Why the Continued Interest in Bigfoot on This Forum

[snoop_doxie]

Freak was never gone. He's gone from here but he's been working the Creek at the Search For Believers steady all along. Freak (I call him that in the funk vernacular, not the circus vernacular), I kid you not, offered to pay for me to fly around the world and down to the swamp from Tokyo to experience his Bigfoots. I asked him to spend his money on gamecams instead. Bigfoots are just too badass for gamecams, though. I think we compromised by agreeing to have a beer at the Yakima Round-Up if we could be there. Alas, no skeptics, no doubters, and no Freaks.

Funky Freak. Yep, that fits.
From Tokyo to Florida? (Is he in the swamps there?) Wow, for some reason, I thought Freak was strapped for cash, I could be completely wrong about that.

Yeah, I thought that Yakima round-up was only for believers. Someone was un-invited or unable to buy a ticket because he had questioned one of the speakers.

Too bad you couldn't meet there for a beer. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall!

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.amazon.com/Tribal-Bigfoo...iewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

http://www.amazon.com/Tribal-Bigfoo...iewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Wow, I didnt realize H May was the chief Bigfoot reviewer for Amazon

 

[William Parcher]

H May

The King of Bigfoot Spamming on JREF.

 

[Mako]

Welcome to the JREF, Mako.

This sounds very interesting and I would really like to kno*snore*

Thank you for the welcome, and yes, I'm sure it reminds you of other unproductive DNA hair analysis stories, but here's the actual letter if you're interested (found on pp. 372-373, I typed it up):

Dear Mr. Paulides,

Our laboratory has been working on the samples you submitted for species identification over the past few months. On the newest set of hair samples submitted, it was noted that there was follicular material on the root end of the hairs. We took one hair and extracted the root end and obtained nuclear DNA from the follicular material present on the hair. Since it was nuclear DNA, we amplified the DNA with PowerPlex™ 16, which is a group of STR markers that is used for human forensics and paternity testing. This group of markers is also known to give results for primates as well as humans. Usually, the primates will generate results that are not concordant with human results though. In this way, information can be gleaned about certain primates and in some cases, identity of the type of primate can be obtained. We did obtain results from PowerPlex™ 16 on this sample submitted. There was certainly aberrant result for the Amelogenin locus. Normally, Amelogenin is a sex determining marker that has peaks at 106 for female, denoting the X chromosome, and 106/112, denoting the X/Y chromosomes, for male humans. If there is non-human mammalian DNA present, there is normally a peak at 103 but not 106 or 112 since this is a human specific marker. When we tested the sample submitted, the results for this locus were 102/106. The 102 peak was not expected and is unique in that our laboratory has not observed this in the past. There are a number of scenarios that could account for this unusual finding. As a result, at this time it cannot be ruled out that this could be DNA from an undocumented species. Research of this type takes time, but testing of these samples is continuing and now, there are results (data) obtained from testing that are being analyzed at this time and analysis is continuing.

bold is mine

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, it's the typical meaningless unknown result that we have seen before. So what?

 

[EHocking]

Thank you for the welcome, and yes, I'm sure it reminds you of other unproductive DNA hair analysis stories, but here's the actual letter if you're interested (found on pp. 372-373, I typed it up):...
bold is mine

Out of curiosity. What are the details of the laboratory that performed this analysis?

 

[Mako]

Yes, it's the typical meaningless unknown result that we have seen before. So what?

Would you have preferred that I didn't post it at all? Take it for what it's worth.

Out of curiosity. What are the details of the laboratory that performed this analysis?

Following the letter, Paulides writes:

The name of the lab has been removed because NABS has had problems with others calling the lab, stating they are with NABS and asking for results on specimens. If anyone has specific concerns or issues with this or the other letter in the book, contact a NABS member at any conference and we will gladly show you the results.

 

[kitakaze]

Thank you for the welcome, and yes, I'm sure it reminds you of other unproductive DNA hair analysis stories, but here's the actual letter if you're interested (found on pp. 372-373, I typed it up):

Thank you for taking the time to make the effort of typing that up. Yes, I am interested. The first thing I'm interested in is pp. 372-373 of what? As for the letter, bolding yours, highlights/italics mine:

Dear Mr. Paulides,

Our laboratory has been working on the samples you submitted for species identification over the past few months. On the newest set of hair samples submitted, it was noted that there was follicular material on the root end of the hairs. We took one hair and extracted the root end and obtained nuclear DNA from the follicular material present on the hair. Since it was nuclear DNA, we amplified the DNA with PowerPlex™ 16, which is a group of STR markers that is used for human forensics and paternity testing. This group of markers is also known to give results for primates as well as humans. Usually, the primates will generate results that are not concordant with human results though. In this way, information can be gleaned about certain primates and in some cases, identity of the type of primate can be obtained. We did obtain results from PowerPlex™ 16 on this sample submitted. There was certainly aberrant result for the Amelogenin locus. Normally, Amelogenin is a sex determining marker that has peaks at 106 for female, denoting the X chromosome, and 106/112, denoting the X/Y chromosomes, for male humans. If there is non-human mammalian DNA present, there is normally a peak at 103 but not 106 or 112 since this is a human specific marker. When we tested the sample submitted, the results for this locus were 102/106. The 102 peak was not expected and is unique in that our laboratory has not observed this in the past. There are a number of scenarios that could account for this unusual finding. As a result, at this time it cannot be ruled out that this could be DNA from an undocumented species. Research of this type takes time, but testing of these samples is continuing and now, there are results (data) obtained from testing that are being analyzed at this time and analysis is continuing.

Problems I see:

• Paulides has obviously not sought proper DNA testing.

• The lab is equipped for human DNA and paternity testing, not genotype sampling and species identification such as Prof. Todd Disotell's lab at New York University.

• Proper DNA testing can tell you the differences between individual animals within a species, not just differences between species. Thus, if we were looking at a biological species that was as close to us even as Homo neanderthalensis, it would still be readily identifiable as being not Tom, Dick, or human.

• The person from that lab specified that there a number of reasons that they could get a weird result. A weird result at a paternity lab does not equal Bigfoot.

Mako, I highly recommend that you listen to the Prof. Disotell interview on Monstertalk that I linked and also you should check the thread on it here to learn a lot more about DNA testing and Bigfoot:

MonsterTalk.org - Word!

 

[kitakaze]

The King of Bigfoot Spamming on JREF.

God save The Queen.

 

[Mako]

The first thing I'm interested in is pp. 372-373 of what?

Tribal Bigfoot

Problems I see:

• Paulides has obviously not sought proper DNA testing.

• The lab is equipped for human DNA and paternity testing, not genotype sampling and species identification such as Prof. Todd Disotell's lab at New York University.

• Proper DNA testing can tell you the differences between individual animals within a species, not just differences between species. Thus, if we were looking at a biological species that was as close to us even as Homo neanderthalensis, it would still be readily identifiable as being not Tom, Dick, or human.

• The person from that lab specified that there a number of reasons that they could get a weird result. A weird result at a paternity lab does not equal Bigfoot.

I'm certainly not in a position to further comment on the lab's methods, so I'll take your word for it for now.

Mako, I highly recommend that you listen to the Prof. Disotell interview on Monstertalk that I linked and also you should check the thread on it here to learn a lot more about DNA testing and Bigfoot:

I actually did listen to that this morning and found it helpful with regards to understanding the basics of DNA testing, so thank you for providing the link.

 

[kitakaze]

Tribal Bigfoot

Thanks, I missed that.

I actually did listen to that this morning and found it helpful with regards to understanding the basics of DNA testing, so thank you for providing the link.

You're welcome. I found it pretty mind blowing. Oh, that's my laptop. It has the entire chimp genome on it.

 

[captain koolaid]

Freak claims to have given up the bnugling in the jnugle in the time since he left us but my coming back to the SFB apparently put the fire back in his heart for the jnugle. He seemed pretty determined. I tried warning him against further harpoon antics and the physics of a tall platform on a small boat he wouldn't have any of it.

How many nights in the steamy Florida swamps have had the croaks of bullfrogs and chirps of crickets silenced by the screams of self-inflicted pain by the Freak in the Creek?

The world is a better place with a Bigfoot Navy in it. The Sasquatch Destroyer serves to prevent a Boss O' The Wood's amphibious assault on Florida. Be grateful for Cap'n Creekfreak's selfless vigilance and his mighty harpoon.

 

[LTC8K6]

Would you have preferred that I didn't post it at all? Take it for what it's worth.

Well, we have seen these DNA reports before and it was a near certainty that this one would be similar.

 

[Mako]

Well, we have seen these DNA reports before and it was a near certainty that this one would be similar.

I still remain cautiously optimistic that this lab will arrive at some more interesting conclusions in the near future, and I'm not nearly as jaded as you appear to be so I don't blame you for not feeling the same.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I still remain cautiously optimistic that this lab will arrive at some more interesting conclusions in the near future, and I'm not nearly as jaded as you appear to be so I don't blame you for not feeling the same.

Everybody has to believe in something.

Every single solitary sample ever submitted for the possibility of BF has returned with nothing. Its either something already known, contaminated,degraded or not enough to test.

Despite the crafty and selective "wordsmithing" designed to make someone believe the result is more than it is- the bottom line is zilch.

This one will be no different

 

[kitakaze]

I still remain cautiously optimistic that this lab will arrive at some more interesting conclusions in the near future, and I'm not nearly as jaded as you appear to be so I don't blame you for not feeling the same.

Mako, that's perfectly fine to be cautiously optimistic. Let's toss each other some numbers. I feel 99.99 percent certain that whatever has been tested is not Bigfoot. I would like to say 100% certain but that's just not realistic. I feel that way because I see no reason to think they have Bigfoot hair. I also feel that sending what you think might be Bigfoot hair to a paternity testing lab is asshat stupid. I don't mean to be facetious but that really is a a screw-up.

Let's not bandy about with vague terms like "interesting results". What percentage of certainty would you alot for the DNA results to indicate Bigfoot. Like something that is not exactly human, orang, or something hominid but is within the same phenotype.

Would cautiously optimistic be like a 60%? 50%?

 

[Mako]

Would cautiously optimistic be like a 60%? 50%?

That's far too generous for me. My cautiously optimistic is around 25%.

 

[LTC8K6]

They deliberately call a messed up test "unknown" for the effect. We are supposed to think "Wow! They found some unknown DNA! That means it's from an unknown animal!", but actually only die hard believers don't see through the smoke screen these days.

We haven't needed a hair follicle for a hair DNA test for a while now, anyway.

 

[kitakaze]

That's far too generous for me. My cautiously optimistic is around 25%.

Right, why?