Chimpanzee/Bonobo/Human/..........Sasquatch?.........DNA

[hiflier]

15 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

So how many determine species?

 

The short answer, Huntster, is that one needs a NUCLEAR DNA's genome to determine that. For Humans that would consist of all 3 billion or more base pairs and science is on the verge of sequencing almost all of it. Most genomes in the genbanks are only from the smaller circular mitochondrial DNA, but those genomes are sufficient to determine an animals genus. But as I said, VERY good fresh mitochondrial DNA renders long sequences tha can show species, but not generally from nature because of the fragmented condition that most eDNA is found in due to microbes, UV, and moisture breaking it down. And yes, DNA in water fragments and degrades rather quickly but gets just as quickly replenished by the organisms that live in those aquatic environments. Terrestrial animals that visit water bodies to drink, immerse, travel in, and swim also leave DNA in the water, along with whatever rain and snow melt washes in from watersheds.

Edited November 12, 2022 by hiflier

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

..........Was that a way of sending us a cryptic message saying Sasquatch? If not then what exactly WERE those other primates and where did all of that OTHER primate DNA come from?.........

 

Maybe African-American, Nordic-American, and Asian-American?

 

Quote

.......But if the DNA was really good enough to pick out individual species of Chimps then IMO it would've been good enough to pick out not only Humans but also Human DNA that is Human but loaded with anomalies. Mutations. If Sasquatch is Homo then it would show up as Human but with obvious mutations. That isn't part of the information we were given, however.

 

2) The DNA wasn't that good and so couldn't show species, only genus. In which case those "several other primates" were NOT Chimp cousins but in fact were other GENUSUS of primates. For instance, Humans, Chimps, Gorillas, Orangutans, Gibbons, and Baboons are all primates from different genuses. So, what was really picked up in those soil samples and why were we only told what we were told? HAH! several other primates indeed! Essentially that told us nothing.

 

Precisely, or that whatever it did indicate can't hold up to scrutiny.

[hiflier]

Based on the smaller circular mitochondrial genome, knowing that each base pair has been given a number (in sequence) from 1-16,569, which 150 base-pairs sequence would science look at for determining an organism's genus? That was something I had always wanted to specifically know. Since this is a Human, Chimp, Bonobo, Sasquatch thread let's stay with that. And here it is:

 

Human: 12s mtDNA sequence 945-1095 (150 bp)
945                                                                                           gtttta gatcaccccc
961    tccccaataa agctaaaact cacctgagtt gtaaaaaact ccagttgaca caaaatagac
1021  tacgaaagtg gctttaacat atctgaacac acaatagcta agacccaaac tgggattaga
1081  taccccacta tgctt
Bonobo: 12s mtDNA sequence 945-1095 (150 bp)
945                                                                                         aactta aaccccctac
961    gcatttatat agaggagata agtcgtaaca tggtaagtgt actggaaagt gcacttggac
1021  gaaccagagt gtagcttaac ataaagcacc caacttacac ttaggagatt tcaactcaac
1081  ttgaccactc tgagc
Chimpanzee 12s mtDNA sequence 945-1095 (150 bp)
945                                                                                         taaacc ccctacgtat

961   ttatatagag gagataagtc gtaacatggt aagtgtactg gaaagtgcac ttggacgaac

1021  cagagtgtag cttaacataa agcacccaac ttacacttag gagatttcaa ctcaacttga

1081  ccactctgag ccaaacctag cccca

 

 

Edited November 12, 2022 by hiflier

[hiflier]

All anyone needs to see in the above table is that a measly 150 base pairs out of 16,569 can have such major differences in their sequences that when running DNA tests it is rather easy for scientists to determine the respective GENUS of each one. Those three sequences are nothing alike.

 

I hope I'm helping to take some of the mystery out of how easily and accurately DNA testing can show which creatures are in a given environment.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2022 by hiflier

[hiflier]

https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/environmental-dna-edna

 

"Environmental DNA (eDNA) is organismal DNA that can be found in the environment. Environmental DNA originates from cellular material shed by organisms (via skin, excrement, etc.) into aquatic or terrestrial environments that can be sampled and monitored using new molecular methods. Such methodology is important for the early detection of invasive species as well as the detection of rare and cryptic species."

 

And this article from February of this year (2022). It's a very good read
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/researchers-are-using-edna-track-lynx-wolverines-and-more

 

"The eDNA comes from the paws of an individual animal and can be in the form of skin cells or secretions from scent glands. When the animal steps in the snow, it leaves behind this genetic material. While searching for food, a lynx can lay down over five miles of tracks in one day; a wolverine can lay down even more. The constant movement of these animals in the winter means tracks are a ubiquitous part of these snowy landscapes.....A positive detection of a species can be determined from tracks that are weeks old, and a single strand of DNA is all that is needed."

 

This why I will be continuing my winter research here in Maine. IMO, cutting a trackway in snow is hands down the easiest way to determine whether these creatures are around or not. This methodology saves a lot of time by allowing me to canvass much larger areas of forestry roads and land. The Sasquatch can't get anywhere without crossing many of these roads looking for food.

 

And since any footprints don't really have to be that fresh it leaves plenty of time after a snowfall for the search. As long as overnight temps don't dip below 20F I'll sometimes stay out there a night or two depending on how far I travel. I'm posting this to encourage others to consider doing the same. It's a good program.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by hiflier

[BC witness]

@hiflier, that's what I do every winter, as the only tracks I ever found were in snow in a high mountain pass. Of course, that was 40+ years ago, so no DNA was even thought about. John Green took some photos when I took him there, and that was the end of it. I'll definitely try to retrieve eDNA if I locate tracks in the future.

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, hiflier said:

.......And this article from February of this year (2022). It's a very good read
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/researchers-are-using-edna-track-lynx-wolverines-and-more

 

From your link:

 

Quote

.......Because collecting snow tracks is so simple, Herrmann has involved people in her department other than researchers to help with the efforts. Now, when Forest Service law enforcement officers and recreation specialists come across supposed rare carnivore tracks, they are trained to collect the DNA. More people involved in the monitoring process has meant covering more ground, Herrmann says...........

 

Now, again, consider the almost undeniable fact that, if sasquatches exist in North America, government knows about it. 

 

Then consider what that means. 

 

First, it means that government knows all about them. They've most certainly attempted the Jane Goodall approach with the species. Wouldn't you like to read that report.

 

Secondly, they've decided, or more accurately, reconfirmed, that secrecy and the suppression of discovery is the best course of action. There is likely a long list of reasons for that, but the key question here is; to what extent will they suppress discovery? Is it actually dangerous to your health to press the issue, or is it just a waste of your time, effort, and investment?

 

Thirdly, it almost confirms that efforts to openly and legally search for and interact with this species is best conducted on private lands if possible, or if it must be public lands (because the best habitat areas in western North America are likely public lands), pursuing a permit from a state or federal agency at least puts administrative and scientific pressure on government to relent, especially if secrecy clauses are expressed in permit applications.

 

Fourthly, if the no-kill eDNA approach is taken, and private lands are the preferred search areas, indigenous lands are the largest plots of remote lands in the west. Indigenous management councils might be open to allowing access, or they might even be open to collecting samples themselves. Then again, maybe not. Like me and government, they might see the wisdom of secrecy, too.

 

Fifthly, there might currently be active studies or co-habitation operations going on in this secrecy arena by either or both government and private organizations. The NAWAC and Olympic Project models are examples of such private operations on private lands. Imagine a government operation supported in an extremely remote location with the benefit of helicopter support and the legal power of enacting flight and access restrictions.

 

[hiflier]

Thanks for jumping in here, and good comments and questions all, Huntster. My point is that the methodology I'm incorporating will work. That's why I posted the links and quotes from those links, especially the one addressing snow sampling. Because sampling snow prints in oreder to verify this creature (F&W or FS no doubt has already done it more than once!) is obviously a viable and scientifically acceptable method. My question, therefore, has to be:

 

Do you have a conclusion that wraps up everything you said into your overall personal viewpoint for pursuing discovery? And do you have a picture to share that describes the endgame for a guy like me, or anyone else, should what I hope to find- and how I've been proposing to find it- actually happen?

 

45 minutes ago, Huntster said:

but the key question here is; to what extent will they suppress discovery? Is it actually dangerous to your health to press the issue, or is it just a waste of your time, effort, and investment?

 

It would be fine by me if you would like to answer those two questions yourself. And it would be okay to be specific and narrow down the "dangerous to your health" part is a far cry from "just a waste of your time, effort, and investment." There's a lot that could easily be alluded to in between those two bookends. No tip-toeing required- we're all grown ups here.

 

i.e., does ever NAWAC think- or know for sure- that they have been under a government microscope? That has always been a question of mine. Because F&W and LEO"S (game wardens) definitely have jurisdiction within private lands. What they are doing vs what I am doing is like night and day. Besides the degraded blood sample from years back, does anyone think that in all of this time (speaking of their 51 "hard" sightings) that NAWAC, they of all people, has never taken one DNA sample? 

 

[Huntster]

9 hours ago, hiflier said:

.........Do you have a conclusion that wraps up everything you said into your overall personal viewpoint for pursuing discovery?.........

 

It will be difficult to open discovery up to the world, and I am not personally interested in trying, but I have no problem with anyone who may want to do so. On a personal level, I would simply love a good quality sighting.

 

Quote

.........And do you have a picture to share that describes the endgame for a guy like me, or anyone else, should what I hope to find- and how I've been proposing to find it- actually happen?.........

 

I wish you the best, but I suspect that you would find the fame of discovery to be quite uncomfortable. 

 

Quote

.........It would be fine by me if you would like to answer those two questions yourself. And it would be okay to be specific and narrow down the "dangerous to your health" part is a far cry from "just a waste of your time, effort, and investment." There's a lot that could easily be alluded to in between those two bookends. No tip-toeing required- we're all grown ups here.........

 

I don't think that government would send their ninjas to waste you if you pursue discovery. They don't need to. If they feel the need to put you down, they could just make your life really busy with just an hour or so on a keyboard.

 

Quote

........i.e., does ever NAWAC think- or know for sure- that they have been under a government microscope? That has always been a question of mine. Because F&W and LEO"S (game wardens) definitely have jurisdiction within private lands. What they are doing vs what I am doing is like night and day..........

 

I suspect government is interested in such operations on private lands, but any interference would attract lots of attention. There may have been contact made by wildlife managers, just so the squatchers know that they're being watched.......perhaps a request to let them know if they find anything of interest.

 

Quote

.........Besides the degraded blood sample from years back, does anyone think that in all of this time (speaking of their 51 "hard" sightings) that NAWAC, they of all people, has never taken one DNA sample? 

 

With over 50 confirmed sightings, they've had a few good rifle shot opportunities. A good DNA sample should be presumed.

[hiflier]

19 hours ago, BC witness said:

@hiflier, that's what I do every winter, as the only tracks I ever found were in snow in a high mountain pass. Of course, that was 40+ years ago, so no DNA was even thought about. John Green took some photos when I took him there, and that was the end of it. I'll definitely try to retrieve eDNA if I locate tracks in the future.

 

Very good of you to say that. Considering how long it has been for you since your experience you may be nearly ready to give it a go. The caveat being to try and maintain the snow in its original condition until you can hand it off. Consider video documentation from the get go of your collection procedure, storage, chain of custody etc. And lastly, although this goes against almost every BF researcher's sort of privacy code, GPS coordinates will have to be part of the record. Not only for the vetting process but also to provide a point location for any scientific follow up.

 

I have a privacy code as well but when it comes to something like this I WANT science in on it as much as possible. That means I WILL provide the location details and anything else a scientist might ask for. I've seen a lot of science bashing over the years here and elsewhere and even purchased this book by Levi Machovec: Scientific Defiance of the Recognition of Relict Hominids. It is full of little else but science bashing.

 

Science is not my enemy, though. Give scientists something solid and, guaranteed, they WILL step up.

 

 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

A good DNA sample should be presumed.

 

Personally, that is not a statement I could ever bring myself to make. Not only that, there is currently zero to back up the statement since NAWAC is still out there and at least half those guys are still trying to grass one. I could say more about bringing in alphabet agencies, in a positive way, but it would only serve to bury the "presumed" comment even further.

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by hiflier

[Huntster]

14 hours ago, hiflier said:

.........Give scientists something solid and, guaranteed, they WILL step up.

 

If it's solid and guaranteed, what do you need them for? If you give me a million dollars, I'll step up and be a millionaire for you.

[Huntster]

14 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Personally, that is not a statement I could ever bring myself to make. Not only that, there is currently zero to back up the statement since NAWAC is still out there and at least half those guys are still trying to grass one............

 

The reason they're still trying to grass one might be because the DNA is still leading them to denial by the gatekeepers of Science.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

If it's solid and guaranteed, what do you need them for?

 

A rhetorical question. Without their stamp of approval we'd just end up in the same boat that we're all in right now.

 

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

The reason they're still trying to grass one might be because the DNA is still leading them to denial by the gatekeepers of Science.

 

Then the DNA evidence they MIGHT have (pure speculation) isn't/wasn't good enough. If it is/was they could all go home.

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by hiflier

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

........Without their stamp of approval we'd just end up in the same boat that we're all in right now...........

 

Yes, yes, yes! Now, who (specifically) is "they"? Names, please.

 

Quote

.......Then the DNA evidence they MIGHT have (pure speculation) isn't/wasn't good enough. If it is/was they could all go home.

 

It has been said many thousands of times on this forum that Science will not relent until they have a type specimen. Do you disagree? 

 

Thus all a "mysterious" DNA sample/result might result in is increased funding/effort by Science to obtain the necessary type specimen, no?

 

I say 'mysterious' while thinking of this potential scenario:

 

Imagine another PG film event occurred tomorrow, complete with at least two witnesses, a minute and a half no-BS moving film of a sasquatch (with a look back, view of the bottoms of its feet, huge shoulders, long arms, compliant gait, etc), beautiful footprints (many) in soft substrate perfect for casting, multiple third parties arriving on scene over the subsequent week taking pics and casts for themselves, etc...........but with the addition of eDNA from water that filled some of the footprints. The DNA test results showed a human genetic line that was previously unknown.

 

Do you think that Dr. Science (whoever that is) would then publish a press release admitting that sasquatches exist? Or would we be back to Line Item #1;

 

"Where is the type specimen?"