So; Where is all the Bigfoot road kill? - Page 9

Drewbot · 20th April 2009, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by sanguine

Forget all that -- just find me one hair with a little bit of follicle attached, and I'll even front the $30 for the degenerate 16S rRNA primers and the dNTPs, because, like Mr. Burch there said, the first author Science or Nature paper I'll be getting out of it will make that initial investment totally worthwhile.

Sanguine-
It looks like you might have a taker.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...dpost&p=529267

Southern Yahoo would like to take you up on your offer.
Let me know if you are interested, and I will tell him how to contact you.

makaya325 · 20th April 2009, 12:24 PM

If sasquatch DNA was ever found, it would NOT be presented on a tv show like monsterwoo. It would be published in a peer-reviewed journal and announced on a credible website, such as skeptical inquiry or scientific america.

kitakaze · 20th April 2009, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

If sasquatch DNA was ever found, it would NOT be presented on a tv show like monsterwoo. It would be published in a peer-reviewed journal and announced on a credible website, such as skeptical inquiry or scientific america.

Possibly. But MonsterQuest has just as good a chance of finding Bigfoot proof or even better than many enthusiast operations. If they did, I would imagine it wouldn't be your regular MQ episode. Producer Doug Hajicek would probably make an entire film out of it which would certainly be worthy. What would not happen is 55 minutes of teasing to tell you they had nothing.

makaya325 · 20th April 2009, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Possibly. But MonsterQuest has just as good a chance of finding Bigfoot proof or even better than many enthusiast operations. If they did, I would imagine it wouldn't be your regular MQ episode. Producer Doug Hajicek would probably make an entire film out of it which would certainly be worthy. What would not happen is 55 minutes of teasing to tell you they had nothing.

What I am saying is that if Sasquatch DNA was found, that very second, there would be front page headlines, peer-reviewed journals. National Geographic, Animal Planet and Discovery would be jumping on it. It is simply not possible for there to be an amazing find, and have it not make any headlines, unless the sample was contaminated or faked.

kitakaze · 20th April 2009, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

What I am saying is that if Sasquatch DNA was found, that very second, there would be front page headlines, peer-reviewed journals.

I don't think you'd immediately have peer-reviewed journals. Everybody would be scrambling but those things don't happen within a day of discovery. It's sort of like the discovery of Homo floresiensis but different. With the hobbits, it took a long time for consensus on having a new species. With Bigfoot it should be immediately obvious though it would take time to study and describe the alleged species.

ETA: How do you confirm you have found sasquatch DNA?

makaya325 · 20th April 2009, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

I don't think you'd immediately have peer-reviewed journals. Everybody would be scrambling but those things don't happen within a day of discovery. It's sort of like the discovery of Homo floresiensis but different. With the hobbits, it took a long time for consensus on having a new species. With Bigfoot it should be immediately obvious though it would take time to study and describe the alleged species.

ETA: How do you confirm you have found sasquatch DNA?

If a Sasquatch hair, flesh, or fresh poop was ever found, it would be sent to a credible source, such as Todd Disotell. He would then perform DNA sequencing on the sample to see which species it belongs to, or the closest related species. One of the myth's people use is "You cant prove such and such is Bigfoot DNA without a body". That is simply nonsense. DNA sequencing will match the sample to the closest related organism, so a non-human primate of unknown origin was found, it would be paired up with one of the 4 non-human great apes.

sanguine · 21st April 2009, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Sanguine-
It looks like you might have a taker.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...dpost&p=529267

Southern Yahoo would like to take you up on your offer.
Let me know if you are interested, and I will tell him how to contact you.

The easiest way would be if he could sign up here at JREF and talk to me via PM. I'll want to ask him about the provenance of the hair he's looking at, just to make sure he's sure it'd be worth looking at. I may also want to chat with him about alternative options, since I am concerned that I may not be considered an unbiased evaluator here.

makaya325 · 21st April 2009, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by sanguine

The easiest way would be if he could sign up here at JREF and talk to me via PM. I'll want to ask him about the provenance of the hair he's looking at, just to make sure he's sure it'd be worth looking at. I may also want to chat with him about alternative options, since I am concerned that I may not be considered an unbiased evaluator here.

Sanguine, I must have missed it, but do you mind listing any of your Scientific credentials and your current Occupation?

sanguine · 21st April 2009, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

Sanguine, I must have missed it, but do you mind listing any of your Scientific credentials and your current Occupation?

I didn't write it here, so you didn't miss anything.

PhD in Biology, circa late 2004 (the specific work was in protein degradation and its role in metabolic control)

I'm currently a research scientist and NIH-funded principal investigator. For the past several years, I've been working in bioinformatics and lab work concerning enzyme genomics, metabolism, computational modeling of biological systems, and metabolic engineering.

Note that I do not have specific expertise in the area we're talking about, although I have done this kind of work in the past (it was a while ago, though, which is one reason an interested party might want someone else to handle it, in addition to the potential "out" of my extreme dubiousness about the existence of a large, hyperintelligent primate in North America). PCR in itself is a core research tool of modern biology. If the person who was linked from the bigfoot board seriously wants me to give this a shot, I admit I'm going to have to review the topic of 16S rRNA analysis to see what the state of the art is, but I think I could handle it.

(That said, I still want to discuss provenance with them, because I'm not at all fond of the idea of burning time on a random chunk of fur they found on a fence with no reason to suspect it has a different origin, e.g.)

makaya325 · 21st April 2009, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by sanguine

I didn't write it here, so you didn't miss anything.

PhD in Biology, circa late 2004 (the specific work was in protein degradation and its role in metabolic control)

I'm currently a research scientist and NIH-funded principal investigator. For the past several years, I've been working in bioinformatics and lab work concerning enzyme genomics, metabolism, computational modeling of biological systems, and metabolic engineering.

Note that I do not have specific expertise in the area we're talking about, although I have done this kind of work in the past (it was a while ago, though, which is one reason an interested party might want someone else to handle it, in addition to the potential "out" of my extreme dubiousness about the existence of a large, hyperintelligent primate in North America). PCR in itself is a core research tool of modern biology. If the person who was linked from the bigfoot board seriously wants me to give this a shot, I admit I'm going to have to review the topic of 16S rRNA analysis to see what the state of the art is, but I think I could handle it.

(That said, I still want to discuss provenance with them, because I'm not at all fond of the idea of burning time on a random chunk of fur they found on a fence with no reason to suspect it has a different origin, e.g.)

Would DNA from an unknown Great Ape be easy to identify, or at least seperate it from known species?

xblade · 21st April 2009, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

If a Sasquatch hair, flesh, or fresh poop was ever found, it would be sent to a credible source, such as Todd Disotell. He would then perform DNA sequencing on the sample to see which species it belongs to, or the closest related species. One of the myth's people use is "You cant prove such and such is Bigfoot DNA without a body". That is simply nonsense. DNA sequencing will match the sample to the closest related organism, so a non-human primate of unknown origin was found, it would be paired up with one of the 4 non-human great apes.

No, it isn't nonsense. There is no way to verify that any DNA is bigfoot dna without a bigfoot to compare it to.

makaya325 · 21st April 2009, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by xblade

No, it isn't nonsense. There is no way to verify that any DNA is bigfoot dna without a bigfoot to compare it to.

If you extract DNA that is unlike any Mammal we know of, but is related to a prehistoric Hominid or one of the Non-human primates, it would be appropiate to put the species with known species.

southernyahoo · 21st April 2009, 06:38 PM

The easiest way would be if he could sign up here at JREF and talk to me via PM. I'll want to ask him about the provenance of the hair he's looking at, just to make sure he's sure it'd be worth looking at. I may also want to chat with him about alternative options, since I am concerned that I may not be considered an unbiased evaluator here.

Here I am, How many posts do I need before I can PM?

SY.

sanguine · 21st April 2009, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

If you extract DNA that is unlike any Mammal we know of, but is related to a prehistoric Hominid or one of the Non-human primates, it would be appropiate to put the species with known species.

What you can do is place the gene in question (16S rRNA being a standard gene of choice for this sort of thing) in its appropriate place in a phylogenetic tree. So you can't say, "This is bigfoot" anymore than you can do the 16S on a rodent and say "This is a mouse", but you can say, "This plugs into the phylogenetic tree in roughly this position between mice and hamsters," and you are then free to infer what you reasonably might from that information.

So it is true that you can't say, "This is bigfoot" without a reference bigfoot with which to compare it, but it is also true that you can say, "This appears to be something that is closely related to people and chimps, but is nothing we've sequenced so far." That said, it now occurs to me that I need to check the various species barcoding efforts to see if we can reasonably expect to already have broad coverage of 16S rRNA for enough primates, such that an "unknown" hit is expected to be meaningful, rather than meaning that someone yanked some fur out of a random monkey in an Indonesian market.

That's actually a tremendously big issue for this type of work. I'll have to look into it.

As for how many posts one needs before PMing, I have no idea, but I think you can post in test to boost your count.

GT/CS · 21st April 2009, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

The easiest way would be if he could sign up here at JREF and talk to me via PM. I'll want to ask him about the provenance of the hair he's looking at, just to make sure he's sure it'd be worth looking at. I may also want to chat with him about alternative options, since I am concerned that I may not be considered an unbiased evaluator here.

Here I am, How many posts do I need before I can PM?

SY.

SY, there are a few lively discussions on how bluebear/Mak has reformed & transformed himself. Joining one of those threads should get your post count to double digits in no time!

southernyahoo · 22nd April 2009, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

SY, there are a few lively discussions on how bluebear/Mak has reformed & transformed himself. Joining one of those threads should get your post count to double digits in no time!

Thanks, I found that I can PM right away, so post count is not a priority at the moment, as it never is with me. So, do you have a link to the lively discussions on blue bears transformation, I'm curious what the Lad has been up to.

SY.

kitakaze · 22nd April 2009, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

Thanks, I found that I can PM right away, so post count is not a priority at the moment, as it never is with me. So, do you have a link to the lively discussions on blue bears transformation, I'm curious what the Lad has been up to.

SY.

Here's that link:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140392

I'm going to have to do something about restraining the pounce urge I get when I see your initials, SY. They've been ruined for me by someone else.

I'd be interested to hear what leads you to believe you might have Bigfoot hair, if you feel like sharing in-thread. I read you speculating bear, bovine, or ?

LONGTABBER PE · 22nd April 2009, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

Thanks, I found that I can PM right away, so post count is not a priority at the moment, as it never is with me. So, do you have a link to the lively discussions on blue bears transformation, I'm curious what the Lad has been up to.

SY.

welcome aboard

BenBurch · 22nd April 2009, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

Thanks, I found that I can PM right away, so post count is not a priority at the moment, as it never is with me. So, do you have a link to the lively discussions on blue bears transformation, I'm curious what the Lad has been up to.

SY.

Pull up a stool and stay a while. I'll make coffee!

William Parcher · 22nd April 2009, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Pull up a stool and stay a while.

Or better yet - send it in for DNA testing.

southernyahoo · 22nd April 2009, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Or better yet - send it in for DNA testing.

I intend to do that, I aint scared of the truth, just looking to answer the question of what left the hair in the broken limbs of an Eastern Red Cedar tree. Thats all.

SY.

desertyeti · 22nd April 2009, 09:00 AM

What would make you think it's an undocumented hominid?
I'm unfamiliar with your back-story, so I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

southernyahoo · 22nd April 2009, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by desertyeti

What would make you think it's an undocumented hominid?
I'm unfamiliar with your back-story, so I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

For the record, I'm open to the possibility of BF's existence, but will not make an unsubtantiated claim about evidence. Hairs cannot be faked, they are biological proof of the physical existence of something, and only good science will answer the question definitively what they belong to. Circumstances and observations of the find in association with the sign (tree damage) lends to the perception that the animal was rather large, black, and shaggy.

SY.

desertyeti · 22nd April 2009, 11:25 AM

Thanks.

Quote:

Hairs cannot be faked, they are biological proof of the physical existence of something,...

Are you aware that Grover Krantz was fooled by synthetic hair for quite some time?

Quote:

Circumstances and observations of the find in association with the sign (tree damage) lends to the perception that the animal was rather large, black, and shaggy.

Bears are cool.

southernyahoo · 22nd April 2009, 12:46 PM

PHP Code:


			
Are you aware that Grover Krantz was fooled by synthetic hair for quite some time?

No I didn't, I guess he should have bothered to look at them under a microscope.

PHP Code:


			
Bears are cool.

Yeah, and bear researchers would probably think it is pretty cool to find bears in west central oklahoma, have you looked at that area on google earth?

Perhaps they should extend the known range of black bears westward in Oklahoma.

desertyeti · 22nd April 2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

No I didn't, I guess he should have bothered to look at them under a microscope.

Sadly, he did just that. Dynel and other artificial fibers have a structure very similar to real hair. Only a biochemical or spectoscopic test proved them to be artificial. It's a hairy problem. O.k., sorry that was aweful.

Quote:

Yeah, and bear researchers would probably think it is pretty cool to find bears in west central oklahoma, have you looked at that area on google earth?

Perhaps they should extend the known range of black bears westward in Oklahoma

Cool that bears might have a slightly wider range than thought.
There's a population in southern Louisiana that doesn't appear on this gov. map.
Seems they are prone to wander farther than "official" range maps show, not surprisingly considering the growing population.

So, there's no real reason to think this hair is from a hominid though, is that correct?

makaya325 · 22nd April 2009, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by desertyeti

Sadly, he did just that. Dynel and other artificial fibers have a structure very similar to real hair. Only a biochemical or spectoscopic test proved them to be artificial. It's a hairy problem. O.k., sorry that was aweful.

Cool that bears might have a slightly wider range than thought.
There's a population in southern Louisiana that doesn't appear on this gov. map.
Seems they are prone to wander farther than "official" range maps show, not surprisingly considering the growing population.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...f76b65454e.gif

So, there's no real reason to think this hair is from a hominid though, is that correct?

So a hair morphology exam is useless?
You can't synthesize the structure of a hair.

kitakaze · 22nd April 2009, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Or better yet - send it in for DNA testing.

Nominated.

That was some fine pith, right there.

kitakaze · 22nd April 2009, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

PHP Code:


			
Are you aware that Grover Krantz was fooled by synthetic hair for quite some time?

No I didn't, I guess he should have bothered to look at them under a microscope.

PHP Code:


			
Bears are cool.

Yeah, and bear researchers would probably think it is pretty cool to find bears in west central oklahoma, have you looked at that area on google earth?

Perhaps they should extend the known range of black bears westward in Oklahoma.

I almost forgot, yahoo, welcome to the JREF.

If you are having a problem using the quote function, I might be able to help.

makaya325 · 22nd April 2009, 01:24 PM

[quote=desertyeti;4644216]

Quote:

Sadly, he did just that. Dynel and other artificial fibers have a structure very similar to real hair. Only a biochemical or spectoscopic test proved them to be artificial. It's a hairy problem. O.k., sorry that was aweful.

Krantz was not a Microscopist though.

xblade · 22nd April 2009, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

Yeah, and bear researchers would probably think it is pretty cool to find bears in west central oklahoma, have you looked at that area on google earth?

Perhaps they should extend the known range of black bears westward in Oklahoma.

As rare as they might be, I guarantee you there are more black bears in western Oklahoma than there are bigfoot. At worst, there are exactly the same amount.

xblade · 22nd April 2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

So it is true that you can't say, "This is bigfoot" without a reference bigfoot with which to compare it, but it is also true that you can say, "This appears to be something that is closely related to people and chimps, but is nothing we've sequenced so far."

That's why you can't say unknown primate dna is bigfoot dna. Unknown means unknown....it doesn't mean bigfoot. All undiscovered primates aren't 9 foot tall monkey men.

makaya325 · 22nd April 2009, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by xblade

That's why you can't say unknown primate dna is bigfoot dna. Unknown means unknown....it doesn't mean bigfoot.

If Unknown Primate hair is found in North America that is not human but belonging to an Ape related to human is considered a sasquatch. What else could it belong to? Not a mouse.

Vortigern99 · 22nd April 2009, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

If Unknown Primate hair is found in North America that is not human but belonging to an Ape related to human is considered a sasquatch. What else could it belong to? Not a mouse.

You're not using your critical faculties. A hair sample which comes back from the lab designated as "unknown primate hair" could be a sample from a known primate that has been corrupted or contaminated by foreign materials, age deterioration, and/or poor handling.

It could also be a hair sample from a known primate which the investigator has mistakenly overlooked, requiring independent corroboration before accepting his/her opinion. Who is the investigator? Is s/he an expert in human forensic analysis, non-human primate forensic analysis, both, neither?

It could also be an outright fabrication, say gorilla hairs subjected to some kind of chemical treatment that retains their generic "primate" classification but makes them look decidedly un-gorilla-like.

There are undoubtedly alternatives which escape me. The point is to hastily conclude "sasquatch!" from a single sample designated "unknown primate" is bad science, bad skepticism and just bad thinking.

makaya325 · 22nd April 2009, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

You're not using your critical faculties. A hair sample which comes back from the lab designated as "unknown primate hair" could be a sample from a known primate that has been corrupted or contaminated by foreign materials, age deterioration, and/or poor handling.

It could also be a hair sample from a known primate which the investigator has mistakenly overlooked, requiring independent corroboration before accepting his/her opinion. Who is the investigator? Is s/he an expert in human forensic analysis, non-human primate forensic analysis, both, neither?

It could also be an outright fabrication, say gorilla hairs subjected to some kind of chemical treatment that retains their generic "primate" classification but makes them look decidedly un-gorilla-like.

There are undoubtedly alternatives which escape me. The point is to hastily conclude "sasquatch!" from a single sample designated "unknown primate" is bad science, bad skepticism and just bad thinking.

You are correct Vort, however, I am not talking about someone Like Curt contaminator Nelson. I am talking about testing it with a reliable source, such as Todd Disotell.

southernyahoo · 22nd April 2009, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by desertyeti

Sadly, he did just that. Dynel and other artificial fibers have a structure very similar to real hair. Only a biochemical or spectoscopic test proved them to be artificial. It's a hairy problem. O.k., sorry that was aweful.

Cool that bears might have a slightly wider range than thought.
There's a population in southern Louisiana that doesn't appear on this gov. map.
Seems they are prone to wander farther than "official" range maps show, not surprisingly considering the growing population.

So, there's no real reason to think this hair is from a hominid though, is that correct?

I'll bet ya that synthetic fibers don't have scale patterns, roots with skin tags, or natuarlly tapered ends showing the medulla vanishing near the tip.

I assure you there is good reason to be skeptical about any large mammal sustaining itself in this area without being detected. Sasquatch has been purportedly seen in the area and this particular patch of woods measures only 1.7 by .75 miles across and is surounded by vast agricultural fields. Bears are said to require vast tracks of forest to sustain themselves, so I think there is good reason to be skeptical about either one being there. The more likely source would be bovine in my opinion, though we didn't see the tell tale patties either.

In any case the DNA test will tell the tale, and lend some insight on what the locals might be seeing and misidentifying.

SY.

GT/CS · 22nd April 2009, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

You are correct Vort, however, I am not talking about someone Like Curt contaminator Nelson. I am talking about testing it with a reliable source, such as Todd Disotell.

So now you're posting as "Mak the Believer"?

The skill of person testing the DNA does not make any difference if he or she does not know where the hair came from.

The only way a hair could be considered to come from a bigfoot would be if said hair was pulled directly from such an animal, and the pulling of the hair was documented.

southernyahoo · 22nd April 2009, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by xblade

That's why you can't say unknown primate dna is bigfoot dna. Unknown means unknown....it doesn't mean bigfoot. All undiscovered primates aren't 9 foot tall monkey men.

I try to consider the implications of a scenario where several different samples are independently collected and tested, yet yeild the same unique unknown primate DNA. If it could be shown that everything was done properly, (i.e, not contaminated) published and peer reviewed, this would make the strong suggestion that there is a wild indigenous primate that we have yet to document.

SY.

makaya325 · 22nd April 2009, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

So now you're posting as "Mak the Believer"?

The skill of person testing the DNA does not make any difference if he or she does not know where the hair came from.

The only way a hair could be considered to come from a bigfoot would be if said hair was pulled directly from such an animal, and the pulling of the hair was documented.

So even in the incredibly unlikely event: DNA is extracted from a piece of flesh, and it is tested by independent labs. All conclude it is clearly from an unknown species of ape, related to such and such. That isnt considered at least evidence?

Vortigern99 · 22nd April 2009, 07:52 PM

In the unlikely event that a hair or DNA sample was identified as "unknown primate species" by several different labs, we would have to ask where the sample came from; we would have to consider the possibility that someone deposited the sample after obtaining it from somewhere else; we would have to consider the possibility that it is the hair or DNA of a known primate species that has been somehow altered to appear "unknown". Without a type specimen to which we could compare the hair or DNA, such evidence would remain inconclusive.

20th April 2009, 10:21 AM	#321
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	Originally Posted by sanguine Forget all that -- just find me one hair with a little bit of follicle attached, and I'll even front the $30 for the degenerate 16S rRNA primers and the dNTPs, because, like Mr. Burch there said, the first author Science or Nature paper I'll be getting out of it will make that initial investment totally worthwhile. Sanguine- It looks like you might have a taker. http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...dpost&p=529267 Southern Yahoo would like to take you up on your offer. Let me know if you are interested, and I will tell him how to contact you.
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

20th April 2009, 12:42 PM	#323
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by makaya325 If sasquatch DNA was ever found, it would NOT be presented on a tv show like monsterwoo. It would be published in a peer-reviewed journal and announced on a credible website, such as skeptical inquiry or scientific america. Possibly. But MonsterQuest has just as good a chance of finding Bigfoot proof or even better than many enthusiast operations. If they did, I would imagine it wouldn't be your regular MQ episode. Producer Doug Hajicek would probably make an entire film out of it which would certainly be worthy. What would not happen is 55 minutes of teasing to tell you they had nothing.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

20th April 2009, 01:03 PM	#325
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by makaya325 What I am saying is that if Sasquatch DNA was found, that very second, there would be front page headlines, peer-reviewed journals. I don't think you'd immediately have peer-reviewed journals. Everybody would be scrambling but those things don't happen within a day of discovery. It's sort of like the discovery of Homo floresiensis but different. With the hobbits, it took a long time for consensus on having a new species. With Bigfoot it should be immediately obvious though it would take time to study and describe the alleged species. ETA: How do you confirm you have found sasquatch DNA?
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 Last edited by kitakaze; 20th April 2009 at 01:04 PM.

21st April 2009, 09:27 AM	#327
sanguine Thinker Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 206	Originally Posted by Drewbot Sanguine- It looks like you might have a taker. http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...dpost&p=529267 Southern Yahoo would like to take you up on your offer. Let me know if you are interested, and I will tell him how to contact you. The easiest way would be if he could sign up here at JREF and talk to me via PM. I'll want to ask him about the provenance of the hair he's looking at, just to make sure he's sure it'd be worth looking at. I may also want to chat with him about alternative options, since I am concerned that I may not be considered an unbiased evaluator here.
sanguine Thinker Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 206

21st April 2009, 12:52 PM	#329
sanguine Thinker Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 206	Originally Posted by makaya325 Sanguine, I must have missed it, but do you mind listing any of your Scientific credentials and your current Occupation? I didn't write it here, so you didn't miss anything. PhD in Biology, circa late 2004 (the specific work was in protein degradation and its role in metabolic control) I'm currently a research scientist and NIH-funded principal investigator. For the past several years, I've been working in bioinformatics and lab work concerning enzyme genomics, metabolism, computational modeling of biological systems, and metabolic engineering. Note that I do not have specific expertise in the area we're talking about, although I have done this kind of work in the past (it was a while ago, though, which is one reason an interested party might want someone else to handle it, in addition to the potential "out" of my extreme dubiousness about the existence of a large, hyperintelligent primate in North America). PCR in itself is a core research tool of modern biology. If the person who was linked from the bigfoot board seriously wants me to give this a shot, I admit I'm going to have to review the topic of 16S rRNA analysis to see what the state of the art is, but I think I could handle it. (That said, I still want to discuss provenance with them, because I'm not at all fond of the idea of burning time on a random chunk of fur they found on a fence with no reason to suspect it has a different origin, e.g.)
sanguine Thinker Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 206

20th April 2009, 12:24 PM	#322
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	If sasquatch DNA was ever found, it would NOT be presented on a tv show like monsterwoo. It would be published in a peer-reviewed journal and announced on a credible website, such as skeptical inquiry or scientific america.

20th April 2009, 12:47 PM	#324
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by kitakaze Possibly. But MonsterQuest has just as good a chance of finding Bigfoot proof or even better than many enthusiast operations. If they did, I would imagine it wouldn't be your regular MQ episode. Producer Doug Hajicek would probably make an entire film out of it which would certainly be worthy. What would not happen is 55 minutes of teasing to tell you they had nothing. What I am saying is that if Sasquatch DNA was found, that very second, there would be front page headlines, peer-reviewed journals. National Geographic, Animal Planet and Discovery would be jumping on it. It is simply not possible for there to be an amazing find, and have it not make any headlines, unless the sample was contaminated or faked.

20th April 2009, 01:47 PM	#326
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by kitakaze I don't think you'd immediately have peer-reviewed journals. Everybody would be scrambling but those things don't happen within a day of discovery. It's sort of like the discovery of Homo floresiensis but different. With the hobbits, it took a long time for consensus on having a new species. With Bigfoot it should be immediately obvious though it would take time to study and describe the alleged species. ETA: How do you confirm you have found sasquatch DNA? If a Sasquatch hair, flesh, or fresh poop was ever found, it would be sent to a credible source, such as Todd Disotell. He would then perform DNA sequencing on the sample to see which species it belongs to, or the closest related species. One of the myth's people use is "You cant prove such and such is Bigfoot DNA without a body". That is simply nonsense. DNA sequencing will match the sample to the closest related organism, so a non-human primate of unknown origin was found, it would be paired up with one of the 4 non-human great apes.

21st April 2009, 12:28 PM	#328
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by sanguine The easiest way would be if he could sign up here at JREF and talk to me via PM. I'll want to ask him about the provenance of the hair he's looking at, just to make sure he's sure it'd be worth looking at. I may also want to chat with him about alternative options, since I am concerned that I may not be considered an unbiased evaluator here. Sanguine, I must have missed it, but do you mind listing any of your Scientific credentials and your current Occupation?

21st April 2009, 12:57 PM	#330
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by sanguine I didn't write it here, so you didn't miss anything. PhD in Biology, circa late 2004 (the specific work was in protein degradation and its role in metabolic control) I'm currently a research scientist and NIH-funded principal investigator. For the past several years, I've been working in bioinformatics and lab work concerning enzyme genomics, metabolism, computational modeling of biological systems, and metabolic engineering. Note that I do not have specific expertise in the area we're talking about, although I have done this kind of work in the past (it was a while ago, though, which is one reason an interested party might want someone else to handle it, in addition to the potential "out" of my extreme dubiousness about the existence of a large, hyperintelligent primate in North America). PCR in itself is a core research tool of modern biology. If the person who was linked from the bigfoot board seriously wants me to give this a shot, I admit I'm going to have to review the topic of 16S rRNA analysis to see what the state of the art is, but I think I could handle it. (That said, I still want to discuss provenance with them, because I'm not at all fond of the idea of burning time on a random chunk of fur they found on a fence with no reason to suspect it has a different origin, e.g.) Would DNA from an unknown Great Ape be easy to identify, or at least seperate it from known species?

21st April 2009, 02:56 PM	#331
xblade Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 462	Originally Posted by makaya325 If a Sasquatch hair, flesh, or fresh poop was ever found, it would be sent to a credible source, such as Todd Disotell. He would then perform DNA sequencing on the sample to see which species it belongs to, or the closest related species. One of the myth's people use is "You cant prove such and such is Bigfoot DNA without a body". That is simply nonsense. DNA sequencing will match the sample to the closest related organism, so a non-human primate of unknown origin was found, it would be paired up with one of the 4 non-human great apes. No, it isn't nonsense. There is no way to verify that any DNA is bigfoot dna without a bigfoot to compare it to.

21st April 2009, 03:06 PM	#332
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by xblade No, it isn't nonsense. There is no way to verify that any DNA is bigfoot dna without a bigfoot to compare it to. If you extract DNA that is unlike any Mammal we know of, but is related to a prehistoric Hominid or one of the Non-human primates, it would be appropiate to put the species with known species.

21st April 2009, 06:38 PM	#333
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	The easiest way would be if he could sign up here at JREF and talk to me via PM. I'll want to ask him about the provenance of the hair he's looking at, just to make sure he's sure it'd be worth looking at. I may also want to chat with him about alternative options, since I am concerned that I may not be considered an unbiased evaluator here. Here I am, How many posts do I need before I can PM? SY.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Last edited by southernyahoo; 21st April 2009 at 06:40 PM. Reason: didn't get the quote thing right

21st April 2009, 06:57 PM	#334
sanguine Thinker Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 206	Originally Posted by makaya325 If you extract DNA that is unlike any Mammal we know of, but is related to a prehistoric Hominid or one of the Non-human primates, it would be appropiate to put the species with known species. What you can do is place the gene in question (16S rRNA being a standard gene of choice for this sort of thing) in its appropriate place in a phylogenetic tree. So you can't say, "This is bigfoot" anymore than you can do the 16S on a rodent and say "This is a mouse", but you can say, "This plugs into the phylogenetic tree in roughly this position between mice and hamsters," and you are then free to infer what you reasonably might from that information. So it is true that you can't say, "This is bigfoot" without a reference bigfoot with which to compare it, but it is also true that you can say, "This appears to be something that is closely related to people and chimps, but is nothing we've sequenced so far." That said, it now occurs to me that I need to check the various species barcoding efforts to see if we can reasonably expect to already have broad coverage of 16S rRNA for enough primates, such that an "unknown" hit is expected to be meaningful, rather than meaning that someone yanked some fur out of a random monkey in an Indonesian market. That's actually a tremendously big issue for this type of work. I'll have to look into it. As for how many posts one needs before PMing, I have no idea, but I think you can post in test to boost your count.
sanguine Thinker Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 206

21st April 2009, 07:26 PM	#335
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,592	Originally Posted by southernyahoo The easiest way would be if he could sign up here at JREF and talk to me via PM. I'll want to ask him about the provenance of the hair he's looking at, just to make sure he's sure it'd be worth looking at. I may also want to chat with him about alternative options, since I am concerned that I may not be considered an unbiased evaluator here. Here I am, How many posts do I need before I can PM? SY. SY, there are a few lively discussions on how bluebear/Mak has reformed & transformed himself. Joining one of those threads should get your post count to double digits in no time!
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,592	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

22nd April 2009, 05:25 AM	#336
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by GT/CS SY, there are a few lively discussions on how bluebear/Mak has reformed & transformed himself. Joining one of those threads should get your post count to double digits in no time! Thanks, I found that I can PM right away, so post count is not a priority at the moment, as it never is with me. So, do you have a link to the lively discussions on blue bears transformation, I'm curious what the Lad has been up to. SY.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

22nd April 2009, 06:25 AM	#337
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by southernyahoo Thanks, I found that I can PM right away, so post count is not a priority at the moment, as it never is with me. So, do you have a link to the lively discussions on blue bears transformation, I'm curious what the Lad has been up to. SY. Here's that link: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140392 I'm going to have to do something about restraining the pounce urge I get when I see your initials, SY. They've been ruined for me by someone else. I'd be interested to hear what leads you to believe you might have Bigfoot hair, if you feel like sharing in-thread. I read you speculating bear, bovine, or ?
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

22nd April 2009, 06:52 AM	#338
LONGTABBER PE Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,865	Originally Posted by southernyahoo Thanks, I found that I can PM right away, so post count is not a priority at the moment, as it never is with me. So, do you have a link to the lively discussions on blue bears transformation, I'm curious what the Lad has been up to. SY. welcome aboard

22nd April 2009, 07:11 AM	#339
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,219	Originally Posted by southernyahoo Thanks, I found that I can PM right away, so post count is not a priority at the moment, as it never is with me. So, do you have a link to the lively discussions on blue bears transformation, I'm curious what the Lad has been up to. SY. Pull up a stool and stay a while. I'll make coffee!
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

22nd April 2009, 07:14 AM	#340
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,511	Originally Posted by BenBurch Pull up a stool and stay a while. Or better yet - send it in for DNA testing.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

22nd April 2009, 08:33 AM	#341
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by William Parcher Or better yet - send it in for DNA testing. I intend to do that, I aint scared of the truth, just looking to answer the question of what left the hair in the broken limbs of an Eastern Red Cedar tree. Thats all. SY.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

22nd April 2009, 09:00 AM	#342
desertyeti Muse Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: down by the river Posts: 838	What would make you think it's an undocumented hominid? I'm unfamiliar with your back-story, so I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.
	__________________ "He is a sick, demented yeti." They only poo in other dimensions!

22nd April 2009, 09:34 AM	#343
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by desertyeti What would make you think it's an undocumented hominid? I'm unfamiliar with your back-story, so I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. For the record, I'm open to the possibility of BF's existence, but will not make an unsubtantiated claim about evidence. Hairs cannot be faked, they are biological proof of the physical existence of something, and only good science will answer the question definitively what they belong to. Circumstances and observations of the find in association with the sign (tree damage) lends to the perception that the animal was rather large, black, and shaggy. SY.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

22nd April 2009, 11:25 AM	#344
desertyeti Muse Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: down by the river Posts: 838	Thanks. Quote: Hairs cannot be faked, they are biological proof of the physical existence of something,... Are you aware that Grover Krantz was fooled by synthetic hair for quite some time? Quote: Circumstances and observations of the find in association with the sign (tree damage) lends to the perception that the animal was rather large, black, and shaggy. Bears are cool.
	__________________ "He is a sick, demented yeti." They only poo in other dimensions!

22nd April 2009, 12:46 PM	#345
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	PHP Code: `Are you aware that Grover Krantz was fooled by synthetic hair for quite some time?` No I didn't, I guess he should have bothered to look at them under a microscope. PHP Code: `Bears are cool.` Yeah, and bear researchers would probably think it is pretty cool to find bears in west central oklahoma, have you looked at that area on google earth? Perhaps they should extend the known range of black bears westward in Oklahoma.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

22nd April 2009, 12:58 PM	#346
desertyeti Muse Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: down by the river Posts: 838	Quote: No I didn't, I guess he should have bothered to look at them under a microscope. Sadly, he did just that. Dynel and other artificial fibers have a structure very similar to real hair. Only a biochemical or spectoscopic test proved them to be artificial. It's a hairy problem. O.k., sorry that was aweful. Quote: Yeah, and bear researchers would probably think it is pretty cool to find bears in west central oklahoma, have you looked at that area on google earth? Perhaps they should extend the known range of black bears westward in Oklahoma Cool that bears might have a slightly wider range than thought. There's a population in southern Louisiana that doesn't appear on this gov. map. Seems they are prone to wander farther than "official" range maps show, not surprisingly considering the growing population. So, there's no real reason to think this hair is from a hominid though, is that correct?
	__________________ "He is a sick, demented yeti." They only poo in other dimensions! Last edited by desertyeti; 22nd April 2009 at 01:02 PM.

22nd April 2009, 01:04 PM	#347
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by desertyeti Sadly, he did just that. Dynel and other artificial fibers have a structure very similar to real hair. Only a biochemical or spectoscopic test proved them to be artificial. It's a hairy problem. O.k., sorry that was aweful. Cool that bears might have a slightly wider range than thought. There's a population in southern Louisiana that doesn't appear on this gov. map. Seems they are prone to wander farther than "official" range maps show, not surprisingly considering the growing population. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...f76b65454e.gif So, there's no real reason to think this hair is from a hominid though, is that correct? So a hair morphology exam is useless? You can't synthesize the structure of a hair.
	Last edited by makaya325; 22nd April 2009 at 01:20 PM.

22nd April 2009, 01:09 PM	#348
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by William Parcher Or better yet - send it in for DNA testing. Nominated. That was some fine pith, right there.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

22nd April 2009, 01:11 PM	#349
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by southernyahoo PHP Code: `Are you aware that Grover Krantz was fooled by synthetic hair for quite some time?` No I didn't, I guess he should have bothered to look at them under a microscope. PHP Code: `Bears are cool.` Yeah, and bear researchers would probably think it is pretty cool to find bears in west central oklahoma, have you looked at that area on google earth? Perhaps they should extend the known range of black bears westward in Oklahoma. I almost forgot, yahoo, welcome to the JREF. If you are having a problem using the quote function, I might be able to help.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

22nd April 2009, 01:24 PM	#350
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	[quote=desertyeti;4644216] Quote: Sadly, he did just that. Dynel and other artificial fibers have a structure very similar to real hair. Only a biochemical or spectoscopic test proved them to be artificial. It's a hairy problem. O.k., sorry that was aweful. Krantz was not a Microscopist though.

22nd April 2009, 03:18 PM	#351
xblade Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 462	Originally Posted by southernyahoo Yeah, and bear researchers would probably think it is pretty cool to find bears in west central oklahoma, have you looked at that area on google earth? Perhaps they should extend the known range of black bears westward in Oklahoma. As rare as they might be, I guarantee you there are more black bears in western Oklahoma than there are bigfoot. At worst, there are exactly the same amount.

22nd April 2009, 03:29 PM	#352
xblade Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 462	Quote: So it is true that you can't say, "This is bigfoot" without a reference bigfoot with which to compare it, but it is also true that you can say, "This appears to be something that is closely related to people and chimps, but is nothing we've sequenced so far." That's why you can't say unknown primate dna is bigfoot dna. Unknown means unknown....it doesn't mean bigfoot. All undiscovered primates aren't 9 foot tall monkey men.

22nd April 2009, 03:33 PM	#353
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by xblade That's why you can't say unknown primate dna is bigfoot dna. Unknown means unknown....it doesn't mean bigfoot. If Unknown Primate hair is found in North America that is not human but belonging to an Ape related to human is considered a sasquatch. What else could it belong to? Not a mouse.

22nd April 2009, 04:01 PM	#354
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,021	Originally Posted by makaya325 If Unknown Primate hair is found in North America that is not human but belonging to an Ape related to human is considered a sasquatch. What else could it belong to? Not a mouse. You're not using your critical faculties. A hair sample which comes back from the lab designated as "unknown primate hair" could be a sample from a known primate that has been corrupted or contaminated by foreign materials, age deterioration, and/or poor handling. It could also be a hair sample from a known primate which the investigator has mistakenly overlooked, requiring independent corroboration before accepting his/her opinion. Who is the investigator? Is s/he an expert in human forensic analysis, non-human primate forensic analysis, both, neither? It could also be an outright fabrication, say gorilla hairs subjected to some kind of chemical treatment that retains their generic "primate" classification but makes them look decidedly un-gorilla-like. There are undoubtedly alternatives which escape me. The point is to hastily conclude "sasquatch!" from a single sample designated "unknown primate" is bad science, bad skepticism and just bad thinking.
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "One thing we've learned (and the Internet confirms this) is that humans will screw just about anything." -- Theagenes Last edited by Vortigern99; 22nd April 2009 at 04:02 PM.

22nd April 2009, 04:19 PM	#355
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by Vortigern99 You're not using your critical faculties. A hair sample which comes back from the lab designated as "unknown primate hair" could be a sample from a known primate that has been corrupted or contaminated by foreign materials, age deterioration, and/or poor handling. It could also be a hair sample from a known primate which the investigator has mistakenly overlooked, requiring independent corroboration before accepting his/her opinion. Who is the investigator? Is s/he an expert in human forensic analysis, non-human primate forensic analysis, both, neither? It could also be an outright fabrication, say gorilla hairs subjected to some kind of chemical treatment that retains their generic "primate" classification but makes them look decidedly un-gorilla-like. There are undoubtedly alternatives which escape me. The point is to hastily conclude "sasquatch!" from a single sample designated "unknown primate" is bad science, bad skepticism and just bad thinking. You are correct Vort, however, I am not talking about someone Like Curt contaminator Nelson. I am talking about testing it with a reliable source, such as Todd Disotell.