Bigfoot DNA

[southernyahoo]

Yes, it shouldn't be a big mystery...but if you can keep it "unknown", you can keep claiming it's from a sasquatch.

Ready to name "Mr. Good science" yet?

 

[LTC8K6]

Ready to name "Mr. Good science" yet?

No. I only know of one sasquatch hair expert, and you already used him.

It's very common for footers to report "unknown" for specimens supposedly from sasquatch, so don't look at me with that squinty eye.

In fact, I think it's nearly a universal result from sasquatch DNA/hair sample testing.

 

[southernyahoo]

No. I only know of one sasquatch hair expert, and you already used him.

It's very common for footers to report "unknown" for specimens supposedly from sasquatch, so don't look at me with that squinty eye.

In fact, I think it's nearly a universal result from sasquatch DNA/hair sample testing.

You said it yourself that morph ID is problematic, yet for some reason a footer is supposed be the expert in it?

Unknown is the proper reference to them as long as you have no definate concensus from the "real experts". So who are they?

I've noted that skeptics are quick to call "bad science" when any "expert" finds the evidence in favor of BF. Would they do the same if they had chosen the expert?Yes my eyes are squinting.

I've worked on being completely objective in getting a straight and repeated answer on them. I don't want to just believe they are BF,I'll put that on the line, I want to know, just like you.

I'm pitting my confidence in what the results would be against your skepticism, we'd both be on the hook.

If you think "good science" can ID them, you shouldn't have a problem with this.

 

[LTC8K6]

"Unknown" is not the proper reference for "bad sample" or "inconclusive" or "degraded".

It's something said deliberately to maintain interest.

It's quite common in the cryptid world, imo.

They even do it with photos of poor mangy creatures found by the road or washed up on the beach. Keep insisting that "no one can identify it".

 

[Resume]

I've noted that skeptics are quick to call "bad science" when any "expert" finds the evidence in favor of BF.

What evidence would that be? "Unknown" hairs? Inconclusive DNA? Unverifiable anecdotes or suspicious film?

How about a corpse? That would be cool.

 

[southernyahoo]

"Unknown" is not the proper reference for "bad sample" or "inconclusive" or "degraded".

If it's inconclusive, how could it be anything other than "unknown"?

It's something said deliberately to maintain interest.

It's something said when you can't say anything else.

It's quite common in the cryptid world, imo.

They even do it with photos of poor mangy creatures found by the road or washed up on the beach. Keep insisting that "no one can identify it"

I'm sure it happens where something seems cryptic , and decomposed. You can take issue with claims when the due investigative process is not done, but don't complain about the investigation if you also want to use the argument there is no mystery, yet the evidence needs to be properly tested.

 

[LTC8K6]

"Unknown" implies that the DNA sample was good, and they got a good profile, and they couldn't identify that good profile.

If you had several of these good profiles from different samples found in different places, you'd have a much better start towards a case for an unknown creature.

It seems like we never hear about any good profiles from these samples. If we do hear about the results, it always seems to be an odd story with a result that no one can use for anything.

 

[southernyahoo]

"Unknown" implies that the DNA sample was good, and they got a good profile, and they couldn't identify that good profile.

If you had several of these good profiles from different samples found in different places, you'd have a much better start towards a case for an unknown creature.

It seems like we never hear about any good profiles from these samples. If we do hear about the results, it always seems to be an odd story with a result that no one can use for anything.

I understand that frustration, and thats exactly what Dr. Ketchums study is about. Parcher was concerned too that you wouldn't get to see the provenance of the samples or look at the evidence that is being studied, or see that the profiles were complete. Hopefully you will get to see more from the others and the results published.

 

[The Shrike]

I guess I still don't understand why "bovine" and "equine" have apparently been ruled out as candidates for the suspected bigfoot hairs. The wide, even medulla matches well as far as I can see. (Note that bovine should include goats - often turned loose in that part of the world to help knock back the cedar - and equine should include mules and donkeys. For that matter, what's the likelihood of something else, like llamas from this location?)

Finally, I have no hair/DNA expert in mind that I would immediately recommend as a peer referee for Ketchum's paper. I trust that if she's sent her manuscript to a decent journal that the editor there will be able to find people with the relevant expertise to critically examine the work.

 

[southernyahoo]

I guess I still don't understand why "bovine" and "equine" have apparently been ruled out as candidates for the suspected bigfoot hairs. The wide, even medulla matches well as far as I can see. (Note that bovine should include goats - often turned loose in that part of the world to help knock back the cedar - and equine should include mules and donkeys. For that matter, what's the likelihood of something else, like llamas from this location?)

Finally, I have no hair/DNA expert in mind that I would immediately recommend as a peer referee for Ketchum's paper. I trust that if she's sent her manuscript to a decent journal that the editor there will be able to find people with the relevant expertise to critically examine the work.

Well you could always argue that someone let an exotic animal loose or that some animals you mentioned were the culprit. I have to rely on what the various labs have told us. With each try to get them identified both by morphology and DNA it becomes more and more apparent that either these hairs are stumping the experts because it is rare or the DNA really doesn't match when comparisons are run. The one tech seemed confident they had good enough sequences, and with that the hairs should have been identified even if it was the rare llama

 

[DennyT]

Is belief in Bigfoot a requirement for this scientist?

 

[The Shrike]

Well you could always argue that someone let an exotic animal loose or that some animals you mentioned were the culprit.

I believe I mentioned cows, horses, goats, donkeys, and mules. Are these creatures rarities in Oklahoma? I've seen representatives of all of them during my field work in that part of the world. As for llamas, you might check here to learn more about them: http://oklahomallamaassociation.homestead.com/. With over 7000 visitors to their website, I think llamas might be more common in the state than you realize.

Other exotics? Why not? There's quite an industry in Texas (e.g., http://www.texasexotichunting.net/texasexotichunting.html), does this not exist in Oklahoma? Certainly someone could plant some strange hair in a redcedar, twist off a branch and yell "bigfoot!" You do realize how ridiculous it is to consider bigfoots living in the location you indicated and the habitat illustrated in the photo, right?

You still haven't explained why the "mystery hairs" aren't equine. The micro-structure looks like a dead ringer to me.

 

[kmortis]

Play nice folks. Keep it civil and on topic. Unless a bigfoot recently registered, the topic is not the other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[southernyahoo]

I believe I mentioned cows, horses, goats, donkeys, and mules. Are these creatures rarities in Oklahoma? I've seen representatives of all of them during my field work in that part of the world. As for llamas, you might check here to learn more about them: http://oklahomallamaassociation.homestead.com/. With over 7000 visitors to their website, I think llamas might be more common in the state than you realize.

I didn't say those animals are rare, I've speculated that whatever the hairs are from must be rare, atleast in that it's hairs are rarely submitted as unknowns to labs.

Other exotics? Why not? There's quite an industry in Texas (e.g., http://www.texasexotichunting.net/texasexotichunting.html), does this not exist in Oklahoma? Certainly someone could plant some strange hair in a redcedar, twist off a branch and yell "bigfoot!" You do realize how ridiculous it is to consider bigfoots living in the location you indicated and the habitat illustrated in the photo, right?

I said you could argue, but didn't say you would be arguing with me.

Yeah, I spent a couple days there out of curiousity, like many other groups and organizations. I had a look around and found evidence of something large dark and shaggy. I decided to test the hairs. If they are not bigfoot then it might explain the sightings as a misidentification. There's always that for an upside

You still haven't explained why the "mystery hairs" aren't equine. The micro-structure looks like a dead ringer to me.

You are asking the wrong person. If you found hair and was curious enough to have them examined, you wouldn't come asking me. If you want to assemble a comparison using the provided pics, have at it, just don't call it proof of anything without an experts opinion to back it up.

Though, any hair and fiber expert won't make a judgement based on a couple micrographs. There is the cuticle scale pattern, diameter, length, degree of wave, cross sectional shape, color, pigmentation density and distribution and medulla structures, when present to consider. Each species has some unique combination of all these atributes and with each atribute having a range of variability.

If this explanation is still needed after the paper is published then we'll pursue it further.

 

[DennyT]

I didn't say those animals are rare, I've speculated that whatever the hairs are from must be rare, atleast in that it's hairs are rarely submitted as unknowns to labs....


Though, any hair and fiber expert won't make a judgement based on a couple micrographs. There is the cuticle scale pattern, diameter, length, degree of wave, cross sectional shape, color, pigmentation density and distribution and medulla structures, when present to consider. Each species has some unique combination of all these atributes and with each atribute having a range of variability.

Do you really think these statements are true? If so, can you provide evidence that they are? Who makes these claims? What record do they have? There are a lot of tests that have been devised in science, education, medicine etc that just don't turn out to be very useful...they give too many false positives and false negatives to be helpful. And subjective issues are always problematic.
What good is it if the best expert in the world gets 73% correct? What good is it if the worst guy gets 32%? What if he's honest and says i dont know 68% of the time and you gaily pronounce 68% of all sample to be "unknown" wink wink bigfoot....SEND YOUR SAMPLES TO THIS GUY!! Great for business, unlike most fields where competence is valued. how do you know which guy you've got? Is he better on domestics in Oklahoma than wilds in Alaska?


I have the idea, as I mentioned and you suggest, that determination of species from a hair is not at all a simple matter and that some who profess to be able to do it are simply arrogant. As a result, no information or misinformation often results. I would suggest consuting the FBI at Quantico VA to get a referral to the person they consider to be the best.
I think it's just not a good test.

 

[southernyahoo]

I have the idea, as I mentioned and you suggest, that determination of species from a hair is not at all a simple matter and that some who profess to be able to do it are simply arrogant. As a result, no information or misinformation often results. I would suggest consuting the FBI at Quantico VA to get a referral to the person they consider to be the best.
I think it's just not a good test.

I don't necessarily agree that it's arrogant, I mean you would'nt say that Todd Disotell didn't debunk alot of hair samples that he's been sent. I fully expect that for instance Dr. Lynn Rogers of WRI in Eli Minnesota could identify a bear hair when he see's it, to include his lab assistants since he studies Black Bears in the wild.

I expect that some animal hairs are easy to ID becuase they are distinctive in some way while others form groups that reguire a trained eye to distinguish.

It's just a far better plan to go after DNA especially when trying to ID a cryptid because the comparisons can be done across all catalogued species by computer in the blink of an eye and with greater accuracy. The downside is that the sample needs to be relatively fresh with root tissue.

 

[Resume]

It's just a far better plan to go after DNA especially when trying to ID a cryptid because the comparisons can be done across all catalogued species by computer in the blink of an eye and with greater accuracy. The downside is that the sample needs to be relatively fresh with root tissue.

We've identified cryptids through DNA? Where?

 

[southernyahoo]

We've identified cryptids through DNA? Where?

Denisovans, a new homind was identified with DNA they got from a couple teeth and a pinky bone. they wouldn't have called it a new species of human without the DNA.

 

[Resume]

Denisovans, a new homind was identified with DNA they got from a couple teeth and a pinky bone. they wouldn't have called it a new species of human without the DNA.

Not a cryptid in the spirit of Footie, Nessie or Champ. But you know that.

 

[LTC8K6]

Denisovans, a new homind was identified with DNA they got from a couple teeth and a pinky bone. they wouldn't have called it a new species of human without the DNA.

How is that a cryptid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin