Leaderboard

... or the darn things really are Homo sapiens sapiens with a set of gene segments activated that are inert / "junk" DNA in us and/or vice versa. I kinda doubt they're that close, but I won't be sure what they aren't 'til I know for sure what they are. Another thought ... the e-DNA showing there's something out there might allow agencies who've been suppressing evidence a way to wiggle out. Right now, if that's what's happening, no matter what they'd like to do now they're trapped by what was done in the past. "Oh look, something new." Then allow research to find it. Dunno. MIB

Being a drop in kit, I imagine reliability will vary based on what it's installed in. Springfield's being on the supported list for Clark's kit, You'll probably have no problems. I put one in my Sig which is Cerakote covered stainless and used the 24lb spring, I've not had a FTF issue in over 200 rounds. That's not much due to the cost of Buffalo Bore ammo but I'm thoroughly satisfied. I had not seen the Recover rail, that's a great option for older or railless models. Compared to +P 44 mag Buffalo Bore at 1600 or so ft/lbs, the 957 ft/lbs of the 255 gr hard cast .460 seems like the "energy of 44 mag" claim pales but it is squarely within standard 44 mag ballistics. 8-10 rounds of that kind of power in a single action auto with a light is a good way to go IMO. Good luck with it.

I found the number of useful references in here to be of great value but if I catch the gist of the review correctly, it doesn't sound like Meldrum agrees with the book author. In doing some additional research myself I see that Taylor's efforts have longevity but no real interaction or results to back himself up. I really don't understand how he can attribute most tracks to bears. Bears walk differently, have a different shaped foot altogether with claws so what would the basis be for a comparison to a Yeti? I don't see it. It is difficult being a Yeti researcher so I don't want too be hard on the guy but I think Meldrum's review is more valuable than the book itself.

I think you hit the nail on the head about the eDNA. It's one of the most in depth tests now done with DNA. Everything I've seen about it says it's an all encompassing test. Meaning it should be able to find every type of organism that has passed through or used the area tested. From bacteria clear up through humans or in this case possibly unknown primates. Human contamination can't be a go to with this testing. If it does come to that then my conclusion is that either the eDNA test isn't as powerful of a tool as they claim or someone is trying to hide the results.

Good point, MIB. There is that sort of nagging thing about allowing the public to pursue the subject to a certain level and then use the ridicule card to control things though. It may not be so much about making it go away as much as diffusing or diluting efforts to arrive at the truth? It would appear that things are permitted to go to a certain level where above that level would be entering into the area of proof. I don't think things have ever gotten as close as this e-DNA stuff may get. What keeps popping up in my mind is that the e-DNA process for just about everything else has managed to avoid the Human contamination syndrome. So what are the chances that the Human contamination syndrome would pop up just because the area of investigation just happens to be Bigfoot? I am prepared for that consequence and I am also prepared to not fall for it. Reason? I think the e-DNA technology is so precise that it WILL pick up a Human presence simply from the process of gathering soils or pond waters, or lake waters or anything else. We are dropping skin cells and other traces of ourselves everywhere. The point of this e-DNA technology is to be able to sample and sequence EVERYTHING- and just about everything is now already in the GenBank........except Bigfoot. I think any claims of Human contamination at the nest sites would be an outlandish attempt to smear the results. Technically e-DNA sequencing should effectively negate a Human contamination outcome.

I think if there were going to be a concerted effort to "make this go away" it would have already happened before there was the current publicity. "Making it go away" now would likely make it clear someone was indeed trying to make it go away. I think that would convince more people of existence than the actual evidence would. Rather, if the e-DNA evidence shows there's something out there that's not in genbank, I think the efforts now will be to explain why they hadn't told us already.