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

[hiflier]

4 minutes ago, BigTreeWalker said:

....that would put pressure on the scientific community to not be so biased if the results are in favor of an unknown primate.

 

And few know that better than yourself. Of course you do realize what even a minimum acceptance of an unknown primate would do? We ar talking academia. That is where the money is. That is where any funding would come from. The resistance to opening up that kind of research would be enormous unless the data underlying the results was irrefutable. It is why peer review would be inevitable even if it took time to have those results gone over- and I think in the case of a positive for an unknown primate people are going to go over things with a fine toothed comb looking for flaws in that data. The results would need to be ironclad and even then disbelief that such a creature could be extant will freeze a lot of minds. It will take time to sink in but when and if it does then the ramifications of the discovery will be part and parcel in any program to proceed with  exploration in various targeted habitats. I get the shivers just thinking about it.

[gigantor]

For the benefit of the slider...

[hiflier]

On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 11:09 AM, hiflier said:

Out of almost 30 members polled about 46% have leaned toward an announcement NEVER happening. This is in light of an e-DNA result coming back as being positive for an apparent new species of unknown primate. It is interesting that so far there seems to be an undercurrent of suspicion among members of the BFF regarding this kind of an outcome. I have a question for you then: If the announcement of an unknowm primate will never happen, or be allowed to happen, would any of you take it upon yourselves to dig for the truth? I mean if an announcement is never going to happen how would anyone know what the outcome of the testing was? Do you think it will just end up with someone saying "inconclusive"? Or would someone simply say, "no evidence of a novel primate sequence"? Or maybe "the sample were Human contaminated"?

 

Would you trust that one of those kinds of announcements would be acceptable? If not would there be anything you might do to secure your confidence that the truth was being told? Or just accept that the truth is being kept from us and go on with life? Which IMO means that nothing has changed regarding maintaining a position of being powerless to find out what the results really were. Can one accept that, as far as the nests go, there are no novel primates to be found? A conclusion that would have its own set of large issues to contend with. 

 

What might those "large issues" consist of? The answers to these questions goes right to the heart of the BFF and its future and that of other Bigfoot endeavors so take your time in giving these questions some thought.  

 

Presented a bunch of questions in the quote above. Anyone ready to tackle any of them? They are wrapped around the point that if there is a Sasquatch out there, and I think that there is, how is that we have not been officially informed? Why wouldn't we be? What would be the point or the advantage of maintain a position of won't confirm or deny? What is to be gained by such a stance concerning something like an extant North American Primate?

 

I have been through this argument many times as a lot of you already know. It is because I take the matter quite seriously. Government game playing has a purpose which I have projected to what I think is an intentional endgame. Conspiracy theory? It isn't if this creature is real. This Poll is based on an extant North American primate other than us. Even someone on the fence who is 50/50 should be including the dynamic of whether or not e-DNA proof of an existing Sasquatch can be announced without interference. The Bigfoot subject needs to keep moving forward but as it does one has to at least consider whether or not there will be any push back and if there is where might this push back come from and what form might it take?

 

 

[MIB]

I think if there were going to be a concerted effort to "make this go away" it would have already happened before there was the current publicity.    "Making it go away" now would likely make it clear someone was indeed trying to make it go away.  I think that would convince more people of existence than the actual evidence would.    Rather, if the e-DNA evidence shows there's something out there that's not in genbank, I think the efforts now will be to explain why they hadn't told us already.  

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

I think if there were going to be a concerted effort to "make this go away" it would have already happened before there was the current publicity. 

 

Good point, MIB. There is that sort of nagging thing about allowing the public to pursue the subject to a certain level and then use the ridicule card to control things though. It may not be so much about making it go away as much as diffusing or diluting efforts to arrive at the truth? It would appear that things are  permitted to go to a certain level where above that level would be entering into the area of proof. I don't think things have ever gotten as close as this e-DNA stuff may get. What keeps popping up in my mind is that the e-DNA process for just about everything else has managed to avoid the Human contamination syndrome. So what are the chances that the Human contamination syndrome would pop up just because the area of investigation just happens to be Bigfoot? I am prepared for that consequence and I am also prepared to not fall for it.

 

Reason? I think the e-DNA technology is so precise that it WILL pick up a Human presence simply from the process of gathering soils or pond waters, or lake waters or anything else. We are dropping skin cells and other traces of ourselves everywhere. The point of this e-DNA technology is to be able to sample and sequence EVERYTHING- and just about everything is now already in the GenBank........except Bigfoot. I think any claims of Human contamination at the nest sites would be an outlandish attempt to smear the results. Technically e-DNA sequencing should effectively negate a Human contamination outcome.  

Edited November 18, 2018 by hiflier

[BigTreeWalker]

I think you hit the nail on the head about the eDNA. It's one of the most in depth tests now done with DNA. Everything I've seen about it says it's an all encompassing test. Meaning it should be able to find every type of organism that has passed through or used the area tested. From bacteria clear up through humans or in this case possibly unknown primates. Human contamination can't be a go to with this testing. If it does come to that then my conclusion is that either the eDNA test isn't as powerful of a tool as they claim or someone is trying to hide the results. 

[MIB]

... or the darn things really are Homo sapiens sapiens with a set of gene segments activated that are inert / "junk" DNA in us and/or vice versa.    I kinda doubt they're that close, but I won't be sure what they aren't 'til I know for sure what they are.

 

Another thought ... the e-DNA showing there's something out there might allow agencies who've been suppressing evidence a way to wiggle out.  Right now, if that's what's happening, no matter what they'd like to do now they're trapped by what was done in the past.   "Oh look, something new."   Then allow research to find it.

 

Dunno.  

 

MIB 

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, MIB said:

.......but I won't be sure what they aren't 'til I know for sure what they are.

 

^^  QFT

 

2 hours ago, MIB said:

Another thought ... the e-DNA showing there's something out there might allow agencies who've been suppressing evidence a way to wiggle out.  Right now, if that's what's happening, no matter what they'd like to do now they're trapped by what was done in the past.   "Oh look, something new."   Then allow research to find it.

 

And this is my point. I am not one to think 'they' do not know. Mainly because they have painted themselves into a corner with the very technology that they have developed whether it be e-DNA or the surveillance level they have attained in the last 15 years, especially since e-DNA didn't get developed just last week. Science has been dabbling in the method since around 2003. It tells me that any anthropology or zoology department worth its salt has been in the woods of North America conducting e-DNA testing- NOT just in the areas of permafrost in Siberia or in caves in New Zealand or in only aquatic environments.

 

Researching stuff like this only narrows my arguments down to fewer and fewer logical answers. But the one argument that keeps going strong is that the more science I bring to bear on the Bigfoot issue the more support there is that someone knows that there is a Sasquatch on this continent. e-DNA is like a new toy, and scientists are going to play with that toy in every way they can think of. I get the sneaking suspicion that SOMEONE- don't know who yet- has already used the technology to look for Bigfoot. I mean why would a highly, more-than-curious scientist, NOT do that? Even if just for laughs? Or for answering a very personal belief because in the past they HAD looked at evidence and read reports. Because I don't think ALL scientists have turned a blind eye to this subject.

Edited November 19, 2018 by hiflier

[hiflier]

So, just for the fun of it, is there anyone who can see the next logical step in this line of thinking? I hope so because the summary of everything I have been writing in these posts is VERY important. And that summary takes everything into consideration. It HAS to......or the conclusion FAILS.

Edited November 19, 2018 by hiflier

[Twist]

 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Researching stuff like this only narrows my arguments down to fewer and fewer logical answers. But the one argument that keeps going strong is that the more science I bring to bear on the Bigfoot issue the more support there is that someone knows that there is a Sasquatch on this continent.

 

I’m still going to wait and see what happens.   You can’t narrow down arguments when your science has yet to come back.  

[hiflier]

We all have to wait. But in the meantime I can most certainly narrow my arguments down to a very fine point.

 

1) the nests were discovered over three years previous By a logging company employee.

2) Logging companies have all kinds of scientists that work for them: https://www.bls.gov/green/forestry/sustainable_forestry.htm

    

(this is a small section of the document):

"Environmental science and protection technicians typically are supervised by environmental scientists and specialists. In sustainable forestry, these technicians often work on teams with scientists and other technicians, to solve problems related to environmental degradation and public health. They may assist with inspections of forest lands, to ensure that environmental regulations are being followed. They also set up equipment to monitor pollution levels; collect samples of air, soil, water, and other materials for laboratory analysis; and prepare charts and reports that summarize test results."

 

3) A couple of folks from the Washington State DNR also investigated the nests.

4) e-DNA testing by Dr. Todd Disotell began a few weeks ago.

5) e-DNA has been around for at least 10 years.

 

So here is the summary: E-Dna has been around a lot longer than the timeline of the nest discovery. It took over three years since the discovery to get samples tested by Dr. Disotell. The forestry people have scientists that test soils. In the time frame between the initial discovery and sending samples to Dr. Disotell there is about a three year gap. Why would I think that soil testing wasn't done by government or forestry scientists during that three years in which the nests just sat there in the woods? Why would I think that e-DNA testing wasn't NEVER performed by anyone other than Dr. Todd Disotell? That doesn't make ANY sense at all to me that NO ONE else did any e-DNA testing of the soils in, around, or under those nests in those three years. Does it make any sense to you? 

 

I mean here we have this find that is so unusual and no scientist in the entire world, much less in the U.S., EVER did a e-DNA test at the site? This 'new' technology that is so wonderful it can pick out the DNA of an earthworm long dead? And yet Dr. Disotell is the first one to do this nest testing? And had to have a crowd funding campaign to even pull it off? THAT raised the first red flag for me.

 

I will say this once: It is unthinkable that in the last three years zero e-DNA tests had been conducted. And the nests don't have to be Sasquatch at all for me to think this way. It truly flies in the face of science to think nothing was ever done. There is something wrong with this picture. Think about it.

Edited November 19, 2018 by hiflier

[BigTreeWalker]

I'm thinking some of your premises might be misleading. For one thing it isn't a large timber company. To the best if my knowledge it's a small operation. Not a Weyerhaeuser or another large operation. So probably no scientists on the payroll. DNR might know about them but there again to the best of my knowledge they have not visited the site. I believe Dr Meldrum is the only accredited scientist that has been to the site. I think David Ellis's daughter is in the scientific field as well and the only other one having been to the site. 

Some time has elapsed from original discovery but only a limited number of people have actually been there. Dr Meldrum did the crowd funding and the sampling. 

So possibly no governmental entity has been in the area. I'll wait for for Dr Disotell's results before jumping to conclusions. 

[JKH]

Nests are not unusual or novel to BF searchers, such has been discussed here in the past. Also, see similar on the bfro site. The forestry employee only pointed it out to others to do what they would. No official investigation has been or would be public, IMO. 

[BigTreeWalker]

I don't think the person that found it was a government employee, but that can be verified. He was a timber cruiser checking the market value of the timber for the private land owner. 

[hiflier]

Correct. The DNR people didn't go in until later. I read that from somewhere and have been looking for it for a while now but all roads on the web lead to the same places. I will keep trying.