Nothing On The Internet About Bigfoot Environmental DNA

[Huntster]

5 hours ago, hiflier said:

..........**THIS THREAD IS ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT WHAT IS AND ISN'T ON THE INTERNET and WHY NO ONE ON THE INTERNET IS DISCUSSING SASQUATCH AND e-DNA   

 

Again, one good reason is that it would be impossible to defend in a peer review process. Another is because at this point, some half century after the PG film, the Bossburg prints, the Skookum Cast, the Sasquatch Genome Project, and several other similar events, one would be a fool to publish anything regarding sasquatchery beforehand. Secrecy is your friend.

[hiflier]

Dr. Disotell, in an old interview, said that a good sample could be tested and that if he got one he would sense some samples out in a blind test for corroboration. AND, that it would hold up against peer review because DNA doesn't lie. And I think the Skookum cast would have been a perfect example where e-DNA would have been the tool to use had the technology been around at the time.

 

As far as the internet goes? Plenty of stuff about Sasquatch and Bigfoot. Plent of science and stuff about e-DNA. The issue is one doesn't find the terms under one roof, not even as a speculative subject. And NEVER is the term NOTCH2NL and Bigfoot ever found. If it is, it's always in a referral, done by an internet bot, to Bigfootforums.com. No Humans other than me are out there bringing it up.

 

And I received another beautiful downvote. Thank you, whoever it was   

 

@ShadowBorn e-DNA is extremely accurate and is used all the time in lakes, ponds, streams and soil by F&W biologists, academia and animal, bird, insect and bacterial geneticists.

Edited May 10, 2020 by hiflier

[Arvedis]

2 hours ago, MIB said:

I think that might be Lori Simmons.  

 

Yes, now that I take a closer look at Sykes book: Bigfoot, Yeti, and the Last Neanderthal, I see Davies and Simmons are mentioned on p.234. Also, Sykes tested Davies' hair sample from his trek in Indonesia in quest of the orang pendek. The sample turned out to be from a known animal.

 

Credit to Bryan Sykes:

 

 

Edited May 10, 2020 by Arvedis

[Huntster]

^^^^^^ For the record, the above pages 29-31 is exactly the same in my copy, except the words The Nature of the Beast instead of The Yeti Enigma at the end.

[Arvedis]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

^^^^^^ For the record, the above pages 29-31 is exactly the same in my copy, except the words The Nature of the Beast instead of The Yeti Enigma at the end.

 

Unfortunately, Sykes and his publishers confused everybody.  If I am following this correctly, Yeti Enigma and Nature of the Beast are identical except title.  Bigfoot, Yeti, and the Last Neanderthal is what is shown above and it looks like a misprint on p.30 incorrectly showing the book is The Nature of the Beast.

 

Authors should use professional editors before going to print.  Also, while the story he weaves is pretty compelling, his own science doesn't seem to have achieved much impact beyond zoological contributions. He got involved because he didn't like the Ketchum study so he gathered his own samples and did his own testing. His testing showed nothing conclusive to BF. So really all 3 titles  just amount to more speculation.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Arvedis

[Huntster]

2 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

........He got involved because he didn't like the Ketchum study so he gathered his own samples and did his own testing.......

 

My take on Part 1, regarding the last Neanderthal, is that he was keenly interested in the extinction of the Neanderthals and had planned to write a book about it. He is very interested in human history, as demonstrated by The Seven Daughters of Eve. Like me, he knew the Zana story held lots of promise.........

[Arvedis]

Anyone interested in more on the research of Sykes, Adam Davies, and Lori Simmons with 1.5 hours to kill can check out this podcast: 

 

 

Personally, I can't stand Davies' voice though I give him credit for seemingly valid field work and some unique unexplained experiences. Also, Michael Merchant is in this vid briefly as well. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by Arvedis

[ShadowBorn]

5 hours ago, hiflier said:

Keep those downvotes acomin' folks. They actually make me smile a lot. So, what about Sasquatch vs. e-DNA vs. the internet?

The thing about those down votes is that it makes you want to shove it down their throats even more. It is not about hate  but it is about them not liking the argument. Sure there is a lot that can be done with E-Dna . But the problem is that it might not be effective in the search for this creature. It might show that this creature might have been in an area at a given time.  But it is not going to give much details after that since there is that chance of contamination of human presence and that creates the problem. About the only way that it could work would a on site sighting and collecting the E-DnA after the sighting.  Once that is established then it would have to be done again so that the species could be properly identified. Two different sightings on two different occasions with fresh E-DnA samples.  This way it could be compared between the two to get the proper data to have the right sequence. This would then be entered into the gene bank so that it could be compared with other DNA sequences. Again I am just speculating my opinion. 

 

But this might have already have been done and no one wants to speak up about it . Since this might change the way we think about our selves. I mean can you imagine  if people  knew how life was created . This would change the way we believe. I am not sure that anyone is ready for that change.  Just the way I am talking goes against what we were taught . It would be like what those felt in science back in the 1600 - 1700 hundreds. They went against the church and were called heretics. My sighting made feel like I was cursed . I felt exactly like heretic since it went against what I believed.  All I have is the love of my family, which is my wife and kids. There is no normal life.

[hiflier]

Thank you ShadowBorn. I do think  that one good sample that gets run on several platforms in different labs, especially if labs are not told what it is, then it would be enough to begin a wider investigation. I'll give you an example, the last known observation of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker was made sometime back in the 1930's. It wasn't seen again until eighty years later when someone took a blurry photo and claimed it was an Ivory Billed Woodpecker. That claim, and the photo, was enough to spend 20-50 million dollars to go look for it.

 

The important point here is that in order to have an Ivory Billed Woodpecker eighty years later? There had to have been enough of a population during that entire eighty years to sustain the species in order for that photo to even be taken. I mean, it's not like there were none and then this one specimen popped out of nowhere without having Ivory Billed Woodpecker parents. That means that during the eighty years of supposed extinction the parents had to have had parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so on. And yet no one claimed to see one until eighty years after the fact. So, two things here: Either the bird didn't go extinct, or  the claim was hoaxed. In either case, that blurry photo was enough to get tens of millions of dollars to go look for it. And that WITHOUT any DNA to verify it was real.

 

Sasquatch DNA will be primate DNA. Scientists HAVE the Human genome for comparison. That means Human DNA in a contaminated sample will show up. But a closer look should show some differences along the DNA strands where, in the case of a different primate, some of the DNA markers will look similar  but will be in the wrong place compared the Human DNA. This is from an old interview of Dr. Disotell on a podcast called Monster Quest, which is a Skeptic Society podcast: https://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/09/07/02/transcript/ I bolded the relative parts along with a few underlines:

 

"Todd: Well, the other reason I do this is, that’s an intellectually interesting question that we literally debate in my lab, my postdoctoral researchers, my fellow professors and I and grad students, we debate this all the time. What would it indeed look like? And I have sampled things from Australia from the Himalayas, from all over North America, and you know the lead theories of course are that it’s clearly primates. There are many people who think that it is basically a remnant population of Gigantopithecus, a fossil species thought to be closely related to orangutans and that’s probably the most common Russ Ciochon has published a book on this. Other people sort of subscribe to this. So if that was the case, what we would expect would be that, when I test, I get a DNA sequence from a sample, that it falls amongst the living primates, falls closest to the orangutans, but is not an orangutan, so that it’s several, literally millions years, or at least several hundred thousand years separate from the orangutan based on known mutation rates and so on. Other people say well it’s a remnant Neanderthal, indeed is a Neanderthal population that has survived. So again we would expect the sequence to be closest to human, but not within the range of modern humans. And now we actually have Neanderthal DNA sequences so we could definitely say, this falls within the realm of variation of known Neanderthals which there is over a dozen different Neanderthals have already been sequenced and the complete neanderthal genome should actually be complete within the next year or so. So we can we can really nail it down if it’s a purported Neanderthal. If it’s an orangutan or a relative of the orangutans we would see that, or it is any other primate. The DNA database that we look at is quite full for mammals. So if it was any other thing, if it was a giant ground sloth, which temporarily go bipedal but went extinct, you know, ten thousand years ago or more, we would see DNA signature that was related to sloths, but not identical to any. So I think we would identify it. If I had a sequence that I could not explain I’m perfectly willing to go forth with that. Before I do, I have multiple colleagues who run labs similar to myself, who, for many good reasons don’t ever want to analyze samples like this, or deal with some of these people. And I can see why sometimes but I’ve got agreements with multiple (they will remain unnamed) labs, that if I get something interesting, I will send them a tube or a sample and say, sequence this then I won’t tell ‘em anything else. You know, if I got two other labs to come back with the sequence that was close to orangs, but not an orang, we have, you know, an important finding. And as I like to joke with people, one of the reasons I can do this, is I’m a tenured professor, I can’t get fired for dabbling in fun stuff."

Edited May 10, 2020 by hiflier

[Arvedis]

Here is a relevant article on eDNA and population genetics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6470983. Unfortunately, there is no mention of the orang pendek but the author does mention the orangutan of Borneo.

[hiflier]

Thank you, Arvedis, yes, there are tons of relevant e-DNA articles. And there are tons more Sasquatch/Bigfoot. There are NOT tons of Sasquatch/Bigfoot e-DNA articles. In fact the are none. One would think that since the technology has been applied that there would be some articles about it, even if written only by the ones who applied it. Aaaaand.....Nada.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

[MIB]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

There are NOT tons of Sasquatch/Bigfoot e-DNA articles. In fact the are none. One would think that since the technology has been applied that there would be some articles about it, even if written only by the ones who applied it.

 

I disagree.  THIS ONE would not think so.   Given the responses to purported proof of bigfoot so far, if I had suggestive DNA evidence, I would not risk my neck by offering that evidence until I had an absolutely bulletproof open and shut case.    Professional suicide is not to be taken lightly.

 

MIB

[hiflier]

But there's no reason for there not to be articles, even speculative ones, that talk about the  idea. There doen's need to be whistleblowing studies that have not been peer reviewed for the subject to be brought up. No one talks about it. It's almost like no one has ever thought about it. Even opinion on viability is completely absent. It's almost like the subject is as taboo as Sasquatch investigations in general are to academia. I wouldn't have started this thread if there were on or two good articles that go over the subject, either to tout it or slam it. But there 's nothing at all, good or bad. Even among all the BF researchers and there website, one would thing someone would have something to say, or an opinion to offer. It's strange because Bigfoot has been around for a long time, and e-DNA for twenty years or more. We read that it's been used at nesting sites but that's all. No other researchers ever even mention the technology, pro or con.

Edited May 10, 2020 by hiflier

[NatFoot]

Seems like something silly to get worked up about.

 

Why do you think there are no articles on the subject?

[hiflier]

It's always silly in my case NatFoot, you know that  Go ahead, find a link for me that currently mentions Sasquatch and e-DNA in the same breath. The easy way around that is to simply say you don't care. If that's the case I might be interested in knowing why you wouldn't be. I mean many are here waiting for someone to bring in something tasty to hash over and talk about. I would think no one on the internet talking currently about using the e-DNA science in the overall hunt for Sasquatch would be pretty interesting reading. I bring it up, it's not interesting. Someone we don't know and it becomes interesting and lively discussion ensues.

 

I think hunting for Sasquatch in the field with e-DNA, and not just on a nest structure, would be good enough. I mean if it's good enough for ma nest structure it's good enough to deploy anywhere. But no one's talking about using that technology. At least none that I can find. It just seems odd considering e-DNA is used to single out wolverines and other creatures. So it's not like it's bogus, and undependable science. Sasquatch DNA isn't in the GenBank. So what. Someone can fairly easily get around that. But apparently no one on the entire internet, including a massive pile of BF researchers, ever mentions anything about it. Yep, if anything seems silly, it is that. Of course, only someone who's interested, and all serious Bigfoot researchers should be, would notice that there's a huge e-DNA elephant missing from the research equation.

Edited May 10, 2020 by hiflier