Can You Really Shoot A Bigfoot?

[wiiawiwb]

5 hours ago, hiflier said:

The apathy around here is palpable, so the important point I was making was to at least reach out. In the larger picture it would make for a good impression about where members stand on discovery. Barring taking that kind of simple action, we could just discuss the next footprint photo or speculate whether or not what's on someone's video or audio is real or not. None of it has moved the BFF needle- never mind science's. I've seen ten years of it, and some around here have seen way more than that. For me? Zero proof, and most here agree and have said as much, and yet....

 

We're at opposite ends of the spectrum, and that's ok. I have absolutely zero interest in DNA gathering or proving that sasquatches exist to anyone but me. A solid footprint impression, red eyeshine, return wood knocks, whoops, thermal videos, and more are still what tickles my fancy and has motivated me to get out in the woods often these past 17 years. 

 

If you want to try your approach, base solely on collecting DNA, and get others to do so as well, I'd cheerfully applaud your efforts and look forward to seeing the results all of you have found.

 

In the meantime, I'm going to continue to trudge along using primitive methods in hopes that I can find a sasquatch or, more likely, it finds me.  A fundamental difference between our approaches is that mine may involve actually looking at a sasquatch peeking from behind a tree across a secluded pond. I'm nearly breathless with heart pounding, just waiting for it to move. Actually living the discovery.  Your approach doesn't appear to place any value on ever seeing one ... just get its DNA.

Edited November 26, 2022 by wiiawiwb

[Patterson-Gimlin]

^^^

I like your approach. Best of luck. Sounds good especially the outside part. 

[hiflier]

5 hours ago, Duckman said:

That's a lot of lip, for someone who believe that Bigfoot is hiding in local government...

 

You bet it is. And you're either not getting this, or else, what you read doesn't register. I've said many times that the goal for me is the truth. I don't "believe" that Bigfoot is "hiding in government". But I AM convinced that the TRUTH of whether or not this creature actually exists DOES hide in government. A definitive answer either way has been my objective for years and others will back me up on that. I don't even care whether I see one or not. If it exists then its DNA will be out there and that's good enough for me. There are already enough mutations evident in Human DNA to strongly suggest that it does exist. But suggesting it exists and proving it are two different things.

 

In any case? Government knows it exists, or government knows that it doesn't, but hasn't got the backbone, or the moral fiber, to step up and say either way. But instead, it continues to remain silent on the issue so that revenue continues to flow both from the resource/tourism industry as well as the Bigfoot biz industry. It's why I encourage members of the BF community to go the more scientifically accepted route of collecting environmental samples for testing. Because as far as us determining the question of creature's existence, DNA is the best tool we have to put the issue to rest.

 

Another point to make is that if someone gets DNA, say in Oregon, that proves the Sasquatch lives there it won't carry over to Sasquatch being real in Montana, or anywhere else for that matter. Only a concerted effort by Montana researchers will do that. And that's true for any state- like Florida or Oklahoma for instance. Water, soil, snow, or air...doesn't matter how or where the samples come from or who collects them. It's been mentioned that groups and people won't work together because they hate each other. Who cares, a ten year old, by themselves, could collect samples. And I'll bet dollars to donuts that no speaker at any conference is urging attendees to go out and collect samples- or even doing a workshop to show them how. That alone puts things in kind of a worrisome, albeit clear, perspective doesn't it?

 

 

Edited November 27, 2022 by hiflier

[gigantor]

I'm glad you're back Hilfiger...

 

How's the DNA project going? 

 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

........Another point to make is that if someone gets DNA, say in Oregon, that proves the Sasquatch lives there it won't carry over to Sasquatch being real in Montana, or anywhere else for that matter..........

 

Once they're proven to exist anywhere, the game changes completely. Then government must act. No longer will a gaggle of "sasquatch researchers" be allowed to run around banging on trees and howling at the moon. 

 

And, of course, that is the primary reason why government does not and will not allow discovery.

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, gigantor said:

I'm glad you're back Hilfiger...

 

How's the DNA project going? 

 

 

Thank you, g, I'm waiting for snow just like last year. It's Maine so I should be out there soon enough.

 

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Once they're proven to exist anywhere, the game changes completely. Then government must act. No longer will a gaggle of "sasquatch researchers" be allowed to run around banging on trees and howling at the moon.

 

I actually like this post very much.

 

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

And, of course, that is the primary reason why government does not and will not allow discovery.

 

But that's that primary reason for hoping that hundreds of people go out and collect samples from across the country and Canada. The government might be able to stop one or two, but not hundreds because collecting environmental DNA samples and having them tested is perfectly legal and sanctioned by science and government alike- in every state plus federal USFS and USF&W. I have posted and linked their very own .pdf's and papers here a bunch of times. And in every one of those papers the agencies tout, not only how reliable the technology is for finding rare species, but also inform the public on the accepted scientific protocols to follow when collecting samples. And that's the beauty of the whole thing, little in the way of cost for materials, and options for the method of sampling that one wishes to deploy.

 

And then there are these results from TEN YEARS AGO which were posted right here on this Forum back in September of 2020. It takes a little focus to fully appreciate what the chart is saying, but it's worth the time it may take to do so. Basically these are mutations uncommon in Humans but common in other primates. The first and second ones (grey) aren't even in the GenBank, and each one of the rest, from different geographical regions, have mutations that are not seen together in the GenBank. This is pretty amazing stuff:

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2022 by hiflier

[xspider1]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

I don't even care whether I see one or not. If it exists then its DNA will be out there and that's good enough for me. There are already enough mutations evident in Human DNA to strongly suggest that it does exist. But suggesting it exists and proving it are two different things.

 

So, when whoever you consider to be 'Science' shows you a DNA sequence and tells you: 'That's a Bigfoot!', you will quit condescending to everyone else on this forum? cool!  

[hiflier]

I would much prefer for people to keep their comments on the subject and not on me. It seems to be a habit around here which I have never really appreciated much because it's highly non-productive. I posted a chart, comment on that if you will, please. What do you think it's showing? Is it important? Does the fact that the data in the chart was from ten years ago matter? Or that identical mutations were contained in genomes that were geographically separated? Or the fact that there is a mutation that isn't in the GenBank? Or that ALL of the mutations are common in other primates but rare in Humans? That ONE of those mutations is rare enough in a Human genome, never mind more than one? Two of those mutations in one genome is highly improbable, all three is virtually impossible.

 

This is what should be being discussed. There's some very important data here that's been on this Forum for well over two years and no one in that amount of time that I know of has ever bothered to bring it up. Why is that? Drs. Meldrum, Disotell, and Mayor all know about that chart. Darby Orcutt does, too. So. Whose chart is it? Where did it come from? How did it get here?

[Twist]

8 hours ago, hiflier said:

I would much prefer for people to keep their comments on the subject and not on me. It seems to be a habit around here which I have never really appreciated much because it's highly non-productive.

That may happen If you were not so pompous and condescending to most members of the forum as a whole.  

[hiflier]

55 minutes ago, Twist said:

That may happen If you were not so pompous and condescending to most members of the forum as a whole.  

 

Knock it of, Twist. All of you, just stop and please just address the subject. Why doesn't anyone do that? Why do people keep putting me in the way as if I'm the reason for not having a mature discussion on what I've posted and, instead, have to make it personal....STILL. It's a lame excuse. Get over it. There are open questions that are being honestly asked here and could do well with some responses to them. Or are you simply confirming my point that there's something seriously wrong with this Forum when almost no members engage in a scientific dialogue that goes to the heart of Sasquatch discovery? Don't forget, this is a public Forum which means the public is viewing all of this. The public just may wonder what's going on here as well.

Edited November 27, 2022 by hiflier

[hiflier]

About that chart of mutations. Just what does something like G7258A mutation even mean? Simply put, mitochondrial DNA has 16,569 base pairs and each one, in order of appearance, gets a number from base pair number "1" to base pair number "16,569." So the four numbers, "7852" is the location on that base pair on the mtDNA molecule. So what's up with the letters? Out of the four genetic letters used, A, T, C, and G, the "G" is showing that it is the normal amino acid in that base pair position. So in the full 16,569 mtDNA sequence of, position 7852 SHOULD be a  "G" but on the chart that's not the case and here's how to know: G7258A is telling us that the normal "G" has mutated to "A".

 

So it means that at base pair position 7852 the normal guanine (G) has mutated to adenine (A). and it's saying that that mutation is rare in Humans but common in other primates. Hope no one minded that I went into this. Hopefully it provides some clarity on what one is looking at when they see why these are noteworthy mutations when it comes to comparing normal Human DNA with very rare Human DNA that has mutated more into the realm of other primates.

[hiflier]

What about that first mutation at the top of the chart (the one that isn't found in the GenBank)? What does the lower case "c" mean at the end of those numbers. A lower case letter means that it is an insertion. An insertion is an additional base pair in the a DNA sequence. So G7223c means that another cytocine (C) base pair was plugged into the mtDNA molecule at position 7223. That's what's NOT found in the Human mtDNA sequence that's in the GenBank. And there's no info on the web about it.

 

When something like that insertion happens it can upset the function of a gene in a way that can make it not work the way it should. The opposite of that, a deletion, can have the same effect.

 

Edited November 27, 2022 by hiflier

[BC witness]

Thank you for the explanations, hiflier. I have never investigated DNA science, but you made that data make some sense to me.

[hiflier]

You're more than welcome, BC witness. And thank you for your kind response. That chart, which didn't come from me, has been collecting dust here on this forum for a couple of years now. I dug it up because the information contained in it very important to understand. All I did was dig down to try and find a good way to explain it. Hope the insight helped, sounds like it may have so the digging was worth it   What's amazing is that DNA testing had picked out those mutations ten years ago. And where DNA technology is at today is mind blowing compared to back then for what it can now do and show.

Edited November 27, 2022 by hiflier

[Catmandoo]

On 9/2/2022 at 5:17 AM, Twist said:

If it bleeds, we can kill it.

Please post that your real name is not "Dutch".