Jump to content

e-DNA Sampling For Sasquatch


Recommended Posts

SWWASAS

Right now the best  possible source of DNA I have heard about from forum members are the vegetation that Bigtext thinks that BF are chewing this time of year.   Add to that the fact that BF have been observed pulling up plants and eating the roots in other locations,   I would call that typical behavior.    He is finding recently chewed roots during the spring months.  We might have to wait until next spring at this point,    from what he says, but it seems to me that he has a better chance of getting BF DNA on a regular basis than any other situation I have heard about     It is very unlikely that some human is chewing those roots.      Submit them to some lab simply to find out what is eating the plants.  BF does not have to be mentioned.  I guess the worst case for testing would be that some human knows the plants produce some sort of high and has been chewing them all along.    If the lab says the chewer is human then have the lab determine as much as possible about the human chewer.   Race determination might rule out some illegal alien eating them on their way North.    Check the samples for the NOTCH2NL variations.        If the chewer has those variations or ancient markers that have not been seen in thousands of years then we are onto something.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
NCBFr
9 hours ago, norseman said:


With that said? Why is it that what Hiflier is trying to do more complicated? I would think fossils with degraded DNA would be tougher than a fresh water sample taken a week ago? Extinct vs extant? Dunno.

 

I apologize if my message seemed like an attack as it certainly was not meant that way.  I have nothing but immense respect for you and believe your solution is the only one that has a chance to get BF recognized.

 

To answer your question directly, the problem is not getting the DNA (other than your point of not being able to find an actual BF, let alone its eDNA).  The problem that I was asking is what happens when you get unrecognized DNA that you think may be BF.  I believe every attempt to date comes back as contaminated human.  HF seems to have thought this through but I need more time to understand the solution.

 

If we can figure this out there is a BF hot spot about 2 hours away (1 by car and 1+ on foot) in which I would love to collect samples for the study. 

 

PS - I think the best way to get eDNA is not water samples, but via a deer bone pile from a BF kill.  They are easily recognizable and thus your chances of a miss far outweigh sifting through gallons of water in the hopes that a BF recently took a piss, walked through, or had a drink (or all 3) from a random water source in the wild.

 

Edited by NCBFr
Added a thought..hopefully good
Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
On 6/24/2020 at 10:18 PM, hiflier said:

and a lab who will take them.

 

My thoughts on this and I hope I'm wrong and I think we should continue to search for a lab to do the testing, but...

 

I'm pessimistic that we could find a lab willing to do the testing, or at least to present and back the results publicly.

 

Why? because when you get the results and claim to have Sasquatch DNA (or e-DNA), the first question is going to be "who did the testing? we want to talk to them to see if they did it correctly". There will be a microscope applied to the lab/scientist who does the testing (ask Ketchum). I doubt anybody making a living off of it will want to risk their livelihood.

 

What we need is one or more Grad students looking for a thesis subject. In academia, the thesis subject doesn't matter that much, it's the application of the techniques and concepts that matter. The kids won't be crucified because they applied lab techniques and leading edge concepts for their thesis. The fact that they tried to find Sasquatch e-DNA is not important. They could try to find unicorn e-DNA and it still wouldn't matter.

 

Lets say they find it and write the thesis, it will be reviewed and "judged". Hopefully they don't make a fatal mistake...  it would then raise some eyebrows and we would have a platform to try to convince a more reputable lab to take up the search. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
6 hours ago, NCBFr said:

 

I apologize if my message seemed like an attack as it certainly was not meant that way.  I have nothing but immense respect for you and believe your solution is the only one that has a chance to get BF recognized.

 

To answer your question directly, the problem is not getting the DNA (other than your point of not being able to find an actual BF, let alone its eDNA).  The problem that I was asking is what happens when you get unrecognized DNA that you think may be BF.  I believe every attempt to date comes back as contaminated human.  HF seems to have thought this through but I need more time to understand the solution.

 

If we can figure this out there is a BF hot spot about 2 hours away (1 by car and 1+ on foot) in which I would love to collect samples for the study. 

 

PS - I think the best way to get eDNA is not water samples, but via a deer bone pile from a BF kill.  They are easily recognizable and thus your chances of a miss far outweigh sifting through gallons of water in the hopes that a BF recently took a piss, walked through, or had a drink (or all 3) from a random water source in the wild.

 


No. No. All is good. I was teasing you in my last response about collecting water samples.

 

The fact of the matter is with E DNA? I hear you. Seems like there is a lot of water out there to sift through. But they seem to be nailing this down. So? I dunno. I am willing to give it a whirl for the sake of a possible discovery. 
 

I did collect a elk or moose femur bone for the bone study one time. I certainly am not opposed to trying every angle. If I’m already out there? It’s not a big deal to collect a water sample or collect bones or whatever is of interest. Obviously the best solution is a body for sure!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb
7 hours ago, gigantor said:

 

My thoughts on this and I hope I'm wrong and I think we should continue to search for a lab to do the testing, but...

 

I'm pessimistic that we could find a lab willing to do the testing, or at least to present and back the results publicly.

 

Why? because when you get the results and claim to have Sasquatch DNA (or e-DNA), the first question is going to be "who did the testing? we want to talk to them to see if they did it correctly". There will be a microscope applied to the lab/scientist who does the testing (ask Ketchum). I doubt anybody making a living off of it will want to risk their livelihood.

 

What we need is one or more Grad students looking for a thesis subject. In academia, the thesis subject doesn't matter that much, it's the application of the techniques and concepts that matter. The kids won't be crucified because they applied lab techniques and leading edge concepts for their thesis. The fact that they tried to find Sasquatch e-DNA is not important. They could try to find unicorn e-DNA and it still wouldn't matter.

 

Lets say they find it and write the thesis, it will be reviewed and "judged". Hopefully they don't make a fatal mistake...  it would then raise some eyebrows and we would have a platform to try to convince a more reputable lab to take up the search. 

 

 

If we're looking for this to be considered proof, and a peer-reviewable paper published, I think we have other things to consider. For starters, I doubt many here have any formal training in chain-of-evidence handling procedures. Me -- I have no idea whatsoever. Without adherence to credible, and formally-recognized procedures, we run the risk that results would be tossed out because the method was faulty.

 

There may be other steps, as well, that are required during the process that all of us would need to be apprised of and document we satisfied. I just don't know what I don't know.

Edited by wiiawiwb
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, gigantor said:

My thoughts on this and I hope I'm wrong and I think we should continue to search for a lab to do the testing, but...

 

I'm pessimistic that we could find a lab willing to do the testing, or at least to present and back the results publicly.

 

In a sense I agree. I'm going on the point that money is money, and as long as a lab gets paid for a job that's no different that any other e-DNA testing job then they probably won't say no. Basically, samples are samples and techs are techs. "Here's a sample, let me know what's in it."

 

I do like the idea of a grad student and have run across them in my searches of academic departments in "our" field of interest. They, in fact, have been the recipients of some of the emails I get no responses from.

 

1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

If we're looking for this to be considered proof, and a peer-reviewable paper published, I think we have other things to consider. For starters, I doubt many here have any formal training in chain-of-evidence handling procedures. Me -- I have no idea whatsoever. Without adherence to credible, and formally-recognized procedures, we run the risk that results would be tossed out because the method was faulty.

 

There may be other steps, as well, that are required during the process that all of us would need to be apprised of and document we satisfied. I just don't know what I don't know.

 

Hey, w, we're all learning here, right? This whole thing is in it's infancy and I hope to learn how not to mess it up. No one has equipment yet and no one is taking samples yet because there isn't a place to send them yet. So we have time to iron most of the big stuff out, like chain of custody. My first thought on that is do we need credible witnesses?

 

I do think that any sample showing a novel primate that get retested with the same results will scientifically stand on it's own?

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
28 minutes ago, hiflier said:

'm going on the point that money is money

 

That is true. Maybe I'm looking too far ahead...

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot
9 hours ago, gigantor said:

Why? because when you get the results and claim to have Sasquatch DNA (or e-DNA), the first question is going to be "who did the testing? we want to talk to them to see if they did it correctly". There will be a microscope applied to the lab/scientist who does the testing (ask Ketchum). I doubt anybody making a living off of it will want to risk their livelihood.

 

 

 

If that's not the best argument for a body being the best and really ONLY evidence, then I don't know what is...

 

DNA results might not prove it to the world, but it would at least prove it to the participants of the collection effort...

Edited by BlackRockBigfoot
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Hey, g, looking ahead is a good thing. Our past experiences have NOT been pleasant or easy to deal with. Lessons learned. That's why staying with something that science, whether the data is brought in by a post grad or a lab tech, has to accept on the basis that it IS science.

 

3 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

If that's not the best argument for a body being the best and really ONLY evidence, then I don't know what is...

 

I agree. There's no question that a body would close the argument.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot
13 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Hey, g, looking ahead is a good thing. Our past experiences have NOT been pleasant or easy to deal with. Lessons learned. That's why staying with something that science, whether the data is brought in by a post grad or a lab tech, has to accept on the basis that it IS science.

 

 

I agree. There's no question that a body would close the argument.  

Yup.

 

But, there is still value in this e-DNA project...if only that it might energize researchers to keep looking.  It would also give us a definitive area that hosts a population of these creatures.  An area that could be honed in on for further studies.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)

Agreed again BRB. And here's the thing, too. The "system" in incredibly stacked against shooting one, or even being possession of a body or body part all the way to the lab. There are laws, jurisdictions and all manner of firewalls set up to make the job so personally dangerous as to nearly assure that the evidence won't see the light of day. In other words it is just precariously illegal all the way around.

 

On top of that, any specimen will have to end up in a lab anyway. e-DNA on the other hand is perfectly legal in every respect and could end up doing the same positive thing, and having the same positive outcome. Trusting science though is still the hard part. But at least with DNA the level of personal risk is extremely low all the way around. Even if as you say, results show that areas do have creatures either present or going through. But even then, if e-DNA shows us that then it means that the results ended definitely showing us, and science, that a novel primate exists :) 

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot

@hiflier

 

I don't know how the hunt for a possible lab is going, but you may want to reach out to these guys.

 

https://genidaqs.com/

 

They were featured in a recent Bigfoot show/documentary on the History Channel.  They accompanied one of the hosts into an area, took samples, and then tested those samples for e-DNA that might belong to Bigfoot.

 

2 of the 3 main people involved in with this company were on the show, so obviously they are not too worried about their company being involved with the search for Bigfoot.

 

They have prices for different testing listed on their site, although I am not sure how that would translate to what we need done exactly.

 

We don't need one of their employees to come out to gather the samples. We can do that once we establish an accepted protocol and equipment guidelines.  They may very well require that the samples be submitted in a particular sort of sample container.  

 

They specialize in the detection of cryptic species, which in this case doesn't relate to cryptozoology but to different organisms that are so familiar to each other that they appear to be the same species.  That may come in handy if the e-DNA is similar to but slightly different from human DNA. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot

I'd say that this falls into the "Unique Project" category.

Screenshot_20200626-123310.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot
16 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Thank you, just got off a message to them :) 

Good deal.

 

I was going to shoot them an message, but I figured that you have your spiel down to a science by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...