Muldur
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2010
- Messages
- 2,232
Jodie, how do you square this with your other statement that you would deny the evidence of your own eyes absent a "body" and a "consensus"?
Bigfoot DNA
- Thread starter GT/CS
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot dna ed smith melba ketchum
- Status
Jodie, how do you square this with your other statement that you would deny the evidence of your own eyes absent a "body" and a "consensus"?
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
Insofar as "seems sincere" goes, so did Ted Bundy when he was asking pretty co-eds for help loading books into his car with that fake cast. Or being the governor's assistant, or a crisis line counselor.
There's a virtual parade of killer nurses or hey -hows about pedophile priests? So sincere, all of them. How about your sweet child who says he didn't take the cookies in the cookie jar? Which brings us to the point that faking sincerity is something that children can do. It isn't something that takes much intelligence or experience - and when someone has a "schtick" they have been doing for a while they get to practice their routine on a surprisingly large set of people, honing their act and tailoring it to different targets.
There's a virtual parade of killer nurses or hey -hows about pedophile priests? So sincere, all of them. How about your sweet child who says he didn't take the cookies in the cookie jar? Which brings us to the point that faking sincerity is something that children can do. It isn't something that takes much intelligence or experience - and when someone has a "schtick" they have been doing for a while they get to practice their routine on a surprisingly large set of people, honing their act and tailoring it to different targets.
calwaterbear
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 248
My first attempt at DNA - Results
As many of you recall, I spent yesterday trying to get DNA from some proported bigfoot samples. i invited all of you to come watch, but i was dissapointed (but not suprized) no one showed up.
As for the source of the samples: There is good news and bad news. The samples in question are thought (by the providers) to be bigfoot face prints, left on a truck window. i won't go into the complete story of the hows and whys, but they think it left a very clear face print, with discernable lips, eye cavities etc. So there is no 'I saw it push it's face on the window" moment. That is of course unfortunate, but thats what we are left to deal with it.
Once the print was discovered, i will say that it has been handled and stored correctly, following accepted forensic protocols.
So my first run was essentially to see if i could determine if it was "human" DNA - and just as an aside here. I keep seeing Melbarumblings, that this thing is human. Can someone - anyone, tell me what is her definition of "human". Because DNA does not spell out human - it can only spell words using combinations of A,T,C,and G, so it can't spell human, so i would really like a definition of how this "human" word is being defined - in a biological sense.
regardless I ran 12 samples, 4 known "human". My definition was Modern human - homo sapien, walking upright, not much hair, big brain, reduced jaw, skull riding on top of the spinal column, hip structure rolled forward, talking etc! for these samples, i used a mouth rinse technique. I also ran 3 known other mammal samples - in my case dog and horse - because thats what i had laying around. The dogs i used mouth swabs, the horse, i swabbed where the idiot had been licking my car windows, i was hoping that would mimic the face print.
I also ran 5 unknowns from the bigfoot print. 3 of those were taken within a few days of discovery of the print, and I took 2 more from the print itself.
Given the primers I was using, and the section of mDNA I was cutting out, i expected to see excellent results from the known human, with a strong band at 440 BP. I had hoped for some banding from the horse and dog samples, but did not have high expectations, given the primers I was using. and I had no idea what to expect from the faceprint samples.
So the results: I did in fact get exactly what I was expecting from my human samples. A perfect 4 for 4, clear dark bands at 440 bp. i could therefore send in those samples and have them sequenced, with the sequences containing information on each individuals heritage, what part of the world their ancestors came from.
I got nothing from either the animal or face print samples. This is what i had expected, but had hoped for more. One reason for this could be that my collection did not result in any DNA that I could amplify. This was probably the case in at least one sample, but in the others, i had a visual on the "pellet". The pellet is essentially a mass of cell debris in the bottom of the tube, that will then be isolated and from that DNA will be isolated and amplified.
Pellets from the mouth rinse technique were huge, that was expected. But I did see small pellets in 4 of the 5 face print samples, as well as in the dog samples. this is not a 100% guarantee, but is typically a good indication that you have DNA to work with.
So either the samples did not yield DNA, or in my mind, more likely they did yield DNA, but that DNA was outside the relm of the primers i was using, which were optimized for human. Given that scenario, I can comfortably declare, that if In fact i did get DNA, this thing is defintely not human! But of course that has to be qualified with "if i did get the DNA".
So whats next? Now i know we are getting good results, should I choose to continue, I will go after the same set of genes Sykes is using. The protocol will have to be a bit different, because he is using hair, and essentially I am using swabs, but if I get expected results from known humans, we will know my variations worked.
to further check my ability to isolate DNA,I will push my face up against a glass window and drool all over it, I will try to get a cow to nose up to a plate of glass, and that stupid horse will lick anything, so if i get DNA from them, I should expect that i could also get it from the unknown window prints.
The genes Sykes is using are universal in mammals and the primers have proven to be very robust across the whole range of mammals, so that should not be an issue.
So thats where I sit, trying to deside If I want to go through the expense and aggravation of one more round of testing, when I would much rather be doing samples for the barcode project!
CalWaterBear
As many of you recall, I spent yesterday trying to get DNA from some proported bigfoot samples. i invited all of you to come watch, but i was dissapointed (but not suprized) no one showed up.
As for the source of the samples: There is good news and bad news. The samples in question are thought (by the providers) to be bigfoot face prints, left on a truck window. i won't go into the complete story of the hows and whys, but they think it left a very clear face print, with discernable lips, eye cavities etc. So there is no 'I saw it push it's face on the window" moment. That is of course unfortunate, but thats what we are left to deal with it.
Once the print was discovered, i will say that it has been handled and stored correctly, following accepted forensic protocols.
So my first run was essentially to see if i could determine if it was "human" DNA - and just as an aside here. I keep seeing Melbarumblings, that this thing is human. Can someone - anyone, tell me what is her definition of "human". Because DNA does not spell out human - it can only spell words using combinations of A,T,C,and G, so it can't spell human, so i would really like a definition of how this "human" word is being defined - in a biological sense.
regardless I ran 12 samples, 4 known "human". My definition was Modern human - homo sapien, walking upright, not much hair, big brain, reduced jaw, skull riding on top of the spinal column, hip structure rolled forward, talking etc! for these samples, i used a mouth rinse technique. I also ran 3 known other mammal samples - in my case dog and horse - because thats what i had laying around. The dogs i used mouth swabs, the horse, i swabbed where the idiot had been licking my car windows, i was hoping that would mimic the face print.
I also ran 5 unknowns from the bigfoot print. 3 of those were taken within a few days of discovery of the print, and I took 2 more from the print itself.
Given the primers I was using, and the section of mDNA I was cutting out, i expected to see excellent results from the known human, with a strong band at 440 BP. I had hoped for some banding from the horse and dog samples, but did not have high expectations, given the primers I was using. and I had no idea what to expect from the faceprint samples.
So the results: I did in fact get exactly what I was expecting from my human samples. A perfect 4 for 4, clear dark bands at 440 bp. i could therefore send in those samples and have them sequenced, with the sequences containing information on each individuals heritage, what part of the world their ancestors came from.
I got nothing from either the animal or face print samples. This is what i had expected, but had hoped for more. One reason for this could be that my collection did not result in any DNA that I could amplify. This was probably the case in at least one sample, but in the others, i had a visual on the "pellet". The pellet is essentially a mass of cell debris in the bottom of the tube, that will then be isolated and from that DNA will be isolated and amplified.
Pellets from the mouth rinse technique were huge, that was expected. But I did see small pellets in 4 of the 5 face print samples, as well as in the dog samples. this is not a 100% guarantee, but is typically a good indication that you have DNA to work with.
So either the samples did not yield DNA, or in my mind, more likely they did yield DNA, but that DNA was outside the relm of the primers i was using, which were optimized for human. Given that scenario, I can comfortably declare, that if In fact i did get DNA, this thing is defintely not human! But of course that has to be qualified with "if i did get the DNA".
So whats next? Now i know we are getting good results, should I choose to continue, I will go after the same set of genes Sykes is using. The protocol will have to be a bit different, because he is using hair, and essentially I am using swabs, but if I get expected results from known humans, we will know my variations worked.
to further check my ability to isolate DNA,I will push my face up against a glass window and drool all over it, I will try to get a cow to nose up to a plate of glass, and that stupid horse will lick anything, so if i get DNA from them, I should expect that i could also get it from the unknown window prints.
The genes Sykes is using are universal in mammals and the primers have proven to be very robust across the whole range of mammals, so that should not be an issue.
So thats where I sit, trying to deside If I want to go through the expense and aggravation of one more round of testing, when I would much rather be doing samples for the barcode project!
CalWaterBear
Last edited:
well done, cal.
Anyone else think it's weird that bigfoot can escape death, fossilization, photography, etc for thousands of years, yet is so stupid as to lick a car window? duh.
not to cut to the chase, but what you have is bear DNA. Just to make it a bit easier.
I hope you will at least confirm that.
and yes, the US Open was quite entertaining, though I haven't walked that much since elk hunting season. We saw a Tiger birdie, but no bigfoot bogeys.
ProTip: if you are going to follow the leaders, invest in a periscope.
Anyone else think it's weird that bigfoot can escape death, fossilization, photography, etc for thousands of years, yet is so stupid as to lick a car window? duh.
not to cut to the chase, but what you have is bear DNA. Just to make it a bit easier.
I hope you will at least confirm that.
and yes, the US Open was quite entertaining, though I haven't walked that much since elk hunting season. We saw a Tiger birdie, but no bigfoot bogeys.
ProTip: if you are going to follow the leaders, invest in a periscope.
Of course they are not stupid enough to just lick any windshield. I believe this windshield had Zagnut residue on it, hence the licking and profuse quantity of saliva produced.
So Cal and Parn, are the human indicators contamination or can that even be deduced from the sample ? If you were to get Bear DNA would it amplify the possibility for human contamination ?
So Cal and Parn, are the human indicators contamination or can that even be deduced from the sample ? If you were to get Bear DNA would it amplify the possibility for human contamination ?
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
Maybe you could explain what that's supposed to mean.
Cal -
It's a shame nobody thought to take a picture of such a clear face print, but it is understandable when focusing so strenuously on the DNA protocol for samples without verifiable origin. It's almost as important as CPR on a mummy.
Not weird at all, Parn. It is exactly this kind of baffling behavior that evolution imparted to the bigfoot as a survival strategy.
calwaterbear
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 248
Parn glad to hear your golf outing went well. I'm guessing not bear, i'm thinking cow myself. That area has summer grazing allotments. i'm guessing cow because it looks like a cow slobbered on the side of the car, but I guess it doesn't matter, If I can isolate any DNA, I can tell for sure what it is!
an interesting side note to that. When i originally talked with them, and asked specifically if there were grazing cows in the area, the response was "Yes, i hadn't thought of that, but there were alot of cows around".
now 1 month later, as they were telling the story to another person, within my earshot, they now specifically mention that it was too early in the year for cows to be up at that location! interesting how the story morphs, either intentional or unintentional I don't know, but it morphs to "eliminate" probable explanations!
The part that interests me however, is their complete lack of forsight in this. So they have now publically declared that it is not possible that their samples are from a cow! So what happensd if it does indeed come back cow? can we believe anything else of their story?
ABP, they did take photos, and unusually for BF stuff, the photos themselves are very clear, it's up to you however to interprit the shapes in the photos!
So I'm pretty comfortable that we have eliminated the whole "it's human " crap. And also, I think these tests rule out that the samples are contaminated by humans. So now all that remains is getting a good sequence, and comparing that to knowns!
CWB
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
That's great! I'd love to see them. Are they posted anywhere?
I'm curious why the reluctance to get into detailing the origin of the samples though. It is of course the standard in bigfoot field research - if the sample comes from a swab of a bigfoot at the zoo, it is disqualified for violation of numerous protocols. It is repeatable, the source is verifiable, the animal actually exists if it is in a cage at the zoo, etc.
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,759
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9da_1309096875
They were out to find bigfoot, so I could assume it is a hoax right?
They were out to find bigfoot, so I could assume it is a hoax right?
calwaterbear
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 248
well turns out these guys have indeed publicized their little event. So i can now present this for your perusal, accusal, etc, have at it boys. ABR, the pictures are here! and they spend a good deal of time explaining to all of you doubters why the face print has to be BigFoot.v I'll leave it to you!
http://sangerparanormalsociety.com/bigfoot.html
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,759
Cal-
Here is a much better summary of the events
http://whofortedblog.com/2011/06/24...dibly-disappointing-bigfoot-press-conference/
Here is a much better summary of the events
http://whofortedblog.com/2011/06/24...dibly-disappointing-bigfoot-press-conference/
Last edited:
Attachments
In in the video one of the "investigators" notes "No one told us it was gonna snow or rain."
Genuises!
Last edited:
Jodie
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,231
Oh yes, I remember that story. They did a press conference that I watched. Shortly after that I saw other pictures of where bears had pressed their faces on the wind sheilds of cars in the past. They looked exactly like the photos they claimed were bigfoot's face.
Then I never heard anything else about it, that's been over a year ago. So Cal, you are trying to isolate whatever is in those samples? That's pretty interesting, good job. If I lived across the country I would have been there with bells on to watch.
Mulder, how can you write a whole book on the anatomy and physiology of a bigfoot when we don't have a type specimen? I stopped listening to Meldrum when he got into an argument with Bobby Short over whether bigfoot had a blaculum or not. I theorized with the best of them , it doesn't take credentials to do that when everyone is guessing.
Then I never heard anything else about it, that's been over a year ago. So Cal, you are trying to isolate whatever is in those samples? That's pretty interesting, good job. If I lived across the country I would have been there with bells on to watch.
Mulder, how can you write a whole book on the anatomy and physiology of a bigfoot when we don't have a type specimen? I stopped listening to Meldrum when he got into an argument with Bobby Short over whether bigfoot had a blaculum or not. I theorized with the best of them , it doesn't take credentials to do that when everyone is guessing.
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
One of the hallmarks of these episodes is validating yourself as an idiot and coward in the outdoors. So this guy has a two-wheel drive vehicle and undertakes a TERRIFYING trip on dirt roads - my God it even had MUD PUDDLES!
He's got four coolers of food but no chains, no winch, no come-along... and he's with a guy that has a jeep with a dead battery. They actually have to leave two vehicles behind - an automatic moron award right there. Here is my family this week on a fishing trip for comparison to that riveting death-defying trip of theirs. Read the sign:
We had some ramen noodles, some hard boiled eggs, bread, and baloney. Caught fish for food. Out five days; rained four out of the five, which makes climbing the rocks a tad bit difficult.
On Tuesday there was a rescue chopper looking for drowning victims. People die at this site regularly just fishing for salmon. Not sure if their boat capsized or they got swept away netting from the bank or what. We tie off with climbing harnesses to spikes we put in the rocks for safety.
We go as far as you can by 4wd truck and do four-wheelers the rest of the way. Got a complete tool kit, come-along, and the most likely spare parts. It's hundreds of miles to the nearest parts store by road. Next town downriver is about a hundred miles. No big deal here, this is a family outing not an expedition of note.
So you read these stories by "researchers" that are so incompetent their best effort could not sustain them through an ordinary family fishing trip - they are so far into the retard zone that having them give testimony about smudges on their windows is insulting to anyone with a woodland IQ over 20.
He's got four coolers of food but no chains, no winch, no come-along... and he's with a guy that has a jeep with a dead battery. They actually have to leave two vehicles behind - an automatic moron award right there. Here is my family this week on a fishing trip for comparison to that riveting death-defying trip of theirs. Read the sign:
We had some ramen noodles, some hard boiled eggs, bread, and baloney. Caught fish for food. Out five days; rained four out of the five, which makes climbing the rocks a tad bit difficult.
On Tuesday there was a rescue chopper looking for drowning victims. People die at this site regularly just fishing for salmon. Not sure if their boat capsized or they got swept away netting from the bank or what. We tie off with climbing harnesses to spikes we put in the rocks for safety.
We go as far as you can by 4wd truck and do four-wheelers the rest of the way. Got a complete tool kit, come-along, and the most likely spare parts. It's hundreds of miles to the nearest parts store by road. Next town downriver is about a hundred miles. No big deal here, this is a family outing not an expedition of note.
So you read these stories by "researchers" that are so incompetent their best effort could not sustain them through an ordinary family fishing trip - they are so far into the retard zone that having them give testimony about smudges on their windows is insulting to anyone with a woodland IQ over 20.
Muldur
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2010
- Messages
- 2,232
You know exactly what I mean.
It is lower than low to compare BF researchers, including respected scientists like Dr Meldrum to Ted Bundy.
- Status