Poll: When Would An Announcement Of e-DNA Positive For Sasquatch Be Made?

[MIB]

1 hour ago, NatFoot said:

Yes, I am frickin serious, @MIB.

 

I'm not on Facebook and a Google search of their site doesn't show anything like what you've explained and mentioned.

 

I'll just take your word for it.

 

Somehow based on past posts I thought you were a younger, "hip", tech-savvy person.   I figured of the two of us, I'd be the one out of touch.  I offer apologies for my mistaken assumption.   

 

I can't help you with the Facebook part.   If you're not willing to go there, you're not going to get the information that is there.   It's a choice you make.   I don't like Facebook much but the info outweighs my irritation.  

 

If I do a google search on "olympic project nests" I get links to pictures and "articles".   Y' have to wade through a bit of stuff but there's something to learn from even the worst of it.   If I do the same in youtube I get relevant video.    I'm not sure why you're not getting the same results.

 

MIB

 

 

 

[Arvedis]

I don't know how anyone can stand the peanut gallery that is Facebook or Twitter for that matter. BF research on FB is so painful I can't do it at all. Just too many rejects swimming those seas. Though I do agree, if you know what you are looking for and hold your nose you can make use of some info.

 

This is the only place I am aware of where actual worthwhile BF discussion takes place, other than in person at a conference or field group. It individually which I think is best.

[gigantor]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

I would wager the farm any DNA sequenced will be human. And it will diminish the likelihood that BF constructed those nests not a bit.

 

True, because there is the possibility that they didn't gather the material soon enough, so the eDNA was not there by the time they tested it.

[James33]

17 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

That may be and I am prepared for it. But it is easier to say Human than to answer the questions that it may conjure up. Here are just a few of those questions: Who made them? Why did they make them? Why did they (the Humans) break off every huckleberry branch/stem/shoot/shrub instead of just cutting them? How did they break the ones off that were 2 inches in diameter? How come they made 21 nests? Just who were these people? How many people were involved? And if it was indeed a military survival training exercise it needs to address plants broken off 3-7 feet above the ground in an area covering 30 x 40 yards.

 

So. Sure, it is easy to simply say Human. And that the results were contaminated but not so easy to answer the questions that arise as a result of that conclusion. And I have more questions still but they are too sensitive to be asked here.

 

Have you seen some of the photos?  There are HUMANS laying in the nests.  Or are these not the nests?  

 

https://goo.gl/images/DMDse8

https://goo.gl/images/o6E2dR

 

[gigantor]

22 minutes ago, James33 said:

Or are these not the nests?

 

1. There are Biologists collecting the samples.
2. How do you know that the humans didn't lay on the nests after collecting the testing material? 
3. Do you understand how eDNA testing works?

 

 

 

 

Environmental DNA or eDNA is DNA that is collected from a variety of environmental samples such as soil, seawater, snow or even air ^[1] rather than directly sampled from an individual organism. As various organisms interact with the environment, DNA is expelled and accumulates in their surroundings. Example sources of eDNA include, but are not limited to, feces, mucus, gametes, shed skin, carcasses and hair.^[2] Such samples can be analyzed by high-throughput DNA sequencing methods, known as metagenomics, for rapid measurement and monitoring of biodiversity. In order to better differentiate between organisms within a sample, DNA metabarcoding is used in which the sample is analyzed and uses previously studied DNA libraries to determine what organisms are present (e.g. BLAST).^[3] The analysis of eDNA has great potential, not only for monitoring common species, but to genetically detect and identify other extant species that could influence conservation efforts.^[4] This method allows for biomonitoring without requiring collection of the living organism, creating the ability to study organisms that are invasive, elusive, or endangered without introducing anthropogenic stress on the organism.

[hiflier]

3 hours ago, prob2236 said:

Of course, she held off givinf the results until next weeks podcast but honestly im taking that as more of a negative.  You can call me a pesamist but im guessing that if something significant had been discovered you wouldnt have to tune into a weekly podcast to hear the news

 

I am going to take a WAG and say Laura Krantz, the host of the podcast, won't be saying anything in the next podcast either. I may be wrong but I really doubt that after these past 3 1/2 years of research, and all of the time and effort put into the discovery, plus getting the samples to Dr.Todd Disotell, that anyone would give the announcement privileges to anyone but the researchers themselves. It would be more proper to have any results, no matter what they are, come from either Dr. Disotell himself or a top member of the Olympic Project's team. Just my opinion.

Edited November 27, 2018 by hiflier

[Guest prob2236]

33 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

I am going to take a WAG and say Laura Krantz, the host of the podcast, won't be saying anything in the next podcast either. I may be wrong but I really doubt that after these past 3 1/2 years of research, and all of the time and effort put into the discovery, plus getting the samples to Dr.Todd Disotell, that anyone would give the announcement privileges to anyone but the researchers themselves. It would be more proper to have any results, no matter what they are, come from either Dr. Disotell himself or a top member of the Olympic Project's team. Just my opinion.

I dont disagree with what your saying but in the podcast released today, Laura Krantz announces that they have the DNA results from the nest sites.  Im not mixing words or making an assumption that shes has the announcing rights.  She came right out and said, the results are in but youll have to tune into the mext podcast to hear them.

Edited November 27, 2018 by prob2236
Spelling amd grammar

[hiflier]

2 minutes ago, prob2236 said:

I dont disagree with what your saying but in the podcast released today, Laura Krantz announces that they have the DNA results from the nest sites.  Im not mixing words or making an assumption that shes has the announcing rights.  She came right out and said, the results are in but youll have to tune into the mext podcast to hear them.

 

Makes me wonder if there will be an announcement or some kind of information come out before the podcast? I'll give it a listen as I have been enjoying just listening just so I can quit all of this danged TYPING! LOL  

[Guest prob2236]

Ya this weeks episode wasnt all that spectacular.  Talked about the business of bigfoot and people who have capitalized on the myth of it. Its just a cool podcast for people who like bigfoot and enjoy hearing the conversation.

[NatFoot]

4 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Somehow based on past posts I thought you were a younger, "hip", tech-savvy person.   I figured of the two of us, I'd be the one out of touch.  I offer apologies for my mistaken assumption.   

 

I can't help you with the Facebook part.   If you're not willing to go there, you're not going to get the information that is there.   It's a choice you make.   I don't like Facebook much but the info outweighs my irritation.  

 

If I do a google search on "olympic project nests" I get links to pictures and "articles".   Y' have to wade through a bit of stuff but there's something to learn from even the worst of it.   If I do the same in youtube I get relevant video.    I'm not sure why you're not getting the same results.

 

MIB

 

 

 

 

My age has nothing to do with being on Facebook...in fact it has almost everything to do with it!

 

I access everything on my phone during the day and don't always have hours to watch YouTube videos on Sasquatch either (tons of trash and sensationalism there as well).

 

I should have asked, was there a place where I could get the detail you had in a relatively simple manner without weeding thru YouTube videos or needing FB.

 

All in all, appreciate your earlier analysis.

 

As far as Cliff laying in the nests, it just looks bad and gives the naysayers more ammo. Could've shown scale any other way.

 

However, I'm sure he was super pumped at the find and couldn't contain himself!

[BigTreeWalker]

8 hours ago, NatFoot said:

Yes, I am frickin serious, @MIB.

 

I'm not on Facebook and a Google search of their site doesn't show anything like what you've explained and mentioned.

 

I'll just take your word for it.

NatFoot, there have been several threads about these nests right here on the forums with links to information about them. I think BobbyO has started one, I think I have started one. This thread has links to more information. The Olympic Project doesn't post information on their site or FB because they are trying to do it right. But there are information links right here about them. Most of it you are going to have to listen to podcasts. 

[WSA]

17 hours ago, gigantor said:

 

True, because there is the possibility that they didn't gather the material soon enough, so the eDNA was not there by the time they tested it.

 

Actually Gigantor, although this is one conclusion you could draw from the predicted result I described, I was hinting at another. (This, btw, assuming the "human" DNA doesn't match the control samples of any of the investigators) When your data repeatedly points you to a conclusion you don't want to accept, the natural tendency is to question the data, but instead, you probably should question the hypothesis. The hypothesis that the nDNA of a BF would be genetically distinct...or too similar to be readily distinguished...from H. sapien is probably something we should be questioning very seriously at this point. This is absolutely a bridge too far for a lot of people, and I get why.  All well and good, but the history of science is filled with examples of us trying to pound square pegs instead of realizing the hole we need is square too. This, to my mind, is one of those times.

[gigantor]

^^^ Excellent point and I admit, I have trouble accepting that possibility.

[WSA]

Like a lot of things associated with this subject, the mind can balk at accepting what the senses are telling us.  Too many shut down when the cognitive dissonance proves overwhelming. If BF is closer to human than we've thought possible, it shouldn't surprise us at all. The genome of many of the apes are only a whisker away from ours, as we all know very well. Human history tells us that superficial human differences we classify as racial characteristics are not reflected in DNA. We've known this for a long time, but yet we cling to the idea of the "other". BF might just be the perfect "other" that really is not.  They are emotional animals on a par with the human range, and that is what I keep coming back to. I know a chimp or a gorilla can hold and return your gaze, and the intelligence reflected is close to what you feel coming from another human, but the accounts of those who have made close contact seem to be at an entirely different level.

 

Consider this too: The same reluctance we have in recognizing BF as one of our own is probably duplicated in them. If they truly are us on a basic genetic level, why wouldn't they share this peculiarity with us? The gulf is wide, and maybe too wide to ever bridge, though that it is possible to do so is hinted at in some of the habituation narratives.  If you are willing to free your thinking up to consider those to be true, the logic is inescapable. 

 

I'm not alone in thinking this, of course. It presents problems that would not be considered if this were just a bigger, more intelligent gorilla that learned to walk upright. Given our species remarkable ability to adapt physically to environmental conditions, it is not a stretch at all to consider that one branch of the family grew bigger, grew hairier and found they didn't need the adaptive advantages of technology to survive quite well.   

Edited November 28, 2018 by WSA

[hiflier]

35 minutes ago, WSA said:

The hypothesis that the nDNA of a BF would be genetically distinct...or too similar to be readily distinguished...from H. sapien is probably something we should be questioning very seriously at this point.

 

What would be the alternative then? Something so different that the Human contamination card could no longer be played? If something isn't genetically distinct OR genetically similar then what could it possibly end up being? I mean, if neither one nor the other, does it leave a third option? Or are you suggesting genetically so identical as to be indistinguishable? Or, as you put it, too similar to be readily distinguishable.

Edited November 28, 2018 by hiflier