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

[WSA]

Hiflier....what I'm saying is getting a beanbag to land next to the hole, and in the same spot each time is the same as putting it in the hole each time. We tend to think the observer is the "hole", but it doesn't seem to be the case. This is why I say if they wanted to bean us, they probably could. They choose not to, for whatever reason. 

[hiflier]

I can accept that. So, no Sasquatch e-DNA at the 'nest" site. No novel primate of any kind. Everything but.

 

Does this mean that bears or Humans must have broken off the huckleberries? If Human, how was it done? If bear then three experts would seem to not know what they were talking about when they said it wasn't bears. OR.......OR.......we are back to Sasquatches having Human DNA. There isn't a whole lot to choose from here folks. What it does mean though is that the whole field of Sasquatch study remains open because thee is still so much that points to SOME kind of biped other than Human. It also means that my book, and that of many other authors both current and past, is not obsolete  

[Twist]

 

JK Hiflier!

Edited December 4, 2018 by Twist

[southernyahoo]

On 11/23/2018 at 10:24 PM, MIB said:

Think it through: e-DNA testing makes it irrelevant whether a person, known or unknown, had laid in the nests.    Things lying in the nest do not remove other occupants' DNA, they only add their own.  What can be determined with e-DNA is that there is either something new and novel or there is not.    Unless bigfoot is truly human, from a DNA standpoint, the presence of human contamination doesn't matter.   

 

MIB

 

[southernyahoo]

On 12/3/2018 at 8:59 AM, WSA said:

Norse, I think the reality is the chances/opportunities of getting a body to examine  are vanishingly small compared to those of getting DNA. I regret that as much as you do, but perfect is often the enemy of "good enough" , and this might be such a case. If anyone is not ready to seriously ponder the possibilities of what is in the DNA data, they might be missing the best opportunity to move the ball forward in our lifetimes. Holding out for 100% cryptid or nothing-to- see-here?  We'd all like a home-run, but reality down here amongst us is a little different it seems.

 

 

True enough, We only need a repeating signature from multiple samples that is diverged enough from humans and apes yet closest to those to perk up some scientists ears.

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, Twist said:

 

JK Hiflier!

 

LMAO! And I am sooooo tempted  

[Old Time Lifter]

4 hours ago, Twist said:

 

JK Hiflier!

 

 

[NatFoot]

10 hours ago, hiflier said:

I can accept that. So, no Sasquatch e-DNA at the 'nest" site. No novel primate of any kind. Everything but.

 

Does this mean that bears or Humans must have broken off the huckleberries? If Human, how was it done? If bear then three experts would seem to not know what they were talking about when they said it wasn't bears. OR.......OR.......we are back to Sasquatches having Human DNA. There isn't a whole lot to choose from here folks. What it does mean though is that the whole field of Sasquatch study remains open because thee is still so much that points to SOME kind of biped other than Human. It also means that my book, and that of many other authors both current and past, is not obsolete  

 

This went completely over my head. Did we conclude there was no unknown DNA at the site? I can't find that anywhere.

 

Maybe a post was edited or deleted and that's leading to my lack of comprehension? Or maybe I'm crazy?

[BigTreeWalker]

10 hours ago, hiflier said:

I can accept that. So, no Sasquatch e-DNA at the 'nest" site. No novel primate of any kind. Everything but.

 

I would like to see that list of what they did find there at the nest sites. Dr Disotell even mentioned horse DNA which he assumed was there from site contamination by humans. I would like to see if some of the usual suspects are there or missing from that list; elk and deer for example. He mentioned bear and several smaller animals.  But if there is some of the usual animals missing from that list then they didn't get everything in the area. However, I don't know how there is any possibility to miss sasquatch, if they did indeed build those nests, considering whomever built them spent a lot of time in the area. 

So we have a conundrum. No bigfoot DNA, but there is human DNA. I'm with the bear experts saying that bears didn't do it. I can't put all my experience and expertise on the subject behind me and ignore it. So what's the answer? 

 

And to me old samples doesn't cut it! Since they found so many other things. 

 

Natfoot:  episode 9

https://www.foxtopus.ink/wildthing/listen

 

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by BigTreeWalker
Added link

[David NC]

There may be some video evidence of Sasquatch throwing things, if you believe any videos. This first one notice how the throw is not completely overhand like a human would throw a spear or javelin but somewhat side handed. The rock being thrown in the second video is completely side handed.  It could be different for other people but I have to throw almost completely overhanded to get good accuracy.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by David NC
additional information

[Guest prob2236]

The last episode of "wild things" with Laura Krantz kind of opitimises this whole discussion.  Absolutely nothing from the nest samples would suggest that something unknown or even unusual build or laid in those nests.  Even with that we still have postings about how flawed the eDNA process must be or how something must have been missed.  

 

The podcast really made an excellent point that I think a lot of us find ourselves guilty of.  We make the decision to believe in something and only then do we look for the evidence to support what we believe.  Our minds were made up about these samples weeks ago, before the results ever came back.  

 

Disappointing to say the least but I guess thats what bigfoot research is in a nutshell.  I guess my question becomes, at what point is enough going to be enough?  How many more years or decades of nothing more than just mirky photos and casted foot prints until we say "OK, the lack of evidence and the odds against it are just to much to overcome."  Or is the romance of the search for sasquatch just to much to walk away from?

[Big Stinky]

17 hours ago, hiflier said:

I can accept that. So, no Sasquatch e-DNA at the 'nest" site. No novel primate of any kind. Everything but.

 

Does this mean that bears or Humans must have broken off the huckleberries? If Human, how was it done? If bear then three experts would seem to not know what they were talking about when they said it wasn't bears. OR.......OR.......we are back to Sasquatches having Human DNA. There isn't a whole lot to choose from here folks. What it does mean though is that the whole field of Sasquatch study remains open because thee is still so much that points to SOME kind of biped other than Human. It also means that my book, and that of many other authors both current and past, is not obsolete  

 

This just goes back to the extent of the E-DNA testing and how much of the DNA of the DNA is sequenced.. apparently not much only a small portion of the  mito DNA ( 16s ribosome ) is sequenced here so if you assume any of the previous DNA work is credible ( MK study) the MtDNA is almost identical to homo sapiens. So this gets us nowhere. I would have thought that any unclassified found in the nests would have made sense to evaluate directly.

 

Stinky

[hiflier]

7 hours ago, BigTreeWalker said:

 

I would like to see that list of what they did find there at the nest sites. Dr Disotell even mentioned horse DNA which he assumed was there from site contamination by humans. I would like to see if some of the usual suspects are there or missing from that list; elk and deer for example. He mentioned bear and several smaller animals.  But if there is some of the usual animals missing from that list then they didn't get everything in the area. However, I don't know how there is any possibility to miss sasquatch, if they did indeed build those nests, considering whomever built them spent a lot of time in the area. 

So we have a conundrum. No bigfoot DNA, but there is human DNA. I'm with the bear experts saying that bears didn't do it. I can't put all my experience and expertise on the subject behind me and ignore it. So what's the answer? 

 

And to me old samples doesn't cut it! Since they found so many other things. 

 

Natfoot:  episode 9

https://www.foxtopus.ink/wildthing/listen

 

 

 

This is the kind of thinking that is the BEST way to proceed. Like it. But as you point out, there are still outstanding questions to be answered. I have been asking specifically about them too but I don't dare say the "h" word LOL. Must be that Pulp Fiction thang  

 

9 minutes ago, prob2236 said:

Our minds were made up about these samples weeks ago

 

Not true.

Edited December 5, 2018 by hiflier

[WSA]

I say again: If the data does not support your conclusions, don't blame the data.

 

This was my expected outcome, and it is consistent with the presence of BF in the studied area, to the extent other evidence supports the predicted genetic identity of the animal.

 

That these kinds of recurring outcomes present huge challenges for those trying to confirm the identity and existence of the animal through DNA evidence is not the fault of the data either.  

 

(Deal)

[hiflier]

WSA, do you agree then that the current package of questions and concerns expressed need answers?