New research ideas and methods Options

[Hairy Man]

The line we ran across the river from camp (we kept it WAY high off the water) was 6-7 feet high going through the tree line, and it did get bumped or pulled hard enough to jingle the bells a couple of times, but the line never broke. Problem is that when you run a line that long, and this was probably close to a hundred yards, you just can't pull the line tight enough that it'll snap easily. It'd have to practically be plowed through at a fairly rapid rate for it to break before whatever hits it has time to think "Whoa, what is this?" and stop moving. Still, when the little bells jingle, it does put you on high alert!

We once used one of those laser lines alarms set at 6 feet but it went off continually due to moisture. We never used it again. We have used glow sticks on line before but subtle movement is hard to see. We should try the bells though!

[JohnCartwright]

We once used one of those laser lines alarms set at 6 feet but it went off continually due to moisture. We never used it again. We have used glow sticks on line before but subtle movement is hard to see. We should try the bells though!

Was it from rain or just humidity?

[Hairy Man]

Rain, mist, and dew (as I recall).... Not much fun running out in the cold wet dark to find that the alarm only went off due to moisture. Then later, after the weather improved, we had several incidences of obvious movement that didn't cause the alarms to go off...likely because it was a deer under 6 feet...but dang! All that work for nothing!

[Wyomingite]

Your analysis of the problem with DNA types is in error Wyomingite. There is not a phylogeneticist in the world who would agree with you. You don't did a type specimen to compare anything with! Search other posts concerning DNA to read see the reasoning. I'm tired of explaining it again and again and again.

Please provide me a link to or reference a paper showing one creature that has been officially catalogued solely based on DNA evidence, as I admit I very well may not be aware of it. The first half dozen links on the site search didn't supply any direction along those lines, and I'm not going to read numerous threads to go over what I already know. Molecular phylogeny (I am familiar with the differences between and uses of mtDNA and nDNA) will give the exact taxonomic placement of a species in a clade, granted, right down to when the species split from relations. Molecular phylogeny has proven the fable of anatomical morphology as "the" defining taxonomic tool, granted. It's great for telling people that there is something out there that is unknown (or unclassified, if you prefer), granted. If people are willing to accept it. Perhaps it should be enough for classification. Most of my experience is with North American ungulates, so there very well may be a higher organism out there that has been officially classified based on a genetic sample alone, that I don't know of, as I stated. There has been significant upheaval and reclassification in various clades due to these methods, so a published description of this type wouldn't totally surprise me. However, even if such is the case, in regards to Sasquatch, if a conclusive DNA sample is tested as belonging to a hominin or even a hominid, does it belong to the "traditional" BF or to another North American primate? Based on the varied descriptions of hominids across the continent, without the body, it will be written off as contaminated, abherrent, or with another explanation as to why the sample is inconclusive. In addition, we are discussing one of the most controversial unknown creatures in history. Objectivity on the part of mainstream science will be near non-existent. Nope, a body or a signicant portion of one will be needed to end this mystery, bottom line.

Maybe you are tired of explaining it, but I don't appreciate the condescension. You assumed I'm completely ignorant on the topic; I am not. Even if I was, I believe there was no need to give the direction in a manner that would make someone who was a little less knowledgeable feel like a fool for asking.

[JohnCartwright]

Wyomingite,

Yeah, It did come across as really rude and condescending.

Rain, mist, and dew (as I recall).... Not much fun running out in the cold wet dark to find that the alarm only went off due to moisture. Then later, after the weather improved, we had several incidences of obvious movement that didn't cause the alarms to go off...likely because it was a deer under 6 feet...but dang! All that work for nothing!

Hairy,
Did you or anyone else in your group have any ideas on how to improve the results? Maybe try it when the weather is dry?
It just seems like a really good idea.

This post has been edited by JohnCartwright: Sep 30 2007, 01:47 PM

[BlueGenes]

I would ask forgiveness if I sound rude and arrogant. I'm just a bit weary of people throwing around "facts" about DNA and phylogenentic analysis when they don't know the basic concepts of these areas of study. You are correct in saying that a species can not be described using a DNA sequence alone. In fact, the rules of the International Zoological and Botanical Congresses don't allow it (you need a type specimen). Many have argued this is an outdated concept perpetuated by the "old guard" who don't understand phylogenetics, but this is not the forum for such a discussion.

However, if I did have a genuine BF DNA sequence I could place it's exact position within tree of life. I could tell you who it is most closely related too, who it's not related too, and it's evolutionary history. I don't need DNA from a confirmed BF body to compare it to. If BF is a real species it's DNA will be divergant enough to do so. It simply won't match any other species on record (DNA sequences from virtually every animal species is pubically available on a website knwn as GenBank).

As long as the same sequence could be found, from the same tissue sample, in different labs, the results would be considered valid and conclusive........you would have almost perfect confirmation of BF's existance. Yes, a body would be better, but the DNA would be enough to convince even the most skeptical biologist (assuming they know someting about phylogenetic analysis).

There is not BF body to test currently, and I'm not holding my breath that any will be found. But, there are enough hair samples to make a Persian rug. I propose that we should test many of them. If, after a few hundred or thousand samples match only known species we can all find other pursuits other than BF to occupy our time. If one sequence....JUST ONE........ reveals something valid and different mainstream science will lock onto the mystery and the rest will be history.

[hopeful]

However, if I did have a genuine BF DNA sequence I could place it's exact position within tree of life. I could tell you who it is most closely related too, who it's not related too, and it's evolutionary history. I don't need DNA from a confirmed BF body to compare it to. If BF is a real species it's DNA will be divergant enough to do so. It simply won't match any other species on record (DNA sequences from virtually every animal species is pubically available on a website knwn as GenBank).

As long as the same sequence could be found, from the same tissue sample, in different labs, the results would be considered valid and conclusive........you would have almost perfect confirmation of BF's existance. Yes, a body would be better, but the DNA would be enough to convince even the most skeptical biologist (assuming they know someting about phylogenetic analysis).

There is not BF body to test currently, and I'm not holding my breath that any will be found. But, there are enough hair samples to make a Persian rug. I propose that we should test many of them. If, after a few hundred or thousand samples match only known species we can all find other pursuits other than BF to occupy our time. If one sequence....JUST ONE........ reveals something valid and different mainstream science will lock onto the mystery and the rest will be history.

I like the way you think, BlueGenes! Dr. Wolf Henner Fahrenbach suposedly has several alleged bigfoot hairs from various parts of the nation. I don't understand why, but he claims that hair is not a good means of getting DNA. I think he reported something about all of them being morphologically different from human hair under the microscope, but being unable to get mDNA from any of them that would provide a whole sequence. He also said they all contained human DNA. I'll look for the article in a little while when I have more time and get you a link.

Have you thought of contacting Dr. Fahrenbach? We definitely need another DNA person for this cause!

[Wyomingite]

I would ask forgiveness if I sound rude and arrogant. I'm just a bit weary of people throwing around "facts" about DNA and phylogenentic analysis when they don't know the basic concepts of these areas of study.

Fair enough. I'll bury the hatchet and start over if you're willing. I agree maybe I should have stated a type specimen to "reference" rather than "compare", and cited the standard as support for that statement, especially being a newbie to the forum. Sometimes I forget nobody knows me on the internet.

You are correct in saying that a species can not be described using a DNA sequence alone. In fact, the rules of the International Zoological and Botanical Congresses don't allow it (you need a type specimen). Many have argued this is an outdated concept perpetuated by the "old guard" who don't understand phylogenetics, but this is not the forum for such a discussion.

LOL, I still hold with that "old guard", though I do understand phylogenetics and am not dismisssing their importance as a tool.

However, if I did have a genuine BF DNA sequence I could place it's exact position within tree of life. I could tell you who it is most closely related too, who it's not related too, and it's evolutionary history. I don't need DNA from a confirmed BF body to compare it to. If BF is a real species it's DNA will be divergant enough to do so. It simply won't match any other species on record (DNA sequences from virtually every animal species is pubically available on a website knwn as GenBank).

Yup. 'Bout the only way I've been able to convince some diehards that Bison bison and B. bonasus are not the same species.

As long as the same sequence could be found, from the same tissue sample, in different labs, the results would be considered valid and conclusive........you would have almost perfect confirmation of BF's existance. Yes, a body would be better, but the DNA would be enough to convince even the most skeptical biologist (assuming they know someting about phylogenetic analysis).

Ultimately this is where our viewpoint varies. Not on the validity, but on the acceptance. Depending on the size of the tissue sample, I suspect it would have to be repeatable from several samples from diverse locations to silence skepticism, especially from a sample such as medullae. Even then, I also suspect there will be "old guard" diehards who won't accept the results until the the entire "bird' is in "hand", so to speak.

There is not BF body to test currently, and I'm not holding my breath that any will be found. But, there are enough hair samples to make a Persian rug. I propose that we should test many of them. If, after a few hundred or thousand samples match only known species we can all find other pursuits other than BF to occupy our time. If one sequence....JUST ONE........ reveals something valid and different mainstream science will lock onto the mystery and the rest will be history.

I would love to see this. A database of corresponding DNA sequences from different samples that indicated an unknown primate exists in N.A. would turn some heads. But in spite of all the talk of DNA from an unknown primate, I've never seen any documentation of a complete sequence, and accordingly, IIRC, Fahrenbach's samples have resulted only in fragmented sequences due to a lack of medullae.

Anyways, peace, BlueGenes, all is well.

[BlueGenes]

Wyomingite: Once again, my regrets for assuming this thread was turning into a "DNA will never answer anything" discussion. I assumed... and you know what they say about ass*u*me*. It is refreshing to see you and I are almost on the same page. While you and I may disagree on one point, it's relatively minor.

I do have a copy of a recent publication about extracting DNA from hair shafts that lack medullae. The paper claims it doesn't affect the quantity or quality of the DNA extraction. I can forward it to you if you'd like.

I have read a few things about Dr. F's fragmented DNA. I must admit I'm still not clear on several points. Did he actually obatain any sequences? Were the reads very short or of poor quality? If, in fact, the DNA was fragmented neither the initial nor subsequent sequencing reactions would have worked (both the forward and reverse primers would not have been able to anneal)........hence no sequence at all. Or did the initial PCR fail and fragmentation of the DNA was simply assumed? Perhaps I should e-mail the good Dr, and ask him personally.

Your continued thoughts and information are certainly appreciated.

[JayleeD]

I have to jump in here and make a statement. THIS type of discussion is what keeps me coming back to the BFF every day! We are blessed, in my opinion, to have the people that we have posting here that are willing to share their knowledge and skills with us. I'd like to thank the scientists and the people who are out there doing the field work. You keep this subject not only interesting, but exciting. Hopefully one day soon we will all be able to compare notes and have proof of what we've been debating all these years.

OK, enough of that....carry on please.

[mike2k1]

I do have a copy of a recent publication about extracting DNA from hair shafts that lack medullae. The paper claims it doesn't affect the quantity or quality of the DNA extraction. I can forward it to you if you'd like.

Here is a link to an article discussing the publication. Very interesting.

LINK.

[hopeful]

I have to jump in here and make a statement. THIS type of discussion is what keeps me coming back to the BFF every day! We are blessed, in my opinion, to have the people that we have posting here that are willing to share their knowledge and skills with us. I'd like to thank the scientists and the people who are out there doing the field work. You keep this subject not only interesting, but exciting. Hopefully one day soon we will all be able to compare notes and have proof of what we've been debating all these years.

OK, enough of that....carry on please.

I THOROUGHLY agree!!

[JohnCartwright]

Wyomingite: Once again, my regrets for assuming this thread was turning into a "DNA will never answer anything" discussion. I assumed... and you know what they say about ass*u*me*. It is refreshing to see you and I are almost on the same page. While you and I may disagree on one point, it's relatively minor.

I do have a copy of a recent publication about extracting DNA from hair shafts that lack medullae. The paper claims it doesn't affect the quantity or quality of the DNA extraction. I can forward it to you if you'd like.

I have read a few things about Dr. F's fragmented DNA. I must admit I'm still not clear on several points. Did he actually obatain any sequences? Were the reads very short or of poor quality? If, in fact, the DNA was fragmented neither the initial nor subsequent sequencing reactions would have worked (both the forward and reverse primers would not have been able to anneal)........hence no sequence at all. Or did the initial PCR fail and fragmentation of the DNA was simply assumed? Perhaps I should e-mail the good Dr, and ask him personally.

Your continued thoughts and information are certainly appreciated.

Wow..you are so informed on this subject it is scary. It is people like you who will help solve this riddle.
Short of being lucky enough to get a body, it will be DNA that cracks this open.

I have to jump in here and make a statement. THIS type of discussion is what keeps me coming back to the BFF every day! We are blessed, in my opinion, to have the people that we have posting here that are willing to share their knowledge and skills with us. I'd like to thank the scientists and the people who are out there doing the field work. You keep this subject not only interesting, but exciting. Hopefully one day soon we will all be able to compare notes and have proof of what we've been debating all these years.

OK, enough of that....carry on please.

JayleeD, what about you? Do you have, or have you heard about any new ideas for research methods?

[JayleeD]

Only the things that I've read here JC. My life is just too full right now to try much of anything new.

[Wyomingite]

BlueGenes, I don't have those answers. I'm going off of what I've read and comments made by a couple of researchers that have worked with Dr. Fahrenbach, gentlemen who gave me some advice when I first opened my eyes to the possibility the critter exists.

I would be interested in seeing the paper if there is more to it than the link above, but I don't think I can PM yet.

This post has been edited by Wyomingite: Oct 1 2007, 07:07 PM

[JayleeD]

You should be able to use all the boards functions now.

[Apeman]

In fact, the rules of the International Zoological and Botanical Congresses don't allow it (you need a type specimen).

Perhaps, but I believe that a type specimen doesn't need to be a whole body or even part of one. My understanding, and my recent reading of the rules, is that a type specimen can be as little as a photograph, but perhaps that Congress is different than the reference I read? And I don't honestly know how it all works, but I frequently point out the kipungi or highland mangabey that was catalogued initially with nothing but photos- as discussed here:Highland Mangabey thread

I also think the Persian Rug analogy is a bit optimistic.

But otherwise I'm totally with Bluegenes on DNA being enough to at least get things started. Again, I refer to the highland mangabey example where the photos were enough to get the ball rolling and the animal to be at least initially (albeit wrongly) catalogued until a couple bodies turned up to seal the deal.

And to WYite's original question, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of micro-organisms that are catalogued on DNA only, but I gather you're expecting at least vertebrate.

Apeman

This post has been edited by Apeman: Oct 1 2007, 08:35 PM

[Sac-squatch]

I am a little lost on this DNA subject as it is not (or ever will be) my forte'. But I really do want to understand this. How does DNA evidence, presuming it is the right animal, show that it is the species that is what we consider sasquatch? Or does it just show that it is an unknown primate. I mean, can you actually look at DNA sequencing and say that "this DNA comes from an 8 ft animal with really big feet??" Not to be trite, but is that what it does? If it doesn't do that specifically, than how can it really crack the BF mystery?

[mike2k1]

That is a question that has been asked many, many times. Without nothing to compare the DNA to...what good is it? Maybe you can just use it as a process of elimination.

[Apeman]

Asked AND ANSWERED many, many times.

With due respect, you both need to get a little more friendly with the search engine. Bluegenes has only been here a couple months and is tired of explaining this very issue, which he's even done at least twice in this very 3 page thread! I've been here for years and am starting to feel like everything I write is totally meaningless because so few people bother to make an effort to search for answers to the same old questions, month after month after month. Throw in the daily influx of newbies and it starts to feel pretty hopeless. Yes, this is by nature a discussion forum, but that doesn't mean everyone shouldn't try to benefit from the half million posts already here.

That's my rant for the moment, and is not solely aimed at you two, so please don't take it as personally as it seems.

Apeman

[Texas Bigfoot]

I've only been here a short while but it is funny and disheartening at times to see a new person start a thread titled "Has anyone ever thought of using game cameras?" or "I'm gonna shoot a Bigfoot, who's with me?", without ever pausing to think that maybe, just maybe, someone has already thought of that before. It's not that new ideas shouldn't be discussed, but we are talking about getting some evidence of an animal in the wild, and there are a finite number of ways to go about that. Many different ways, but finite nonetheless.

[Sac-squatch]

Asked AND ANSWERED many, many times.

With due respect, you both need to get a little more friendly with the search engine. Bluegenes has only been here a couple months and is tired of explaining this very issue, which he's even done at least twice in this very 3 page thread! I've been here for years and am starting to feel like everything I write is totally meaningless because so few people bother to make an effort to search for answers to the same old questions, month after month after month. Throw in the daily influx of newbies and it starts to feel pretty hopeless. Yes, this is by nature a discussion forum, but that doesn't mean everyone shouldn't try to benefit from the half million posts already here.

That's my rant for the moment, and is not solely aimed at you two, so please don't take it as personally as it seems.

Apeman

WOW, sounds like you need to take a little break, maybe have some warm milk and cookies, this DNA subject was on this thread and I was just asking for more info, or maybe a different way of explaining it to me, because I did not fully understand and still don't. If you do not feel like joining in this part of the forum...then don't. If you are bothered by us newbies and you are feeling hopeless, then leave. I am a member of this forum, just as you are. If you would like your own private little club, then maybe you should. I happen to know a lot about tracking, geology and dog training, if you have any questions about those subjects that I am able to answer, I would be more than willing to explain them to you....again and again...from different angles if necessary. Take it personally...you bet I do. There was no due respect about it.

This post has been edited by Sac-squatch: Oct 2 2007, 09:38 AM

[FredSneakers/Dav...]

It's close to saying if a body was found, it would not be proof because there is no body of a known sasquatch to compare it too. It would just be an unknown primate.....

The search engine here is nice, the buttons on the top right of the page below the banner.

[Morgoth]

http://www.smm.org/buzz/blog/mammoth_hair_..._new_dna_source

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/28...h.ap/index.html

This seems to get around the problem of contaminated DNA and should be applicable to many existing bigfoot hair samples.

Sorry if this is already on the forum, I searched a bit & couldn't find it.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: Oct 2 2007, 10:15 AM

[Sac-squatch]

It's close to saying if a body was found, it would not be proof because there is no body of a known sasquatch to compare it too. It would just be an unknown primate.....

The search engine here is nice, the buttons on the top right of the page below the banner.

Well, except if a body was found and it fit the "general" description of what most people call Sasquatch, it really wouldn't matter what it is named after that..mystery solved. In my book at least. I have used the search engine, and it does work nicely. I was just following this thread with a question I had.

This post has been edited by Sac-squatch: Oct 2 2007, 09:59 AM

[FredSneakers/Dav...]

Well, except if a body was found and it fit the "general" description of what most people call Sasquatch, it really wouldn't matter what it is named after that..mystery solved. In my book at least.

As would the placement of sequenced DNA on a taxonomic tree somwhere within the superfamily Hominoidea.


These articles being posted look very promising. How many hair samples currently exist?

This post has been edited by FredSneakers/David: Oct 2 2007, 10:29 AM

[Sac-squatch]

As would the placement of sequenced DNA on a taxonomic tree somwhere within the superfamily Hominoidea.

LOL... I will take your word for it... I think someone needs to draw me out some sort of comic book on "sequenced DNA on a taxonomic tree and how that proves it is an 8 ft hairy beast with bigfeet." I am F----ing dense! I'll stick to training my cadaver dog and search for a dead "wookie" with him on my off time.

This post has been edited by Sac-squatch: Oct 2 2007, 10:40 AM

[FredSneakers/Dav...]

Cadaver dogs is an interesting idea, have you tried to find say, a dead bear, with one?


Both Meldrum and Krantz in their respective books mention parasites found on the hairs and in the feces of alleged sasquatches, though neither make clear the exact names (anyone know?). I wonder what could be learned from what these animals might have living off of them.

[Sac-squatch]

Cadaver dogs is an interesting idea, have you tried to find say, a dead bear, with one?

Yes, Black Bear, Mountain lion, ringtail to name a few hard to find carcasses. To start with a reference point before I walk a grid I use circling buzzards. My cadaver dog Roscoe and I have around 2500 hrs in training for human cadavers. Since these animals are not human, he does not signal, but he does have a "tell" when he finds any animal decomposition.

This post has been edited by Sac-squatch: Oct 2 2007, 11:02 AM

[FredSneakers/Dav...]

You know, they're always saying how dead bears are never found in the wild, and bears are certainly more bountiful than sasquatches.

This post has been edited by FredSneakers/David: Oct 2 2007, 11:03 AM

[Sac-squatch]

You know, they're always saying how dead bears are never found in the wild, and bears are certainly more bountiful than sasquatches.

Yeah I have dispelled that myth 4 times in the last 2 years, none of them being killed on the road.

[FredSneakers/Dav...]

Yeah I have dispelled that myth 4 times in the last 2 years, none of them being killed on the road.

That's awesome!

And cougars too? Might not be for this thread, but do you have pictures and/or information on how, where, and in what condition the bodies were found?

Oh, what about lion kills? I don't know how often predation occurs between cats and large apes today, but there is evidence for Austalopithecines being predated.

Krantz speculated (Bigfoot/Sasquatch Evidence) that the best time to find a body would be in the winter, since the cold and lack of food might drive some old/young/sick sasquatches into starvation.

This post has been edited by FredSneakers/David: Oct 2 2007, 11:11 AM

[Sac-squatch]

I keep all my records in training log, and report all bears and mountain lion deaths to the respective agency be it the NPS(Yosemite) or USFS(Sierra).