Hi Everyone,

I wanted to to open a discussion as to why we seem to be no closer to solving this mystery. Why do we place so much
emphasis on things like track casting? Can this really be worthwhile in proving this creature exists to the scientific community?
Is the best piece of evidence we have the PG film, that is now 40 YEARS OLD? I do not want this thread to be critical of the
research that is ongoing, but what are some of the new techniques being used? New Ideas? I think we really need the new field researchers to try new things because what has been going on for the last 40 years has not yielded very much hard evidence.

THOUGHTS?

Alot of people think that new technology is going to pave the way to solving this mystery.I certainly believe its going to help,no questions about it.Things like heat sensors,thermal,digital,cameras,sound blasters,etc. theres so many things coming out to make it easier to get to the truth,but....

Call me OLD SCHOOL,but I think good old patience,persistance,and a little luck is what it's going to take. I personally approach it from a huntingaspect. When I go for Deer,I have to know where they most likely Bed down and sleep,where they can find food,and when they move,day or night,and water sources. When I scout a deer area,I look for signs.Buck Rubs,scrapes,tracks,etc. Guess what-if I dont see any of that,I dont hunt that area. I think the same is true with Bigfoot.I believe you have to approach it as if you are deer hunting. Lots of scouting and lots of patience. Deer are shy but curious creatures. I believe the same is true of Bigfoot.If I go out with a small group of guys,and am reasonably quiet,deer wont get spooked.The more chaos,the more they spook. I cant tell you how many times I hunted an area where I saw big deer tracks,and rubs,and never saw the deer. Sitting up in a tree stand for hours, day after day. Well the same may be true of Bigfoot,and we know there are less Bigfoot than deer,so this is where patience will come in.Expect lots of days of NOTHING.But be in a spot with signs,tracks,sighting reports,etc. If I you go fishing in a pond with no fish-you wont catch anything. As far as all the modern equipment,as I said,they are great tools but it comes down to the knowledge,skills,and patience of the researcher using them.Its like this-If you give the worlds best sharp shooting rifle to someone,and tell them to hit something 3/4 of a mile away-unless they have trained,studied,and learned,with the gun,they probably wont hit anything!


In the end,I think someone is going to get the best evidence by using OLD SCHOOL techniques

Bigfootmorph,

You bring up some good points. My sighting occured by accident from a Deerstand way up in a tree. Has anyone tried this?
Maybe even at night with night vision? I hope you are right about using old techniques, but Im not holding my breath.
I think new things need to be tried.

Hey JC... yo dude... I feel your pain...

While casting prints and such may not prove a great deal right now, we must continue to collect every piece of potiental evidence we encounter as we go...

If what we collect prior to discovery is of no use post discovery, then what is the harm?

But... if we pass on what we may think is nothing... and then it turns out to be something... well... I'd rather toss stuff out than listen to a million stories about the one that got away... what the heck good is that?

Oh yeah... almost forgot... I used to watch your show every Sunday night... right before Walt Disney... it's possibly the finest western show ever produced for television... you should be very proud...

Yes. The tree stand regularly employed by us, sits about 30 feet above a river. One of us usually sit in three to four hour shifts on any given night with night vision, 1 mil or more candlepower spotlight and a camera or some other type of recording device.

Yes, there is no harm in collecting casts but what can possibly be proven by them?

oh Yeah, I have never heard a Bonanza joke before....lol




Has there been any luck? Do you have any other ideas?

Well I don't know if my research method is new or not, but myself and my 3 year old human cadaver dog specifically hunt for dead sasquatch (on our down time). My dog Roscoe is a 2000+ hour trained cadaver dog. We drive roads where there have been sightings in and around CA. I am armed with high power binoculars and search for circling buzzards. When they are located, Roscoe and I (more Roscoe than I) find the decomposing animal. Although he is only trained to find human cadavers, he just loves rotting flesh of all kinds. So, that is my method in a nutshell, the condensed version of course. Oh yeah, in case you were curious of the how many bear carcasses have people found in the woods. I have found none, but my dog has found multiple bear, mountain lion, ringtail, bobcat, marmot.

Wow..that is a really good idea! How long do you think a carcass can last in the wild? Days? Hours?

It really all depends, from minutes to weeks. depending on size and conditions

Whether or not it's been 'lucky" is pretty subjective, and nothing that I'd be willing to call evidence. I did though , possibly see the cougar from last year through my night-vision.


One other idea we've tried is extremely low tech but may be an effective "alarm" system if nothing else. Cost's about $4 and takes about an hour or so to set up.

Get a spool of fishing line 6 lb or less and stretch it covering different directions of where something could possibly move through ( Bear, person,deer, BF or whatever) and tie it off. Take the other end back to whatever area you call "base camp" and attach a bell/cat toy/ or some other device to that end and wait. If something breaks the strand the object at your end falls. It may end up being nothing, but at least you'll know which direction to grab the camera and run toward.

Gee... what on Earth could footprints from an undiscovered species possibly tell us?

How about reading this book first and then maybe we can discuss it...:

Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science - by: Dr. Jeff Meldrum

How about panning for bigfoot? I believe that it's been stated that 'fossilised' remains can be found in caves and streambanks. Teeth, especially side molars, would be a perfect discovery. But, by watching that gold panning show, you would have to have necessary knowledge to find stream patterns from a specific time period. And then again, just panning any stream would at least allow the opportunity to receive a little 'payoff'.

Heres the thing. Some people think BIGFOOT is related to GIGANTO and some people do not. That is besides the point. We all agree GIGANTO existed,do we not? Well if it existed,how many bones/fossils have they found from it? A couple pieces. This is why it is so hard to find Bigfoot remains. GIGANTO was proven to exist but people still cant find its remains,imagine how hard it is for BIGFOOT,as it too is limited in its population,and its quite possible that thousands or millions of years from now(if EARTH is still in one piece) that scientists will find a Jawbone in the pacific northwest of USA,and realize that they have found an undiscovered primate remains-BIGFOOT!

OK smarty...I have read that book. My point is not that tracks are a waste of time. The point is that it is not PROOF
to the scientific community. We have been using these same methods for 40 years and they have not yielded squat!
I was just hoping for constructive new ideas.

That is a good idea for finding fossils. But a fossil is not really proof of the animal living today.



I saw something simular to that using wires and a electric grid, in the old mockumentary Sasquatch. I always thought it was a good idea though. Has there been any results?

It's a needle in a haystack. I tend to think that the old school sitting in a tree stand equiped with hitech video and a steady hand will eventually prevail. A trail cam shot will provide tons of discussion but in the end will be labled fake. Just being prepared for that chance encounter is the best bet.

Uh.. ...But wouldn't that end up being a better candidate than giganto, or even be giganto?

Hey-worst case in PANNING for fossils,maybe you find GOLD!

Sorry, I dont get what you mean.

If I ever have the means to do so, I would like to slowly boat around the edge of a lake from dusk til dawn. (Preferrably a lake where the banks would yield footprints.)

I'd carry whatever research technology was available but especially employ thermal and/or night vision to observe the shore line at all times.

I feel like sas are curious so while floating around the lake I'd try to appeal to BF's senses to attract their attention. Maybe cook some bacon for them to smell, play guitar or harmonica (or radio - whatever) for them to hear (or simply take a pontoon boat with a few people - talking and laughing would probably attract them as well.)

When I think of this scenario, I imagine a curious BF maybe following the boat along the lake for a bit. They would probably remain hidden behind brush and trees, BUT they don't know about thermal imaging. I only know a small amount more about it than they do, but I am willing to bet that you could eventually detect a large bipedal primate lurking along the shore line if one were there!

Good idea, I have heard alot of stories about the animals being curious to strange sights and sounds. But I think more people may spook them.

Footprint casts are not proof, but that doesn't mean what's learned from them won't lead to a bigger collection of knowledge that can help find proof. Plus, a bigger collection of knowledge would inspire more interest from the scientific community, which would increase the liklihood of proof.

And I wouldn't say these methods have haven't yielded "squat," just not any sort of type specimen.



Can you imagine the impact a tooth of a large ape found in the Pacific Northwest would have on the scientific community?

It is not proof of an animal living today, but it would be proof of an animal that once existed in a place where people say they see similar animals today. It would generate more interest in the subject for sure.


What I think needs to be done for "proof" would be the collection of tissue that could have it's DNA sequenced. I cannot think of any method to do this (other than collecting it while in sight of the subject, which is unlikely), however, that would not carry the significant risk of harming other wildlife.

I agree

Footprints....Schmootprints......Photos...... Schmotos!!!! Lets all find a body.... Nothing else will satisfy, and in our heart of hearts, we all know it. Sorry for copious usage of punctuation. To see the method I use, read my previous posts in this thread. I know it is still a needle in a haystack. But If I find the needle, there really will be no debate on whether it is a needle or it isn't.... then again there was PILTDOWN!!!

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!

I would think a similar thing could be made with motion sensors so you wouldnt need wires.Not the real wide angle sensors that will go off everytime a bird flys by,but a more accute and defined senor pattern,pretty much setting anything off in a straight line of it.Sort of on the same line of a trail cam or motion light

One of our guys has something like that... I don't like it myself for two reasons. One, the sound it makes is loud and obnoxious and two, anything can set it off. With the line suspended 6-7 feet off the ground, not much is going to trip it unless it flies into it, tries to weasel across it, or is actually 7 feet tall.

I'd love to try the seismic sensors though, but don't know enough about them to even know what to look for.

How about a laser beam? I dont mean as fancy as NASA or anything like that,I mean like the little handheld lasers/laserlights that shoot out the red beam-that would be a VERY SMALL beam for anything small to break,but a large creature could go thru at 6 ft off the ground and set it off?


Click to view attachment



You could setup a perimiter around an area with 4 of these,forming a square,and anything tall enough moving in or out would set it off.

Good idea, but would'nt they be able to see the red laser beam?

I can't imagine how they would?




Nah, a molar or a DNA sample would do just fine I think.

The problem with DNA extracted from tissue samples, unless the samples come directly from an identifiable portion of a cadaver, is that there is no type specimen for the species to which the results can be compared. Even if the tissue was collected within sight of a BF, there will still be the camp that will argue invalidity for this reason. It's the same argument TimMcmanus made in the Ohio Talker thread, about the UFO on the White House lawn.

Sorry, couldn't figure out how to link to the post. It was posted by TimMcManus, 9-29-07 at 12:34 AM.

"Say something that appears to be the classic "flying saucer" materializes on the lawn of the White House, proceeds to demonstrate what the world's most respected physicists agree to be heretofore-thought impossible aeronautic maneuvers, then rockets upward at a speed that would liquify a human passenger, all before disappearing into the sky. Whatever security cams surround the White House catch the incident on video, and hundreds, including the President, witness the whole thing. There are scorch marks in the White-House lawn's grass and heavy radiation readings there as well. Yet that's all we have (relatively speaking). Wouldn't science still have to admit that the only reasonable explanation was an extraterrestrial craft? Or would the event just fall into the "Unknown" category because there was no opportunity to test any other hypotheses such as, say, a man-made hologram of unprecedented realism (but that wouldn't explain the scorch marks or the rads), regardless of whether or not THAT explanation is a square peg being forced into a round hole when compared to simply conceding that alien intelligence exists?"

Seeing may be believing, but it will not satisfy mainstream science, and therefore it won't satisfy the vast majority of the public. Witness testimony and residual evidence will be questioned and this will allow for a square peg to be forced into a round hole, as such. IMHO, a body or a significant portion of such will be the only thing that will actually prove that the critter exists. Not downplaying the value of tracks, scat and other data, mind you. Applied to research in a critical manner, such data could provide critical information in tracking the truth.

That said, assuming this is a flesh and blood critter, any technique that a researcher can ably and adeptly employ that improves his chances to come closer to achieving his or her goal is valid. I want to emphasize "ably and adeptly", as not every researcher has the same skill set, financial resources or available time. Every researcher has his or her own tricks, I'm sure. Some of these methods have become "standardized" among researchers. I believe good "old-fashioned" hunting techniques will ultimately make the difference. Random chance and patience are the factors which will enlighten the enquiring minds that want to know.

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.

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?

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!

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.

Wyomingite,

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



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.

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.

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!

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.



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



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



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.



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.

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.

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.

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

LINK.

I THOROUGHLY agree!!

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.



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

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

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.

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

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