Nothing On The Internet About Bigfoot Environmental DNA

[WSA]

LOL at bathroom remodeling....yeah. Once used my truck jack to leverage out an old steel tub that had been framed in. Just reached that point at the end of a long day when I had run out of patience. 

 

But to your our original point Hiflier, regardless of what we might find by hunting around, you would think this technology would have been embraced by researchers everywhere, but apparently has not been. When I first saw that Animal Planet documentary I had a “Holy Crap!” reaction. What explains the apparent lack of enthusiasm? Unreliability? Expense? Proprietary process requiring licensing ? I, like you, am stumped.  

 

[Kiwakwe]

I had a bit of a late start on this one and am only a little down pg 4 so maybe this has been addressed here or elsewhere, I'm wondering what the cost of an e-dna test would be. Are we talking $5? $500? $10,000? Can one submit those like home water quality samples?  Can one set up a relationship with a vetted lab and just gather samples? Could use gofundme to cover costs. Given some of the crap people want money for (i want to trek in the Andes for my personal growth but don't like saving money--please help) I think there are enough folks interested to source a few tests if they aren't exorbitantly priced. I think you could make a good pitch hiflier. Can a layman learn the protocol and carry out a "scientifically" valid test? What sort of equipment does one need to "read" the sample? I've no idea but that's the route I'd start thinking about if no one else in the so-called scientific community will ask the question and research it.

 

I thought about doing that for lyme testing in my area, a local one stop, one hour results sort of operation. Learn the protocol, set up shop, get going. Of course by the time i repurposed my military surplus, helicopter or truck portable, self-contained photo lab as a testing station, bill gates would have come up with a supposed vaccine that if it didn't make one a paranoid schizophrenic it might make us immune to lyme...I should just do it. 

 

About the OP, I see your point and it is interesting, don't know why you are getting any guff over it. I appreciate how you grab hold of a question like a pit bull and hash it out as much as possible given the info available,  that's how to find answers, even if we don't have them here.  I imagine if e-dna works for finding unknowns, it's been done, probably even with results that could be paradigm shifting. If it is "that easy" (and it sounds that way to me though I know squatch about the matter other than how you explain it.) maybe that's why it's no-go territory because it WOULD indicate an unknown in our midst, maybe that's too conspiratorial a line of thinking. Or maybe no one has tried it with any success and that's why it can't be found on the interwebs.  But you say folks have mentioned using it in a case or two but no mention of results--weird indeed. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[NorthWind]

14 minutes ago, Kiwakwe said:

I had a bit of a late start on this one and am only a little down pg 4 so maybe this has been addressed here or elsewhere, I'm wondering what the cost of an e-dna test would be. Are we talking $5? $500? $10,000? Can one submit those like home water quality samples?  Can one set up a relationship with a vetted lab and just gather samples? Could use gofundme to cover costs. Given some of the crap people want money for (i want to trek in the Andes for my personal growth but don't like saving money--please help) I think there are enough folks interested to source a few tests if they aren't exorbitantly priced. I think you could make a good pitch hiflier. Can a layman learn the protocol and carry out a "scientifically" valid test? What sort of equipment does one need to "read" the sample? I've no idea but that's the route I'd start thinking about if no one else in the so-called scientific community will ask the question and research it.

 

 

 

Maybe, @hiflier, Cindy Dosen can help. I believe she has samples of suspected hair. She may have info about eDNA and testing. Just a thought...

 

https://www.olympicproject.com/staff-member/cindy-dosen/

 

 

[hiflier]

Yeah, great post, Kiwakwe. We should talk sometime and I could fill you in much easier than typing out more bandwidth. Basically because I would just end up posting repetition. But I thank you for the kind words and for being able to see my points. I DO get on this stuff mostly because when things fail logic it raises flags.

 

Northwind, toy have mentioned Cindyy Dosen before and my take is she works with the Olympic Project and I just soon stay away from all of that for my own reasons. Not to sound harsh but it's one thing to not get responses to emails from academia, it's another to not get email responses from scientists who have already worked with the Bigfoot Community. Especially when my questions are about science. I have to say their snubs raise the biggest flags. In my opinion, of course.

[Arvedis]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Not to sound harsh but it's one thing to not get responses to emails from academia, it's another to not get email responses from scientists who have already worked with the Bigfoot Community. Especially when my questions are about science. I have to say their snubs raise the biggest flags. In my opinion, of course.

 

There could be legit reasons for not replying to an email. Even if they are usually responsive, people can be cautious with info. Especially in bigfootery where loons will make sure their analysis is heard. Emails can be reposted, blogged, made into videos with endless commentary that leads nowhere but disrespects people. Nobody wants to kick up dust in an email thread even if you know them. Still couldn't hurt to get an introduction from someone so the recipient is confident in who they are sharing info with.

[hiflier]

You have a point but what I'm asking has nothing to do with whatever "they" may deem is proprietary. It is simple about what their opinion might be about the NOTCH2NL subject that I've been proposing. I'm only looking for their take on it.

[Arvedis]

36 minutes ago, hiflier said:

You have a point but what I'm asking has nothing to do with whatever "they" may deem is proprietary. It is simple about what their opinion might be about the NOTCH2NL subject that I've been proposing. I'm only looking for their take on it.

 

Exactly and their opinion could end up distributed on the internet to other bigfooters as a result of them being courteous in replying.

 

Besides, you should heed your own advice. It is unlikely there is interest in subjects that you may think are important. If people get a lot of email, they prioritize and junk gets dumped.  And if you think you should not be in that junk pile, prove it by being relevant to your recipient. Figure out why your concerns are deemed irrelevant before sending off an email and expecting someone to care what you believe is relevant.

[Twist]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

You have a point but what I'm asking has nothing to do with whatever "they" may deem is proprietary. It is simple about what their opinion might be about the NOTCH2NL subject that I've been proposing. I'm only looking for their take on it.
 

 

14 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

 

Exactly and their opinion could end up distributed on the internet to other bigfooters as a result of them being courteous in replying.

 

Besides, you should heed your own advice. It is unlikely there is interest in subjects that you may think are important. If people get a lot of email, they prioritize and junk gets dumped.  And if you think you should not be in that junk pile, prove it by being relevant to your recipient. Figure out why your concerns are deemed irrelevant before sending off an email and expecting someone to care what you believe is relevant.

 

 What Arvedis is saying is what I was thinking back when I replied to you and made the comment about a "random internet poster emailing ppl"  You've referenced that comment multiple times and I know it stuck in your craw when I said that.   But this is why, its not about who is who in bigfootery but what you divulge to who, how,  and IN WRITTING aka email.   A random question that may even lead down an already viable path could be shutdown right away due to "letting the cat out the bag"  or stealing someones thunder.

 

If you are not in the circle, you are not in the circle.  I'd suspect there are many

[Arvedis]

In re-reading what I wrote, it sounds harsh.  I did not intend to take that tone so apologies.  

[hiflier]

55 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

In re-reading what I wrote, it sounds harsh.  I did not intend to take that tone so apologies.  

 

No apologies necessary, Arvedis  I get what you're saying, and also what Twist is saying. But I think you both are missing a key point. The stuff I'm asking in my emails is public scientific knowledge. The NOTCH2NL subject is common knowledge. e-DNA is public knowledge on the internet and in every academic circle. And The list includes F&W both US and state.Bigfoot discussions are also public common knowledge with thousands of blogs, articles, sightings, descriptions etc.. Thousands of people talk about Bigfoot, hundreds of authors. Using e-DNA to research Bigfoot, Yeti, or what have you is public knowledge. Especially since "Expedition: Bigfoot"

 

But researchers outside of the Olympic Project, and Expedition Bigfoot don't talk about e-DNA. The internet specifically doesn't have websites or dialogue on the e-DNA subject when it pertains to Sasquatch. So where am I supposed to go, what am I supposed to do? And even the Bigfoot scientists that we know of don't respond.

 

1 hour ago, Arvedis said:

Exactly and their opinion could end up distributed on the internet to other bigfooters as a result of them being courteous in replying.

 

Don't agree, their opinions should already be out there, and it can be done without risk to any NDA trade secrets regarding their research efforts. None of them talk about e-DNA and Sasquatch. Not for nearly two years because there's nothing from them even to promote the science as a possibility. NOTHING. And Nothing from anyone else either, ANYWHERE. Bigfoot is big and it's big business. e-DNA is also big and big business. But no one is publicly putting the two together even if is ISN'T our own supposed key scientists. It's just not happening.

 

1 hour ago, Arvedis said:

It is unlikely there is interest in subjects that you may think are important. If people get a lot of email, they prioritize and junk gets dumped.  And if you think you should not be in that junk pile, prove it by being relevant to your recipient. Figure out why your concerns are deemed irrelevant before sending off an email and expecting someone to care what you believe is relevant.

 

Seriously? I'm interested in Sasquatch, I'm interested in e-DNA. I have a hypothesis that involves putting the two subject together. And what? That's not important. BF scientists have already deployed the technology, but it's not important now because I have questions? That makes no sense.

 

And I HAVE shown relevance to my recipients. What? You don't think I explain my reasoning? Three areas of science, NOTCH2NL and our bigger brains, Human evolution in relation to the Great Apes smaller brains, and environmental DNA. Is that relevant enough? Because I seen Disotell, Meldrum and Mayor ALL TALK ABOUT THOSE VERY SUBJECTS- INDIVIDUALLY AS WELL AS TOGETHER. But my emails are all of a sudden deemed NOT RELEVANT?  Do you read what you write? My questions and concerns are NOT irrelevant I do not "believe" my emails are relevant. I KNOW they are relevant, or else why bother?

 

My questions are couched in science and are being sent to scientists. Those two NOTCH2NL papers are science, e-DNA is science, those are my references and I understand EXACTLY what those two sciences are telling me. Sasquatch has not been proved to exist. I have a hypothesis on how to rectify that- WITH KNOWN SCIENCE. You're reasons for me not getting responses don't hold water.

 

And don't forget, no one on this Forum ever discusses e-DNA on their own either outside whatever "our scientists" feed us or whatever is on Animal Planet. I keep bringing it up because I think it is scientifically important to do so because the technology is available. At least it WAS available for the Olympic Project four years ago, and just recently for Expedition: Bigfoot. Good enough science for them, right? Look, I have a very specific scientific question that I'm trying to get a SCIENTIFIC OPINION on and there's no one in sight that will address it. But instead, I get crap and excuses from a Bigfoot Forum for why I don't receive that opinion simply by emailing and asking for it.

Edited May 14, 2020 by hiflier

[TheTallOnes]

On 5/9/2020 at 11:56 PM, Arvedis said:

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. 

 

The Lori Simmons Bigfoot tree ended up being a hoax.  It was an embedded branch making all the sounds.  There's evidence showing the branch moving and making the sounds.  There's no tunnel system underneath there.  100% Solved!!!