Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
first it's different than Melbas, because it is open. Heres the dates, heres what we plan, heres our standards etc. beyond that, the results will be the results, not a protracted muddled attempt to try and crowbar unwanted results into some sort of suitable explanation that fits your preconcieved biases!

In my communication with Sykes, he is going after hair because it is the easiest sample to "sterilize" (My term) it, ie you need to remove the human DNA contamination. essentially you can think of the hair as a natural test tube, the human handlers DNA is all over the outside of the tube, the specimens DNA is inside. So if you can strip off all the human DNA, then get inside the hair, you will get the DNA. While this is the advantage of using hair, it is also the weakpoint, as the hair is much more likely to be contaminated than tissue or fluid samples that have been collected properly.

Sykes did bring up a very valid point, with contamination being an issue, how many times has a sample been declared human because of unknown contamination? Of course he just provided every BF believer the newest Immediate response if their samples come out wrong! To bad Melba never thought of that one - she could have blamed the collectors of her data.

In this case however, using hair will pretty much eliminate the human DNA explanation, both because of cleaning techniques, but also just the hair morphology!
Alot of these hair samples probably originate from museum collections of mammals where someone clipped of a bit of hair from a maned wolf or a mooses dew lap. That specimen has been in the museum being touched and moved for 50 years, so it accumulates alot of human DNA.

The other good part of this study is that typically the results will be known for what it is. sykes will get gorrilla and yak and bear (lots of bear) results.

Anyway, i hope that answers your questions Jodie. Will this study prove there is a bigfoot? nope, never will without a type specimen. will it put a dagger in the heart of many BF legends - yes, but only to those with open minds and logical thought processes!
The other alternative - most interesting, but also extremely unlikely, would be a set of many samples from all over the world that have consistencies in the DNA sequences, that are not known from other animals. Would that prove Bigfoot? Nope! but it would start us wondering, and looking for more actual evidence.

So we swill have to wait and see, but at least we know how long we have to wait!
WB

Jodie said:
How is this study different than Melba's? The only thing I see that might possibly be different based on the rumor mill is the hypothesis. Wouldn't the process of elimination essentially be the same whether you are looking for an extent primate in NA or at the genetic relationship between hominids and primates?

Why primarily hair? Is it because you can eliminate contamination more easily? I found this article so it makes me question once again what primers are going to be used.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8435317.stm

"To take animal studies on cave bears, for example, if we use PCR primers specific for human DNA on cave bear bones, we can retrieve modern human DNA on almost every one. That has made me think: 'how can I trust anything on this'."

Ahhh , here it is, it says hair is less prone to fungal growth. Maybe that is why hair was chosen.

httphttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ancient-human-genome
Click to expand...
 
CalWB:

if you happen to get a chance, please ask Dr. Sykes to confirm the story that

One well publicized expedition to Bhutan reported that a hair sample had been obtained that, after DNA analysis by Professor Bryan Sykes, could not be matched to any known animal. Analysis completed after the media release, however, clearly showed that the samples were from the Brown bear (Ursus arctos) and the Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus), which was documented in : Chandler, H.C. (2003). Using Ancient DNA to Link Culture and Biology in Human Populations. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis. University of Oxford, Oxford.
Click to expand...
 
parnassus said:
CalWB:

if you happen to get a chance, please ask Dr. Sykes to confirm the story that
Click to expand...

Hey Parn,
actually that very case came up as we talked (typed ) about contamination. His grad student did the work. early on they had all sorts of issues with human contamination, precisely because it had been handled so much. Once they finally got it stripped off, the DNA was clearly from the 2 species of bear!
CWB.

PS Parn, check your PM. If you can send me an email, I will fill you in a bit on this case!
 
Last edited:
Even if they determine that there is a common characteristic of an unknown primate in several of the samples they collect, that doesn't necessarily indicate that we are looking at a broadly distributed species. The problem the study will still have is provenance. As devil's advocate, one could argue that someone has obtained a hair sample of a yet discovered primate from Southeast Asia or the Republic of Congo. That same individual is passing the hair sample off as "Bigfoot" with incredible stories of habituation, etc. There is nothing that prevents said individual from sending portions of the sample to his other "Squatch Bretheren" and having them submit it from elsewhere in the US or World with another incredible story of shooting one on a forest road, for instance. Yes, maybe they truly have an interesting hair sample, but it's meaningless in terms of discovering a new species, because you have no control over the collection or provenance of the sample. Without the body, all of this would essentially result in an unknown primate, and for most scientists would be met with a collective yawn. Now, this whole scenario is based upon the fact that they obtain even one unusual sample.

The end game of the study is obviously to support an upcoming Meldrum Bigfoot special as additional "proof" of an unknown North American Primate. Otherwise, there really isn't much point in the study without a body.
 
Yes, you answered my questions very well, thank you, and I agree on the provenance issue.

So at most, is mtDNA all he will be able to extract from the hair samples?

I guess it remains to be seen if he stays on schedule. If he can't, I'ld prefer he not use the word "soon" in any explanation that might be forthcoming.
 
You may be right on this. However, In my opinion, you are committing the same scientific methodology fallacy as BF believers in your declaration: The end game of the study is obviously to support an upcoming Meldrum Bigfoot special as additional "proof" of an unknown North American Primate.
You have projected your personal bias and have already indicated that you will have no regard for the results of the study, unless presumambly it helps you support your personal agenda.

Lets wait and see how this turns out. And if it turns out like I think it might, you will be reminded of this post! by me! as an example of putting your personal agenda front and center, without any evidence!

TheJackal said:
Even if they determine that there is a common characteristic of an unknown primate in several of the samples they collect, that doesn't necessarily indicate that we are looking at a broadly distributed species. The problem the study will still have is provenance. As devil's advocate, one could argue that someone has obtained a hair sample of a yet discovered primate from Southeast Asia or the Republic of Congo. That same individual is passing the hair sample off as "Bigfoot" with incredible stories of habituation, etc. There is nothing that prevents said individual from sending portions of the sample to his other "Squatch Bretheren" and having them submit it from elsewhere in the US or World with another incredible story of shooting one on a forest road, for instance. Yes, maybe they truly have an interesting hair sample, but it's meaningless in terms of discovering a new species, because you have no control over the collection or provenance of the sample. Without the body, all of this would essentially result in an unknown primate, and for most scientists would be met with a collective yawn. Now, this whole scenario is based upon the fact that they obtain even one unusual sample.

The end game of the study is obviously to support an upcoming Meldrum Bigfoot special as additional "proof" of an unknown North American Primate. Otherwise, there really isn't much point in the study without a body.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, it is my personal bias, and opinion. What other end result do you anticipate ? They publish a paper that states unknown primate. It neither proves nor disproves the existence of Bigfoot. It neither proves or disproves a large geographical dispersion of said unknown primate. All I can figure, and yes, this is my bias and opinion, is that it's something Bleevers can point at and say "look, they proved Bigfoot exists". Feel free to bring up my words when the paper is published. It's one man's opinion. Plus, I will read the report along with everyone else and draw my own conclusion. Will it be personally biased, sure. Will it change my mind, maybe. The problem is that everyone will draw their own conclusion, especially if all that is proven is "unknown primate."
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
Yes, you answered my questions very well, thank you, and I agree on the provenance issue.

So at most, is mtDNA all he will be able to extract from the hair samples?

I guess it remains to be seen if he stays on schedule. If he can't, I'ld prefer he not use the word "soon" in any explanation that might be forthcoming.
Click to expand...
Well he is specifically going after mDNA because it is more plentiful and easier to get, and it does contain the genes he wants, which are in all mammals , just dirrerent forms (other animals too). if he found something of interest, he could go back to the same sample (good form to only use part of a sample, usually even a small sample can be worked with, so you use some, and save some, anyway if there was something of interest you would go back to that sample - first to confirm your results, then to move on. You could get nDNA just for this study, at least the prelims, no real need for it!
 
I hope people have better things to do than mail hair samples all over the world to each other claiming they are from bigfoot.

To me seeing bigfoot and then finding a hair ball in the vicinity is questionable in regards to provenance. What exactly does Dr. Sykes mean when he says he will establish provenance?

Is he only taking samples where they see the bigfoot rub up on something that could possibly snag hair? Or samples only from some kind of hair trap?
 
Jodie said:
What exactly does Dr. Sykes mean when he says he will establish provenance?
Click to expand...

I think you are now seeing the obstacles a real scientist, attempting to find DNA samples of a non-existent beast must overcome.

Now let's try to guess what his paper title will be:

ALLEGED 'CRYPTOZOOLOGICAL' HAIR SAMPLES ARE OF EXISTING CREATURES INCLUDING HUMAN.

ABSTRACT: Reviews multiple submissions from witnesses claiming they have samples from various Unclassified, bipedal primates, classifies results of DNA testing on these samples, shows the relationship between possible hoaxes, and blatant misidentifications. Why were the bulk of the samples of human origin? Evaluates submissions based on geographical location of alleged samples.


or another:

SHOULD SCIENCE TAKE SIGHTINGS OF UNCLASSIFIED BIPEDAL PRIMATES MORE SERIOUSLY?

ABSTRACT: Analyses multiple samples of alleged Unclassified Bipedal Primates, for DNA, attempts to correlate the stories of the samples' provenance with how the DNA test resulted for each sample. Some of the stories of the collection of the sample involve incredible encounters with upright hairy bipedal creatures, but the DNA results came back as common animals or indeed simply human. Quantifies the results of the DNA testing with regard to geographic location, distribution of actual sample results with regard to resultant species, and examines whether scientific resources should continue to be devoted to finding these mythological creatures.
 
Cal, I am not arguing to be an ass, but I have to wonder, what hypothesis is he testing ? Also, who is providing funding for the study ? That to me would indicate what the endgame of the study. I just can't see starting out testing a bunch of hair knowing that all you will likely end up with, if lucky, is an unknown primate of unknown origin of unknown distribution that shares many DNA characteristics with other large modern primates. I just don't see how that turns science on it's ear. Yes, that is my bias and opinion.
 
calwaterbear said:
You may be right on this. However, In my opinion, you are committing the same scientific methodology fallacy as BF believers in your declaration: The end game of the study is obviously to support an upcoming Meldrum Bigfoot special as additional "proof" of an unknown North American Primate.
You have projected your personal bias and have already indicated that you will have no regard for the results of the study, unless presumambly it helps you support your personal agenda.

Lets wait and see how this turns out. And if it turns out like I think it might, you will be reminded of this post! by me! as an example of putting your personal agenda front and center, without any evidence!
Click to expand...

With all due respect, Jackal, I think your crystal ball is cloudy. Mine, and the tea leaves, together with my rapier-like intellect and many years of experience in matters of science and experiment design, predict a rather different outcome.
 
Parn, you're killing me. I apparently will be returning my now defective crystal ball, and will resort to my Tarot Cards.
 
RayG said:
Can you post it here? Time and again bigfoot proponents have trumpeted the Bhutan 'unknown' hair as though it were indisputable fact.

That seems to happen a lot in Bigfootery.

RayG
Click to expand...
Ray, i really don't think I can, professional courtesies. I have no difficulty in telling you what he says, I do not however feel empowered to release his email to the public, that would have to be his call.

He's not hard to find, have you tried contacting him directly?

But it would be really simple to track down. Anyone could walk into Oxfords library, pull the thesis in question off the shelf and read it/ copy it. or It could also be obtained from Interlibrary loan.

You are right, it happens alot, mostly because the believers don't want to know, and many of the non belivers would rather bitch and philosophize and listen to themselves talk, instead of doing a bit of leg work.
CWB
 
Several of you have brought up concerns for the provenance issue. Where did this sample come from, how was it obtained, who had custody of it, how do you know it is bigfoot etc.

Many seem to be concerned that this is an avenue that could be expoited by hoaxers.

In my opinion, this is one of the best parts of Sykes study. The providers of the sample provide the backstory of the sample. This would seem to be a real flaw.

But we need to think a bit deeper on this. so lets say you get 15 smples where people are acertaining that they know it's BF DNA. They saw them laying in the bed, watched em playing etc - whatever. The more concrete and certain the story is, the bigger the fall when the sample comes back bear, or giant anteater, whatever. The result would directly discredit the provenance story. Essentially, science disproves their story. In that case of course, they will have to blame Dr. Sykes, accusing him of hoax, thats strange, a guy working with Meldrum is covering up evidence of Big Foot? how and why would that happen?

I think this is a brilliant study!

Jackal,
In response to your question, of how I thought this study might turn out, I thought I had been quite clear on that, but then again, that would require reading 2 or even 3 posts to figure it out. So I think sykes will get several good samples with people being sure their samples are bigfoot, because they saw it with their own 2 eyes etc. those will all be systematically shot down, IDed as dog or bear or Yak, or whatever.

More interesting to me however is your scenario! let me get this straight. You think someone who is sitting on an unknown primate, from some other continent, will sneak samples of their animal to various people and ask them to submit it? huh? to prove some unknown primate in North America?
wow! pretty spectacular conspiracy theory.

First of all multiple samples from the same individual animal are easily detected. So it would be very easy to figure out that many people are sending in the same sample, that alone would expose the hoax!

why wouldn't the possesor of such sample simply write up their discovery in a scientific journal? The finding of a previously unknown primate is pretty big, particularly when it is not a simple splitting off a sub species or discovering a cryptic species (essentially a group that based on morphology has been previously lumped into one species, but current DNA and new information would identify that the group is in fact 2 distinct species).

In your scenario they give up their credibility, and their truely significant scientific discovery to become part of a big foot hoax?
wow!
 
Last edited:
Calwater, my argument was a scenario that you could argue that the spread of an unknown primate would be unknown, because there is no way to control the sample collection. If you want to sit here and pick apart words, great. With the scenario I stated, the conspirator is trying to "prove" the existence of Bigfoot, not an unknown primate in the Congo. It really doesn't create the same "stir" to find a primate in the Congo versus the United States does it ? The issue is that you can create any number of scenarios around provenance to discredit almost any result. That was the point of the post. Nothing more, nothing less.

Since you dodged the question .... who is funding the study ?
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
Evidently Calwaterbear has me on ignore...
Click to expand...
what do you want drewbot? i was planning on dealing with you personally when i visit the Detroit area in early/mid july. assuming the humidity doesn't kill me.
I'm going to spend several days looking for bigfoot in the forests of northern LP. after that i'm going out on some island looking for them! You might think i was only riding dirt bikes on the Michigan CCC trail, and camping out with family, but thats where you would be wrong! thats my cover story!

I didn't know you wanted me to comment on something? so I guess I need to go back and see what chu talking about Willis!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom