Leaderboard

IMO, The one thing I would say about EDNA is that it is not a reliable source to prove these creatures existence. Unless you have the actual creature in the lab on a slab ,Edna will not do. It might help in knowing what might be in a given area of study in kowing what animals may be roaming in those areas . It Is just not the effort in using it in the field. Oh, is this study not expensive to do as well. The other thing how will it be match with any real DNA that is unknown to man. If that DNA has yet to be found. If the samples do keep coming back as human Then we would have to get DNA from every Human on earth in order to find out that this DNA did not belong to anyone on this planet in order to make a discovery.. Again this is just my opinion. So this could be why nothing is said about Edna on the internet. Since there are way to many factors involve with this Edna. Not just that but a researcher would have to get extremely lucky to get a fresh sample of a creature drinking from a creek ,lake, trail or anything that the creature could leave it's DNA on.

No offense hiflier but I’m not going to read your posts on the BFF forum then pretend like I have enough knowledge of E-DNA to comment on its effectiveness to any accurate degree.

They are human. And my statement from last year has been strengthened by Bryan Sykes, pages 128 & 129 of "The Nature of the Beast": My only disagreement with Dr,. Sykes us that it is indeed illegal to knowingly kill an unknown species in many areas under hunting regulations. I forgive his unfamiliarity with hunting regs and the corrupt aggression of American government lawyers.

Yeesh, Twist, will you please, lighten up and move away from your attack phase? I've explained the science behind my reasoning. You did this same thing the first time around telling me you were bored with my repetition. My repetition was done because a lot of what I was saying was new to everyone. A lot of people, scientists included, draw conclusions based on science and, in that, I'm no different. I didn't dream up e-DNA science, nor did I dream up the NOTCH2NL mutated copies that led to our brain size or power. Nor did I dream up what science says about our lineage from a common ancestor. I plugged Sasquatch into the equation because the creature didn't come from Gigantopithicus as there isn't enough of a timeline for Sasquatch stemming from there to develop the body that it has, or its bipedalism. It had to come from the line that led to Humans. And since nothing else has procured proof of the creature I have put forth this hypothesis, and I've ALWAYS SAID it was hypothesis, for how someone, because of advancements in e-DNA technology and capability, could use it to find a North American primate other than Human. And, more importantly, why I think my hypothesis has merit based on the science as well as our genetic history. Of course, some years of looking at the history of BF reports regarding the primitive nature of Sasquatch's behavior helped. It has taken those four things (and more): studying e-DNA's capabilities, looking at Human evolutionary history, understanding what the two NOTCH2NL's papers were telling us about our brains, and reading Bigfoot reports, to put this hypothesis together. Logically it works. The only thing missing is Proof of Sasquatch's existence. But then, that's what the whole thing with e-DNA should be able to do- prove existence. I didn't invent those four criteria because I felt like it. The four cornerstones of my hypothesis already existed. All I've done is weave everything together into a method for Sasquatch discovery. There is no reason it wouldn't work. BUT, one needs an existing Sasquatch population for it to work. And here's the rub that no one wants to look at: this method also has the capability of proving the creature DOESN'T exist. I would like science to at least look at this hypothesis and evaluate what I'm proposing. They won't do it and there's nothing on the web (WHICH IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT!) that says anyone even has this dialogue. So, forget about the viability of my hypothesis. The purpose of this thread is for discussing the lack of dialogue regarding Sasquatch and e-DNA. So, can we PLEASE keep with that topic?

Animals can be taught to do just about anything, even go into space and make fire. And morphology definitely isn't the issue I've been tackling. I've already said the advanced primate body is shared by both Humans and Sasquatch. I even hypothesized where on the primate evolutionary line Sasquatch may have been to even get such an advanced body. To take it further, it goes to why some think the creature is so close to us genetically than anything else. I hypothesize it's because we stemmed from the same ancestor AFTER the Chimp/hominid split. But I also hypothesize that because Sasquatch didn't get the NOTCH2NL genetic variations that hominids have, it is still in the mental dark ages with the rest of the Great Apes, regardless of it's more advanced physicality. We got the advanced brain, they didn't. So, as a friendly reminder to everyone once again: **THIS THREAD IS ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT WHAT IS AND ISN'T ON THE INTERNET and WHY NO ONE ON THE INTERNET IS DISCUSSING SASQUATCH AND e-DNA

Keep those downvotes acomin' folks. They actually make me smile a lot. So, what about Sasquatch vs. e-DNA vs. the internet?