Oh, that’s disappointing. I would like to hear your critique and hope you will get around to providing one.

No, I'm not at liberty to specify anyone not already in the public record, but presumably even some of them have done exactly this basic methodology. But I can tell you it has been and is continuing to be done by some of them and others. All you are talking about is different primer specificities so this is really more of a semantic discussion than a technical one.

I don't really understand why you doubt this? Because the results are, so far, unsatisfying? I don't blame you one bit for that reaction because I have it too. This is why we need to keep at if because you're exactly right, it should be this simple.

But you've got to wonder why, so far, it isn't? (There are at least two very obvious answers.)

Apeman

Well, I wasn’t asking for names. And I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck either, and I don’t know anyone doing what I’ve described. There is not a big sasquatch DNA testing industry out there, so your saying that this has been well tried strikes me as wrong. Anyway, nothing has been well tried. As I said in an earlier post, I think the negative results are mainly to do with easy to understand problems that have nothing to do with the analysis approach. Not to say the analysis approach isn’t important.

“All you are talking about is different primer specificities” – What does that mean?

I don’t think it should be simple. I can easily see why it’s difficult. This stuff is not easy to do. It is not a matter of spending a couple hundred bucks. We’re not talking about having nice vials of blood, we’re talking about crappy samples – small, probably contaminated, full of inhibitors, degraded. And most of the samples are not even real. I’ll be surprised if someone ever gets it.

We seem to be getting nowhere so I suggest we agree to disagree on "well tried." I'm not sure where you think I was suggesting you'd fallen off the turnip truck so if you got that somewhere it wasn't intended. I was only questioning (but not deriding) your disbelief, but we're all entitled to our skepticism here.

There certainly isn't an industry, but there have been and are labs doing work this way from time to time. There really isn't any other way that's obvious to me- which has been the basis of my line of questioning you on this.

My comment about primer specificities was only trying to point out that there really isn't much difference between order level primers and what you were originally talking about- but specificity was perhaps the wrong word so no worries there, my bad. I thought you might be thinking about something else when we were talking about other methods, but it's clear now and not all that important so don't worry about it.

Apeman

By the way, of the two obvious answers only one carries any weight to me; the Bigfoot is not real one. A creature that looks like that and lives like that has to have different DNA. All the other less obvious reasons stacked together are sufficient to explain why identifying the DNA is so tough.

1. Looks like what exactly?

2. Sure, in theory....

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

No, I agree but am just having a little fun and trying to stretch our imagination a little.

Good night,
Apeman

I have a cadaver dog because I work for county and federal agencies finding bodies. You can't have a cadaver dog anyother way from my understanding because the cadaver training scent is not legally available to the public. Like I have said before, my dog does find other decomposition besides human remains, i.e. bear, bobcat, mountain lion and pretty much everything else...the only difference is he doesn't signal unless it is human. And yes I went back today, to that same drainage and Roscoe found nothing of relevance to human remains..2538 hrs of training and counting. BF searching is just a fun side hobby that has relevance to his human cadaver training if set up properly

Apeman, those photos are good, make the point well...

Most cadaver dogs are trained using placentas. I have no idea why it would be illegal to own a placenta.

I, well, actually we, owned one for a short time while my wife was pregnant. I had no idea I was running afoul of the law!

That is certainly news to me. It would seem odd to me that a placenta would be used by "most" cadaver dog training since most decomposed human remains do not have a rotting placenta in them, especially once you get into advanced cadaver dog training that deals with disarticulated remains. Perhaps independents use placentas because they can not have the "cadaver scent pads" that I use which can only be provided by county and federal agencies. BTW, do you also train cadaver dogs??? I would be very interested in sharing methods and ideas with you. Yes, I have heard of alternatives to our scent pads, mainly from dentists who are willing to give up tissue. It is my understanding that having actual human tissue if not stored properly (4 degrees fahrenheit or below) can be very hazarous due to legionnaires disease. But I am no doctor and could be wrong about that. Bitter Monk if you have more experience in this field than I do, I would be keenly interested In having a further dialogue about this subject. Alternatively if you have any other questions that I may be able to answer, I will certainly try to do my best. I am no expert on training having only 2500 hrs+ in training with my dog. But I have been very succesful, perhaps because of my dilligence in training and learning from some of the greats.

You've got PM.

I hope you got PM back at ya!