Backdoc Posted Monday at 01:43 AM Posted Monday at 01:43 AM 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.
Catmandoo Posted Thursday at 11:49 PM Posted Thursday at 11:49 PM On 9/21/2025 at 6:43 PM, Backdoc said: 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. To rest your head, check out the eDNA work that has been carried out in Greenland by Danish researchers. They have eDNA older than 2 million years. The article is a good read , with pictures. PBS has a video production on same but I do not have a link. No human ancestors were harmed during the eDNA procedures because there were no sapiens in Greenland at those times. The article is open access = free. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05453-y 1
norseman Posted 20 hours ago Admin Posted 20 hours ago 4 hours ago, Catmandoo said: To rest your head, check out the eDNA work that has been carried out in Greenland by Danish researchers. They have eDNA older than 2 million years. The article is a good read , with pictures. PBS has a video production on same but I do not have a link. No human ancestors were harmed during the eDNA procedures because there were no sapiens in Greenland at those times. The article is open access = free. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05453-y The location being inside the arctic circle probably helped with preservation of the DNA. Good post!
Backdoc Posted 8 hours ago Posted 8 hours ago 15 hours ago, Catmandoo said: To rest your head, check out the eDNA work that has been carried out in Greenland by Danish researchers. They have eDNA older than 2 million years. The article is a good read , with pictures. PBS has a video production on same but I do not have a link. No human ancestors were harmed during the eDNA procedures because there were no sapiens in Greenland at those times. The article is open access = free. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05453-y Thanks, CAT I'll give it a good deep dive when I get the chance. It's just frustrating because the concept of DNA is not as simple as other Bigfoot concepts.
hvhart Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago Yes, "not as simple", but much more revealing and irrefutable than any other evidence presented to date. And the best is yet to come.
Recommended Posts