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

[norseman]

6 minutes ago, WSA said:

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)

 

The fact you think this is vindication is telling.

 

The way science is reading this is that there is nothing novel here at all.

 

So as far as Im concerned it vindicates my position of being pro kill. We need a type specimen and thats all there is to it.

 

Only then will the truth be revealed to us. Or the creature simply continues to officially not exist.

[hiflier]

9 minutes ago, norseman said:

So as far as Im concerned it vindicates my position of being pro kill. We need a type specimen and thats all there is to it.

 

YUP!

[WSA]

I  don't disagree with your position at all Norseman, never have.  I do think though, as every good hunter knows, the more you understand about the nature of your quarry, the more likely you are to have a successful hunt. This result, and others like it,  could be a very valuable piece of information for those hunters.   

[gigantor]

If these were Bigfoot nests, the results simply mean that the samples were not taken soon enough and the DNA degraded.

 

Better luck next time...

[hiflier]

Hope everyone isn't getting tired of me asking questions. But some people, not just me, do have valid questions and concerns regarding the e-DNA sampling and testing so who do they address those questions to? Dr. Disotell said the degradation of some of the samples was due to freezing and moisture. Is this from the way the samples were stored (a year and a half!) or was it from being out in nature? As BigTreeWalker so aptly pointed out, not ALL DNA seemed to be affected so why were apparently only SOME of the DNA? Obviously there are a small few here that refuse to be complacent about this issue because, in truth, there are a lot of loose ends regarding these DNA results as well as other things regarding the "nest" site itself and its local features.

 

12 minutes ago, gigantor said:

If these were Bigfoot nests, the results simply mean that the samples we're not taken soon enough and the DNA degraded.

 

Better luck next time...

 

Not ALL samples, g. One thing is the Olympic Project is going to be looking at other areas in the region for more evidence of structures. Who knows, maybe they will succeed in finding a structure that still has its greenery attached. If so then samples should be taken right away as they will be fresh. It is difficult to close the door on something that has so many issues going unanswered. 

Edited December 5, 2018 by hiflier

[Guest prob2236]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

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)

Agreed.  Whenever one of these tests are run and come up empty, there comes an endless effort to poke holes in the analysis and report what could've gone wrong to exclude bigfoot DNA from the picture.  The data is what it is and the approach to try and discredit the recurring results isnt a scientific one.  

[Old Time Lifter]

2 minutes ago, prob2236 said:

Agreed.  Whenever one of these tests are run and come up empty, there comes an endless effort to poke holes in the analysis and report what could've gone wrong to exclude bigfoot DNA from the picture.  The data is what it is and the approach to try and discredit the recurring results isnt a scientific one.  

 

The simple answer is there was never any unknown dna there to be found...

[Guest prob2236]

20 minutes ago, gigantor said:

If these were Bigfoot nests, the results simply mean that the samples were not taken soon enough and the DNA degraded.

 

Better luck next time...

 

I have to disagree with this as well.  The results even reported segments of horse DNA found these nest.  A horse navigating its way to these locations is unlikely, so that leads to the conclusion that the horse DNA made it there through contamination of another source.  A human, on a farm, stepped in  horse poop on his way to investigate and accidently contaminated the site with horse DNA.  If the eDNA tests could pick that type of trace up than how likely is it that the makernof the nests, a presumed bigfoot, was able to degrade and become undetectable?  That just seems like grasping at straws.  I think the conclusion has to be that bigfoot did not build these nests.

[hiflier]

Please think of what you are saying. The "nests" were discovered 3 1/2 years ago. The horse result could have been from something way more recent as many people had visited the site right up until recently. Nature and microbes will degrade DNA. So it comes down to the fresher the better. You are making it sound like any DNA at the site was deposited a short time ago when in fact some of the DNA has apparently been sitting out in the elements a long time. Like BTW said, what? no deer?

 

Unless ALL elements of the dynamic involving the site is looked at just as a crime scene investigator would (Columbo?) then one will tend to look at only one or two things when in fact there is much about the sight that has been presented that goes unchallenged. It ISN'T just about the DNA or the lack of it and that is what I have been getting at. DNA goes missing for a reason. Physical evidence is different. There are elements of the "crime" scene that still need some serious consideration.

 

Not saying Bigfoot- CAN'T say Bigfoot- WON'T say Bigfoot. But something or someone was there and did quite a bit of building over quite a bit of time and very consistently destroyed a bunch of plant tops when they were there. What is important is looking at the WHOLE picture that the site is showing- not just picking out degraded DNA as proof that everything that was there has been detected. This isn't special pleading- it is saying that the whole story isn't available up to and including tearing off the tops of the tall growth that was used to construct the features at the site. The door just cannot be closed yet because if the suspected builders were Human then it begs the question STILL of why the plants were harvested in the manner that they were. And why so many structures were built and over how much time. Regardless of who or what built them those questions continue to remain wide open to any answers one cares to offer.

 

People are ignoring all of this and so it makes me sound like a broken record to keep bringing these issues up. So I will let it all go and say no more.

Edited December 5, 2018 by hiflier

[NatFoot]

57 minutes ago, gigantor said:

If these were Bigfoot nests, the results simply mean that the samples were not taken soon enough and the DNA degraded.

 

Better luck next time...

 

Ok....where in the world were the results shared that said nothing existed?

 

I was linked to a series of 9 podcasts....if this was released only on a podcast and nothing else....it leads me to believe this crap is nothing more than a con for people to get hits for advertising dollars and simply makes the whole subject look shitty.

[Guest prob2236]

22 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Please think of what you are saying. The "nests" were discovered 3 1/2 years ago. The horse result could have been from something way more recent as many people had visited the site right up until recently. Nature and microbes will degrade DNA. So it comes down to the fresher the better. You are making it sound like any DNA at the site was deposited a short time ago when in fact some of the DNA has apparently been sitting out in the elements a long time. Like BTW said, what? no deer?

 

Unless ALL elements of the dynamic involving the site is looked at just as a crime scene investigator would (Columbo?) then one will tend to look at only one or two things when in fact there is much about the sight that has been presented that goes unchallenged. It ISN'T just about the DNA or the lack of it and that is what I have been getting at. DNA goes missing for a reason. Physical evidence is different. There are elements of the "crime" scene that still need some serious consideration.

 

Not saying Bigfoot- CAN'T say Bigfoot- WON'T say Bigfoot. But something or someone was there and did quite a bit of building over quite a bit of time and very consistently destroyed a bunch of plant tops when they were there. What is important is looking at the WHOLE picture that the site is showing- not just picking out degraded DNA as proof that everything that was there has been detected. This isn't special pleading- it is saying that the whole story isn't available up to and including tearing off the tops of the tall growth that was used to construct the features at the site. The door just cannot be closed yet because if the suspected builders were Human then it begs the question STILL of why the plants were harvested in the manner that they were. And why so many structures were built and over how much time. Regardless of who or what built them those questions continue to remain wide open to any answers one cares to offer.

 

People are ignoring all of this and so it makes me sound like a broken record to keep bringing these issues up. So I will let it all go and say no more.

 

I think your point is valid and you shouldnt stop discussing it because you think it sounds like a broken record.

 

I agree that the question of what built them and why is still on the table.  I think holding on to the bigfoot nest theory is grasping at straws and is a big reason as to why bigfoot claims and reported evidence is often tossed away and sluffed off.  We always seem to have a "ya but..." to anything thats put forward contradicting this animals existence but in terms of solid proof, we have nothing to offer.

 

I understand what you're saying about the age and degredation of 3 1/2 year old nests.  What the horse DNA result showed me, however, is how truely equipped we are right now to find an undocumented primate if its out there in terms of a DNA sample.  Sure, maybe the horse sample had been deposited 3 months ago and not 3 years ago but isnt it amazing that the horse didnt even have to be at the nest site to have a marker show up.  That horse probably never came within 20 miles of those nests and we still found traces of its DNA.  What some of us, maybe not you, are trying to sell right now is that bigfoot built these nests, walked away, any traces of their DNA was washed out and degraded away and that no bigfoot has come back to the site, which apparently is a hot bed for these nests, since to leave even the slightest bit of evidence.  Im saying that thats really hard to buy.  There are still questions that need to be answered, Ill give you that.  Theres no reason at this point, however, to suspect anything strange or undocumented was involved.  Holding on to the "sasquatch nest" theory would be based on nothing more than hope at this point.  

[gigantor]

1 hour ago, prob2236 said:

I have to disagree with this as well. 

 

Just because you disagree doesn't make it so.

 

 

[hiflier]

21 minutes ago, prob2236 said:

but isnt it amazing that the horse didnt even have to be at the nest site to have a marker show up

 

Oh it most certainly IS amazing.

 

22 minutes ago, prob2236 said:

What some of us, maybe not you, are trying to sell right now is that bigfoot built these nests, walked away, any traces of their DNA was washed out and degraded away and that no bigfoot has come back to the site, which apparently is a hot bed for these nests, since to leave even the slightest bit of evidence.  Im saying that thats really hard to buy.

 

Agreed.

 

23 minutes ago, prob2236 said:

There are still questions that need to be answered, Ill give you that.  Theres no reason at this point, however, to suspect anything strange or undocumented was involved.

 

Again, agreed and you already know my objective stance on that point. I have been addressing the 'who' or 'what' for some time now. It is why I can comfortably keep coming back to the 'who' or 'what'. I can't even come close to the why- .even seriously turning over an elaborate hoax issue, which in the end failed miserably as a cause. It might be interesting and help put things in perspective a little better if a discussion on hoaxing the site was initiated? 

[David NC]

I do not think time degradation can be used as an excuse . These links are from Cliff's  site and has to do with the nests in question. The link Cliff gives to eDNA tests being used in cave soil from different sites identified Denosovian, Neanderthal, Wooly rino, Wooly Mammoth, Cave Bear dna and the sediment layer was 90,000 years old. There was some degradation but all these were still identifiable according to the scientists.

https://cliffbarackman.com/sasquatch-nest-edna-study/

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/04/ancient-dna-sediment-neanderthal-denisovan/524433/

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by David NC

[SWWASAS]

If you look at the 14 November post with the picture of the nest being examined there is what looks like a calendar with pictures of horses on the wall.      Whoever owns the building where the nest was examined is a horse lover or owner.    Unless you are into horses you would not have a horse calendar.      I would guess that is what introduced the horse DNA vector into the testing.     Sloppy science at work.  

Edited December 5, 2018 by SWWASAS