Destination Truth Yeti Hair Sample

[southernyahoo]

By my estimation, the number of samples from Paulides, the Olympic Project, Erickson project, plus various independent sources ccould easily be in the dozens that have been screened and sequenced. Yes. Dr. Ketchums work has not been under the radar for some time now. I think Todd Disotell has recieved and tested that many as well.

[norseman]

By my estimation, the number of samples from Paulides, the Olympic Project, Erickson project, plus various independent sources ccould easily be in the dozens that have been screened and sequenced. Yes. Dr. Ketchums work has not been under the radar for some time now. I think Todd Disotell has recieved and tested that many as well.

Excuse my ignorance bro, but these dozen tests have came back as an "unknown primate"?

I have no doubt that hundreds of samples are tested each year, but I thought all of the samples had came back human or bear, whatever.

[southernyahoo]

We'll have to wait and see whats in the paper for an exact number, but as you should know, She has said the samples have convinced her that these primates exist. . I doubt Dr. Ketchum would even try and publish without enough to establish a breeding population of " Unknown Primates" . Two dozen samples would seem bare minimum.

A test coming back as human can be misleading. Do you think labs currently test to see if they are actually looking at Neanderthal DNA? I doubt they go that far into it, the unknown is not expected and when anomalies turn up they are dismissed, it is very easy to do on a one by one basis.

[Guest]

We don't know how well the one Yeti sample might compare to the dozens of samples from the US, it might even be included in Ketchums paper.

Is that the sample from Monster Quest? That was from a Yeti, correct? The hair was white IIRC?

Thanks...

[indiefoot]

The hair from Bhutan was from an episode of Destination Truth.

[Guest]

The hair from Bhutan was from an episode of Destination Truth.

:blush:

Thank you for helping me keep the monster show names and programs correct.

:blush:

Edited May 14, 2011 by SweetSusiq

[Guest ZeTomes]

Shows how little you understand about modern science. Whenever possible a statistical approach to the null hypothesis is required, and meaning discussion of alternative explanations is required.

ps: meaningful discussions do not include conspiracy theories.

First, let's get this straight:

There's this thing called epistemological rupture often attributed to several areas as common phenomenas: science, humanism, politics, i.e. every human science (the term science is applied to every complex of certain validated knowledge of certain areas) has its epistemological ruptures. So what is epistemology?

Basically it's human knowledge and its construction processes. It's the historical dynamics of human knowledge variants and the sutdy of its mutations. Epistemological rupture means that certain previously considered factual knowledge stoped to be by the occurance of new phenomenas that invalidate that proposition;

knowledge is not gnostic, i.e., it's not eternally right or dogmatic or complemented by itself: knowledge exists in a constant mechanism of re-validation by newer facts of problematic presentation, i.e., newer complexes of conected hypothesis updated to new information scrutinized in the light of rationalism to justify validation, i.e., logic, method, experimentation.

These ruptures occur in every field of human areas you can possible imagine, and simply put they were the revolutionized impulsion of our modern sciences. Agnosticism is a modern term to describe a method mostly compared to scientific, of previous doubt, a method of scrutinization of false hypothesis and "alley trap" validation, which means, you will experiment every hypothesis available and re-experiment that gamma till they'll be proven either false or true individually and together. Skepticism is the Agnostic aproach to self stated dogmatic assertions.

Science is all of this with a method simply put, a very and exhaustive rigid one. You ask, is Science totally right? No, if it was would become a paradox of itself as epistemological variants are part of its nature. So, science could be wrong in specific terms? yes, indeed, but to prove that or to state that argument you simply have to follow the same rigid, exhaustive, methodical and documented processes, otherwize it's just conjectures or speculations.

I am not going to explain why you have to standard the same parameters of exigence - you just have to look at your personal bubble world (car, television, society, communications, internet, medicine, culture, education, etc. etc) and reflect: And if there was no Science? Would I be able to not depend on what Science gives me? I don't think so, it's part of our evolution and it's one of the best human expression of united areas, human potencial and future. Will we survive in the future without Science? I have to dogmatically say no, it is not possible doing so.

I finish the science chapter just with Descartes with a subtle question. Descartes was a believer (God) and he had a flaw in his method - he equalized the existence of God and its existence on human's mind (previous authors already state this argument) by contemplating nature - If one can have this "notion" or projection on his mind of God, determining something immeasurably higher exists either manifested intrinsically or extrinsically that's because God exists and is part of you. Simply put, your mind is mixed with the exterior, and intellect is divine because you're part of nature, the flaw comes when you confuse intellect with divine and by implication - certainty.

Less philosophical more directed to this post:

What empirism, objectiveness, experimentation says is that you are diferent from the object, and even if you are positively certain about something by belief, you have to underlay that the phenomena you are convinced exists, have to be proven to exist in the realm of reality, i.e, in the realm of YOUR exterior, NOT, exclusively on your mind or your opinion. To prove that you have to gather a net of relevant hypothesis, constructed by the same standards of scienec, which either prove it right or keep it's possible validation open. Otherwise that phenomena would exist only in the realm of speculation.

Gorilas (wild hairy people), Orangutans (man of the woods), Bili Apes (lion killers), Colossal Squids (krakens), Coelacanths (pre-historic fossil), Amazon river Dolphins (encantando), etc, were all, epistemological ruptures in science standards as they were too considered myths. But as one can notice, now, they're part of the validated biological taxonomy. So, science had to admit their real existence because there was validation of hypothesis - proof, or fact. Which is completely scrutinized and nowadays totally accepted. But they had to be exhaustively documented - it's part of the process! Science, is itself a dynamic process of validating knowledge.

And now, hoaxes, money and blind belief:

For certain you have to consider that 90 % of the so acclaimed proofs are part of an economical hoaxing machinery - books, marketing, promotion, media, status, etc, etc - and therefore they are part of variants of the problem of analysing the validation of unknown primate species thesis. You can't turn your face on that and simply BELIEVE... Specially, because hoaxing is not that modern, IS part of History and does not have bounds in terms of people's credibility (lArthur Conan Doyle's hominid species, France's Griffiths fairies, Colonel Robert Wilson's loch Ness photo, etc, etc).

So, you HAVE to be SKEPTICAL, and you have to SCRUTINISE, because humans are falible in their judgements, because they have emotions and they're often magnetized by their emotions, these of course apllied in terms of SCIENTIFIC VALIDaTION, not in an human character live attempt! And Skepticism is not equal to an enemy oposing the ones that defend the "unknow primate existence". I am one of those and I am a SKEPTIC.

Of course I am irritated observing the fervourish people attacks or retaliations as if I was one of THOSE Skeptics menacing their worlds... No, I am showing that if things are not presented in scientific terms they would never leave the real of incredibility, and I too, would like to see proved the validation of that theory. I would sincerly. Of course I got irritated since the word skepticism is atributed with negativity and I can see it all around foruns, sites, opinions, documentaries... and the first post I've read was not about the sources and validation of the samples but about... skepticism...

My question was mentioned to understand the scrutinity about the supposed unknown analysed DNA samples. I couldn't find any on the net, neither Bigfoot dedicated sites mentioning it, either being an hoaxe or false information, or WHAT?! Okay, let's dissecate that was what I thought, dissection about this subject, which either way or another seemed very important to me (hoax or relevant hypothesis), becoming the reasons for entering this forum.

So, please be objective and give me information about that, of course if you are disposed to, but don't make this a personal battle or something like that, that's the least i want and sincerely it would be the reason for not considering this forum with satisfactory standards of quality debates and the reason certainly for not coming back.

thank you

Edited May 17, 2011 by ZeTomes

[southernyahoo]

First and fundamentally, Objectiveness:

I presume Bigfoot research (scientifically) groups are the first interested in putting forward the next questions:

1 - How credible is "The Buthan Yeti" documentary?

I have no reason to doubt that Josh Gates did go to Bhutan and collected hair from the wilderness areas there.

2 - In which laboratory did the hair sample analysis took place?

Dr. Melba S. Ketchum @ DNA Diagnostics Inc. Timpson, Texas

3 - What's the name of the analist, and what's her degree of skills, master or title?

http://www.dnadiagnostics.com/staff.html

4 - where is the documentation corroborating that the analysis and the sample did in fact exist?

The collection of the hairs were video taped by the crew of the show Destination truth. Google search "destination truth Bhutan Yeti " to find an online version of the show to watch. It is the first visit/search for the yeti, not the second.

5 - Where is the documentation reporting the analysis?

There is only video documentation, the results were preliminary and inconclusive at present, meaning Homo sapiens is not ruled out.

6 - did any bigfoot associated group acquired answers for these questions?

They are available here and from Dr. Ketchum personally.

7 - where are they exposed?

There is nothing to expose.

8 - where are they exposed even being a hoax (to notify being hoaxes for ending this controversial matters)?

No hoax from what I can tell.

and finally, eihter this being a hoax or a very important issue considering the analysis were correctly made by a professional, and by so:

Did Bigfoot associators took importance on those matters? Either one or another, they should, they must.

Personally I cannot find anything answering me either this is a hoax or a documented proof. If you find anything please report me.

We have evaluated what we can at this point with what information is available, When her science paper is published, hopefully you will learn more about it.

[Guest ZeTomes]

@southernyahoo

Thank you very much for the detailed information! This was what I was looking for in the 1st place.

I'm forward to see the science paper documentation, which in my opinion, is the most important thing to acquire.

Even if the report demonstrates inconclusive results, it will become part of a database of documented cases, passive of being acessible in the present or more properly analysed or corroborated with more data in the future (specially being acessible online from its original source) and it will clearly demonstrate a scientific and paradigmatic aproach most relevant to scientific opinion and unknown primate thesis validation.

This is what I am looking for, validated pragmatic evidence*. (Can you give me links to these kind of documentation to previous or other cases?)

Again, thank you for the quick response and elucidation.

I'll keep in touch

Cheers

PS* - im refering to "alley traped" hypothesis resulting in a valid interrogation of "might be".

Edited May 17, 2011 by ZeTomes

[Guest ajciani]

Excuse my ignorance bro, but these dozen tests have came back as an "unknown primate"?

I have no doubt that hundreds of samples are tested each year, but I thought all of the samples had came back human or bear, whatever.

If you would care to look at the NABS site, Paulides provides the impetus for the Ketchum study, which contains the answer to your question.

Basically, all of those tests divide into 5 groups:

1) Human

2) Unknown primate

3) Identified, not human.

4) Unknown

5) DNA unrecoverable

The problem is that most of these tests are marker based, rather than sequence based. That is, they replicate the mtDNA into a large sample, chop it up at certain loci, and then test the fragments against things (tagged bits of single-stranded DNA) that will bind to known patterns. Doing this, they can usually determine genus, and then species. This is time consuming, but easy if you have an idea as to what the sample might be, so a hair from N.A. gets tested against the animal genera that could have produced it. Sometimes, they get DNA, but don't get any matches to the set of animals they tested it against (so unknown). Sometimes they manage to test it into Simiiforms or Hominoidea (so unknown ape or primate).

Other tests use different sets of restriction enzymes to cleave certain portions of the mtDNA into different sized pieces, creating a pattern which is unique to each species. This is also a time consuming test, but the resulting pattern can be compared to a great many species and genera at once. The end result for a bigfoot sample would be 'no match', possibly an ape of some type, or maybe human.

Ketchum got interested in the fact that samples would come back as 'unknown primate', and that samples people were 100% certain came from a bigfoot, could come back as human. So it was time for the next level of testing: sequencing. Sequencing of multiple samples, and then comparison of the sequences to known animals will tell us exactly where bigfoots belong in the phylogenetic tree.

[norseman]

http://www.benthos.org/Education-and-Outreach/Taxonomic-experts/List-by-region.aspx

I don't seem to be finding a Ketchum, does anyone have a link?

(if it's already been posted I apologize)

[southernyahoo]

Check my previous post.

[southernyahoo]

PS* - im refering to "alley traped" hypothesis resulting in a valid interrogation of "might be".

Ze Tomes, can you explain this type of scientific process in greater detail? Thanks.

[Guest ZeTomes]

Ze Tomes, can you explain this type of scientific process in greater detail? Thanks.

This is a metaphor of mine and not a scientific slang term, meaning a scientific analysis report that excludes every possible normal explanation, leaving as only result a big interrogation; those refering to DNA analysis from several types of samples, or, even the result of such analysis being inconclusive, the report showing peculiar aspects which lagg from the typical inconclusive results;

"Alley trap hypothesis" in my concept illustrates a group of validated facts of such dna analysis reports, on which their potential resulting deducted hypothesis cannot differ from few logical assumptions. These few logical assumptions can be refered to the conection of the next directives:

1 - no match with inserted species database,

2 - atypical results compared to the list of usual ones,

3 - abnormal results compared and verified with exclusion of typical factors of mistake (human errors, deficiency samples's quality, contamination) and,

4 - repetition of analysis of the same samples matching in larger percentage the exact or most similar previous results, consolidating by so the "alley trap hypothesis".

To a scale of better importancy of such confirmed directives one can use the next logical reasoning:

importancy level 1: (1 v 2 v 3) = V (meaning 1,2,3 operate with each other with OR (v) operation - at least one of them has to be true)

importancy level 2: [(1 v 2 v 3) AND (4)] = V (meaning at least one of the three cases is true and its repetition is also true)

I'm also very interested in reading historical literature from several myths of several tribes, natives, regions, culture, etc, so that I can compare old myths already proved real with folklore or potential real myth not yet proved.

Any tip?

Thanks in advance

Edited May 19, 2011 by ZeTomes

[Guest ZeTomes]

"Alley trap hypothesis" in my concept illustrates a group of validated facts of such dna analysis reports, on which their potential resulting deducted hypothesis cannot differ from few logical assumptions. These few logical assumptions can be refered to the conection of the next directives:

1 - no match with inserted species database,

2 - atypical results compared to the list of usual ones,

3 - abnormal results compared and verified with exclusion of typical factors of mistake (human errors, deficiency samples's quality, contamination) and,

4 - repetition of analysis of the same samples matching in larger percentage the exact or most similar previous results, consolidating by so the "alley trap hypothesis".

To a scale of better importancy of such confirmed directives one can use the next logical reasoning:

importancy level 1: (1 v 2 v 3) = V (meaning 1,2,3 operate with each other with OR (v) operation - at least one of them has to be true)

importancy level 2: [(1 v 2 v 3) AND (4)] = V (meaning at least one of the three cases is true and its repetition is also true)

The support for these "alley traped hypothesis" is defined by the validation of scientific or scientifically corroborated documentation (journals, articles, publications, reports, etc)