Thoughts on the Types of Information we Use

[SWWASAS]

I have had two occasions where I saw evidence that BF is not afraid of the water.   One case footprints came out of the lake on a shore near a campground in Washington.  Scouting along that side of the lake I could not find where it had entered the lake.    I concluded that it must have swam across the elongated lake from the far shore.       The second case was in the Wallowa's of Oregon where I got a glimpse of a BF standing in the middle of a stream.  I would guess it was fishing but it may have just been getting water as it was a hot summer day.  .   There have been sightings of BF swimming island to island in BC.     Also some reports that suggest that BF may swim the Columbia River at the mile post 27 area.    That is the shortest stretch of water to cross for many many miles up or down stream.   .      If E-DNA can detect miniscule quantities of DNA in bodies of water,   those are several places in Oregon and Washington were they should be detected, at least during certain times of the year if their travel is due to some migration patter.     Given the fact that all of my encounters or footprint finds have been near streams of running water,   it seems to me running water may be the key to locating active areas.   

Edited June 20, 2020 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

6 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

If E-DNA can detect miniscule quantities of DNA in bodies of water,   those are several places in Oregon and Washington were they should be detected, at least during certain times of the year if their travel is due to some migration patter.     Given the fact that all of my encounters or footprint finds have been near streams of running water,   it seems to me running water may be the key to locating active areas.   

 

My point is that, yes, one could speculate where to do the sampling. And of course, if it is in an active area then all the better. But I've been waiting for people to put this all together from the points I've been bringing up, along with all the .pdf's that I've linked, and especially the most recent article a couple of posts back. Come on folks, put on your thinking caps. We have a place right now. It is a situation that could be almost made to order as far as detecting terrestrial mammals using e-DNA sampling in a stream. Any guesses?

 

The place, IMHO, would be down in the headwaters of the salmon stream that is below the finger ridges where the nesting sites have been discovered. I mean where else has such a positive location been presented? Especially since a new nest in the process of being built was found just last February? AND what was thought to be a bipedal sounding creature was heard walking away? In my way of thinking that area is the best candidate for this kind of an approach. And , yes, there is no Sasquatch DNA in the genbanks that we know of. But I've already laid out why that shouldn't matter. Primate DNA is primate DNA, period. Metabarcoding isn't necessary because we don't need to know EVERY land animal that lives there, only primates. Look for primates by running any primate protocols that are specific to Great Apes, not Humans. If the samples still come back Human do a deeper genetic analysis.

 

I'm as tired of the misinformation, disinformation and hoaxes as everyone else. My concept has developed because I've always thought there should be a way to get around all that short of a body on a slab. DNA WILL prove Sasquatch's existence if the program gets into the right hands.  

 

 

[norseman]

16 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

My point is that, yes, one could speculate where to do the sampling. And of course, if it is in an active area then all the better. But I've been waiting for people to put this all together from the points I've been bringing up, along with all the .pdf's that I've linked, and especially the most recent article a couple of posts back. Come on folks, put on your thinking caps. We have a place right now. It is a situation that could be almost made to order as far as detecting terrestrial mammals using e-DNA sampling in a stream. Any guesses?

 

The place, IMHO, would be down in the headwaters of the salmon stream that is below the finger ridges where the nesting sites have been discovered. I mean where else has such a positive location been presented? Especially since a new nest in the process of being built was found just last February? AND what was thought to be a bipedal sounding creature was heard walking away? In my way of thinking that area is the best candidate for this kind of an approach. And , yes, there is no Sasquatch DNA in the genbanks that we know of. But I've already laid out why that shouldn't matter. Primate DNA is primate DNA, period. Metabarcoding isn't necessary because we don't need to know EVERY land animal that lives there, only primates. Look for primates by running any primate protocols that are specific to Great Apes, not Humans. If the samples still come back Human do a deeper genetic analysis.

 

I'm as tired of the misinformation, disinformation and hoaxes as everyone else. My concept has developed because I've always thought there should be a way to get around all that short of a body on a slab. DNA WILL prove Sasquatch's existence if the program gets into the right hands.  

 

 

Getting a one liter water sample from that crick is no big deal.

 

Do you have the lab in place to deal with the sample?

 

What are the steps involved? Do we need a bottle from them or just go buy a REI hiking bottle? Rubber gloves? 
 

Here is my semi retirement plan.

 

1) 4x4 Pickup

2) Pop up camper

3) Jet boat

 

Pretty easy to take water samples on my travels.

[hiflier]

18 minutes ago, norseman said:

Getting a one liter water sample from that crick is no big deal.

 

That depends on whether or not access on foot, horse or vehicle is through private property.

 

19 minutes ago, norseman said:

Do you have the lab in place to deal with the sample?

 

For one thing, our own BF scientists should be doing this. But the bottom line is this is why I've been so adamant about getting science/academia involved. Thy have the equipment and the labs. But in order to better present my case to an institution, or department head, I need to be sure that the methodology is vetted by at last one to three scientists. I guess sending a scientist the link to the article about the PhD in the UK and the Amazon would verify the procedure as being valid. But it would be best to try and correspond with scientists familiar with, or have a history with, Sasquatch. That has been a bit of a chore to accomplish just by itself, especially since Meldrum, Disotell, and Mayor have not responded to my inquiries.

 

[MikeZimmer]

17 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

I'm as tired of the misinformation, disinformation and hoaxes as everyone else. My concept has developed because I've always thought there should be a way to get around all that short of a body on a slab. DNA WILL prove Sasquatch's existence if the program gets into the right hands.  

 

 

 

Just some thoughts based on my Information Systems Development experience, which was not always successful. I hope it does not come across as overly preachy to any of you, who are a pretty canny bunch. My apologies if it does.

 

On the specifics of e-DNA, I know squat. It sounds as if there is a lot of potential here. Maybe there is enough understanding of the issues now that an interested person could make a somewhat formal plan. I suspect that you have Hiflier, since you seem like a pretty methodical person. If not, here is my two-cents (although in Canada, we don't use pennies anymore).

 

I sometimes managed small projects in a previous life. I was not all that good at it; too many balls to keep in the air at once, exceeding my limited skills. My biggest problem was always dealing with the politics, and trying to explain why deadlines were being missed. Usually it was because the problem exceeded the competence of the team, unrealistic time frames, and that we were set up to fail by managers who only wanted to sell services, capability to do the work be damned. Of course, that is the norm in information systems consulting.

 

After my project management days, which I hated, I actually got some training in project management. I was trained to use a written plan to help bring me clarity around what I was trying to do, goals, objectives, metrics, what factors would be critical for success, who would be involved, how it would be financed, what the risks and opportunities were, how to mitigate risk and capitalize on opportunity, what resources were needed, activities, methods, what people would have to do, some idea of the sequence of activities, and milestones. I don't know if I personally got better, since I no longer lead development teams. However, the material made sense to me.

 

This is otherwise known as getting your ducks in a row.

 

Of course, plans usually break down at the first contact with the enemy. The real world is always more complex than any plan. However, with planning, it means you have thought about the issues, and that brings some clarity of purpose. Sometimes, it allows you adapt to the unexpected. Some folks step more nimbly through the minefield than others of course.

 

Apologies if this comes across as patronizing; such is not my intent.

 

 

 

 

On 6/9/2020 at 6:11 PM, MikeZimmer said:

I have been thinking about the sorts of information we are exposed to when looking at Sasquatch (or any other thing for that matter). I am first going to present a general sort of description of the types of communications we are exposed to. Then, I will try to post some thoughts on how it applies to the Sasquatch phenomenon. This approach may not resonate with others, but I think it is helping me clarify my thoughts on what is going on in this world of Sasquatchery, with the evidence, the unambiguous encounters, the totally ambiguous encounters (with red circles), the wishful thinking, the theorizing, the leaps of faith beyond the data, the nonsense, the lies, and perhaps the cover-ups.

 

 

Some thoughts about looking at multiple sources of information, as opposed to a premature rush to judgment.

 

I have been thinking that it might be better to not know where the truth lies than to believe things that are mistaken. For this, you need a great ability to tolerate uncertainty. If we act on mistaken beliefs, we can end up with unfortunate results. If we keep our beliefs more fluid, investigate more, we may have better odds of discovering a correct basis for action. Maybe, maybe not. I can’t rigorously defend this at the moment. Better to be aware of multiple possibilities and not wrong, or certain, and wrong?

 

I think we do benefit from examining events broadly, across any spectrum of opinion that you might care to name. Again, since there is going to be a great deal of contradiction across viewpoints, we must realize, if we think logically, that most assertions will be false, even if well-argued. This breadth of exploration may not help us knowing what is true, but we may be a little more cautious in forming our beliefs. In the end, we will probably anchor to certain assertions, deeming them more likely to be correct. Unfortunately, science itself is a lot more flawed than we previously thought, and needs to be interpreted with caution.

 

The key question for me is: do we improve our chances of getting things right by looking for multiple viewpoints, or do we just get more confused? We can certainly find out that our current viewpoint is only one of many. That should be a good thing for the open-minded to know. It might just create emotional distress (cognitive dissonance) is others, and particularly the dogmatists.

 

I have not found a good discussion of this issue. I suppose that most never even think of it, and some may believe that the answer is obvious. I am unsure of the best answer.

[norseman]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

That depends on whether or not access on foot, horse or vehicle is through private property.

 

 

For one thing, our own BF scientists should be doing this. But the bottom line is this is why I've been so adamant about getting science/academia involved. Thy have the equipment and the labs. But in order to better present my case to an institution, or department head, I need to be sure that the methodology is vetted by at last one to three scientists. I guess sending a scientist the link to the article about the PhD in the UK and the Amazon would verify the procedure as being valid. But it would be best to try and correspond with scientists familiar with, or have a history with, Sasquatch. That has been a bit of a chore to accomplish just by itself, especially since Meldrum, Disotell, and Mayor have not responded to my inquiries.

 

I would almost guarantee that the crick in question will hit public property further down the line.

 

So it sounds like you still need to find a lab. I would not worry myself with Bigfoot related scientists. I would just find a E DNA lab that is onboard with the latest techniques that you describe and get their bottom dollar price and start firing off samples. We could simply start taking samples in areas that the SSR points to as good areas. Off the top of my head? Sullivan lake would be a good place to start.

[hiflier]

Thank you , Mike, for your depth of reasoning on the dynamic that does succeed in getting some waffling back and forth occasionally. The pattern has usually been something comes in and eventually gets tossed around then fortunately rejected by this
"pretty canny bunch"  The "bunch" has also learned a healthy process of logical deduction which has served them, and the BF Community in general well.

 

And, nah, I didn't see any patronizing coming through our post. Only respectful dialogue with th best of intentions. Glad to have you around.

 

43 minutes ago, norseman said:

So it sounds like you still need to find a lab. I would not worry myself with Bigfoot related scientists. I would just find a E DNA lab that is onboard with the latest techniques that you describe and get their bottom dollar price and start firing off samples. We could simply start taking samples in areas that the SSR points to as good areas. Off the top of my head? Sullivan lake would be a good place to start.

 

Yes, my friend, I need to find a lab, LOL. WE need to find a lab- and there is one if good samples can be acquired. But what constitutes a good environmental DNA sample. That is to say how does one not just take pot shots in the dark? That's why I mentioned the nesting site. There is a recent history there and apparently very recent nest-building activity. Even so, one STILL is assuming that it's a Bigfoot doing the nest building. I mean, no one likes to just throw money away crying wolf, right?

 

But a university lab gets funding. Or, maybe it doesn't? Did Dr. Meldrum take the samples from the nesting soil pro bono? Some may not want an institution involved seeing as the go-to is Dr. Disotell. But then he is in a university facility with a lab that has conducted previous testing so people do have access to him. The question might be what would be the draw to sample Sullivan Lake? Is a potential source as seeming as strong as the nesting site? Is it cheaper to test water samples as opposed to soil samples? As you can see there are still questions that a scientist could answer and we need those answers. Without information then a lot of time and expense may go for nothing. And on that note we need a cost. That's why this needs to be taken up by academia, and academia is going to need a dialogue that works for them. Sometimes I think it's easier to build a house than to get a scientist to talk. It's why I either leave Sasquatch out of the conversation or find someone who understands the situation.

 

I do need to say that I appreciate what I note to be a bit of enthusiasm? I think that perhaps the last couple of articles may have cleared some things up for you and others? Believe me, researching to gain knowledge has been 90% of the battle for me. But it's been worth it because now I have a picture and a logical argument to bring to the table. All I need now is for Sasquatch existence to be logical  um....or dead. But I'll take it's DNA if nothing else.

[SWWASAS]

I have only interacted with one Washington University PHD.    His expertise was with grizzly and according to his bio he is one of the US experts in the critters.   .    I sort of did an end run with him asking if grizzly or any other large mammals in WA could produce infrasound.   I related that I had detected it in the field but was uncertain what could have caused it.    He responded, said he was unaware if any large animals in WA that might be capable of producing it.     Anyway he was respectful about answering questions.       I never mentioned BF nor did he.   I mentioned if any of his graduate students needed a  project I would be happy to collaborate with them.    It ended with that but showed me that something similar could be done with E-DNA.    Piggy back on my infrasound question,  and wonder if  E-DNA could isolate an animal in the area that could be there and producing infrasound.    An interested university scientist would be helpful as well as getting hooked up with a lab that would the testing.         It may be like I did, if we can get into E-DNA without wearing the bigfoot badge,   we can get some lab and scientists interested in what might be in the woods.    Perhaps someone could even get a private timber company interested.   But for sure someone does not want to come in guns blazing proclaiming they are a bigfoot researcher.   

 

I will throw this out on the table also.     It seems to me that some forum members are not doing potential DNA testing because of the cost.   If you think you could be finding viable DNA from any source please contact me privately.    I am not rich, but given the money I have spent so far on BF research,   DNA testing might be a bargain.    I would insist on transparency,   following scientific protocols,   and shared results to avoid being simply used by someone.  That lack of testing of the nests by the Olympic Project for lack of $5000 angered me greatly.  For them to slight my involvement,  then not test because they did not have that kind of money to test, seems incredible to me.   it seems to point to them being more into making money than doing science.   

[wiiawiwb]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

So it sounds like you still need to find a lab. I would not worry myself with Bigfoot related scientists. I would just find a E DNA lab that is onboard with the latest techniques that you describe and get their bottom dollar price and start firing off samples. We could simply start taking samples in areas that the SSR points to as good areas. Off the top of my head? Sullivan lake would be a good place to start.

 

I agree with Norse and it would be great if information could be shared with others here about which labs will accept samples.  I can ask around myself to see if anyone in a local university knows about e-DNA labs who would be open to doing eDNA analysis for individuals clients.  For example, Washington State University has a list of validated assays of 28 species. Only one is a mammal-- a beaver.

 

https://labs.wsu.edu/goldberglab/edna-assays-and-protocols/

 

I went to a half dozen websites and the "friendliest" one was Jonah Ventures. What do you think of the services they offer? They might be worth a phone call.

 

https://jonahventures.com/

[norseman]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Thank you , Mike, for your depth of reasoning on the dynamic that does succeed in getting some waffling back and forth occasionally. The pattern has usually been something comes in and eventually gets tossed around then fortunately rejected by this
"pretty canny bunch"  The "bunch" has also learned a healthy process of logical deduction which has served them, and the BF Community in general well.

 

And, nah, I didn't see any patronizing coming through our post. Only respectful dialogue with th best of intentions. Glad to have you around.

 

 

Yes, my friend, I need to find a lab, LOL. WE need to find a lab- and there is one if good samples can be acquired. But what constitutes a good environmental DNA sample. That is to say how does one not just take pot shots in the dark? That's why I mentioned the nesting site. There is a recent history there and apparently very recent nest-building activity. Even so, one STILL is assuming that it's a Bigfoot doing the nest building. I mean, no one likes to just throw money away crying wolf, right?

 

But a university lab gets funding. Or, maybe it doesn't? Did Dr. Meldrum take the samples from the nesting soil pro bono? Some may not want an institution involved seeing as the go-to is Dr. Disotell. But then he is in a university facility with a lab that has conducted previous testing so people do have access to him. The question might be what would be the draw to sample Sullivan Lake? Is a potential source as seeming as strong as the nesting site? Is it cheaper to test water samples as opposed to soil samples? As you can see there are still questions that a scientist could answer and we need those answers. Without information then a lot of time and expense may go for nothing. And on that note we need a cost. That's why this needs to be taken up by academia, and academia is going to need a dialogue that works for them. Sometimes I think it's easier to build a house than to get a scientist to talk. It's why I either leave Sasquatch out of the conversation or find someone who understands the situation.

 

I do need to say that I appreciate what I note to be a bit of enthusiasm? I think that perhaps the last couple of articles may have cleared some things up for you and others? Believe me, researching to gain knowledge has been 90% of the battle for me. But it's been worth it because now I have a picture and a logical argument to bring to the table. All I need now is for Sasquatch existence to be logical  um....or dead. But I'll take it's DNA if nothing else.

Correct me if I’m wrong? I thought that was the point of E-DNA? Taking pot shots in the dark?

 

Sullivan lake has had numerous sightings reported over the years. That would be the draw. If they are frequenting the lake on a regular basis? Maybe? I would think we could use the SSR to get us into promising areas.

 

Look. I will be your goat. But I’m not dealing with government bureaucrats and science labs. That would be your gig. But I am more than willing to help you get off the ground by taking water samples around the PacNW? I would donate my time and fuel. I would still pack a rifle. I could ship the samples to you with labels so that we know which sample came from where. After that? It’s up to you.

 

You have been talking about this for quite sometime. So let’s make it happen. 

[ShadowBorn]

Heck Yea Norse, That is a great idea. I do the same thing for ya as well. I send you soil samples of where I find these track prints of these creatures as well as creek or pond water where I have found prints near by before as well. As long as it does not cost that much I might be able to help you with that as well on my finds. Let's get this on the road and moving to find the truth. I have that ability of finding their tracks even when they are tough to find. But you can bet I am going to send some test sample to see how reliable these labs might be. It is the only way to find the truth in the lab work. But Norse has the idea and has it right. Let's make this E-DNA thing work for us. 

[hiflier]

This is amazing! What a turnaround. Okay, I will find a lab and go talk to them. And for the record, I don't want to deal with a bureaucratic set up either. The only reason I was trying to get through to them in the beginning was to get a take on what the WADNR had to say  about the nest find, and what or who they thought was responsible for them.......no response after one email and four follow ups. I have to say, it bothers me a bit more that our known"BF scientists" don't respond, though. Especially to a science question or two. No excuse for that. People have defended them, but there's no excuse for such behavior.

 

One thing we need to keep in mind with this, too, are trackways in snow. They are a known DNA source as well. Scientists use the method for tracking, polar bear, seals, elk, mountain lions, lynx and other creatures. Around here they use fecal DNA to monitor snowshoe hare populations and location,  which is about the only thing the lynx eats in Maine.

[norseman]

Let’s stop hijacking this thread. Start a new thread. Hiflier’s idea.... he has the honors.

[MikeZimmer]

It looks as if crowd has moved on, to discuss other stuff. Here are some more thoughts, perhaps parting thoughts, on the original post, taken from the blog Ephektikoi:

 

https://ephektikoi.wordpress.com/2020/05/02/random-puzzle-pieces/

May 2, 2020

Random Puzzle Pieces

There are vast undiscovered realms of information potentially available to us. These may be missed, unheard, ignored, or rejected without honest consideration. They may also be heard and understood or misunderstood.

 

However, whether they are heard or not they may be either correct or mistaken. If they are mistaken they may be honest mistakes or they may be lies.

 

Let’s conduct a thought experiment

 

Suppose we have a number of picture puzzles, jigsaw puzzles. We have one which is the true picture that we want to put together. However we don’t have the box so we don’t know what it’s really going to look like. We have a bunch of other puzzles, perhaps many puzzles, and these are not part of the picture were trying to assemble. They are the wrong picture. Now we can equate the first puzzle, the one were trying to build, to the true picture. We can equate all the others to mistakes and lies; they are the wrong picture.

 

Let us say that we take a random sample of each and every puzzle and then mix them altogether. Now the task is to assemble the true picture. How much success do you think you would have?

 

Although it has been said that analogies limp, perhaps we can see the parallels. I think that by looking at a broader spectrum of opinion, some of it being somewhat factual, and much of it being mistaken, we can at least get more parts of the true picture. Then we have to attempt to put things together into a coherent and true whole.

 

If we only look at safe and approved sources (i.e, mainstream views), we are 1) missing essential and required pieces of information, and 2) probably being propagandized. The media lie in the service of their owners and masters, and this has been shown time and again.

 

This is really the situation we find in so many of the issues we have to deal with in our world. We have some information available. We have misinformation and disinformation available. Some of the information, disinformation or misinformation we never encounter. Some we encounter and ignore or reject. Some we accept. What we accept may be true or may be false. From this we have to construct our understanding of the world.

 

Good luck!