Nothing On The Internet About Bigfoot Environmental DNA

[hiflier]

Been watching the internet closely for a couple years now and using all manner of search terms I can think of to see if there is anything anywhere about using environmental DNA in the hunt for the Bigfoot. ZERO. I have researched nearly ALL of the field researchers we know and have heard of along with their websites. I've kept an eye on Dr. Meldrum, Dr. Disotell, and, more recently the primatologist, Dr. Mayor (I've sent out emails to all of those three). On the web, there is only ever the same webpages that come up no matter what I type in the internet search box. They crop up in different order but essentially they are all the same. Old articles about the OP Nest discovery, the old Indiegogo site for funding the testing of the nest samples, same old Dr.Ketchum stuff with the usual healthy amount of disparaging disregards. Same old FBI hair sample files from 40 years ago, Meldrum's talks, etc., etc..

 

Type in these terms "science", "Sasquatch" or "Bigfoot", and "environmental DNA" in any configuration, word substitution, transposition, context, or manifestation and the same webpages show up. Again, sometimes just jumbled in different order, but the search results never vary. Type in something like the test results from the OP Nest samples and nothing comes up but the same webpages and websites offered by the original environmental DNA search terms. Laura Krantz's "Wild Thing" comes up often. Currently it's the only place where Dr. Disotell gives the results of the DNA testing, but if one didn't know that, the news would stay buried away from the public- which it is. Dr. Meldrum's statement about the results of the testing appeared on a podcast but the podcast doesn't exist on the internet.

 

As far as I can tell, there is nothing outside this Forum that ever brings the subject of Sasquatch and environmental DNA together. Bigfoot websites, Bigfoot researchers, Bigfoot books? nope, not a peep. It makes me think hard and often about how and why this situation exists. Sad to say the same situation exists here as well. Why is that? Give this some serious thought, please, because some quick off-handed opinion or dismissal of this entire OP isn't going to fairly address the issue.     

Edited May 8, 2020 by hiflier

[Twist]

No offense but unless I’m mistaken your self taught on the subject.  Is it perhaps because it doesn’t work exactly like you think and the scientist know this.   Just a question, not an attack.   

[hiflier]

How is anyone to know, though, Twist? But the OP isn't so much about that as it is the complete lack of anything that comes even close to touching in the subject that even says the technology, as you say, will NOT work. That's what I find difficult to fathom. We hear NOTHING from the principle people that we know that have had any involvement in the subject either, like Meldrum, Disotell, or Mayor. None of them has said one word about it even though they ALL were involved in using environmental DNA in their exploits. We only hear that they did it. Nothing about whether or not it would be an adequate method for BF discovery. Are we to assume then that they all thought to BE a good method on the basis that they deployed it? I think so.

 

And yes, I am self taught and have learned a LOT about the technology, and everything says environmental DNA will work. How it gets applied is the real issue. In either case, there is NO information on the internet coming from those three scientists or anyone else. It raises a big flag for me because the Bigfoot subject is so huge, and yet there is no science anywhere to be found outside of here that even mentions Sasquatch and environmental DNA in the same article. I mean, really, across the entire internet? Millions of scientists? Vertebrate biologists? F&W biologists? No one? What I'm saying is that if there ARE investigations going on they are nowhere on the web. Not even a mention from anyone in any article that MAYBE e-DNA could answer the question of BF existence once and for all and suggest a study be done. It's nowhere to be found. It's almost as if no one has ever thought of it which I truly doubt is the case.

 

Just curious, what is you position on Sasquatch and e-DNA? Do you think it would work? I have posted a lot of science and links on the subject and explained a lot in layman's terms for clarity and so would like to know. I would also like to know why I seem to be the only one who ever opens a dialogue about the subject.

Edited May 8, 2020 by hiflier

[Arvedis]

It is probably discussed elsewhere on the forum but a definition of what environmental dna is would be a start. Make it 1 sentence, 2 max. Then state what the problem is you are trying to solve in 1-2 sentences. If it sounds like a school project, it is. If you want scientific details then you need to frame the topic.

 

Also, as we are all aware, Bigfoot research is very sparse so unlikely anyone will run with an idea unless it has benefit to their career or wallet.

 

From your definitions, come up with synonyms and plug them into scientific databases, scholarly databases online. You might get hits on other animals, but don't expect Bigfoot. Build your case that way so it can be understood by scientific audiences.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Arvedis

[Twist]

I do not know enough to about EDNA.  From what little I do know,  without BF DNA to compare to, if it is found it may just be white noise or considered human/contaminated.  

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Arvedis said:

It is probably discussed elsewhere on the forum but a definition of what environmental dna is would be a start. Make it 1 sentence, 2 max. Then state what the problem is you are trying to solve in 1-2 sentences. If it sounds like a school project, it is. If you want scientific details then you need to frame the topic.

 

Also, as we are all aware, Bigfoot research is very sparse so unlikely anyone will run with an idea unless it has benefit to their career or wallet.

 

From your definitions, come up with synonyms and plug them into scientific databases, scholarly databases online. You might get hits on other animals, but don't expect Bigfoot. Build your case that way so it can be understood by scientific audiences.

 

Yes, it is discussed elsewhere on the Forum. And pretty easy to find, too. Why is it always suggested that I do the work. After all that I've done and explained it's like I'm dealing with people that have built-in forgetters. I've laid out the whole thing already numerous times: The science, the method for applying it, what to look for and why. But hey, I'm can be patient. So here goes. Sorry, Twist, this time I was asked  

 

1) Environmental DNA: Fragments or whole sequences of DNA in the environment (shed by all organisms) that is extracted from water or soil (or air), with the aim of detecting the presence or passage of those organisms native or non-native to the area being surveyed.

 

2) The goal: To look for any primate DNA, other than Human, in either the rural or remote environments of North American.

 

It's that simple

 

Next question?

 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by hiflier

[hiflier]

52 minutes ago, Twist said:

I do not know enough to about EDNA.  From what little I do know,  without BF DNA to compare to, if it is found it may just be white noise or considered human/contaminated.  

 

If you read and understood all of the things that I have written in past threads then you know more about e-DNA than most. You would also know that a good scientist wouldn't need Sasquatch DNA to find Sasquatch.

[Arvedis]

40 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Yes, it is discussed elsewhere on the Forum. And pretty easy to find, too. Why is it always suggested that I do the work. After all that I've done and explained it's like I'm dealing with people that have built-in forgetters. I've laid out the whole thing already numerous times: The science, the method for applying it, what to look for and why. But hey, I'm can be patient. So here goes. Sorry, Twist, this time I was asked  

 

1) Environmental DNA: Fragments or whole sequences of DNA in the environment (shed by all organisms) that is extracted from water or soil (or air), with the aim of detecting the presence or passage of those organisms native or non-native to the area being surveyed.

 

2) The goal: To look for any primate DNA, other than Human, in either the rural or remote environments of North American.

 

It's that simple

 

Next question?

 

Shrinking down your queries is for your benefit, not the forum. You mentioned no one has replied or shown interest. Most people don't care about a topic unless it is clear within the first sentence what being asked for. That's true for everything but especially fringe topics.

[hiflier]

Just now, Arvedis said:

 

Shrinking down your queries is for your benefit, not the forum. You mentioned no one has replied or shown interest. Most people don't care about a topic unless it is clear within the first sentence what being asked for. That's true for everything but especially fringe topics.

 

I didn't say no one has replied. I said Meldrum, Disotell, and Mayor hadn't replied. And they would've have understood very well what I was getting at. Clarity here on the Forum happened a long while ago when the e-DNA topic was in full swing. But this isn't really about DNA. It's about the lack of Information on the internet and that fact that what is out there is old stuff. This month marks five years since the OP nesting site was discovered. e-DNA was done there. The result was never made public even thought the initial discovery was announced on some mainstream news sites. Still no one I've spoken to in either academia or F&W had ever heard about the discovery. Why not? We knew about it. But the discovery for some reason, as amazing as it was, didn't seem like it was ever passed around to the people that should have been made aware of it.

 

The OP in this thread is for addressing the lack of information on the web about the process for using e-DNA to find evidence of a North American primate other than Human. Not about the e-DNA process itself. Why don't you see what you can find? It sounds like you may have better ideas and methods for doing web searches.  

[Huntster]

I'm halfway through "The Nature of the Beast". Bryan Sykes does an excellent job of describing DNA testing in language a layman can understand. He does not discuss environmental DNA, but from the rest of his discussion that is likely because it would be impossible to defend during peer review.

[norseman]

12 hours ago, hiflier said:

Been watching the internet closely for a couple years now and using all manner of search terms I can think of to see if there is anything anywhere about using environmental DNA in the hunt for the Bigfoot. ZERO. I have researched nearly ALL of the field researchers we know and have heard of along with their websites. I've kept an eye on Dr. Meldrum, Dr. Disotell, and, more recently the primatologist, Dr. Mayor (I've sent out emails to all of those three). On the web, there is only ever the same webpages that come up no matter what I type in the internet search box. They crop up in different order but essentially they are all the same. Old articles about the OP Nest discovery, the old Indiegogo site for funding the testing of the nest samples, same old Dr.Ketchum stuff with the usual healthy amount of disparaging disregards. Same old FBI hair sample files from 40 years ago, Meldrum's talks, etc., etc..

 

Type in these terms "science", "Sasquatch" or "Bigfoot", and "environmental DNA" in any configuration, word substitution, transposition, context, or manifestation and the same webpages show up. Again, sometimes just jumbled in different order, but the search results never vary. Type in something like the test results from the OP Nest samples and nothing comes up but the same webpages and websites offered by the original environmental DNA search terms. Laura Krantz's "Wild Thing" comes up often. Currently it's the only place where Dr. Disotell gives the results of the DNA testing, but if one didn't know that, the news would stay buried away from the public- which it is. Dr. Meldrum's statement about the results of the testing appeared on a podcast but the podcast doesn't exist on the internet.

 

As far as I can tell, there is nothing outside this Forum that ever brings the subject of Sasquatch and environmental DNA together. Bigfoot websites, Bigfoot researchers, Bigfoot books? nope, not a peep. It makes me think hard and often about how and why this situation exists. Sad to say the same situation exists here as well. Why is that? Give this some serious thought, please, because some quick off-handed opinion or dismissal of this entire OP isn't going to fairly address the issue.     

You have tons of researchers within reach on this very forum. Boots on the ground.

 

You take a lot of interest into DNA.

 

Set up a lab, find funding and have researchers ship you samples? Just an idea.

[Twist]

8 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

If you read and understood all of the things that I have written in past threads then you know more about e-DNA than most. You would also know that a good scientist wouldn't need Sasquatch DNA to find Sasquatch.

No offense hiflier but I’m not going to read your posts on the BFF forum then pretend like I have enough knowledge of E-DNA to comment on its effectiveness  to any accurate degree.

 

 

[wiiawiwb]

If memory serves me, didn't Mayor talk about e-DNA on Expedition Bigfoot? In one episode, I believe Russell found a suspected nest and she took e-DNA samples of the dirt on the floor inside the nest.

[hiflier]

18 hours ago, hiflier said:

We hear NOTHING from the principle people that we know that have had any involvement in the subject either, like Meldrum, Disotell, or Mayor. None of them has said one word about it even though they ALL were involved in using environmental DNA in their exploits. We only hear that they did it. Nothing about whether or not it would be an adequate method for BF discovery. Are we to assume then that they all thought to BE a good method on the basis that they deployed it? I think so

 

2 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

If memory serves me, didn't Mayor talk about e-DNA on Expedition Bigfoot? In one episode, I believe Russell found a suspected nest and she took e-DNA samples of the dirt on the floor inside the nest.

 

Yes, and as you can see, I did mention that. I've re-read people's responses. I need to say this is only about the internet and what's NOT on it when it comes to finding any articles, or opinions or BF researchers working to deploy e-DNA in the field to look for PRIMATE DNA. One can think Bigfoot but technically, all one has to do is LOOK FOR PRIMATE DNA. Nearly ALL primate DNA is already in the GenBank. And that's the point. Anyone who says anything about there not being Sasquatch DNA in the GenBank for comparison needs to think a bit more about it. Because, again, all one has to do is LOOK FOR PRIMATE DNA. I've said this many times in the past.

 

I've sid all along one doesn't need Sasquatch DNA to determine Sasquatch in North America. All one needs are the already available primate test kits. OR, Check any Human contamination in a sample to determine if it 100% matches Human. Bigfoot isn't Human, there will be differences. Any Human DNA contamination needs to be thoroughly tested against known primate data. Otherwise just use primate testing protocols in the field.

 

All that said there's ZERO on the internet ANYWHERE, in any form, that even talks about such a study. Meldrum, Disotell and Mayor have used it in the field but the internet is empty of even that. So Are Meldrum, Disotell, and Mayor of the opinion that the technology is a good way to look for proof of Sasquatch? One would certainly think so, right? But there isn't even anything about it from them on the internet. Why not? Where are the articles? Where's the data? Where are the websites? The science? Or are they only posturing for a hungry, believing Bigfoot community because they know using e-DNA to find BF is a joke? What aren't any one them writing papers about it and posting them on the internet? I would ask them but, as I said, even when I write to them along scientific lines, they don't answer my emails. So this is about the internet and why there is nothing about Sasquatch and e-DNA. Anywhere. Period.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2020 by hiflier

[Twist]

17 minutes ago, hiflier said:

One can think Bigfoot but technically, all one has to do is LOOK FOR PRIMATE DNA. Nearly ALL primate DNA is already in the GenBank. And that's the point. Anyone who says anything about there not being Sasquatch DNA in the GenBank for comparison is blowing smoke.

You know this how?  Do you know something the rest of us don’t?