Destination Truth Yeti Hair Sample

[Guest]

So, let's forget the analysis documentation for a while;

Any thesis though, abstracts, scientific articles, compendiums of testimonies of witnesses, by the same authors? (I'm excluding normal literature - author's books)

or applied to the past, journals of expeditions, chronics, diaries? (ex:1 / ex:2)

I pulled up the story pages that you posted, and after just scanning the first two pages I am looking forward to reading this first hand account of arriving and existing in a new environment.

How did you discover this document/book?

Thank you for revealing this (to me) unknown true adventure to read.

Edited May 24, 2011 by SweetSusiq

[Guest ZeTomes]

I pulled up the story pages that you posted, and after just scanning the first two pages I am looking forward to reading this first hand account of arriving and existing in a new environment.

How did you discover this document/book?

Thank you for revealing this (to me) unknown true adventure to read.

You are welcome Susiq! My pleasure!

I found this when I was searching for any substantial evidence of ancient ET thesis. As usual I'm very skeptical and before I decide to take an in deep look at something, I have to scrutinize the validation of its sources.

There are these cave rock art paintings by The Unambal Aborigine Tribe of North West Australia, with a spiritual aboriginal entity called Wandjina. The paintings are substantially different from the typical aboriginal australian rock art painting and have been shrouded by the controversy above. In aesthetic terms they do indeed resemble ETs, that it's difficult not to associate with (of course if being previously induced by) leading me t think they were obviously hoaxes. So I decided to test my opinion both validating the mere existence of the paintings, its study and finally validating this so astonishing cave portrait mysteriously drawn by someone in some book, used on many exploitation of ancient et theories pseudo-scientific studies.

It happens that Bradshaw Foundation had/s a fantastic work on australian rock art referring to wandjina paintings. And they do indeed have very odd aesthetics diverging from the typical aboriginal Australian paintings. (http://www.bradshawf...ambal/index.php). Although they are surrounded by polemics (especially in the 70s with the Erik Von Daniken ancient E.T. pseudo-scientific wave). Although not consensually dated, or the fact that great number of the paintings were accessed by recreations of Drs Katharina and Andreas Lommel (http://pt.scribd.com...imberley-Region), they do indeed exist.

Despite that was this infamous picture of some unknown book made by someone in the 1800s puzzling my mind.

I made an extensive search on the net and I found (I don't recall where) there was a correlation, between Sir George Grey (http://gutenberg.net...dict-biogG.html) and Wandjina. He was an australian governor and an explorer (there are some polemics around his qualifications for scientific methods and the success of his exploration, but despite that he made an incredible study of biological species and native culture). Anyway, he made several journals referring to his explorations in Australia in late 1800s including anthropological, taxonomical, biological complex descriptions. I searched the national online australian librarian and I found these Journals of two expeditions of discovery in North-West and Western Australia (http://catalogue.nla.../Record/3667024) later found for download at Gutenberg Project (http://gutenberg.net...s-journals.html) and ultimately at Google Books (http://books.google....AACAAJ&hl=pt-PT).

I was astonished when I found the infamous chapter referring to wandjina and the mysterious painting. Later I edited it from Gutenberg Book and post it at Scribd (http://pt.scribd.com...-09-George-Grey). I don't know if what George Grey's illustrated or himself were influeced by the extraterrestrial life theory waved at 19th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_HaB%27rit#19th_century) or by the cosmic plurality in the enlightment period also at 19th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_pluralism#Enlightenment) when redrawing what they were seeing, of it is simply a reproduction of the original. There is no mention at all in the Journals of some hypothethical extraterrestrial theory related to wandjina or the mysterious figure. It's puzzling even known one could be influenced by modern culture symbols.

All was real after all, I don't know if what they are allegedly representing is real, but the source is real. The Paintings, the George Grey's Journals. Wandjina were even present at Australian Sidney Olmpics openings! (http://www.mowanjuma...om/aboutus.html)

Wandjina are represented in paintings often repainted by generations as a sacred ritual, so it’s difficult to tell how an original wandjina painting looked like, myth, misinterpretations (there are so many - http://www.sprezzatu...te/Arte_UFO.htm), influencial cultures of another civilizations (implying navigation or previous contact with australias), (http://www.thefreeli...spx?id=20586733). It's a very far fetched theory the extraterrestril hypothesis, and I am very skeptical to it, but the existence of the journals and wandjina culture put me this question in a "alley traped hypothesis". Either one or the other a contact with a more advanced civilization most probably had occured. Which one.. well that I sincerely don't know.

PS: I have some problems when trying to link more than one word (the reason extended urls) receiving a message of forbiden access. Does it happens to you also?

Cheers

Edited May 24, 2011 by ZeTomes

[Guest ZeTomes]

You are welcome Susiq! My pleasure!

(http://books.google....AACAAJ&hl=pt-PT).

ops. wrong link. Hope this works (http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=C1vRAAAAMAAJ&num=14&hl=pt-PT&printsec=frontcover&output=reader)

[Guest BuzzardEater]

Why shoot one? If habituators exist, why can't they ask for a volunteer? If these creatures are intelligent, why wouldn't they select an ambassador?

Also, if this scenario is possible, then it always has been. Why, over the course of human endeavour has it not been undertaken? I would have thought Theodore Roosevelt would have relished it and got it done. No?

Edited May 25, 2011 by BuzzardEater

[Guest ZeTomes]

There is no risk.

You've got a killer imagination, I'll give you that. However, your hypothesis has some gaping holes.

Of course it has, otherwize it wouldn't be called hypothesis, but thank you very much for the compliment!

I have to disagree with you about the risk, it's a question of credibility, or predisposition.

Scientists usually are very reserved when stating something, because to take a conclusion, one needs exhaustive scrutinity. A valid scientist does not assume, he balances the probabilities and the facts sorrounding the study he's refering to when that study was exhaustively made.

The association with a mediatic program (not at all neutral or scientific) conducting a very sensitive subject (because it's speculative) as yeti, and stating such a clear assumption or statements strongly based on visual perception and emotional basis, with the result of one analysis on a sci-fi program context, demands if one is a valid scientist, proof and participation to scientific community. It's a new species we are talking about. Too much time have passed since the airing of the program. Either she already had presented a science paper about the results, if true, or she shouldn't as a scientist made such impulsive statments in the probable chance of being wrong if false.

[Guest ZeTomes]

Sorry about my ineptitude with the quotes by other posters. I mostly just lurk and read everyone else's posts since I am relatively new here. I had an encounter recently and have been interested in BF since then. I did want to say that as far as Dr. Ketchum, she did a forensic case for my boss awhile back. She is the real deal and I was very impressed by her. She has to be real to testify in court as an expert in the field of forensic science (that specializes in DNA). Your credentials have to be established before expert testimony is allowed. You can find fault and negative feedback about almost everyone these days on the Internet if they are in the public at all. I don't know about the Yeti thing, but who knows what she found and what the director might have cut and rearranged about her interview. This happens all the time, like when a prosecutor is interviewed about a case. The media has its ways. I think it is wrong to be so negative when she might be the only hope we have of finding out what BF really is. What I am wondering is when the big announcement is going to come with her results as I am very anxious to find that out. I think it is supposed to be soon but if anyone knows, I wish they would post it.

I hope you are right, but wouldn't bet on that

[southernyahoo]

Of course it has, otherwize it wouldn't be called hypothesis, but thank you very much for the compliment!

I have to disagree with you about the risk, it's a question of credibility, or predisposition.

Scientists usually are very reserved when stating something, because to take a conclusion, one needs exhaustive scrutinity. A valid scientist does not assume, he balances the probabilities and the facts sorrounding the study he's refering to when that study was exhaustively made.

The association with a mediatic program (not at all neutral or scientific) conducting a very sensitive subject (because it's speculative) as yeti, and stating such a clear assumption or statements strongly based on visual perception and emotional basis, with the result of one analysis on a sci-fi program context, demands if one is a valid scientist, proof and participation to scientific community. It's a new species we are talking about. Too much time have passed since the airing of the program. Either she already had presented a science paper about the results, if true, or she shouldn't as a scientist made such impulsive statments in the probable chance of being wrong if false.

Do you feel that the DNA from a single hair sample is sufficient to describe a new species? What was her actual statements?

[Guest ZeTomes]

Do you feel that the DNA from a single hair sample is sufficient to describe a new species? What was her actual statements?

I wasn't having these conversations about scientific methods if I was an apologist of a single hair sample being enough to describe a new species: when I say "It's a new species we are talking about" I'm refering metaphorically to the subject we are talking about, the imminence of the whereabouts of the sample - It's yeti right? If it was of an Yak what interest would it have for the program? She does not say it comes from an Yeti. She suggests it in accordance with the content of the program. Trick of words plus emotional apealing, simple as that.

Edited May 26, 2011 by ZeTomes

[Guest parnassus]

I am, and I can tell you Optigen won't beat Ketchum to patenting a Sasquatch test.

Have you asked her about whether she has submitted a paper?

[Guest Blackdog]

Good question. Did she actually submit a paper?

Actual fact please, with citations.

[southernyahoo]

I wasn't having these conversations about scientific methods if I was an apologist of a single hair sample being enough to describe a new species: when I say "It's a new species we are talking about" I'm refering metaphorically to the subject we are talking about, the imminence of the whereabouts of the sample

I see, so you have no critisisms of method, or of the premise of testing the sample.

- It's yeti right?

I don't know, but the test indicated a primate right?

If it was of an Yak what interest would it have for the program?

Josh Gates collects what he finds. Alot of times it is of a known animal, they tell it just like it is. This yeti show was the first they'd had where the evidence was suggestive in the affirmative of what they were looking for, atleast where a cryptid was the subject of interest.

She does not say it comes from an Yeti. She suggests it in accordance with the content of the program. Trick of words plus emotional apealing, simple as that.

The sample was from a primate, thats all that was said.

[southernyahoo]

Have you asked her about whether she has submitted a paper?

I thought you had a little birdie for that information.

[Guest ZeTomes]

I see, so you have no critisisms of method, or of the premise of testing the sample.

I see you are using a fallacy to quote things I've never defended, but let me rephrase: untill a science paper is born concerning the analysis of that sample made by Dr. Metchum, for me, It's only speculation and nothing more. Now insuflate that percentage of speculation with the program's surmise and BIAS percentage.

I don't know, but the test indicated a primate right?

depending on the paper that never came out, I suppose you could say anything could be indicated.

Josh Gates collects what he finds. Alot of times it is of a known animal, they tell it just like it is. This yeti show was the first they'd had where the evidence was suggestive in the affirmative of what they were looking for, atleast where a cryptid was the subject of interest.

I would like to see any validated report concerning the analysis of the samples of previous unknown creatures collected by Josh Gates. So you agree with me there's a suggestion, in terms of inductive reasoning one can say that the same suggestion is inclined to be of a yeti (since the program itself... i'll be praised.. is concerned to... the yeti) and the geographical area, believe me or not I don't care, is presumed to be at its sorroundings, an habitat zone of a... yes, you're right.. an Yeti!

The sample was from a primate, thats all that was said.

that's all what was said, and that's all that is going to be said, the rest is a soap opera and rethoric, wanna bet a bean?

Edited May 26, 2011 by ZeTomes

[southernyahoo]

I would like to see any validated report concerning the analysis of the samples of previous unknown creatures collected by Josh Gates.

The show uses various experts in different fields to help evaluate evidence. It is usually easily identified by these people, where bones and clear photographs are available. Ketchum identified one sample from New Jersey as being human or contaminated by humans concerning the Jersy Devil. Skepticism is usually quite content to not see a published report where the conclusions are negative, (people breathe easier). I think if we are to see a report on this yeti sample, it will be lumped in with the bigfoot report.

[Guest ZeTomes]

The show uses various experts in different fields to help evaluate evidence. It is usually easily identified by these people, where bones and clear photographs are available. Ketchum identified one sample from New Jersey as being human or contaminated by humans concerning the Jersy Devil. Skepticism is usually quite content to not see a published report where the conclusions are negative, (people breathe easier). I think if we are to see a report on this yeti sample, it will be lumped in with the bigfoot report.

My friend science cannot afford to be afraid of making a mistake (the scientific annals show that - once radioactive water was considered medicine and it was publicized in Reader's Digest for instance, or morfine, coke...) nor can criptozoology community if it wants ever to be taken seriously, know why? because if not, there's always this gap which could be filled by self-preached men or salesmen with empty hungry pockets, and it only feads the typical binary contrast of extremes, showing that one is not passive of being neutral in accordance to scrutiniy. But nevertheless, it's an oxymoron what you are saying - since there is nove available, never will be because ever will be subject of contentment by skepticism. This is false, and science HAVE to admit when there's real hypothesis presented. This I already posted here by several astonishing examples which created shakes in scientific epistemology.

You interpreted me wrongly, I was asking if there were previously any analysed samples with "abnormal" resultados, not known, not human, not typical

Edited May 27, 2011 by ZeTomes