Bigfoot

[Arete]

Photographs are good enough for birds, but not Bigfoot? Interesting....

They caught multiple birds, took morphometric data, call recordings and feather samples from before taking detailed photographs documenting specific physical features determining that the bird was a novel species. They simply didn't kill one and register it as a holotype, due to the bird being endangered.

 

Has anyone caught multiple bigfoots, taken careful morphometric data, recorded its call, taken fur samples and taken detailed photographs documenting specific physical features determining that it is a novel species?

 

If not, your comparison is again, apples to oranges.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Arete

[Moontanman]

Researchers claim new evidence of bigfoot, new films and DNA evidence. These films are either real or fake, no mistaken identity here.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MIo6KmdtPM

[WVBIG47]

Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA study is now free

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org

[Moontanman]

Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA study is now free

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org

 

 

The fact they had to buy the publication to get their paper published is a bit of a concern but I'll with hold judgement until the details come to light. Being a hybrid, of a human woman and a male primate of some sort is disturbing especially since the male primate cannot be identified and is completely unknown...

[WVBIG47]

http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/2013/10/breaking-news-dna-study-news-conference.html

[Arete]

 

 

The fact they had to buy the publication to get their paper published is a bit of a concern but I'll with hold judgement until the details come to light. Being a hybrid, of a human woman and a male primate of some sort is disturbing especially since the male primate cannot be identified and is completely unknown...

 

 

That and the fact that the results are exactly what one might expect if significant sample contamination had occured and DNA alignments were done incorrectly: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/bigfoot-genome-paper-conclusively-proves-that-sasquatch-is-real/

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/an-honest-attempt-to-understand-the-bigfoot-genome-and-the-woman-who-created-it/

Edited October 3, 2013 by Arete

[imatfaal]

 

I am very sorry but that is pretty conclusive evidence that they found nothing and decided to run with nonsense instead. This was a well funded supposedly scientific research expedition. They claim to have been within feet of the animal and couldn't get a well focused photo/video - I call shenanigans.

 

From personal experience and from what I have read on this site you can go better prepared and get better evidence than that even in heavy forest. The poster immediately above - Arete - has generously shared some of his/her photos from field trips to dense and dark jungles (in SAmerica?) - I will dig out the link; but in the meantime I can promise you that the quality of those images is many many times superior than the rubbish provided by the Sasquatch Genome Projecy

 

On a trip to prove the mainstream wrong - to right scientific misconceptions - to challenge the orthodoxy etc the Sasquatch Genome Project couldn't afford a decent camera and someone who knows that you press the big shiny button whilst holding the camera still?

 

That sort of low quality picture/vidro of a animal might be acceptable from an amateur who had no axe to grind and just chanced upon something - but from professionals actively seeking it and who have a personal stake in proving the existence it is not only unlikely but unbelievable.

[Moontanman]

Since I am not expert in any way I was hesitant to call horse feathers but the idea of a human ape hybrid being a biologically viable creature able to reproduce and maintain a population is more than a bit outside the realm of possibility to my mind at least..

[WVBIG47]

 

I am very sorry but that is pretty conclusive evidence that they found nothing and decided to run with nonsense instead. This was a well funded supposedly scientific research expedition. They claim to have been within feet of the animal and couldn't get a well focused photo/video - I call shenanigans.

 

From personal experience and from what I have read on this site you can go better prepared and get better evidence than that even in heavy forest. The poster immediately above - Arete - has generously shared some of his/her photos from field trips to dense and dark jungles (in SAmerica?) - I will dig out the link; but in the meantime I can promise you that the quality of those images is many many times superior than the rubbish provided by the Sasquatch Genome Projecy

 

On a trip to prove the mainstream wrong - to right scientific misconceptions - to challenge the orthodoxy etc the Sasquatch Genome Project couldn't afford a decent camera and someone who knows that you press the big shiny button whilst holding the camera still?

 

That sort of low quality picture/vidro of a animal might be acceptable from an amateur who had no axe to grind and just chanced upon something - but from professionals actively seeking it and who have a personal stake in proving the existence it is not only unlikely but unbelievable.

You didn't see the very clear, very close up face shot?

[WVBIG47]

 

I am very sorry but that is pretty conclusive evidence that they found nothing and decided to run with nonsense instead. This was a well funded supposedly scientific research expedition. They claim to have been within feet of the animal and couldn't get a well focused photo/video - I call shenanigans.

 

From personal experience and from what I have read on this site you can go better prepared and get better evidence than that even in heavy forest. The poster immediately above - Arete - has generously shared some of his/her photos from field trips to dense and dark jungles (in SAmerica?) - I will dig out the link; but in the meantime I can promise you that the quality of those images is many many times superior than the rubbish provided by the Sasquatch Genome Projecy

 

On a trip to prove the mainstream wrong - to right scientific misconceptions - to challenge the orthodoxy etc the Sasquatch Genome Project couldn't afford a decent camera and someone who knows that you press the big shiny button whilst holding the camera still?

 

That sort of low quality picture/vidro of a animal might be acceptable from an amateur who had no axe to grind and just chanced upon something - but from professionals actively seeking it and who have a personal stake in proving the existence it is not only unlikely but unbelievable.

I advise you to get a new screen. It looks crystal clear on mine. The face picture & the video of the sleeping one are both clear

 

[Moontanman]

I advise you to get a new screen. It looks crystal clear on mine. The face picture & the video of the sleeping one are both clear

 

 

WVBIG47, I'll make a bet with you, this is hoaxed, the idea of a hybrid pretty much tells the tale, Arete knows what he is talking about, I was suspicious but I didn't have the knowledge to put my finger directly on it, he does. Read his link...

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/bigfoot-genome-paper-conclusively-proves-that-sasquatch-is-real/

 

it raises many problems not the lest of which is this...

 

To begin with, the mitochondrial DNA of the samples (when it can be isolated) clusters with that of modern humans. That isn't itself a problem if we assume that those doing the interbreeding were human females, but the DNA sequences come from a variety of different humans—16 in total. And most of these were "European or Middle Eastern in origin" with a few "African and American Indian haplotypes." Given the timing of the interbreeding, we should only be seeing Native American sequences here. The authors speculate that some humans may have walked across the ice through Greenland during the last glaciation, but there's absolutely no evidence for that. The best explanation here is contamination.

As far as the nuclear genome is concerned, the results are a mess. Sometimes the tests picked up human DNA. Other times, they didn't. Sometimes the tests failed entirely. The products of the DNA amplifications performed on the samples look about like what you'd expect when the reaction didn't amplify the intended sequence. And electron micrographs of the DNA isolated from these samples show patches of double- and single-stranded DNA intermixed. This is what you might expect if two distantly related species had their DNA mixed—the protein-coding sequences would hybridize, and the intervening sections wouldn't. All of this suggests modern human DNA intermingled with some other contaminant.

The authors' description of the sequence suggests that it's human DNA interspersed with sequence from some other primate—hence the interbreeding idea. But the best way to analyze this would be to isolate the individual segments of non-human DNA and see what species those best align with. If the authors have done that, they don't say. They also don't mention how long the typical segment of non-human DNA is. Assuming interbreeding took place as the authors surmise, these segments should be quite long, since there hasn't been that much time to recombine. The fact that the authors don't mention this at all is pretty problematic.

 

 

 

This "research" is shoddy, it would not be accepted for any other researchers I see no reason it should be accepted now...

 

The best thing to do is next a hunter sees a bigfoot, shoot it, haul it's carcass in and the proof will be indisputable until then it is just mental masturbation...

Edited October 4, 2013 by Moontanman

[WVBIG47]

That link is a bit dated. The paper is now free to the public. The video is clear enough that analysis should be able to make a definitive judgemeent of its authenticity, one way or the other

[Moontanman]

That link is a bit dated. The paper is now free to the public. The video is clear enough that analysis should be able to make a definitive judgemeent of its authenticity, one way or the other

 

 

I give it a month at best before it self destructs...

[WVBIG47]

 

 

I give it a month at best before it self destructs...

1)Why would she put it out there if it's BS?

2)What's the motive for a hoax?

[Moontanman]

1)Why would she put it out there if it's BS?

2)What's the motive for a hoax?

 

 

Money, follow the money...

[imatfaal]

You didn't see the very clear, very close up face shot?

 

Nope I didn't - still haven't. FYG the picture I posted is a direct link from the first page of the site you linked to. So I think it is pretty clear that they at the "big foot journal" didn't see the very clear very close up face shot. Why don't you post it?

 

I advise you to get a new screen. It looks crystal clear on mine. The face picture & the video of the sleeping one are both clear

No - they are out of focus, badly lit, the colour balance is poor, and the video is shaky. As these can all be rectified by using a 100 buck camera and holding your elbows tightly into your chest when shooting I feel there may be a more involved and less salubrious reason for the poor quality.

[WVBIG47]

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Matilda+Bigfoot+video&qpvt=Matilda+Bigfoot+video&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=0D8B8AC9B4264AE489D10D8B8AC9B4264AE489D1

Even I know if the results of the DNA teststing aren't consistent, it's a problem

 

 

Money, follow the money...

What money? The dvd has never been released & they have a backer

[Moontanman]

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Matilda+Bigfoot+video&qpvt=Matilda+Bigfoot+video&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=0D8B8AC9B4264AE489D10D8B8AC9B4264AE489D1

 

Even I know if the results of the DNA teststing aren't consistent, it's a problem

 

What money? The dvd has never been released & they have a backer

Nonetheless this has all the hallmarks of making money being the end goal, if nothing else the guy who is promoting this was paid and I am betting paid well. I will not pass judgement until this has been allowed to play out but the DNA is almost certainly bogus, the films are not convincing but films or pictures will never prove the existence of bigfoot. You need a body, for something that has been hoaxed so many times nothing less will do...

[WVBIG47]

Nonetheless this has all the hallmarks of making money being the end goal, if nothing else the guy who is promoting this was paid and I am betting paid well. I will not pass judgement until this has been allowed to play out but the DNA is almost certainly bogus, the films are not convincing but films or pictures will never prove the existence of bigfoot. You need a body, for something that has been hoaxed so many times nothing less will do...

It's being promoted through social media & cryptid websites/blogs. No expenses for that. I think if anything, the DNA is just wrong. Like my brother says. For every person at the top of the class, there is someone at the bottom of the class. But let me ask you this. With as quickly as animal remains disappear & as quickly as DNA degrades in the wild, how likely is it that their existence will ever be proven if they do exist?

Edited October 5, 2013 by WVBIG47

[Moontanman]

It's being promoted through social media & cryptid websites/blogs. No expenses for that. I think if anything, the DNA is just wrong. Like my brother says. For every person at the top of the class, there is someone at the bottom of the class. But let me ask you this. With as quickly as animal remains disappear & as quickly as DNA degrades in the wild, how likely is it that their existence will ever be proven if they do exist?

DNA does not degrade all that fast in the wild and I have found deer skeletons and in one case a bear skull in the wild, all of which would have had viable DNA. A den would contain DNA, feces, hair, and skin should be present in a den. Even you tube hits make money, money is being made or attempted to be made on this. But even that aside, fame is enough of a motive and for some fooling the experts is more than enough motive, look at the millions of fake UFO videos on you tube.

 

This will eventually shake out, I would love it if bigfoot was real but not enough to accept horse feathers a proof...

Edited October 5, 2013 by Moontanman

[WVBIG47]

1)Then why are all the DNA samples fragmented? 2)The problem with the argument that "Deer & Bear remains are found, so why not Bigfoot remains?" is Deer & Bear are game animals. Both are hunted with bows. A lot of bow & arrow kills are never recovered. Even some gun kills aren't. Suppose Bigfoots do den up sometimes. Most people don't believe Bigfoot exists & would more than likely assume any hair or feces found, belongs to a bear. As I've stated before. There are both hair & fecal samples that can't be linked with any known animals, but without known Bigfoot hair & feces to compare them to, they aren't of much value

[Moontanman]

1)Then why are all the DNA samples fragmented? 2)The problem with the argument that "Deer & Bear remains are found, so why not Bigfoot remains?" is Deer & Bear are game animals. Both are hunted with bows. A lot of bow & arrow kills are never recovered. Even some gun kills aren't. Suppose Bigfoots do den up sometimes. Most people don't believe Bigfoot exists & would more than likely assume any hair or feces found, belongs to a bear. As I've stated before. There are both hair & fecal samples that can't be linked with any known animals, but without known Bigfoot hair & feces to compare them to, they aren't of much value

 

Citation needed, if such DNA samples existed they could be shown to be hominids at the very least...

[Ringer]

1)Then why are all the DNA samples fragmented?

The supposed DNA samples they had were fragmented because nuclear DNA in samples of hair and skin does degrade.

 

2)The problem with the argument that "Deer & Bear remains are found, so why not Bigfoot remains?" is Deer & Bear are game animals. Both are hunted with bows. A lot of bow & arrow kills are never recovered. Even some gun kills aren't.

Bigfoot has been hunted for for a very long time, so your argument doesn't hold much water.

 

Suppose Bigfoots do den up sometimes. Most people don't believe Bigfoot exists & would more than likely assume any hair or feces found, belongs to a bear. As I've stated before. There are both hair & fecal samples that can't be linked with any known animals, but without known Bigfoot hair & feces to compare them to, they aren't of much value

But the papers they've put out have shown that the ones they could get sex chromosomes from were had an X or Y chromosome, and since all of them had human mitochondrial DNA (human mother) any with XX or XY would have to be human if bigfoot is a separate species of hominid. So all the paper really says is that they have human DNA that has been degraded or contaminated.

[WVBIG47]

Bigfoots haven't really been hunted with weapons, is my point. I'll bet if it could be known, very few of the deer & bears whose remains have been found, died of natural causes. Especially the bears because they hibernate. I still think Bigfoots stay in thick coniferous forests in winter. I have to believe they exist. Not just because of the Patterson/Gimlin film. I had a sighting in 1997 while Turkey hunting in an area where no one knew my brother & I would be there. It wasn't our planned location. It walked out of the woods on two legs, looked around briefly, smoothly turned around and walked back into the woods. It was coal black & about 6' tall. I've checked & black bears can't smoothly turn 180 degrees while on two legs. I don't believe it was just a hoaxer's luck to find someone to witness him because I didn't report it & there has never been a sighting reported from there in all these years. A hoaxer would've kept doing it until he got some attention

[Arete]

OK, so a big part of my job is the discovery and documentation of new species using DNA data, especially they type of data (i.e.short read high throughput) data used in the bigfoot study.

 

Based on my experience, there are multiple inconsistencies with the bigfoot results:

 

a) If bigfoot were related to humans, you would expect the mtDNA to be similar to human mtDNA, but it's not - it is IDENTICAL to human mtDNA. This could be explained by widespread introgression, which would require significant human - bigfoot sexual exhange. In addtion, the mtDNA appears to come from several different human populations - meaning that introgression between bigfoot and multiple human populations has had to occur to explain the results.

 

The initimate relationship between bigfoot and humans is considerably at odds with the lack of observational evidence from other sources. An alternative explanation is that the supposed "bigfoot" DNA sample has been contaminated with human mtDNA from multiple sources.

 

b) The nDNA is highly problematic. When you observe nDNA from a novel species, it should produce multiple contigous assemblies which do not match known species exactly, but show similarities with that from related species - specifically humans given the above introgression. What was observed in the bigfoot samples was multiple small fragments which matched to highly different organisms. This is inconsistent with the discovery of a novel species and could only be sensibly explained by high levels of enviromental contamination - given this, it brings into doubt the already implausible "introgression" hypothesis.