Backdoc Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago When it comes to Bigfoot a “body on a slab” would be 100% convincing. (Obviously this assumes the public would have access to it). At its best, Great Bigfoot DNA doesn’t seem like it’s even suggestive let alone convincing. The thread posts tell me no matter how good the sample process, analysis, and results it is not a home-run like I would think. I know many of you are very knowledgeable and I appreciate the posts. After all these thread responses I’m just getting the impression it’s too complicated for any potential payoff on the Bigfoot issue. Paternity DNA = Convincing Sample in the woods = Pretty convincing if the sample proves to be an antelope or a dog. suspected Bigfoot DNA. = Not definitive/ open to various interpretations Keep up the good work guys. This issue is worthwhile but I think m moving on to other threads for a while. This DNA issue is giving me a headache.
Recommended Posts