Backdoc Posted September 22 Posted September 22 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 Friday at 04:07 AM Admin Posted Friday at 04:07 AM 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 Friday at 04:13 PM Posted Friday at 04:13 PM 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 Friday at 10:53 PM Posted Friday at 10:53 PM Yes, "not as simple", but much more revealing and irrefutable than any other evidence presented to date. And the best is yet to come. 1
Catmandoo Posted yesterday at 02:48 AM Posted yesterday at 02:48 AM (edited) 22 hours ago, norseman said: The location being inside the arctic circle probably helped with preservation of the DNA. Good post! The climate was much warmer at Greenland 2 million years ago. Lots of biodiversity, not a giant snowball. Our ancestors were not at that latitude that we know about at this time. I think that Australopithecine was at a lower latitude and way south east. The preservation of the eDNA is related to combining with certain minerals. Danish researchers worked for over a decade to design a procedure. Maybe we should call that group 'Great Danes'. Edited yesterday at 02:50 AM by Catmandoo
norseman Posted yesterday at 03:33 AM Admin Posted yesterday at 03:33 AM 42 minutes ago, Catmandoo said: The climate was much warmer at Greenland 2 million years ago. Lots of biodiversity, not a giant snowball. Our ancestors were not at that latitude that we know about at this time. I think that Australopithecine was at a lower latitude and way south east. The preservation of the eDNA is related to combining with certain minerals. Danish researchers worked for over a decade to design a procedure. Maybe we should call that group 'Great Danes'. Homo Erectus was around 2 million years ago. When they left Africa is debated. But it roughly started in that time period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus#Growth_and_development
Backdoc Posted yesterday at 04:56 AM Posted yesterday at 04:56 AM 5 hours ago, hvhart said: Yes, "not as simple", but much more revealing and irrefutable than any other evidence presented to date. And the best is yet to come. I'm not so sure. If even the best result leaves open other plausible explanations how solid can it be.
norseman Posted 1 hour ago Admin Posted 1 hour ago On 9/26/2025 at 9:56 PM, Backdoc said: I'm not so sure. If even the best result leaves open other plausible explanations how solid can it be. It needs to be solid enough for science to go look for themselves. Two type specimens (one male and one female) will be taken for any extant species.
Recommended Posts