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

54 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

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

I’m sorry if that offends.  But the majority of us have not had a personal, irrefutable affirming experience.  Without that personal experience, the possibility of non existence has to be on the table.  I’d be a fool to think otherwise.

Edited by Bluegrassfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Patron

The DNA task made even more immense without a type specimen on a lab table and adequate controls.       While there has not been a lot of credible DNA testing,   I find it so unlikely that a random sample not associated with a lab table specimen produce definitive DNA, that I for one am not willing to throw my money at it.   

Edited by SWWASAS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • FMT
BFF Donor
2 hours ago, David NC said:

The link Cliff gives to eDNA tests being used in cave soil from different sites

 

That is a special case - a cave is somewhat protected from the elements.

 

Are you trying to claim the DNA does not degrade when exposed to the elements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, David NC said:

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.

 

Statements like that can mislead folks if one isn't careful when reading and listening to details. My understanding is, and it was stated in a podcast, that only a WEDGE of only ONE nest was removed and brought elsewhere for study. Elsewhere being the room in the photo with everyone around the nest in garb. So "THEM" and "THEY" are not correct terms. The correct term would seem to be "IT". Everything else was done in situ. Hair samples were also collected from the structures at the site early on using tape. So pretty sure more caution was taken than might appear in the "clean room". In any case Human DNA was evident and what we might IMAGINE Sasquatch DNA, to the extent that one might think is different, was not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

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.    

 

 

 

I wish I could say that ive had an experience that left me with that much conviction.  I envy you for that.

 

With the lack of a body, the failed, albeit few, attempts by science to find it with technology that is clearly getting better then it's significantly more likely that you mis identified what you saw.  I believe you when you say that you saw something that you cant explain but I doubt that bigfoot was it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s important to remember that the mitochondrial genome has nothing to do with an organism’s phenotype.  All the mitochondrial genome does is code for the replication and operations of the mitochondrion.   Mitochondria are “simply” bacteria that have become endosymbionts inside eukaryote cells.  And mitochondrial genetic material is solely passed maternally.

 

I know Ketchum’s overall results are an absolute mess.  But I still sometimes wonder if the baby is being thrown out with the bath water. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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

 

If these are some of the most respected folks in the researching field then Bigfooting has a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor

Dr. Ketchum's results WERE a mess but the end summary was the same: The mDNA showed Human on the maternal side. Dr. Disotell's apparently showed no different. But Dr. Disotell's results may have been more accurate. Here is a very good article that I think everyone might like. It is written a little more in layman's terms- something I always appreciate: https://biomeme.com/environmental-dna/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bluegrassfoot said:

It’s important to remember that the mitochondrial genome has nothing to do with an organism’s phenotype.  All the mitochondrial genome does is code for the replication and operations of the mitochondrion.   Mitochondria are “simply” bacteria that have become endosymbionts inside eukaryote cells.  And mitochondrial genetic material is solely passed maternally.

 

I know Ketchum’s overall results are an absolute mess.  But I still sometimes wonder if the baby is being thrown out with the bath water. 

A little correction here , mitochondria are not "simple bacteria" but organelles ( structures) in all cells that provides energy to cell via respiration.

I still do not understand why the hairs found were simply not vetted and then sequenced both for MtDNA and WGS (whole genome). It would be interesting if a another lab came up with similar findings as MK study....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking maybe some people didn't get the jist of my last post. For one thing I don't base any of my thoughts about sasquatch on belief. Belief is for religion. I base what I know on what I myself have seen, discovered and learned from my own experience. 

 

I want to know everything they did find and see if they missed any of the usual animals in the area. That would tell me how effective the eDNA test actually is. I believe Meldrum and Disotell both mentioned the samples being old as if that's the possible reason why sasquatch was missed. They got everything else they mentioned so why would sasquatch be an exception? They did get human. 

 

I have to wonder if people who think that bears are the explanation have spent any time in bear country. I'm sorry but that's not bear behavior. They break branches  and trees. They rake sticks and leaves together to lay on sometimes. But they don't pick branches off bushes and make large nests in large numbers. So according to the eDNA, that leaves humans. So we have big humans making nests. I say big because that's what it would take to do what was done to the bushes with bare hands. Just like the big humans that ate the raw meat off the elk bones we found and piled them. Because the behavior again was human but from the size of the teeth they were also big. 

 

The only answer I can come up with is that we have yet to find the differences in DNA between us and what sure appears to be giants with human behavior. 

 

I know what hiflier has been getting at all along is, what did build the nests, how did they do it, and why did they do it. Because even if you don't want to 'believe' in bigfoot, the nests are still there and do need an explanation. At least if you have that scientific mindset. 

Edited by BigTreeWalker
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor
25 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

If these are some of the most respected folks in the researching field then Bigfooting has a problem

 

I kind of go along with that, NatFoot. OR something else is going on because something just doesn't seem right here. Reason? If discovering that Sasquatch is a real creature that is alive today is as important as everyone says it is, mostly because of the projected ramifications of its existence, then why did it take so long to test samples from the site? Maybe discovery isn't all that important? Maybe discovery is important but cannot be allowed to happen? And if not, why go to all the trouble of posturing by having testing done? Dr. Disotell of anyone of the people involved should have understood the necessity of getting tests done as soon as possible. He would have know what the environment, especially in the Olympic Peninsula, could do to a DNA sample.

 

So when it comes to Sasquatch why does it seem that everyone is somehow ignorant of proper procedure when it comes to having fresh samples?  When those structures were first found there was GREENERY still attached to the twigs in them. I mean how much fresher of a sample can one hope to get than that? Something just isn't sitting right. I have looked at this whole thing nine ways to Sunday and something isn't clicking well. I am a bit suspicious of things by nature and what that does is make me dig deep into not only a story but the DETAILS of the story. And things at this point are simply not making much sense.

 

14 minutes ago, Big Stinky said:

I still do not understand why the hairs found were simply not vetted and then sequenced both for MtDNA and WGS (whole genome). It would be interesting if a another lab came up with similar findings as MK study....

 

From what I know hair samples were vetted, at least morphologically, and they perfectly matched some that are thought to come from Sasquatch.

 

10 minutes ago, BigTreeWalker said:

I'm thinking maybe some people didn't get the jist of my last post. For one thing I don't base any of my thoughts about sasquatch on belief. Belief is for religion. I base what I know on what I myself have seen, discovered and learned from my own experience. 

 

I want to know everything they did find and see if they missed any of the usual animals in the area. That would tell me how effective the eDNA test actually is. I believe Meldrum and Disotell both mentioned the samples being old as if that's the possible reason why sasquatch was missed. They got everything else they mentioned so why would sasquatch be an exception? They did get human. 

 

I have to wonder if people who think that bears are the explanation have spent any time in bear country. I'm sorry but that's not bear behavior. They break branches  and trees. They rake sticks and leaves together to lay on sometimes. But they don't pick branches off bushes and make large nests in large numbers. So according to the eDNA that leaves humans. So we have big humans making nests. I say big because that's what it would take to do what was done to the bushes with bare hands. Just like the big humans that ate the raw meat off the elk bones we found and piled them. Because the behavior again was human but from the size of the teeth they were also big. 

 

The only answer I can come up with is that we have yet to find the differences in DNA between us and what sure appears to be giants with human behavior. 

 

A great post, BigTreeWalker. You are zeroing in on some very important aspects of this to be sure. Stay with it. 

 

10 minutes ago, BigTreeWalker said:

I know what hiflier has been getting at all along is, what did build the nests, how did they do it, and why did they do it. Because even if you don't want to 'believe' in bigfoot, the nests are still there and do need an explanation. At least if you have that scientific mindset. 

 

BINGO! You nailed it right there :) 

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Patron

I am actually glad that nests that big were not found with strange feathers in them.    Something pointing to giant birds or dinosaurs would sure keep me out of the woods.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor

You, me and everyone else...........with the exception of Incorrigible1 perhaps. He's probably been waiting for a chance to drop one of those out of a tree for decades. His story of seeing one as a kid is very compelling.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Big Stinky said:

A little correction here , mitochondria are not "simple bacteria" but organelles ( structures) in all cells that provides energy to cell via respiration.

I still do not understand why the hairs found were simply not vetted and then sequenced both for MtDNA and WGS (whole genome). It would be interesting if a another lab came up with similar findings as MK study....

I don’t think you understand the concept of endosymbiosis. Yes, mitochondria  function as the “power plant” organelle in eukaryotic cells, but all evidence points to then being primitive bacteria.  It is one of the most mind blowing evolutionary niches in nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an example of how differently mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA are transferred:  If a Sasquatch had a maternal human ancestor only 20 generations back, and there was a subsequent maternal line that only bred to 100% Sasquatch males.  After those 20 generations, an individual’s mtDNA would be identical to human, however that individual’s nuclear DNA would be only 1/1,048,576 human.  That’s less than one thousandth of a percent human.

Edited by Bluegrassfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

×
×
  • Create New...