DNA collection and analysis has been praised by Science and Law Enforcement since it's discovery.
Let's take a brief look at what DNA analysis can and can't do for the Bigfoot Hunter.
You're on an expedition in the woods and you find some unknown hair or stool (scat) sample(s). If this is something you feel you need to collect then you need to treat the area in exactly the same fashion as a crime scene, i.e. secure the area and control access into the scene. The manner of collecting the specimen is also important to minimize any cross contamination, a common problem to both the crime scene processor and the avid Bigfoot hunter. The use of gloves, slip-on surgical "footies" for shoes, sterile implements (tweezers, etc...) and a sealable collection container/bag must be used to minimize tainting the sample. You also need to document when, where, who and under what conditions the "sample" was found and collected. It is imperative to maintain a "chain of custody" (who collected and/or had access to the sample) from the time the sample is discovered and collected until it reaches it's final destination in a lab for processing.
So you see, that simply the discovery and collection of this potential "evidence" requires extreme care.
Now, let's assume that you have taken the proper steps in the collection of this sample, you've sent it off to a reputable lab for testing. What can you expect?
Law Enforcement generally use DNA analysis data for "EXCLUSIONARY" purposes in criminal cases. It has been shown to be arguably 99.9% accurate in the exclusion of a potential suspect(s) during these investigations.
In the world of Bigfoot, DNA's evidentiary value is significantly more mundane.
It will NOT tell you whether there is a large, bipel primate living in the woods in North America. It MAY exclude certain other known animals, but ONLY if there are existing samples to compare it with. The KEY is in the COMPARISON.
What would one compare a Bigfoot's DNA to?
My point being that instead of roaming the woods searching for samples which may yield some DNA, your time would be wiser spent looking for the elusive creature itself--in the physical sense. Science will correctly maintain that the creature's existence cannot be verified without a "body" and any legitimate BF Hunter will agree with this point of view.
In a nutshell, Stop sifting through manure and put your complete focus on finding what is required for "proof positive"!
Let's take a brief look at what DNA analysis can and can't do for the Bigfoot Hunter.
You're on an expedition in the woods and you find some unknown hair or stool (scat) sample(s). If this is something you feel you need to collect then you need to treat the area in exactly the same fashion as a crime scene, i.e. secure the area and control access into the scene. The manner of collecting the specimen is also important to minimize any cross contamination, a common problem to both the crime scene processor and the avid Bigfoot hunter. The use of gloves, slip-on surgical "footies" for shoes, sterile implements (tweezers, etc...) and a sealable collection container/bag must be used to minimize tainting the sample. You also need to document when, where, who and under what conditions the "sample" was found and collected. It is imperative to maintain a "chain of custody" (who collected and/or had access to the sample) from the time the sample is discovered and collected until it reaches it's final destination in a lab for processing.
So you see, that simply the discovery and collection of this potential "evidence" requires extreme care.
Now, let's assume that you have taken the proper steps in the collection of this sample, you've sent it off to a reputable lab for testing. What can you expect?
Law Enforcement generally use DNA analysis data for "EXCLUSIONARY" purposes in criminal cases. It has been shown to be arguably 99.9% accurate in the exclusion of a potential suspect(s) during these investigations.
In the world of Bigfoot, DNA's evidentiary value is significantly more mundane.
It will NOT tell you whether there is a large, bipel primate living in the woods in North America. It MAY exclude certain other known animals, but ONLY if there are existing samples to compare it with. The KEY is in the COMPARISON.
What would one compare a Bigfoot's DNA to?
My point being that instead of roaming the woods searching for samples which may yield some DNA, your time would be wiser spent looking for the elusive creature itself--in the physical sense. Science will correctly maintain that the creature's existence cannot be verified without a "body" and any legitimate BF Hunter will agree with this point of view.
In a nutshell, Stop sifting through manure and put your complete focus on finding what is required for "proof positive"!
No comments:
Post a Comment