Bigfoot DNA

[LTC8K6]

I thought there were a bunch of different types of sasquatch anyway.

[C_Felix]

Originally Posted by C_Felix

Lets assume there is a bigfoot.
We manage to get some blood off of something
(I remember an episode of Monster Quest. A cabin in the deep woods of Alberta was broken into a few times, usually through the front door. The man thought it was a bear. What he did was take a 3x3 foot piece of plywood, and screw in about 100 screws so the head was flush. He placed this in the front of the door with the screws up with the hope that anything that stepped on it (bear or bigfoot) would get hurt and scared off. There was some dried blood type of goo stuff in one of the threads of the screw. Lets assume we get a nice fresh sample off of one of the screws.)

If we get this nice fresh sample and test it, the test would be inconclusive, wouldn't it?
We have nothing to compare it to.
We can't look at it like we would a dog's sample and be able to nail it down as a dog...
Know what I mean?

Originally Posted by GT/CS

It wouldn't be inconclusive, it would be from an unclassified primate, or whatever bigfoot is.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Bigfoot, if real, would be a Primate. (Obviously)

So, if "we" manage to get a nice and new blood sample and it comes back as
*Primate, but we can't identify which primate
*Assuming this is in North America.
*If it was human, we'd be able to identify it, what other primate could/would it be?

Also...if this does happen, the spin (as always) will go both ways.
Anti-bigfoot, "It is inconclusive. A match couldn't be made."
Pro-bigfoot, "What else could it be! There's no other primate on the North American continent! Of course a match couldn't be made, we don't have a definitive bigfoot sample!"

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by C_Felix

Also...if this does happen, the spin (as always) will go both ways.
Anti-bigfoot, "It is inconclusive. A match couldn't be made."
Pro-bigfoot, "What else could it be! There's no other primate on the North American continent! Of course a match couldn't be made, we don't have a definitive bigfoot sample!"

It's possible to place that "unknown" sample in context by constructing a phylogenetic tree, a la figure 1 from Milinkovitch et al. 2004. Unless the sample itself is somehow compromised, there's no excuse for reporting on "bigfoot DNA" without producing a figure like this. It would be the whole point of the analysis because it would tell us exactly what that unknown thing is.

[William Parcher]

Crazyman Ed Smith is back holding court on the MABRC forum with dribblepus about Bigfoot DNA.

"PRJ-082110-82-01A-Y210 North American Ape Genome Project"

What the hell is that... a serial number?

Quote:

The samples will remain the property of the contributors which means that since the testing process will destroy the sample, we will issue a certification of the genetic base pairs or nucleotides will be sent to the contributors and this will serve as there claim to the sample dataset.

Ah yes, the samples will be destroyed. We wouldn't want any nasty attempts at replication of results.

[Óðinn]

Or cloning!!

[Drewbot]

Imagine the lab testing we could do on them thar bigfoots. being close to humans and all.

[Óðinn]

Isn't that what bigfoots are, experiments?

[Drewbot]

Wut? wut? speerments? no, the Bigfoot is alien recon. That iz why he is so hard to find.

[parnassus]

Paulides and Ketchum seem to to hit a snag. Wonder what it could be...lulz
http://www.triplicate.com/2011021811...he-smoking-gun

" While the book released in 2009 was being written, NABS was in the beginning stages of hair sample analysis.

A letter about a preliminary laboratory analysis of Stewart’s sample was published in the book.

The letter states that an expert examined the hair and found it to be from an animal of primate origin.

Since then, dozens more hair samples have been submitted for evaluation, and NABS hopes to have results soon, Paulides said.

The research has taken longer than expected due to the complexity of genetically tracing the hairs, Paulides said.

“That’s probably one of the reasons no one has tried to jump through the hurdles that we’re jumping through,” said Paulides. “It’s much more complicated than anyone thought.”

Paulides anticipates having the analysis completed within the next six months.

The work will be published in a report written by a group of scientists who will scrutinize the findings, Paulides said. "

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by parnassus

The work will be published in a report written by a group of scientists who will scrutinize the findings, Paulides said. "

A "report" huh? Sounds like they're giving up on a journal article submission. I can't imagine why . . .

[parnassus]

Yes u can
I predict a falling out between Paulides and Ketchum when the latter realizes that the specimens she has been analyzing are all Native Americans. May have already happened. Popcorn.

[parnassus]

Just to recap, the announcement came back in August:
" ...Paulides...has been busy collecting bone and hair samples of purported Bigfoot. His research has led him into DNA evaluation of these samples.
Paulides and...Ketchum have found that some samples appear to have both human and animal characteristics.
Ketchum believes that very shortly she will have the final conclusions to the DNA testing. Then the results will be submitted for peer review..."

[Mister Earl]

Originally Posted by parnassus

Then the results will be submitted for peer review..."

I wonder if they mean "Scientific peer review via reputable journal" or "looked over by other 'footers."

[GT/CS]

Sorry, I haven't been following his road show, where did he get bone samples?

[parnassus]

The bone

Paulides has been rather secretive, and using some common sense I assume that he is hiding something for a reason. I assume for obvious reasons that it wasn't from the skeleton of a Sasquatch that they found in the woods. I assume that he obtained it in a tribal community. I assume it is a human relic. I imagine that being an ex cop Paulides knows the pitfalls associated with obtaining human remains and that is why he is playing it close to the vest. Paulides has a history of questionable ethics so I have pretty low expectations.

[GT/CS]

It must be human because we all know that bigfoot bones disolve in the soil.

[LTC8K6]

Gee...I wonder if they forgot that they are primates?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Bigfoot, if real, would be a Primate. (Obviously)

A man in an ape suit is a primate.

[LTC8K6]

I notice the claim about the hairs being caught on barbs on the fence, but the fence shown wouldn't have any barbs...

[AlaskaBushPilot]

That's true, but I have a fence just like that to keep smaller animals out of the chickens. The bears still bust through. Also I joined two 4' tall sections with wire to make it 8' tall, and that's where even a committed large dog can wriggle through. The little nubs of wire can catch hair, but I would prefer it ripped their balls off.

I noticed from the story he wuz growin' the good bud.

That would be a powerful incentive to raid the farm by a long-haired hominid.

[mustbeso]

I'm new here and just finished reading the Bigfoot DNA thread which began in Nov. 2008. Why does it seem to take forever to analyze what is supposed to be bigfoot DNA? It's not just this example, it's all of them from Monster Quest to the BFRO, whatever. And why so few hairs to sample? When my old tom cat sleeps on a pillow he leaves enough hair to knit a skarf and yet I read of 2 or 3 hairs regarding the Skookum cast for instance.What drives people to continue this search when evertthing turns to 'inconclusive' at best and usually just disappears altogether?

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by mustbeso

I'm new here and just finished reading the Bigfoot DNA thread which began in Nov. 2008. Why does it seem to take forever to analyze what is supposed to be bigfoot DNA? It's not just this example, it's all of them from Monster Quest to the BFRO, whatever. And why so few hairs to sample? When my old tom cat sleeps on a pillow he leaves enough hair to knit a skarf and yet I read of 2 or 3 hairs regarding the Skookum cast for instance.What drives people to continue this search when evertthing turns to 'inconclusive' at best and usually just disappears altogether?

It takes them a year to figure out how to say "inconclusive" to make it sound interesting.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

It takes them a year to figure out how to say "inconclusive" to make it sound interesting.

There was a case a couple years ago where some hairs were found in Canada (Saskatchewan?) near the location of a reported bigfoot sighting. The hairs were sent off for DNA analysis and we were all wondering how long it would take for the "Inconclusive" result to come back. A couple weeks later the lab reported. Bison hair. Not at all primate. No mystery. No doubt. 100% positive. Plain old bison hair. Not even the bigfooters could put a positive spin on that one.

[mustbeso]

Originally Posted by Hitch

There was a case a couple years ago where some hairs were found in Canada (Saskatchewan?) near the location of a reported bigfoot sighting. The hairs were sent off for DNA analysis and we were all wondering how long it would take for the "Inconclusive" result to come back. A couple weeks later the lab reported. Bison hair. Not at all primate. No mystery. No doubt. 100% positive. Plain old bison hair. Not even the bigfooters could put a positive spin on that one.

Yes, I remember reading that as well. Am I correct that the DNA sample from the Snell Grove Lake thing never went anywhere?

[Cleon]

The reason why DNA testing takes so long is that this sort of DNA test is fairly labor and time-intensive, and there aren't many labs that do it. The ones that do typically have a significant backlog, and frankly Bigfoot isn't a very high priority.

[parnassus]

More at Paulides website (maybe it has been there all along) confirming my idea of the general outlines of his scheme for passing off the DNA and hair of isolated tribal people as that of Bigfoot.
http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfoot_dna.html

[parnassus]

The idea that Bigfoot is some sort of human is, as I have previously suggested, the only avenue open to bigfootery for its long term survival as a credible story in the age of DNA and trail cams. If Ketchum's paper is published in any real journal...It's gonna be devil take the hindmost... Will Meldrum cave on his apefoot hypothesis, toss his Sasquatch book on the fire as simply wrong?
or will he strike back at Paulides and Ketchum, precipitating the biggest rift yet amongst the believers, siding with Todd Disotell and the non believers, pointing out the obvious flaws in the tribal Bigfoot theory?

[HarryHenderson]

Originally Posted by parnassus

...Will Meldrum cave on his apefoot hypothesis, toss his Sasquatch book on the fire as simply wrong?...

Nope. Not even on his death bed. And at this point simply because (I think) he actually believes the nonsense he's proffered. At one time I had a serious brain fart and thought he was 'crazy like a fox' in that Bigfoot would never be disproven, at least not in this lifetime, so he knew his 'scientific reputation' was likely safe no matter what he vomited. But the 'cosmic truth' is he's just a maroon. A wannabe intellectual ne'er-do-well (and quintessential nerd) who simply stuck it out long enough to get an advanced doctorate degree - which, sadly for him, allowed him to think his **** don't stink...but it sooo does.

[ReverendClog]

There is currently a supposed 'earth shattering' revelation just around the corner in Sasquatch territory. The much maligned, (and deservedly so), Erickson project and various other 'serious' bigfootery types have collated and analysed several samples and arrived at what appears to be a startling conclusion - the samples are '100% homo sapiens sapiens'.
And I bet you can guess what this tells the 'footers can't you?. Correctamundo -Bigfoot is a type of unclassified human, with DNA from all those pioneer women he used to capture to mate with!.
Words, and many other things fail me at this even-more-cockshreddingly-awful than usual reasoning.

Here is an interview with one Richard Stubstad, a statistician who was apparently kicked off the sooper-sekrit analysis project http://http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/interview-with-richard-stubstad-is-bigfoot-human/.

I guess most of you know where the footers hang out on the 'net so you'll know where to go.

Most of the relevant info that R.Stubstad appears to have pattled his nonsense from seems to come from here http://www.ebc.ee/EVOLUTSIOON/public...chilli2004.pdf.

[LTC8K6]

Why mtDNA?

[drewid]

I'll just leave this here, it's about that loveable nipple-less mammalian egg-laying venomous furball the duck-billed platypus.

Quote:

As part of their analysis, the researchers compared the platypus genome with genomes of the human, mouse, dog, opossum and chicken. They found that the platypus shares 82 percent of its genes with these animals. The chicken genome was chosen because it represents a group of egg-laying animals, including extinct reptiles, which passed on much of their DNA to the platypus and other mammals over the course of evolution.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/200...lution.mammals

And don't forget we share something like 35% of nearly 7,000 tested genes with the banana plant.

Mind you all this talk of shared genes isn't strictly accurate, it's a lie-to-children, genes aren't that precise, it's more accurate to say we share a % of genetic materia or homology.

[parnassus]

Originally Posted by parnassus
a. There are some pretty bad journals in my field and i suspect in other fields as well.
b. It probably hinges on the honesty and credibility of those who submitted the samples.
-----
Shrike wrote:
Well, the bone sample apparently came from these loons, and the "tissue sample" is supposedly from a habituation site in Vermont. What kind of reject from a turnip truck could not see the importance of confirming the provenance of these samples? This seems far sketchier than anything Meldrum used for his ichnotaxon paper.
------
I somehow don't expect that the "finders" will identify themselves as "mogollonmonsters.com" or that reviewers/editors of lesser journals will perform background checks (Although I do think "Finding Bigfoot" should prompt them to) .

Incidentally I found it interesting that one "Bigfoot" group has submitted some 50 samples to Ketchum. The latest "moneymaker!"

[William Parcher]

I listened to a radio show which featured Ketchum. She said that her DNA findings and paper were rock solid for Bigfoot and essentially unassailable to peer review. She went on to say that she would submit to various publications and if they rejected it it would have to be for reasons other than the factuality of her material. IOW, only some kind of anti-Bigfoot bias would stop the approval. Interestingly, she said that if it does get rejected by the first string of publications there is a (unnamed) publication which will publish it. IOW, she has some Ace-In-The-Hole publication which she is certain will accept what she gives. Maybe it's some cryptozoology or Fortean journal.

[quarky]

I'm new to BF, and confused.
Is there money to be made?

This isn't like selling $10,000 divining rods.
What is the motivational drive?
Book sales?
Lectures?

Or is it more honest-type delusion?

Is anyone getting rich off big-foot?

[jayh]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

>>>which tentatively indicate approximately 78% primate/gorilla and almost 3% human content.

Oh my gawd

where is that report and dataset posted? ( thats not even a proper reporting format)

This is not a case of percentages adding up to 100%. Since gorillas share substantial amount of DNA with humans, something like 78% gorilla should also be a substantial amount like human....


[since my wife has (lightheartedly?) placed bigfoot on her 'safe' list, I guess it's in my best interest that they don't show up..]

[RayG]

Originally Posted by quarky

Is anyone getting rich off big-foot?

I'm skeptical anyone is getting rich, but I'm guessing Matt Moneymaker's three-day BFRO Expeditions are bringing in some nice spending money.

There are 14 expeditions from April - early October of this year listed on the BFRO website for example, and the fees range from $200 - $500 per person.

Keep in mind the BFRO provides no camping gear, food, or transportation on these expeditions.

If each expedition has at least 10 paying customers then the 14 expeditions should raise somewhere between $28,000 and $70,000.

Most of those expeditions are from the last week in July - the first week in October, or something like $20-50k in a span of a little more than two months.

RayG

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by RayG

I'm skeptical anyone is getting rich, but I'm guessing Matt Moneymaker's three-day BFRO Expeditions are bringing in some nice spending money.

But we don't really know if the ongoing viability (staying afloat) of the BFRO requires regular influxes of cash from Wally Hersom.

If you look behind Moneymaker and Meldrum you see at least one Sugar Daddy.

[Drewbot]

See below

[Drewbot]

Evidentally, the Jacobs Photo is still under debate, Oh, and they have two Bigfoot bodies.
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2...s-for-samples/

From the blog of the SILVER FOX.

[The Shrike]

That guy will seriously spout anything.