is what the book says to do. I have also said before that I had made a term paper once using Dr. Meldrum work on the mid tarsal break. I have never met Dr. Meldrum so I can not pass judgement on him. But I believe in his work on what I have found in the field. As far as Cliff goes I have met him here in Michigan. From what I know from him is that he either has the most amount of track castings then Dr. Meldrum or Dr. Meldrum suppresses him. As finding these creatures and studying them. Well, We all know the answer to this and that is that they are not easy. If they were easy then there would not be a forum discussing about this creature. Also I am not sure about Todd Standing, maybe he did fake to gain notoriety. But ended up finding a hot spot or they found him.
norseman Posted December 9, 2020 Admin Posted December 9, 2020 3 hours ago, Arvedis said: I don't doubt Dr. Todd contributed to that show and I have heard him on a few podcasts. Even in quarantine I would not be able to stand watching 10 million bounty. Though I am curious now how much Stacy Brown Jr. actually came away with since he won. My only point was that it seemed a good point for Cliff to get into that discussion a bit more. He usually steers the conversation away from DNA talk because he is out of his expertise (his explanation). Well.... if you had watched it? You would know. Cliff? Should be an expert on collecting DNA. Wood knocks and dental resin are not going to get it done. 1
hiflier Posted December 9, 2020 Posted December 9, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, ShadowBorn said: I believe that allot of us DNA is a little bit out of our expertise. I find myself at a constant google search looking over meanings on DNA. I mean you have mdna, rdna, cell breakdown. Ndna. This just goes on and on. Then now we have Edna and this just throws every thing else through another loop. So now if we find a fresh print we might be able to get DNA of that print. Not just that we might be able to pick up DNA right from a creek bed. But all we need is the proper filters with the proper pump and wam bam and there we go. We have have what ever drank from that creek. So if we cannot find this creature now. That means that we are not looking hard enough. You HAVE done your homework, ShadowBorn Let's see if I can help simplify things a bit for you if I can. An individual cell is full of DNA. Within that cell are generally two things: The cytoplasm that makes up most of the material within the cell is where the mtDNA is in abundance. mtDNA is usually what most look at since it's easier because there is so much of it. It also is what people study in order to find the maternal evolutionary line of generations. The nucleus (center) of the cell is much smaller and that's where the chromosomes are, which contain all of the genes are. Those genes contain the nuDNA which will show not only the maternal line but the paternal line as well. So, the nuclear DNA is inside the nucleus and the mitochondrial DNA is everywhere else outside the nucleus. And no we come to RNA. It is the RNA that translates the information from DNA and selects which information gets to go on to make the proteins that will create an organism with it's various characteristics. The physical characteristics are called phenotypes. A phenotype can either be the whole organism, or it's individual parts. Fo instance a tall Human is a phenotype. The black hair of that Human is also a phenotype. So, basically, RNA is the organic chemical responsible for choosing which DNA segment to use in order to create the protein for a particular physical outcome (phenotype). And e-DNA simply refers to DNA, either from a fragment or a whole cell, that is present in the environment that an organism left somewhere in the environment. Whole cells and their nuclei don't last long before degrading which is why it's so difficult to find genes. That's why sources fresh like blood, tissue, or feces is so important. Most of the DNA collected from the wild is fragmented, whether it's from the nucleus or not. I hope this helps. Edited December 9, 2020 by hiflier
Arvedis Posted December 10, 2020 Posted December 10, 2020 (edited) Worth pointing out, that Erickson's first hire was an ecologist (I think she may have been an ivy college student at the time). One of the reasons was so the evidence gathering project had someone with scientific footing. Can't recall her name but it was that individual who got Dr. Todd involved. After they collected evidence the project tried to find a lab to test the samples and Disotell was the only taker. Edited December 10, 2020 by Arvedis
hiflier Posted December 10, 2020 Posted December 10, 2020 45 minutes ago, Arvedis said: After they collected evidence the project tried to find a lab to test the samples and Disotell was the only taker. TBH, that doesn't make much sense when Erickson had enough money to hire any reputable lab that he wanted. He could have submitted the samples either for a blind test or a can-you-tell-me-what-this-is-from test. What would the point of having a "credible" scientist, even as a student, if that credibility wouldn't open a lab door other than Disotell's? ANY lab would have run his samples for the right price because no one, no matter who they are, is going to run tests for free- even Dr. Disotell. I'm beginning to think that if one wishes to have a suspected BF sample tested, then it might be best to not send it to a known "BF lab".
Arvedis Posted December 10, 2020 Posted December 10, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, hiflier said: TBH, that doesn't make much sense when Erickson had enough money to hire any reputable lab that he wanted. He could have submitted the samples either for a blind test or a can-you-tell-me-what-this-is-from test. What would the point of having a "credible" scientist, even as a student, if that credibility wouldn't open a lab door other than Disotell's? ANY lab would have run his samples for the right price because no one, no matter who they are, is going to run tests for free- even Dr. Disotell. I'm beginning to think that if one wishes to have a suspected BF sample tested, then it might be best to not send it to a known "BF lab". I don't have the source. It was one of the documentaries where Erickson was interviewed directly. Came from him. When his field team collected samples (supposedly good ones from BF licking plates), Erickson is on record saying they could not find a lab willing to take it. No one wanted part of BF testing except Dr. Todd. Money was not the issue apparently or maybe the labs upped their price. I don't have the blow by blow on the decision making but it's all out there in various podcasts and documentaries. Edited December 10, 2020 by Arvedis 1
gigantor Posted December 11, 2020 Admin Posted December 11, 2020 On 1/11/2020 at 1:05 PM, georgerm said: The question is simple, “Why have we not been able to find Bigfoot, film, and study this creature in its natural habitat?” Are you out looking? I think part of the problem is there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians! 1 1
BlackRockBigfoot Posted December 11, 2020 Posted December 11, 2020 1 hour ago, gigantor said: Are you out looking? I think part of the problem is there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians! This. So, so much this. The amount of people who have literally zero skin in the game; yet want to offer unsolicited, condescending, idiotic 'advice' is staggering. Or, if they do get out into the field...they stagger around the woods for an hour, bashing on trees and howling at the top of their lungs...all the while leaving their litter like a trail of breadcrumbs. I don't mean to imply that people who are not in the field a lot don't contribute to the investigation of the phenomenon. There are people who rarely or never set foot in the woods who have contributed far more than I ever will through their compilation and examination of actual data...not regurgitating b.s. that they read on Facebook or saw on a YouTube creepypasta video. I am in several Bigfoot Facebook groups, because sometimes they can be a decent source of regional witness accounts. I swiftly learned not to openly discuss anything that we have actually done in the field...after I rage-quit several groups. Too many chiefs indeed... chiefs who are undisputed experts on the phenomenon because they own all of the seasons of Finding Bigfoot on blu-ray and have an extensive collection of Bigfoot themed pot holders. Stop watching YouTube. Get out and get muddy. That's how we'll solve this riddle. That's why I am thankful that I stumbled across these forums. I have been able to discuss the topic and compare notes with people like the Lane County folks, MIB, Natfoot, kiwakee, Skinwalker, and others. No one has all of the answers...but, being able to connect with other people who put actual time, energy, and effort into getting out and looking is invaluable. Sorry for the rant. I have had to spend a bit of time on Facebook lately out of necessity, communicating with some folks on there. The 'too many chiefs' comment is particularly ringing true with me right now. Ok. Rant off. Happy holidays, everyone. 1
Believer57 Posted December 11, 2020 Posted December 11, 2020 1 hour ago, gigantor said: I think part of the problem is there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians! Since I am a newbie on BFF, it would not allow me to simply give a thumbs up to your post so I decided to post it instead. Cheers! 1
BlackRockBigfoot Posted December 11, 2020 Posted December 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Believer57 said: Since I am a newbie on BFF, it would not allow me to simply give a thumbs up to your post so I decided to post it instead. Cheers! I got you, man. I tossed him a trophy.
Believer57 Posted December 11, 2020 Posted December 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said: Too many chiefs indeed... chiefs who are undisputed experts on the phenomenon because they own all of the seasons of Finding Bigfoot on blu-ray Thank you for the toss and for making me laugh my @ss off! 1
Arvedis Posted December 11, 2020 Posted December 11, 2020 (edited) It's not just FB. There are too many podcasts of nothingness. People promote their stuff and ideas constantlly on all social media and that adds up to wasted time. Occasionally, there are good podcasts but in all cases, you have to scan your feeds fast to get the most value of your time with it. Make quick decisions what is worth looking at. Edited December 11, 2020 by Arvedis
Recommended Posts