Todd's Question

[Paul]

buddharat said:

I have heard from other researchers that the biggest problem with hair, blood, & feces is that while they may be able to be tested, all that they can come up with (if it truly is BF) is that it's unknown and then leave it at that. A lot of researchers have tried to get it tested and sadly the people testing it will only say it's not from anything cataloged so that's all we can say. It doesn't seem right, but that's what the science community says.

Yup, if there's nothing to compare it to that matches then they can't say what it is....

[jasocal]

Wait a minute. If there was DNA to be sampled from the material, science could certainly tell us if we were dealing with an undiscovered near human animal or a rodent.

[Paul]

jasocal said:

Wait a minute. If there was DNA to be sampled from the material, science could certainly tell us if we were dealing with an undiscovered near human animal or a rodent.

That sure would be nice, but from what I have read is not the case.

[taffy341]

I've read that the issue regarding hair samples is that the hair is missing the root and therefore can only offer a limited diagnosis. There seems to be enough material to determine that it is an unknown primate from the limited specimen but without the root attachment a complete diagnosis is impossible with the present scientific knowledge. I don't know if that means that with the complete hair sample with root would complete the diagnosis: and thus, the present incomplete hair sample (without hair root) is also an incomplete diagnosis that can not further determine if the sample is a known primate. For example, if the diagnosis needed five (5) steps with a complete hair sample but the rootless hair sample only allowed three (3) of the five (5) steps; perhaps the limited three (3) steps could not recognize the primate at that phase of the diagnosis. The final fourth and fifth steps would be necessary to complete an accurate diagnosis as to whether the primate was or was not a recognized animal. This seems to be logical..... you can look at a recipe and at the beginning know that it is made with flour, sugar, salt, etc. but until you read the remaining ingredients you won't know if it is bread, cookies or cake.

[seanores]

Hi Todd and Everyone.Im glad to be here!!I have followed every BF,Yeti,Sasquatch Story for years and years and also have read and followed this one particulaly close"Because i know it to be real" Ill get to the Todds question part .Dr Grover Krantz talked about the Rogue males a bit.You could tranquilize a rogue male if you were so fortunate to stumble upon one right?If there are in fact rogue males that would be my suggestion .Or better footage i havent seen video 3 very closely yet but video 2 is great but a close up telephoto lens shot might help alot.Im not suggesting this to be easy at all im just comparing it to waiting it out for one to pass i just cant see that happening.But i still wouldnt even rule that out..patience has got to be a huge factor.

[jasocal]

Yeah but Taffy, what you're talking about is the quality of the sample...not whether a full DNA workup could tell us if the sample is from an ape or a goat. I think it's pretty intuitive that if there's not enough DNA to do a full analysis, the conclusions one may reach may be limited.

Paul is arguing (I think) that if the species is unknown then even a robust DNA sample fully analyzed can not tell us anything about the nature of the animal it came from. This position defies logic in my opinion. It would mean for instance, that a DNA scientist with no previous knowledge of the DNA makeup of chimpanzees who was given a blind sample of chimp DNA would not be able to compare it with the DNA of humans and conclude that it was taken from a species relatively close to modern humans. It's actually an argument that we can not identify genetic similarities through DNA unless we've already identified them on an observational level. I can't comprehend it.

We're left with a researcher and erstwhile supporters saying "hair, feces, blood" (which could VERY well render a good DNA sample) will never sway minds in favor of their thesis when, in fact they can't produce such samples to begin with. Again, we're back to my proposition. Find recently deposited DNA from a non-human primate in the North American rockies before you decide how the scientific community will react to it.

[Paul]

jasocal said:

Paul is arguing (I think) that if the species is unknown then even a robust DNA sample fully analyzed can not tell us anything about the nature of the animal it came from. This position defies logic in my opinion. It would mean for instance, that a DNA scientist with no previous knowledge of the DNA makeup of chimpanzees who was given a blind sample of chimp DNA would not be able to compare it with the DNA of humans and conclude that it was taken from a species relatively close to modern humans. It's actually an argument that we can not identify genetic similarities through DNA unless we've already identified them on an observational level. I can't comprehend it.

My opinion is just based on what I've read. I have read that hair blood and feces have been found and analysis has been done which in the end was inconclusive. I suppose that's the problem with what you read, how can you really believe it as it isn't first hand?

Here is some stuff to read:

www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/dnatests.htm

web.ncf.ca/bz050/HomePage.bht.html

www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/b&h.html


There's a bunch of junk out there on the net about this kind of stuff, but again what is BS and what is true?




**Attention Admin, per #4 of the code of conduct I did not intentionally link to any forums as these are informational only, but if you feel that I have violated the policy feel free to ban me as it is your site. **

[taffy341]

Paul, the Columbus (AP) from the Dayton, Ohio paper (I presume), in 1995, was copied from a blog 'u Tube'? Do you have the newspaper's archive address? When copies are written on a blog, you can't tell if it is accurate or real. The AP and/or newspaper will have the accurate report and its' follow-up in 1995/96. I'm not being skeptical but realistic when it comes to accuracy in blogs and news stories.... did you recognize the names in the reports? The actual news article from the paper archives might provide additional interest including the follow-up.

Jasocal, initially a limited DNA without the hairs' root can determine if the hair is basically 'primate', which could be human, monkey or ?. A goat is not a primate, just as the hollow hair of a polar bear is not primate. The 'unknown primate' most likely means that the hairs' limited DNA diagnosis is primate but as to which primate can not be determined. The testing lab has sample DNA of each of the 'known' primates but it takes a complete hair with root to learn if the sample is a recognized primate from the complete DNA comparison. The manner of collecting the specimen is also important as well as the surrounding circumstances that could have contaminated the sample prior to testing (fecal, blood, etc.).

[malyss]

darrenbonk said:

Scientists can find an ant in a piece of amber that is 10,000 years old...

Wait a sec...didn't it take scientists 10,000 years to find that amber? I don't quite get the logic there.

[Paul]

taffy341 said:

Paul, the Columbus (AP) from the Dayton, Ohio paper (I presume), in 1995, was copied from a blog 'u Tube'? Do you have the newspaper's archive address? When copies are written on a blog, you can't tell if it is accurate or real. The AP and/or newspaper will have the accurate report and its' follow-up in 1995/96. I'm not being skeptical but realistic when it comes to accuracy in blogs and news stories.... did you recognize the names in the reports? The actual news article from the paper archives might provide additional interest including the follow-up.

Nah, I just did a quick search on google to show that there is stuff out there to read on the subject. Which is accurate and which is bunk is for each to decide I guess.

[gbone34]

Cannabilism, scavengers and intelligence would account for lack of fossilized evidence. The fact few people are looking for remains on wide scale probably explains the rest. Who knows? Certainly not any of us. Do any of you have any opinion as to wether the govt. has direct knowledge of BF. I've heard that motion detecting cameras in and around high security installations may have been triggered by BF on multiple occasions. Any related info? Opinions? Speculations? I'm sure "Bonkey" has many critcisms!! Todd? Taffy?

[gbone34]

I didn't mean to indicate conspiracy. or other dimentions,etc. DNA testing is probably done half-heartedly whenever BF is mentioned. Should samples be sent w/o labs awareness in terms of the what/when/where/why as reason for seeking such a test?

[Eric]

Taffy341-there are many studies relating to primates and other species that conclude that brain cavity size does not correlate with intelligence or any kind of superior cognitive thought. If this were the case we could simply take x-rays of people's heads to find out who is the smartest. It just doesn't work that way.

[taffy341]

Eric, do you have me confused with someone else? I have not written about primate brain cavity.... Your statement is interesting but I've never discussed that topic.

[cvet]

i am a hunter, a veterinarian and frequent horse pack trips. i have worked for outfitters as well. one truth is that in the mountains, the dead do not last much more than a few days due to scavenging. you could dedicate a year to finding a dead bear or cougar and you would NEVER find it (mabe one bone if you knew the anatomy well enough) the best places to look for bones is to walk the streams. within 100 yards you will always fid teeth, antlers and scattered bones. bears die in dens, cougars die in caves and any herd animal usualy dies away from the group. when they are sick they tend to wander away.
i started studying this topic about 4 years ago and either i was going to find a consistent B.S. pile or a series of occurences that point to the mystery, any skeptics i suggest 1) start reading the sighting and testimonials of others, hunter/dahinden or bindernagels' book. and 2) experience the potential of the vast wilderness. for example, banff national park is the size of switzerland!!!! and the ony way through is either on foot or horseback!!!
my answer to todd's question is to set up a series of trail cams close to your potential sites. they're are really good UV no sound digital cameras which can take thousands of pictures. the forestry has to use them to study wolverines because they are so elusive and they still won't always get a picture of them (they DNA the hair that releases onto the barbed wire but they wolverine will avoid the cakmera somehow.)

Talk to you again.