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

[Bluegrassfoot]

2 hours ago, Old Time Lifter said:

 

Is it just me or does it seem we are really jumping the gun trying to plot out how BF crossed with humans when we can't even show there ARE BF... all this trying to account for the lack of BF dna seems like miles and miles of special pleading.

 

You're going to have to have a body folks.

 

And IF THERE are BF I don't think they are capable of crossing with humans any more than a gorilla is capable of crossing with humans.  But, we'll never know until we have a body.  Until then all this is wild (and imho) and unproductive speculation.

 

Obviously, a type specimen is the only way to unequivocally establish existence.   But that's not the point of this thread!  This thread is concerned with the eDNA results of the Olympic Peninsula nest samples.  I simple joined in the conversation, making the point that a eDNA result of "modern human" could be possible if even one fertile Sasquatch-human hybrid female has existed in the past.   Clearly, that's contingent on the actual existence of Bigfoot.  I'm not "jumping the gun".

[norseman]

3 hours ago, Old Time Lifter said:

 

Is it just me or does it seem we are really jumping the gun trying to plot out how BF crossed with humans when we can't even show there ARE BF... all this trying to account for the lack of BF dna seems like miles and miles of special pleading.

 

You're going to have to have a body folks.

 

And IF THERE are BF I don't think they are capable of crossing with humans any more than a gorilla is capable of crossing with humans.  But, we'll never know until we have a body.  Until then all this is wild (and imho) and unproductive speculation.

 

 

Actually, wolves and coyotes can cross and have fertile offspring.  Red wolves seem to be simply a hybrid animal and not a species.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2099192-red-wolf-may-lose-endangered-status-because-its-just-a-hybrid/

 

Never said they couldnt....

 

But scientists can take a DNA sample from the Coyote, the Wolf or the offspring and tell if its a Coyote, Wolf or a hybrid of the two.

 

Im good with that.

 

But thats not the snake oil WSA is selling. 

[Old Time Lifter]

5 hours ago, Bluegrassfoot said:

Obviously, a type specimen is the only way to unequivocally establish existence.   But that's not the point of this thread!  This thread is concerned with the eDNA results of the Olympic Peninsula nest samples.  I simple joined in the conversation, making the point that a eDNA result of "modern human" could be possible if even one fertile Sasquatch-human hybrid female has existed in the past.   Clearly, that's contingent on the actual existence of Bigfoot.  I'm not "jumping the gun".

 

Or a more simple and more likely explanation would be that it was simply contaminated by a human.  Going to the idea that humans and BF interbred is indeed jumping the gun and special pleading to preemptively explain what is probably a very contaminated site.  

4 hours ago, norseman said:

 

But thats not the snake oil WSA is selling. 

2

 

With that I agree

[norseman]

48 minutes ago, Old Time Lifter said:

 

Or a more simple and more likely explanation would be that it was simply contaminated by a human.  Going to the idea that humans and BF interbred is indeed jumping the gun and special pleading to preemptively explain what is probably a very contaminated site.  

 

With that I agree

 

And just for clarification. And not directed at you.

 

Yes, we need a body. I think I have beat that drum so hard Ive lost my sticks and am down to bloody knuckles.

 

But that doesnt mean I wont defend 6th grade biology from the "its a 8ft tall 800 lbs modern human" crowd.

 

Bull snot.

 

I blame this crap on Melba Ketchum..... This is what happens when they call witch craft.....actual science. People buy it, hook, line and sinker.

 

 

[WSA]

It will come back H. s. I would wager, yes. 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

It will come back H. s. I would wager, yes. 

 

Could very well be.... and then we can rule out any doubt it came from an unknown cryptid species.

[hiflier]

On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 5:39 PM, WSA said:

Hiflier, I'm making no point about domestication of dogs. I only use this analogy to point out how animals of the same species can diverge physically under artificial selection that can occur under natural selection pressures

 

Yes, I get that, WSA. I was responding to DavidNC. Should have been clearer about that.

 

54 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Could very well be.... and then we can rule out any doubt it came from an unknown cryptid species.

 

Then it would mean Humans built the nests. Still wouldn't answer the main questions I have been asking though. To repeat: Why were they built? Why didn't the builders CUT the huckleberry instead of breaking all 1200 square yards of them off? Why 21 nests. Why were they apparently over several years with some showing apparent decomposition? How did whoever broke off the huckleberry stems break and remove stems between 1 and 2 inches thick at 7 ft. off the ground?

 

I accept that the e-DNA marker that they looked at showed Human but the above questions somehow should still be answered. And it's OK to say "I don't know" because that certainly is MY response. I haven't a clue how to answer ANY of those questions.

[NatFoot]

13 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Yes, I get that, WSA. I was responding to DavidNC. Should have been clearer about that.

 

 

Then it would mean Humans built the nests. Still wouldn't answer the main questions I have been asking though. To repeat: Why were they built? Why didn't the builders CUT the huckleberry instead of breaking all 1200 square yards of them off? Why 21 nests. Why were they apparently over several years with some showing apparent decomposition? How did whoever broke off the huckleberry stems break and remove stems between 1 and 2 inches thick at 7 ft. off the ground?

 

I accept that the e-DNA marker that they looked at showed Human but the above questions somehow should still be answered. And it's OK to say "I don't know" because that certainly is MY response. I haven't a clue how to answer ANY of those questions.

 

All of that is very interesting but if you got all of that because of the words of someone off a Bigfoot podcast, color me disinterested.

 

If they had a functioning website that showed and explained this stuff in detail, it'd be a different story.

 

[hiflier]

19 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

 

All of that is very interesting but if you got all of that because of the words of someone off a Bigfoot podcast, color me disinterested.

 

If they had a functioning website that showed and explained this stuff in detail, it'd be a different story.

 

 

Agreed. All of that came, and therefore the questions, from listening to podcasts that interviewed the Olympic Project's main people including Dr. Meldrum. The project details as a whole could be forthcoming at some point as there have been a pile of photos and videos taken at the site during its 3.5 year documentation. But my questions have a purpose and that purpose is to nail down whether the "nests" were created because of some kind of serious Human endeavor. If that is the case then the questions remain strong. The flip side of course is a highly elaborate hoax. In which case all of the questions STILL remain strong.

 

So it is more than just absorbing what someone says on a podcast. It really goes to the how's and why's of the nest manufacturing itself- whether hoaxed or real. Private property, behind locked gates? So yeah, I have questions. Don't need to be answered today but, for me anyway, they still need to be answered.

[hiflier]

Allow me to simplify the list of outstanding questions. I think I have succeeded in paring things down to ONE question requiring ONE answer which by default be beneficial in perhaps answering all of the rest. The one question: How did someone break off all of the huckleberry in a 1200 sq.yd. area, no matter the stem diameter, at heights up to 7 ft? 

 

Sure, asking only question out of a pile of questions can simplify matters but in this case the answer to the one is itself not all that simple.  A process of elimination might help? And it can be easily set up. Could even be another Poll? Could be time to leave this Poll/thread and go on to another? One that deals specifically with the huckleberry bush phenomenon.

 

See ya's in a few minutes because as you can see I am just not ready to let this go as there is a very large loose end hanging here.

[hiflier]

On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 2:35 PM, Big Stinky said:

The E-DNA only targets a single Mt gene ( 16S ribosomal RNA) so obviously if the unknown subject is very close to human and only a small gene sequenced it would be useless

 

Been reading up on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16S_ribosomal_RNA and it seems to be the methodology generally used. It makes me wonder if that same approach will be used here: http://www.lochnessproject.org/loch ness eDNA/loch ness eDNA.html

 

Something tells me yes.

Edited December 3, 2018 by hiflier

[BigTreeWalker]

Dr Meldrum mentioned in that Dr J podcast that only a small sequence was tested. It is the sequence where the neanderthal/Homo sapiens differences are located. Then he mentioned that there may be differences elsewhere that have yet to be found in the DNA sample. 

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, BigTreeWalker said:

Then he mentioned that there may be differences elsewhere that have yet to be found in the DNA sample. 

 

I agree but Dr. Meldrum didn't mention that they were looking. Do you think they are able to? And if so do you think it important enough that they do so? Who would foot the bill? What is kind of amazing is all of the universities  represented in the Loch Ness Project. That isn't happening with the Olympic Project as far as I know. And I think that the Loch Ness project isn't really about Nessie, it is about testing a lake that has yet to be tested and so the technology is being put through its paces just on that basis and the process and results closely observed by those university reps- one even being from the U.S..

Edited December 3, 2018 by hiflier

[BigTreeWalker]

Well, I think bigfoot isn't important enough to science to continue looking. If someone committed a crime they would use the DNA results to sort out the people involved in the crime. This could be done to sort out and eliminate the individuals who visited the site. But a crime wasn't committed (except to the huckleberry bushes) so I'm guessing it will just be dropped. Chaulk up another one to human contamination. 

[hiflier]

6 hours ago, BigTreeWalker said:

Chaulk up another one to human contamination

 

I am only 50/50 on that conclusion actually. The 16s ribosomal RNA is the marker used to delineate between Neanderthal and Human and the results as I see and understand them is the go-to for species taxonomy. And I think that means all primates as well? If that is the case then a lot of the past conversations we have seen on the Forum may now be obsolete. Because what I surmise is that there is no Neanderthal present in the sample. Pretty sure there is no Denisovan, Paranthropus, Austrolopithicine, Homo Erectus, Gigantopithucus, Meganthropus, or any other Homo, Pan or Pongo indicators either. Whoever or whatever broke off the huckleberry was there at the site though.

 

So unless the DNA is checked thoroughly for specific markers designating an undeveloped brain (pre-frontal cortex), or the presence of an relaxed opsin gene, or the propensity for hair growth, size and other factors then Human seems like pretty much all that will come out of the sample. Meldrum stated that the differences in DNA between Humans and Sasquatch could be less than a half of a percent. Nest-like structures, large/tall broken huckleberry bushes, and DNA that comes back Human- is there a link? I would say there has to be. But if folks still think the culprit is Sasquatch then all of the proposed ancient origins of the creature are out the window., leaving only its OWN branch without intermingling with anything else. From what I understand that would be quite abnormal considering science's new acceptance of co-mingling among our various primate cousins. 

 

Does the OP in that area receive large amounts of snowfall where animals would be grazing on only the tops of huckleberry bushes because of the snow depth? At an elevation of only around 500 ft. One wouldn't think that is the case but then I don't know that area. I have been researching animals that may have chewed the plants but really have barely gotten started with it.   

Edited December 3, 2018 by hiflier