Nothing On The Internet About Bigfoot Environmental DNA

[hiflier]

Downvote   Someone's got thin skin   Guess that easier to do than to show me something on the internet that says I'm wrong.

Edited May 10, 2020 by hiflier

[NatFoot]

I'm not your downvoter and I have no desire to search the net to prove you wrong or right.

 

I just think it's a dead end. Science has shunned this topic for more than 50 years but you want science to accept existence off of their own science?

 

It's just not going to happen. That's why I said this was silly to get worked up about. Even if they found what you said, it doesn't prove Sasquatch to anyone (but maybe the fringe of us).

 

Nothing is solved until someone gets a body/bodypart and gets it mainstream before it can be shut down.

 

You're spinning your wheels here, pal. And I say that with a great deal of respect for your efforts.

[hiflier]

26 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

And I say that with a great deal of respect for your efforts

 

Thank you, NatFoot, and I mean that.

 

26 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

.....but you want science to accept existence off of their own science?

 

Actually, if you think that, you're mistaken. I don't want science to accept existence with their own science. I want science to simply go and sample for it. Everyone knows, including me, that science needs proof. Solid DNA, corroborated and peer reviewed would be proof. Proof enough to convince science to go look for it if they want or need a body.As long as they have proof, they will do that. Everyone wants a body, and a body would be great, but for years science has been telling us that e-DNA is non invasive and that because of its accuracy they no longer need to go out and get physical specimens. That's what they've been telling us is the beauty and chief advantage of e-DNA. It's good enough for science, it's good enough for me, it's good enough for Derek Randles, its good enough for Shane Corson, it's good enough for Dr. Disotell, it's good enough for Dr. Meldrum,  it's good enough for Dr. Mayor it's good enough for academia and it's good enough for F&W.. It just isn't good enough for this Forum. Do anyone think there's anything wrong with that picture?

 

All I'm saying is that Sasquatch and e-DNA need to be put together in one room, and that isn' t happening anywhere on the internet, or on this Forum for that matter- unless I bring it up. This Forum needs to embrace this technology. And it needs to realize that this technology will find Sasquatch if it's anywhere out there. Solve For Bigfoot. And that's exactly what e-DNA will do. And it won't take sixty years to do it.

Edited May 11, 2020 by hiflier

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I don't down vote anyone. Not my style. I agree with you on the embracing technology . Where we differ is I don't think it will amount to anything. 

The science is there ,but the creature is probably not. I have spoken to scientists about the subject. Little or no interest. Nothing to compare it to 

One told me if they do exist, then it is likely that it was misidentified as human  with no follow up. 

[Huntster]

I downvoted you as a joke. 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Where we differ is I don't think it will amount to anything. The science is there ,but the creature is probably not.

 

I don't downvote anyone either. At least I don't remember doing so  TAs to the quoted above, then whever one takes samples, even if right after a claimed sighting, nothing will show novel primate, Bear maybe, or Human? If the sample shows Human though, then it should be put through a more rigorous process that targets the Human NOTCH2NLA, B and C variations to see if the genetically expressed proteins are present. If the samples are Human then those proteins should be there. If they are not then the source must be a different kind of primate. On the hand, if the assay has been designed to look for the NOTCH2NL gene and it's defective copy (primitive ape brain) then it will, or should be, a different kind of ape. Either result can be run against the GenBank and neither result will match a Human or a Great Ape. That's the point I've been trying to get across.

 

Regardless of all of that, nothing on the internet even comes close to talking about that- or even looking for Sasquatch, real or not, with e-DNA technology. Which is the point of this thread's topic.

 

9 minutes ago, Huntster said:

I downvoted you as a joke. 

 

Plussed you, Huntster, YOU DA MAN!!  

Edited May 11, 2020 by hiflier

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Since you put it like that. I concur . Not being done and not likely will be. Which means for documentation and conservation only a body will suffice.

I know . Dead horse. 

[Twist]

I haven’t given a downvote in this thread but if we are going to get upvotes for giving downvoted I can start!   
 

 

[ShadowBorn]

7 hours ago, hiflier said:

I don't downvote anyone either. At least I don't remember doing so  TAs to the quoted above, then whever one takes samples, even if right after a claimed sighting, nothing will show novel primate, Bear maybe, or Human? If the sample shows Human though, then it should be put through a more rigorous process that targets the Human NOTCH2NLA, B and C variations to see if the genetically expressed proteins are present. If the samples are Human then those proteins should be there. If they are not then the source must be a different kind of primate. On the hand, if the assay has been designed to look for the NOTCH2NL gene and it's defective copy (primitive ape brain) then it will, or should be, a different kind of ape. Either result can be run against the GenBank and neither result will match a Human or a Great Ape. That's the point I've been trying to get across.

@hiflier

Need help understanding  NOTCH2NLA. Here is what I have looked up : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5986104/ 

 

Oh, by the way I have never put a down vote on you in this thread. 

9 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

One told me if they do exist, then it is likely that it was misidentified as human  with no follow up.

I cannot agree with you on that. But everyone is entitled on their own opinion. That I do not have a problem. But if you ever do get a sighting that opinion just might change. 

[hiflier]

8 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I know . Dead horse. 

 

LOL, we all have them, I've got one going right now  

 

1 hour ago, ShadowBorn said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5986104

 

The paper describes how, and when, the NOTCH2NLA, plus the "B" and "C" variations, appeared in the primate evolutionary chain. They appeared AFTER the last split between early Humans and the Great Apes. What the paper is saying is that ONLY the Great Apes have the "old" version of the gene, and ONLY Humans have the new versions (A,B,C). Those "new" versions gave Humans gradually bigger brains and higher thinking.

 

I contend that because Sasquatch is so primitive, with no fire and tools (or no tools better than Great Apes) then it will not have the NOTCH2NLA, B, and C genes that we Humans have. So that's what I'm proposing we look for: Either the Great Ape gene versions or the Human gene versions. If an e-DNA sample supposedly comes back as being Human contaminated, but it doesn't have the Human gene versions, then the sample is showing different primate. It HAS TO BE a different primate.

 

What we SHOULDN'T find anywhere in North America are the Great Ape gene versions. But if for some chance we do, then AGAIN, it has to be a different primate, because I really doubt that we have Gorillas or Chimpanzees in our woods.

 

Looking for Human NOTCH2NL gene versions in Human contaminated samples is probably the quickest, easiest test to run since we already have the Human genome in the GenBank for comparison.

Edited May 11, 2020 by hiflier

[MIB]

The big question is .. who is going to pay for it?   

 

Whoever pays for the testing controls release of the results.   If it doesn't suit their politics or economics, even if they find evidence .. or outright proof .. it will never see the light of day.    It can be obvious, direct financial threat like a timber or mining company, but it can also be a gov't agency whose budget comes from managing an extracted resource.    We saw the USFS shrink considerably when they were no longer managing timber sales.  So discovery is a threat to them as well, plus a threat if anyone is getting payola on the side to not-find.  

 

So who, with money to spend on the testing, with a need for the testing, also benefits from discovery?    You gotta be brutally honest, not foolishly optimistic, in that assessment.

 

MIB

[hiflier]

17 minutes ago, MIB said:

The big question is .. who is going to pay for it?   

 

Whoever pays for the testing controls release of the results.   If it doesn't suit their politics or economics, even if they find evidence .. or outright proof .. it will never see the light of day.    It can be obvious, direct financial threat like a timber or mining company, but it can also be a gov't agency whose budget comes from managing an extracted resource.    We saw the USFS shrink considerably when they were no longer managing timber sales.  So discovery is a threat to them as well, plus a threat if anyone is getting payola on the side to not-find.  

 

So who, with money to spend on the testing, with a need for the testing, also benefits from discovery?    You gotta be brutally honest, not foolishly optimistic, in that assessment.

 

MIB

 

Everything you said is true. I don't know if I agree with the "foolishly" part of being optimistic though because it implies uselessness or failure before failure has been determined. I understand your point but wouldn't it be nice for a change to have members work on ways to help the concept succeed instead of listing all the ways for why it won't. It puts the cart before the horse so to speak and prematurely accepts defeat without trying. Researcher keep going into the field because they won't accept defeat. And in the case of promoting e-DNA for finding Sasquatch I won't accept defeat either. It would be like a BF field researcher who just stays home before ever going out once because they think it's not worth the effort.

 

But just for argument's sake, many BF researchers fund themselves to the tune of thousands of dollars. Priorities are different for different people. Imagine what the e-DNA war chest would look like of researchers had used their research investments for e-DNA instead. Nonetheless, MIB, you bring up good points. 

[Huntster]

Excellent point:

 

33 minutes ago, MIB said:

........So who, with money to spend on the testing, with a need for the testing, also benefits from discovery?.......

 

The only person I can imagine would either be a foolish fame seeker or a scientist, who would be a not-so-foolish fame seeker.

[norseman]

47 minutes ago, MIB said:

The big question is .. who is going to pay for it?   

 

Whoever pays for the testing controls release of the results.   If it doesn't suit their politics or economics, even if they find evidence .. or outright proof .. it will never see the light of day.    It can be obvious, direct financial threat like a timber or mining company, but it can also be a gov't agency whose budget comes from managing an extracted resource.    We saw the USFS shrink considerably when they were no longer managing timber sales.  So discovery is a threat to them as well, plus a threat if anyone is getting payola on the side to not-find.  

 

So who, with money to spend on the testing, with a need for the testing, also benefits from discovery?    You gotta be brutally honest, not foolishly optimistic, in that assessment.

 

MIB

The tribes instantly come to mind.

 

They spend a lot of money trying to restore lost habitat and fauna. Salmon, Sturgeon, Caribou, Lynx, Wolves, Griz, etc....

 

http://www.tribaltribune.com/news/article_0cbbc58e-d316-11e9-aec2-b73b8a2ae848.html

[NatFoot]

You made my point for me in your description of the DNA. We probably don't have gorillas or chimps in NA woods...but science would tell you that one must've escaped and that's why you got that result.

 

It's a mind numbing argument.