Jump to content

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


hiflier
 Share

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

54 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

At this point, I'd say Occam requires us to conclude a BF made those structures and the DNA the animals left behind is identical to humans', or at least so similar to human DNA as to not make it readily and easily distinguishable. 

 

My take-away otherwise is: Cool, BFs make nests and they really are opportunistic grazers on wild berries.  Not much else to conclude here, although it has been fun.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WSA said:

At this point, I'd say Occam requires us to conclude a BF made those structures and the DNA the animals left behind is identical to humans', or at least so similar to human DNA as to not make it readily and easily distinguishable. 

 

My take-away otherwise is: Cool, BFs make nests and they really are opportunistic grazers on wild berries.  Not much else to conclude here, although it has been fun.  

 

Time to walk away and have a little perspective.

 

I'm contemplating doing the same myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Patron
3 minutes ago, WSA said:

At this point, I'd say Occam requires us to conclude a BF made those structures and the DNA the animals left behind is identical to humans', or at least so similar to human DNA as to not make it readily and easily distinguishable. 

 

My take-away otherwise is: Cool, BFs make nests and they really are opportunistic grazers on wild berries.  Not much else to conclude here, although it has been fun.  

If Neanderthal DNA is readily distinguishable from modern human DNA,  and according to (some experts) could pass for human if dressed in modern clothing,     how is it possible that an 8 to 10 foot hair covered ape like humanoid would have DNA that could be confused for modern human?  That does not seem logical to me.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remaining open to all possibilities shouldn’t be confused with grasping at straws.  One has to be open to the possibility there is no Bigfoot, and thus, there is no Bigfoot genetic evidence to be found.  Likewise, the possibility does exist, no matter how unlikely some may consider it to be, that at least some lines (types) of Bigfoot have a human or near human maternal ancestor, and therefore, human or human-like mitochondrial genetic material.  

 

As as for the horse results, it’s possible the researchers introduced horse material.  But, it’s not outside of the realm of possibility that something ate a little horse meat there, or emptied its bowels there after digesting horse.   Who knows?  Maybe a Sasquatch got it on him while he was braiding a horse’s mane??  (I couldn’t resist that one.)

Edited by Bluegrassfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not convinced that these were made by Sasquatch. This pic is from Cliff's site and the caption under it says " Cliff lies in the largest nest." The nest is barely 6 feet wide I would guess. It just seems an odd shape and not the right size unless they are sitting in it with crossed legs and meditating. I know they exist and are out there but I just feel that there is something fishy with these nests. The branch twist is miscommunicated as well. If the picture that Cliff has on his site is the largest break then the branch is actually only about an inch across not 2 inches. The picture shows the measurement across a break and not the actual thickness of the branch. I am 6' tall and can reach up to 7' with both hands and snap a branch without standing on anything. bringing the nests back to an area full of contaminates was a bad idea. The best course of action would have been to identify a nest that had not been disturbed from as far away from it as possible and send one person tocollect and secure the material for test to rule out as many contaminates as possible.

 

CB-in-nest (1).jpg

Huckleberry-twist1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor
35 minutes ago, David NC said:

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/

 

Soil in caves are in a completely different environment and not so much exposed to Nature's degrading effects such as UV, rain, freezing temperatures and the caves may not have been high moisture environments which may also reduce micro organism activity.

 

33 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

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.  

 

Excellent sleuthing, S.

12 minutes ago, Bluegrassfoot said:

Who knows?  Maybe a Sasquatch got it on him while he was braiding a horse’s mane??  (I couldn’t resist that one.)

 

Like that one :D 

 

 

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SWWASS...all that would tend to support is the fact that BF is not likely a Neanderthal. 

 

I think a lot of our befuddlement stems directly from the conclusion we've made, based on the superficial physical appearance of the classic BF description, is that it would definitely have easily distinguishable DNA from humans. It may be distinguishable, sure, but possibly only after the entire genome is sequenced and compared (and in this instance, all others who took part in the field research would likewise need to have their DNA sequenced to be compared...that ain't ever gonna happen, we know) Until we open our eyes to this very possible scenario, results like these will continue to be viewed as dead-ends, instead of progress towards an understanding.

 

Ask yourself too: If something as genetically distinct as a Neanderthal could pass as a modern human with only a shave and a haircut, why would we assume the superficial appearance matters at all in trying to predict the genome? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor
14 minutes ago, David NC said:

The best course of action would have been to identify a nest that had not been disturbed from as far away from it as possible and send one person tocollect and secure the material for test to rule out as many contaminates as possible.

 

So true, Maybe that's what they did?

 

7 minutes ago, WSA said:

SWWASS...all that would tend to support is the fact that BF is not likely a Neanderthal

 

Or a Denisovan.

 

7 minutes ago, WSA said:

Ask yourself too: If something as genetically distinct as a Neanderthal could pass as a modern human with only a shave and a haircut, why would we assume the superficial appearance matters at all in trying to predict the genome? 

 

 

Been trying to imagine Patty in a dress and heels. Uh.....don't go there  :blink:  ;) 

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you Hiflier...it takes some real heavy imaginative lifting, but there it is.  What we are burdened with as a species is the fact we've not had any living, extant species similar to ourselves to use for comparison. So, how would we tend to recognize our own, given that? The conclusion I reach is that we probably wouldn't. It is then a small step from "wouldn't" to "aren't".

Edited by WSA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Patron

The fact that we do not know what their collection protocol was to me is sloppy science.    When were they going to reveal all of that?   I would presume that someone present should know that collection protocol, chain of custody,  etc would have to be part of any paper should they have been successful in their DNA search and published.     From the outside,  I just don't see that happened.    Why all the secrecy?    Secrecy seems to be part of the Olympic Project.      If you are going to drop a bomb like BF is in the lap of science you best have your ducks in order from the beginning.      Too many big egos at play in BF research?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Both as a species and as individual members of that species, everything we've ever read, especially non-secular teachings, heard of or saw all shared the same essential message. The message is: You are the sole top dog, apex predator, clever maker of all things outside of nature (and now, INCLUDING nature) and you, my friend, are IT!!!  Crashing down from that peak is bound to leave us bruised and uncomprehending.  It was a rough fall when these biological peers even showed up in the fossil record. How hard is it going to be when we find out (gulp!) they may have been here with us all along too. 

 

SWWASAS...it is not hard to predict that none of that exists in any detailed form. Why? Simple: Because the working assumption all along was that the BF DNA, which HAD to be present, was going to stick out  like a sore thumb. Why take those precautions if that is your prediction?  No revising the strategy now I'm afraid.  I make my case only that it seriously needs to be considered as a strategy the next time.

Edited by WSA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hiflier all that we seem to know now does not point to them taking the samples from an undisturbed nest with as few contaminating actions as possible. There are pictures of them rummaging thru them in a room as others have stated. These nests were suppose to be way out in the woods. How were they transported back to the building? Maybe on the back of a horse? Seems like a lot of material to pack out on your back. I hope that Cliff and the other real investigators did not get reeled in to somebodies scam it would leave a very bad taste in the mouth of academics if it were so.

Wsa funny side note, from what I have read the Neanderthal had a braincase 20% larger than modern humans. Wonder what that extra size influenced.

Edited by David NC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall hearing or reading about stones found in or around the nests that showed signs of use.  I don't remember exactly where I heard that, but I haven't heard any mention of it as of late.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator
43 minutes ago, Bluegrassfoot said:

One has to be open to the possibility there is no Bigfoot

 

No one absolutely does not ... not "one" who has seen them on two separate occasions, unambiguous and unmistakeable.    That is akin to returning flat earth and phlogiston to the table for discussion because something else didn't work out as expected.    

 

MIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WSA said:

SWWASS...all that would tend to support is the fact that BF is not likely a Neanderthal. 

 

I think a lot of our befuddlement stems directly from the conclusion we've made, based on the superficial physical appearance of the classic BF description, is that it would definitely have easily distinguishable DNA from humans. It may be distinguishable, sure, but possibly only after the entire genome is sequenced and compared (and in this instance, all others who took part in the field research would likewise need to have their DNA sequenced to be compared...that ain't ever gonna happen, we know) Until we open our eyes to this very possible scenario, results like these will continue to be viewed as dead-ends, instead of progress towards an understanding.

 

Ask yourself too: If something as genetically distinct as a Neanderthal could pass as a modern human with only a shave and a haircut, why would we assume the superficial appearance matters at all in trying to predict the genome? 

 

 

 

 

I agree, It does matter "where" in the genome you are looking for differences. I would hazard to guess that this E-DNA test is using a single well studied gene common to all mammals and is specifically used for species Identity, "Barcode Analysis" . It won't likely find bigfoot if bigfoot has human mtDNA. Of coarse that would mean a hybridized species. It doesn't take a big difference in the Nuclear DNA to account for Bigfoots physical differences however. The problem is that the nuclear genome is about 3 billion base pairs long, and finding the key differences to explain the physiological difference is an immense task.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unpinned and unfeatured this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...