Government Coverup?

[hiflier]

10 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

but I am also saying that wiiawiwb isn’t incorrect in his assessment of widespread participation.

There's a reason that wiiawiwb isn't incorrect in his assessment regarding widespread participation. Because most researchers can't be bothered. How many Bigfoot researchers are their in North America? How are into their research for thousands of dollars with just thermal imagers and recorders? Then there's night vision, all kinds of other gear, and clothing additionally in the thousands. So it's not about the measly two hundred bucks. To say that a couple of hundred bucks is some kind of deal breaker? All that tells me is that public disclosure is way down on the list of commitments. Because if it wasn't, then researchers IN GENERAL would have embraced this DNA stuff years ago. How many researchers are saying that they are now deploying the technology? None. The ONE thing outside of shooting one or finding physical remains that anyone and everyone can do.....Who's doing it? No one.

 

Government cover up? Who cares? Seventy five percent of the poll says there is one. So what.

 

[norseman]

52 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Good thinking and good question, Norseman. What also came up in the UK study or was it Copenhagen?) was that animals from outside the zoo that were miles away also got picked up like horses, dogs, cows, hogs, birds, the rare endangered hedgehog, etc. That is what really surprised some of those researchers. But you are correct, things like tigers that could only be at the zoo isn't really an indicator of what could be done in very open air in the wild.

 

But when one thinks about a target species, namely a novel primate, then conducting the process in areas known for activity would seem like a good method. The study picked up guppy DNA from a pond with the guppies under water. That says something about how sensitive the tech is. I see it as meaning one doesn't need a body of water or a river/stream in order to test the waters or a footprint in soil or show to sample a definite physical medium. So sampling could be done in plain old regular forests or woods as long as the tester had the collecting filter facing into a breeze or a wind coming out of the woods. The technology is new, yes, but the principals are the same as water sampling but much easier to deploy.

 

The trick will still be filtering out Human DNA markers, which are practically everywhere now in the environment from the data results. Or addressing the issue before samples get tested- something that is pretty routine for most any lab dealing with fish or mammal population detection. But, man, park along a forest road, step out, fire up the pump. aim the filter into the wind, uncap the cover, sample or 5-20 minutes, and drive away. This opens the door to anyone- even those with physical disabilities can become active and a very important group in the quest. People who make up small research groups, too, can pool their money and resources in the effort. We need more information on all aspects of this new approach but there's already a lot of information on to web to check out, like in the area of more natural settings. 

 

 

Sounds interesting. It certainly would be easy. Easier than water samples.

[Twist]

But do we not inevitably come back to the same issue we always do?  Contaminated sample?  With Any form of e-dna this seems to me, to be the hiccup.   With no reference sample of BF DNA we are always going to come back as contaminated.  With e-dna, be it soil, water, or now atmosphere, I feel there is less chain of custody so to say.   It’s always going to be waived off as contaminated.   Idk, just my opinion.  

[hiflier]

Just now, norseman said:

Sounds interesting. It certainly would be easy. Easier than water samples.

 

Yeah, Norseman, I think so, too. Need to look into it some more for sure. There's some technical details that I've been running down but the one study simply used a fan with a HEPA filter over it. I mean is it really only that simple? A box fan stuck into a window of some hunting camp with a filter on it? Of course the work comes afterwards on the do-not-contaminate-the -sample side. But all that means is keep one's Human DNA out of filter until it gets to the lab. Doesn't have to be sterile or anything, it would only have to not have my DNA in the sample.

 

So what would I do? Cover the thing with a plastic dry cleaning bag when done? Wear gloves, wear a mask? Sit and have a cold beer in the truck with the pump running while parked out there in the back forty? So yeah, LOL, just a few questions to run to ground. Like could I modify a 12v aquarium air pump to be a vacuum pump with some tubing going to a Smith Root $15 single use filter cartridge, and then just send the cartridge with the untouched filter inside to a lab? This is the kind of stuff I'm trying to find out.

[MIB]

12 minutes ago, Twist said:

Idk, just my opinion.

 

My suspicion as well.   I think this comes back to Disotell .. until you can decisively eliminate the possibility of a degraded human sample, you can't claim a novel species has been found.   That was Ketchum's mistake, the thing she wasn't willing to hear.   Not, at least, until you have a reliable type specimen / "type sample" of known, provable bigfoot.   The issue, as I see it, is with a known sample you are doing a positive match.    Without one, you're trying to do a "not a negative" match and back into the answer.   Degradation of sample introduces an additional unknown .. or many, that you simply can't account for.

 

If someone is willing to pay for testing, more power to them.    If Disotell tells me I misunderstood what he said, cool, I'll ask some questions to be sure I understand, then change my mind.   'til then, though, I'm not wasting my personal cash on a sample I'm not personally 100.0% certain of.   That is not going to be a sample from the environment ...  

 

MIB

[hiflier]

15 minutes ago, Twist said:

But do we not inevitably come back to the same issue we always do?  Contaminated sample?  With Any form of e-dna this seems to me, to be the hiccup.   With no reference sample of BF DNA we are always going to come back as contaminated.  With e-dna, be it soil, water, or now atmosphere, I feel there is less chain of custody so to say.   It’s always going to be waived off as contaminated.   Idk, just my opinion.  

 

Good post. It would be foolish to not bring those kinds of things up because there have certainly been problems in the past about that. Chain of custody might actually be pretty short: Sampler, Lab tech. Maybe one other? And don't forget, Ketchum's study was a full ten years ago! That's ten years for the technology to improve which is all it has done- improve and become more precise. Why do I have to constantly remind people of this stuff? Why can't folks simply advance with the technology? Because they won't study one single drop of it. So the same questions and arguments keep coming up again and again and it goes round and round. But I HAVE studied it, and this Forum KNOWS I have. And I answer everyone's questions because I understand the science and have read tons of papers and studies, but it still isn't good enough?

 

 

Edited March 7, 2022 by hiflier

[norseman]

7 minutes ago, Twist said:

But do we not inevitably come back to the same issue we always do?  Contaminated sample?  With Any form of e-dna this seems to me, to be the hiccup.   With no reference sample of BF DNA we are always going to come back as contaminated.  With e-dna, be it soil, water, or now atmosphere, I feel there is less chain of custody so to say.   It’s always going to be waived off as contaminated.   Idk, just my opinion.  

Regardless it doesn’t take away the need for a type specimen with science. But if something is found? Then maybe it will prompt science to go look. If there is skullduggery involved? Then every form of proof could be in jeopardy. Not just eDNA.

 

Again UFO parallel, but just watched a video in which researchers were researching the Kecksburg Pennsylvania crash. A crash the government claimed was a meteorite. So upon a FOIA request it was discovered that the material that NASA had? The 2 full boxes had come up missing. Sorry. Never mind the object itself they hauled away with a flatbed.

 

 

[hiflier]

I am sorry I ever brought any of this DNA stuff up. I truly am.

[SasquatchPA]

19 minutes ago, hiflier said:

I am sorry I ever brought any of this DNA stuff up. I truly am.

Personally I’m glad you did bring it up. These are the type of technology we should be talking about. I have heard of environmental DNA gathering. I think I saw it first on an Expedition Unknown series by Josh Gates. I know I would like to learn more about this technology and if it could be done in a practical sense by us the general populace weekend warrior.
 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, SasquatchPA said:

Personally I’m glad you did bring it up. These are the type of technology we should be talking about. I have heard of environmental DNA gathering. I think I saw it first on an Expedition Unknown series by Josh Gates. I know I would like to learn more about this technology and if it could be done in a practical sense by us the general populace weekend warrior.
 

 

I would ask, Norseman, MIB, Twist, and Foxhill about that. They may have all of the answers you seek.

[norseman]

2 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

I would ask, Norseman, MIB, Twist, and Foxhill about that. They may have all of the answers you seek.

Why me?

[Foxhill]

4 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

I would ask, Norseman, MIB, Twist, and Foxhill about that. They may have all of the answers you seek.

HUH? Ya trying to start a fight LOL?

[hiflier]

20 minutes ago, norseman said:

Why me?

 

Because shooting one is the only way to go- your own much repeated corpse on the doorstep recommendation

 

18 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

HUH? Ya trying to start a fight LOL?

 

You wish.

 

Edited March 8, 2022 by hiflier

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, SasquatchPA said:

These are the type of technology we should be talking about.

 

Sorry. Not gonna happen. But you can try if you wish and see what happens.

 

Edited March 8, 2022 by hiflier

[norseman]

10 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Because shooting one is the only way to go- your own much repeated corpse on the doorstep recommendation

 

That’s not what I meant. 

 

What I’m saying is that if DNA discovery happened tomorrow? Science will still want a type specimen. They will want to dissect it and study it’s morphology.

 

And to be fair Hiflier? Your just as pig headed as I am.