Central Data Base, Published Biological Evidence Classification Data Base Options

[Roller]

The following paragraph is part of a post I made yesterday. I was told it should be a Topic so here it is and what do you think about this idea?

In order to get the support of the scientific community; who's job it will be to verify that Bigfoot exist, will be to stop the expoltation of the search and start funding small expeditions into sighting areas for serious and qualified individuals to gather all evidence of any animal activity in these areas. Then start eliminating evidence leading back to known species. Any evidence left that's not linked to a known species can then be further studied againest other samples from other areas around the country that didn't lead back to known species. A data base of these findings can be updated and maintained for any and everyone to tap into for further research. The scientific community will stand up and take notice of such a data base and may soon start crunching the stats and try to identify the unknown species. Thus further eliminating samples that lead back to known animals. In the end there will be evidence and samples that will stand out as UNKNOWN and that will be the evidence that launches an Organized Scientific Research Group that will verify everything that most people on this and other fourms all ready know.

Little of what is out there now and what will be discovered later will be worth much to the scientific community until some form of order and process is initiated to compile data, collect submit and store physical evidence, and interview witnesses from a high level of scrutiny equal to those conducted during the investigation of criminal acts.

This post has been edited by Roller: Dec 30 2008, 12:25 AM

[hopeful]

I agree, Roller. An organized data base of all existing and future physical evidence that cannot be traced to a known animal will be an important development.

Jeff Meldrum has a footprint database, although I don't yet know how to access it. Henner Fahrenbach, David Paulides and other individuals have a collection of hairs. It would be great to be able to catalog in one place every piece of evidence and its current location.

The GCBRO purportedly was in possession of blood samples which they turned over to a lab that subsequently vanished (yes, the lab vanished.) If there was a centralized database that was run by responsible people, then the evidence could begin to pile up to form something tangible rather than drifting around in limbo or disappearing completely.

I volunteer to do data entry if/when the need arises.

[georgerm]

This would be a good start for compiling evidence. From this data base, scientist would need to submit peer review papers to begin the evidence verification process. Presently only one peer review paper has been submitted from a group of hundreds. Jeff Meldrum submitted a paper, and the support if gained was sporadic I believe. Presently, many scientist are hesitent to endanger their careers by directing their studies in the BF area rather than some accepted area such as the study of other rare animals.

[southernyahoo]

I support this idea and think that certain labs should be willing to analyse samples since they are willing to do it on TV programs. I fear though that many labs would be tentitive in doing so because they are likely to be over loaded with samples from various known animals thus, increasing work load on a volunteer work force.

There would have to be a screener that is not biased or working from any preconcieved notions about sasquatch evidence. The process of inclusion or exclusion would have to be from comparitive analysis of most probable knowns.

If science were willing to meet us halfway then I'm sure the research methods would improve dramaticly. As it is, people/researchers are left to decide for themselves what is reliable evidence and what is not.

SY.

[georgerm]

South.... your idea is a good one. If someone could compile the evidence that has been run through a lab in a data base then others can see what has been done. The lab name, and test results would provide others to add to this data. For example, I sent a hair sample to a DNA lab and am waiting for the results.

[hopeful]

Exactly, it would be great to be able to check on the status of the various samples undergoing analysis and to actually see what all is currently being (and has been) analyzed. What a extraordinary coordinated effort it would take to compile something like that and to keep it up to date!

[Saskeptic]

Well far be it from me to ever discourage folks from organizing data into a searchable archive. I'm unconvinced though, that a database (and analysis of the data it might at this point contain) would really advance the science any. Jeff Meldrum has a database, Henner Fahrenbach has a database, the BFRO has a database - these databases in and of themselves haven't really changed anything.

The real paradigm shift in bigfootery will come when better evidence is presented - not better organized evidence, better evidence. Whether that comes in the form of some high quality photography, a DNA analysis that actually lives up to its hype (e.g., is indisputable and published in the mainstream), or a whole body remains to be seen.

[southernyahoo]

Well far be it from me to ever discourage folks from organizing data into a searchable archive. I'm unconvinced though, that a database (and analysis of the data it might at this point contain) would really advance the science any. Jeff Meldrum has a database, Henner Fahrenbach has a database, the BFRO has a database - these databases in and of themselves haven't really changed anything.

The real paradigm shift in bigfootery will come when better evidence is presented - not better organized evidence, better evidence. Whether that comes in the form of some high quality photography, a DNA analysis that actually lives up to its hype (e.g., is indisputable and published in the mainstream), or a whole body remains to be seen.

My bolding,

Saskeptic, most of your skepticism revolves around evidence, this whole idea is about getting what evidence we have subjected to scientific scrutiny, and thats what makes it better. If we get a good sequence of DNA, then this will further this research. What is equally important is the information regarding where and how the evidence was found/collected. Various animals leave spoor in various forms, the spoor is what we use to help find the animals we are studying or hunting, the same would be true of BF. So, in the case of a hair sample find for instance, it would also help to have the information about what kind of spoor it was found in asscociation with. This will help other researchers find further evidence in different areas. Without first undergoing the scientific scrutiny, the evidence and information is often disregarded. Is this how you want it?

In order to get the support of the scientific community; who's job it will be to verify that Bigfoot exist, will be to stop the expoltation of the search and start funding small expeditions into sighting areas for serious and qualified individuals to gather all evidence of any animal activity in these areas. Then start eliminating evidence leading back to known species. Any evidence left that's not linked to a known species can then be further studied againest other samples from other areas around the country that didn't lead back to known species. A data base of these findings can be updated and maintained for any and everyone to tap into for further research

Remember this is about biological evidence.

SY.

[Roller]

Well far be it from me to ever discourage folks from organizing data into a searchable archive. I'm unconvinced though, that a database (and analysis of the data it might at this point contain) would really advance the science any. Jeff Meldrum has a database, Henner Fahrenbach has a database, the BFRO has a database - these databases in and of themselves haven't really changed anything.

The real paradigm shift in bigfootery will come when better evidence is presented - not better organized evidence, better evidence. Whether that comes in the form of some high quality photography, a DNA analysis that actually lives up to its hype (e.g., is indisputable and published in the mainstream), or a whole body remains to be seen.

Well....LOL....ahhh......excuse me a second........Humm...hummm........,

Well I......LOL......I ah.......LOL........., give me a minute......I'm a southern boy, through and through...and I .......LOL....can't.....LOL....!!!

....................................................................Five minutes later:.............Whoa...i feel better now................So on to the reply .

I tend to agree with you, but for one small over looked issue. That being this is a CENTRAL DATA BASE. Not data bases scattered about like leaves in the wind. Not data bases devoted to any one type of Physical Biologiocal Sampling.

The purpose of this data base would be to catalog some, but not limited to, the following and make it available to anyone for research and analysis.:

!. DATE AND TIME THE SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED.
2. GPS LOCATION PRIOR TO COLLECTION.
3. WEATHER CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF THE COLLECTION.
4. WEATHER CONDITIONS IN THE PAST 24 HOURS BEFORE COLLECTION.
5. FORENSIC PHOTOS OF THE COLLECTION SITE.
6. FORENSIC PHOTOS OF THE HABITAT
7. FORENSIC PHOTOS OF THE OUTER PERIMETER
8. NAME OF PERSON COLLECTING THE SAMPLE
9. PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF SAMPLE BY FIELD INVESTIGATOR
10. METHOD OF COLLECTION, BAGGING, WRAPPING, BINDEL
11. METHOD OR COLLECTION PRESERVATION, REFRIGERATION, DRYING SAMPLE OUT
12. METHOD OF DELIVERY, UPS, USPS, IN PERSON
13. CONDITION OF SAMPLE ON DELIVERY
14. FORENSIC PHOTOS OF THE SAMPLE BEFORE COLLECTION
15. FORENSIC PHOTOS OF THE SAMPLE AFTER DELIVERY
16. DOCUMENTATION SHOWING DETAILED CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF SAMPLES IN POSSEISON OF CARETAKERS
17. PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF SAMPLE BY PERSONS TAKING DELIVERY OF SAMPLE
18. NAME OF CARETAKERS INVOLVED IN CUSTODY OF THE SAMPLE AND LOGGING THE SAMPLE INTO THE DATA BASE.
19. PRELIMINARY IDENTIFCATION BY OTHER QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS AND INVESTIGATIOR.
20. NAMES OF ALL INDIVIDUALS AND INVESTIGATORS AND THEIR OPINIONS ON THE SAMPLE
21. WILL THE SAMPLE GO TO LAB TO BE FURTHER IDENTIFIED
22. IF NOT GOING TO LAB, CATALOG THE SAMPLE, UPLOAD THE DATA, AND PLACE IN STORAGE FOR FUTURE REFERENCE OR DISPOSE
23. IF GOING TO THE LAB, PROVIDE CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERY VERIFCATION.
24. NAME OF LAB AND PERSON TAKING CUSTODY OF SAMPLE.
25. DATE SAMPLE WAS SUBMIOTTED TO THE LAB
26. DATE SAMPLE WAS RETURNED FROM THE LAB
27. PROVIDE CHAIN OF CUSTODY FOR THE SAMPLES RETURN.
28. PUBLISH LAB RESULTS
29. KNOWN ANIMAL, PLACE SAMPLE IN PROPER CONTAINER FOR DISPOSAL.
30. UNKNOWN ANIMAL. PLACE SAMPLE IN PROPER STORGAE CONTAINER AND STORE PROPERLY FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
31. UPLOAD NEW DATA AND CROSS LINK SAMPLE TO LIKE CATEGORY; HAIR TO HAIR, TISSUE TO TISSUE, DNA TO DNA.

Im sure there are many more sugestions on how to proceed, I just wanted to stress how this data base would possibly work.

On a note about DNA. If there is no previous known species with that DNA, then the lab will not be able to positively identify the sample and the lab will find it as inconclusive DNA. If the DNA inconclusive findings on samples collected all around the country are later comparied to each others DNA signature what will the DNA findings be then? Especially since each new inconclusive DNA sample now has a BASE of DNA sample to be compared to. It must be rememberd that DNA wont necessarily identify the unknown specise, since it is, after all unknown to science. What it will allow is for researchers to see for maybe the first time how Suspected Bigfoot DNA compares to other Suspected Bigfoot DNA across the country. This is what I believe will wake up a few SKEPTICs in the scientific fields and possibly launch a new era of research into .....Bigfootery.........; forgive me.....I just had to use it!! LOL

[hopeful]

...On a note about DNA. If there is no previous known species with that DNA, then the lab will not be able to positively identify the sample and the lab will find it as inconclusive DNA. If the DNA inconclusive findings on samples collected all around the country are later comparied to each others DNA signature what will the DNA findings be then? Especially since each new inconclusive DNA sample now has a BASE of DNA sample to be compared to. It must be rememberd that DNA wont necessarily identify the unknown specise, since it is, after all unknown to science. What it will allow is for researchers to see for maybe the first time how Suspected Bigfoot DNA compares to other Suspected Bigfoot DNA across the country. ...

(My emphasis.)

This begs the question of how much, if any, of the inconclusive DNA has been compared. Dr. Fahrenbach claims that the unidentified hairs in his collection are similar to each other and to other purported sas hairs elsewhere.

I recall reading about a new biology instrument on the horizon to help identify and catalog known and unknown species. My memory is not cooperating right now. It was to be a small portable hand held device that could be taken by taxonomists out into the field. I know this isn't helping, so I'll google around for it if somebody doesn't beat me to it. I think it was being developed to help with a project called something like "Tree of Life" in which an organization was wishing to attempt to identify more and more of the staggering amounts of undiscovered/unclassified species.

edit to add: Found it.

DNA-Reading Tool Helps Quickly Identify Species

Within a decade, scientists may be able to use a hand-held device to instantly identify any species from a snippet of animal tissue, says a University of Florida researcher.
That may be possible thanks to scientific advances that include the first test quantifying the effectiveness of a DNA identification tool among brightly colored shells. With an error rate as low as 4 percent, two UF scientists have been able to identify cowries collected from around the world by analyzing tissue samples from the marine organisms and comparing them to a comprehensive catalog of species they compiled.

The findings were published in the December issue of PLOS Biology.

“DNA barcoding — the ability to take a remnant of animal tissue or blood and compare it with a known database — has attracted widespread attention with its promise as a valuable aid in species identification and discovery,” said Christopher Meyer, a UF biologist and one of the researchers. “However, few comprehensive data sets are available to test its performance. This is the first study to actually put realistic numbers on it.”

Because species around the world are disappearing faster than biologists can identify them, the need for a quick and accurate method of classifying life has never been more pressing, Meyer said. With millions of animal species on Earth, DNA barcoding can be a helpful identification tool for ecologists who may not necessarily be taxonomy experts, he said.

“This new technology is seen as kind of a fancy, cool tool that will revitalize museums, which will house the reference collections, and generate ‘gee whiz’ appreciation from the general public as well,” he said.

Much of the analysis was done at the Florida Museum of Natural History at UF — where Meyer and his co-author Gustav Paulay are curators — because of its world-renowned collection of cowries. After 10 years of collecting and sequencing cowries from around the world, Meyer and Paulay assembled a database from 218 species. The public has long been fascinated by the shiny, colorful shells, ardently collecting them for centuries, Meyer said.

“The question is what happens as you move away from cowries or birds into nematodes or sea spiders and other creatures that people don’t know much about,” he said. “That’s where the problem in identifying different species is greatest and where the bulk of the diversity of life is, including large numbers of undescribed forms.”

In those cases where the data is incomplete because the collection of known species is small, scientists currently rely on threshold values to identify the likelihood of a particular specimen being a brand new species vs. being distantly related to an existing one, he said.

Using their database of these well-known animals, the accuracy of thresholds was examined supposing that their identity was unspecified. In these cases, the researchers determined that thresholds would yield a 17 percent error rate.

Besides its benefits to ecology, DNA barcoding has some forensic applications, Meyer said. One applied use already being employed is identifying the bird species responsible when a carcass damages an airplane engine, he said. “Engines are built to withstand strikes by birds up to a certain size, but not a large crane or goose,” he said. “Thus, it’s helpful to know which brand of shredded tweet went through the combine.”

And because the technology also can identify eggs or other different life stages it could be used to help stop the spread of invasive species, Meyer said. “A border guard may come across some eggs or larvae in an orange shipment and wonder if they are from a dangerous fruit fly or something else to be concerned about,” he said.

For that matter, this ability to detect species in earlier stages of development could benefit ecologists in their work as well, Meyer said.

“Scientists studying butterflies are able to link caterpillars to adults in the field without having to rear them in the lab anymore to see them pupate and grow up,” he said. “They can just sequence the caterpillar and link it to the adult butterfly.”

Probably the most common application, for scientists and consumers alike, would be the ability to instantly analyze the DNA of a plant or animal with a hand-held device, Meyer said.

“It’s very Star Treky if you can imagine McCoy having this kind of hand-held device, something like his tricorder,” he said. “Is that really a cod fillet you’re buying at the fishmonger?”

Although the availability of such a device might be 10 or 15 years off, it could allow scientists to have a small lab within the rain forest, collecting biodiversity data and being instantly linked via satellite to the encyclopedia of life.

Christopher Meyer, cmeyer@flmnh.ufl.edu
Cathy Keen

This post has been edited by hopeful: Dec 30 2008, 07:54 PM

[Roller]

Hopeful

That is a very interesting indeed. How old is the article anyway?

If all things related are true, that will be a piece of equipment "Bigfootery" will not be able to do without. .....I know I did it again....sorry!! LOL

I wonder how many coins this toy will set one back?

Wow !! If it works like most hand held scanner/inventory computers on the market, one can store lots of numeric data and download it later to a mainframe.

There will still be a need to store the data and have it available to be acessed. So the data base idea appears to be on target for future.

Thanks

[hopeful]

The article is from Spring 2006. I haven't yet found any more info about the device. It sounds almost too good to be true.

However ... I was reading an article today about how scientists can now use satellites to locate Egyptian ruins (rather than having to use the old fashioned Ground Penetrating Radar and other strenuous and time consuming methods.) (My bolding below.)

For those lugging unwieldy gear across jungle and desert, an effective bird's-eye view can change the world. It lets them leave behind the days and days of meticulous "prospecting" and get results from airplane-mounted sensors or, later on, a flyover by an advanced satellite.

When I read that, I thought how wonderful for those people and wished that something could come along and change the world of Bigfootery to the same degree. I had forgotten about the DNA bar coding device until I read your thread. So now I'm thinking that if something that cool can happen for some scientists, then maybe it could happen here, too! (It still sounds almost too good to be true, though.) I'll keep googling.

Here's the link to the Tree of Life Project web project. (My emphasis.)

The Tree of Life Web Project is a collection of information about biodiversity compiled collaboratively by hundreds of expert and amateur contributors. Its goal is to contain a page with pictures, text, and other information for every species and for each group of organisms, living or extinct. Connections between Tree of Life web pages follow phylogenetic branching patterns between groups of organisms, so visitors can browse the hierarchy of life and learn about phylogeny and evolution as well as the characteristics of individual groups.

[Saskeptic]

Well....LOL....ahhh......excuse me a second........Humm...hummm........,

I'm not sure what you found so amusing about my post Roller. A database, whether centralized or not, is only as valuable as the data deposited there. If you'd like to build a database of the (at least) 30-odd items you listed, be my guest. But "science" really only needs one such piece of evidence to break this thing open, if that evidence has any merit to begin with.

[GuyInIndiana]

The purpose of this data base would be to catalog some, but not limited to, the following and make it available to anyone for research and analysis.:

!. DATE AND TIME THE SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED.
2. GPS LOCATION PRIOR TO COLLECTION.
3. WEATHER CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF THE COLLECTION.
4. WEATHER CONDITIONS IN THE PAST 24 HOURS BEFORE COLLECTION.
5. FORENSIC PHOTOS OF THE COLLECTION SITE.
6. FORENSIC PHOTOS OF THE HABITAT
7. FORENSIC PHOTOS OF THE OUTER PERIMETER
8. NAME OF PERSON COLLECTING THE SAMPLE
9. PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF SAMPLE BY FIELD INVESTIGATOR
10. METHOD OF COLLECTION, BAGGING, WRAPPING, BINDEL
11. METHOD OR COLLECTION PRESERVATION, REFRIGERATION, DRYING SAMPLE OUT
12. METHOD OF DELIVERY, UPS, USPS, IN PERSON
13. CONDITION OF SAMPLE ON DELIVERY
14. FORENSIC PHOTOS OF THE SAMPLE BEFORE COLLECTION
15. FORENSIC PHOTOS OF THE SAMPLE AFTER DELIVERY
16. DOCUMENTATION SHOWING DETAILED CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF SAMPLES IN POSSEISON OF CARETAKERS
17. PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF SAMPLE BY PERSONS TAKING DELIVERY OF SAMPLE
18. NAME OF CARETAKERS INVOLVED IN CUSTODY OF THE SAMPLE AND LOGGING THE SAMPLE INTO THE DATA BASE.
19. PRELIMINARY IDENTIFCATION BY OTHER QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS AND INVESTIGATIOR.
20. NAMES OF ALL INDIVIDUALS AND INVESTIGATORS AND THEIR OPINIONS ON THE SAMPLE
21. WILL THE SAMPLE GO TO LAB TO BE FURTHER IDENTIFIED
22. IF NOT GOING TO LAB, CATALOG THE SAMPLE, UPLOAD THE DATA, AND PLACE IN STORAGE FOR FUTURE REFERENCE OR DISPOSE
23. IF GOING TO THE LAB, PROVIDE CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERY VERIFCATION.
24. NAME OF LAB AND PERSON TAKING CUSTODY OF SAMPLE.
25. DATE SAMPLE WAS SUBMIOTTED TO THE LAB
26. DATE SAMPLE WAS RETURNED FROM THE LAB
27. PROVIDE CHAIN OF CUSTODY FOR THE SAMPLES RETURN.
28. PUBLISH LAB RESULTS
29. KNOWN ANIMAL, PLACE SAMPLE IN PROPER CONTAINER FOR DISPOSAL.
30. UNKNOWN ANIMAL. PLACE SAMPLE IN PROPER STORGAE CONTAINER AND STORE PROPERLY FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
31. UPLOAD NEW DATA AND CROSS LINK SAMPLE TO LIKE CATEGORY; HAIR TO HAIR, TISSUE TO TISSUE, DNA TO DNA.

Im sure there are many more sugestions on how to proceed, I just wanted to stress how this data base would possibly work.

And just WHO IN THE WORLD is going to just "do this"? Free? For a fee?

Go ahead. Start one and see if the bigfooting world beats a path to your door.

[Roller]

Not Sure who or what organization would be interested in such an endeavor. It wont be cheap that is for sure. Any ideas, or do you want to wait and let others do the work.

Its important that an organized colection of physicial Evidence be made available to any and all researchers of every level of the investigative field.

Speculators and Cons proliferate all types of "Belief oriented Communities". These type thrive on the hype and confusion, banking large sums on many diverse ploys. When an Organization startes to accumulate evidence to support its beliefs in an calculated manner that is open to public scruty, the public support for that belief will rise porportionately.

Once the data base is on line and the case is presented in the form of Data, not anecdotal evidence alone, then the stigma of being a Bigfoot beliver and an investigative scientist will lift. Then the bad breed of speculators will cease to thrive and scientific evaluaction of evidence will prevail. That is when we as a group will start to see the Real Bigfoot and the real patterns of behavior and habitat. Eventaully this knowledge will lead a filed investigative expedition right to the Bigfoot front door.

Or we can wait on the likes of "OTHERS" who remain un-named, to continue to corrupt the process of the search in the name of Glory and the dollar bill.

[Roller]

I'm not sure what you found so amusing about my post Roller. A database, whether centralized or not, is only as valuable as the data deposited there. If you'd like to build a database of the (at least) 30-odd items you listed, be my guest. But "science" really only needs one such piece of evidence to break this thing open, if that evidence has any merit to begin with.

I found you amusing,

The Thirty Odd Items I listed was just a look at the process, not a IRON CLAD PLAN.

Yeah....just one piece of evidence is all Science needs to break it wide open. This is but one possible plan to lead us to the "One Piece of Evidence" of which you speak.

I dont know why you beat around the bush so much, but the "One Piece of Evidence" you want to see is the Live or Dead Body of the Bigfoot.

Allow me to make an observation:

A man smells Pecan Pie Cooking. He knows what sugar taste like, what pie crust taste like as well as Pecans. But the poor man has never tasted "PECAN PIE". Even though he knows all the things that go into it, and what they taste like individually, he wont dare try a piece of that "FRESH PECAN PIE". Everyone digs in and starts to eat the pie and tell the man how great it taste and that he should try it, but still he refuses. He wont try the pie because he wont take the chance on what his friends and family say. So he goes through life refusing to eat the PECAN PIE year after year dspite what everyone was telling him were their experiences and how goog the pie taste. The sad man just sits and watches everyone enjoying their pie, afraid to take the chance. Though he knows what every ingredient taste like still he refuses to taste the pie to take the chance that what people say are true. So the poor man sits on the side lines angry at eveyones enjoyment of the Pie, but choosing to play it safe, he eats his dry toast, trying to find something to say to the happy pie eaters.

I took the chance years ago, and I "LOVE Pecan Pie".

[BobZenor]

There is now a pretty standard test that should end this debate if a sample is ever found with intact mitochondrial DNA. Practically any fresh tissue or hair should have it. They have a nationwide database and it should be obvious and spectacular if bigfoot DNA is ever sequenced. There is a small chance of it coming out human if you like the odds of them being closer than Neanderthal or hybrids with modern humans. The point of the database probably made sense in the past but with cheap sequencing of the hypervariable region of the mitochondria available, there shouldn't be many more unknowns. Hair could be too old so it is still useful to do what you suggest but very likely technology will answer it with a single sample as was mentioned, assuming they exist.

This post has been edited by BobZenor: Jan 2 2009, 07:58 PM

[Roller]

There is now a pretty standard test that should end this debate if a sample is ever found with intact mitochondrial DNA. Practically any fresh tissue or hair should have it. They have a nationwide database and it should be obvious and spectacular if bigfoot DNA is ever sequenced. There is a small chance of it coming out human if you like the odds of them being closer than Neanderthal or hybrids with modern humans. The point of the database probably made sense in the past but with cheap sequencing of the hypervariable region of the mitochondria available, there shouldn't be many more unknowns. Hair could be too old so it is still useful to do what you suggest but very likely technology will answer it with a single sample as was mentioned, assuming they exist.

Hummmm, that sounds great. That means the cost is going down. I wonder how long it will take for results and if Non-destructive methods are used.

The Data Base will still serve its purpose though. That will be to collect data across the USA. Take that Data and apply it to patterns, types, seasons, eatting habits, habitat, migration, diversity within the species, behavior and many more variables that will lead us to the Front Door of Mr and Mrs Bigfoot.

A singal DNA sequence indicating a possible unknown species will only indicate a possible positive result for that piece of evidence from that particular area of investigation. Will need the collaborative efforts from all dicplines and filed investigatiors to zero in on hot locations.

[Mulder]

I think such a database would be a good thing in theory, but has a fatal flaw in reality: the RESEARCHERS.

99.9% of the time, when some "amazing" new evidence turns up it is immediately "locked down" by whomever has collected it. They won't say where it is, who is examining it, and won't allow outside parties to become involved. (the GA boys being a recent exception). The claim is made that this is done to "protect" either the source or some interested party's "rights".

The only way to make such a database work would be TOTAL transparency, and that is something BF researchers as a group have trouble with...

[Roller]

I think such a database would be a good thing in theory, but has a fatal flaw in reality: the RESEARCHERS.

99.9% of the time, when some "amazing" new evidence turns up it is immediately "locked down" by whomever has collected it. They won't say where it is, who is examining it, and won't allow outside parties to become involved. (the GA boys being a recent exception). The claim is made that this is done to "protect" either the source or some interested party's "rights".

The only way to make such a database work would be TOTAL transparency, and that is something BF researchers as a group have trouble with...

I wounldn't worry about the "Lock down evidence" of other researchers. The data base purpose would be to complie as much evidence as possible ( Mostly bio) and present it in such a way that researches could use it to better target areas of possible Habitat never looked at before, what types of evidence to look for that has been over looked in the past, habits, frequency of encounters like times, seasons, hair colors, ridge and other dermal pattern recognition to assist in describing the possible diversity and migration routes. etc etc.

If a researcher finds Proof and locks it up, then the data base will assist in further indetifying the mystery as it unfolds with the newly discovered proof.

I firmly believe that information freely obtained and freely shared within the BF Community will lead to the discovery of patterns that will lead investigative researchers to the door step of Mr BigFoot.

[BobZenor]

Hummmm, that sounds great. That means the cost is going down. I wonder how long it will take for results and if Non-destructive methods are used.

The Data Base will still serve its purpose though. That will be to collect data across the USA. Take that Data and apply it to patterns, types, seasons, eatting habits, habitat, migration, diversity within the species, behavior and many more variables that will lead us to the Front Door of Mr and Mrs Bigfoot.

A singal DNA sequence indicating a possible unknown species will only indicate a possible positive result for that piece of evidence from that particular area of investigation. Will need the collaborative efforts from all dicplines and filed investigatiors to zero in on hot locations.

You did say in order to get the support of the scientific community and it was from that perspective that I responded. The problem is just the concept of samples returning unknown results. Mitochondrial DNA analysis isn't going to come back as an unknown unless there is a problem analyzing it. If it was degraded, the result is unknown. If it is intact DNA, the species could be unknown but you would have its unique evolutionary relationship to all other animals. It wouldn't be an unknown result. If for instance it showed an animal half way between a chimp and an human, that is obviously not any known animal but it would be positive evidence for the existence of sasquatch or at least an unknown hominid. It would be a huge deal. In the past you might have had tests that would come back primate but not human and called that some unknown. The reason the new test has a much higher standard of proof is because of the odds of the very long sequences occurring randomly. If you sequence only a few hundred base pairs, the odds of that occurring randomly are a number with hundreds of zeros after the decimal point. Older tests didn't have anywhere near the same level of diagnosing a unique species. There should be few samples coming back as unknowns unless the DNA is degraded or there is some other problem.

It would be an unknown animal but it would rock the scientific community if it could be validated or duplicated. The tests don't require much time or expense depending on the lab. The sample size can be small but they are destructive tests in that they destroy the sample but the DNA could be preserved.

I think the idea of the database is great but science is going to want to see that DNA sequenced.

[Roller]

Very good.

How would you suggest we progress with the collection, delivery, analysis, publishing and storage of DNA Collection data and the DNA its self?

How would a properly sequenced DNA sample potentially read for say the common everyday field investigator with some general knowledge about DNA?

What would be a possible indicator of a unknown DNA sequence, other than the absence of a base sequence to compare it to.?

Thanks

This post has been edited by Roller: Jan 5 2009, 08:54 PM

[JayleeD]

I found you amusing,

Please don't be so rude to other posters. It won't get you very far here.