i have a question for bigfoot/yeti skeptics

suppose they find a bigfoot/yeti footprint

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/02/08/2BE12A4300000578-0-image-a-26_1441179473996.jpg

they perform DNA testing on that footprint at a highly respected DNA lab say at Harvard or Stanford

they get a complete genome of a primate that is near-human but not human

it is somewhere between chimpanzees orangutan and human DNA

nuclear and mitochondrial dna

a group of DNA experts publish in journals
this survives scientific peer review

they find another bigfoot/yeti footprint, do DNA testing
the DNA is of the same species from the first sample,
different individual, primate but not human

would you start believing in bigfoot/yeti exists?
or not?

would DNA testing on bigfoot yeti footprints that show
non-human but primate DNA be evidence that proves bigfoot/yeti exists?

:eek:
:eek:
:eek:

would it even be possible to get a viable DNA sample off a footprint on the ground - assuming it has been there for even a reasonable amount of time exposed to the elements? maybe if there was a hair fiber in it?

what would they compare it to exactly? assuming that apes and other similar primates are not actually native to the main areas attributed to bigfoot sightings, what if they are comparing it to an unknown canine, feline, or ursine animal? would they actually able to tell what it is beyond just putting it into a category related to something we already know?

if this is something as-yet unknown, why are you assuming that it is a primate at all? (excluding that it isn't a hoaxer-primate, of course)

would it even be possible to get a viable DNA sample off a footprint on the ground - assuming it has been there for even a reasonable amount of time exposed to the elements? maybe if there was a hair fiber in it?

what would they compare it to exactly? assuming that apes and other similar primates are not actually native to the main areas attributed to bigfoot sightings, what if they are comparing it to an unknown canine, feline, or ursine animal? would they actually able to tell what it is beyond just putting it into a category related to something we already know?

if this is something as-yet unknown, why are you assuming that it is a primate at all? (excluding that it isn't a hoaxer-primate, of course)

i'm just saying, if they get DNA from that footprint, say touch DNA
and it is primate, bc the footprint could only come from a primate but too big to be a human

there is DNA soil forensics
:eek:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4zumib_the-yeti-wcw-debut-halloween-havoc-1995_sport

Wouldn't non human but primate DNA just prove it was a monkey or an ape?

How about a corpse instead...

Wouldn't non human but primate DNA just prove it was a monkey or an ape?

i'm not an expert LOL

but somewhere between chimpanzees and gorillas and neanderthals

a dna guy named Sykes did DNA on hair and poop samples, and matched them animals like bears and opossums.

How about a corpse instead...

for now, performing DNA testing on this

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/02/08/2BE12A4300000578-0-image-a-26_1441179473996.jpg


is the best science can do, if someone is willing to dig one up and pay the $

i heard dna testing costs a lot of money :eek: