Researchers vs. Labs vs. Results

[hiflier]

Tough to gain much ground on a database but there is some to gain. And it may look like ego too when I say things and try to nail down answers. That's why I'm here and that's what brought me here in the first place. Answers. So far as I've been assessing things I'm pretty sure Sasquatch is real. Not 100% but close to it. I was at 51% a couple a years back because I "wanted" it to be real. Just last week a couple of videos of the four foot step distance in a couple snow trackways was very compelling and convincing. So things are getting better. But egos aside I do want proof. Peripherally it would appear that there are irrefutable examples of a large biped hominid roaming around. Good then, right? Again, not 100% but good nonetheless. In the last almost four years I haven't HAD to have proof. Do I WANT proof? Oh yes, indeed I do. There's a difference. Semantics maybe- but a difference.   

[southernyahoo]

On 2/26/2017 at 8:03 PM, BigTreeWalker said:

Contamination is also another bigfoot go to. I have to ask how a sample found in the ground after thousands or even millions of years hasn't seen some kind of contamination or degradation? If there is anyone knowledgeable here about these points please feel free to set me straight. Because they are reasonable questions that deserve an answer. 

 

A very relevant question indeed.  I know that when very old dna is sequenced like at Max- Planck Institute,  they are very careful to have each new segment done about thirty times from independent labs as they build the genome. Contamination is of great concern, especially when attempting this on a species so similar to the one that collected the sample. Degradation is also a problem ofcoarse, but fresh viable samples should be much easier to simply wash contamination away and get a read on the true donor of hair or flesh.

[hiflier]

Bump