Destination Truth Yeti Hair Sample

[Guest ZeTomes]

Well, it appears that you'll have to be considered irritated. Being skeptical is (by definition) non-belief.

No, it is not. There is no requirement for "skepticism" in the scientific method.

You're proselytising.

I just notice I misquote Parnassus instead of Hunster on my previous post, my mistake, my apologies.

Edited May 19, 2011 by ZeTomes

[southernyahoo]

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

I like that term "alley trap" and how it applies to a massive interrogation.

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;

I sure wish there was access to all reports on tested "suspect" BF samples, but this would assume any were even written. It seems there are too many easily accepted default explanations when tests turn up inconclusive or contradicting results, such as contaminated , mishandled or mislabled evidence. Published documentation on archeological excavations in the US might be more productive since the protocols used in that field demand thorough testing and documentation.

At the link below, The authors of this book on page 428, conclude that they most likely found human hair in an archelogical excavation of Pendejo Cave in Nevada. While the FBI lab determined they had found Black Bear hair by morphology ,the DNA lab said they extracted human DNA from it, and that it did not correspond to the four known Native American maternal lineages. This could very well be more than a lab and handling mishap, though more samples like that would need to turn up and be studied together.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2tQLRHdQxD4C&pg=PA427&dq=primate+hair+micrographs&hl=en&ei=aC6BTZnKPMLbgQeT6Y2gCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=primate%20hair%20micrographs&f=false

[Guest]

It amazes me also that more has not been done or news forthcoming about these hairs because if they were tested and they came back as a species never ever before documented and the locals say there are Yetis there, then i would think this is pretty good news.Because we do know that Snow Leopards exist, we know that Yaks are there,and maybe a sun bear or other bear type and it is been determined that it is none of these.Not much else up there at the top of the world right ?

This is one of the most common sense postings that I have read recently.

Why indeed has this specimen not been acknowledged as verifying the reality of the BF species?

Science has created entire new species on a bone *fragment*, but with BF, sadly, it will probably take a body for the world to acknowledge the BF species and that makes me sad to think that a BF may be killed/sacrificed to verify their species.

[Guest]

Does this not conflict with:

Josh travels to Texas to meet with a forensic analyst who confirms that the hairs are from an unknown sequence.

If Native American DNA is not cataloged in Texas? That's a pretty narrow catalog.

Well said, Norseman, well said indeed!

[Guest ZeTomes]

I like that term "alley trap" and how it applies to a massive interrogation.

I sure wish there was access to all reports on tested "suspect" BF samples, but this would assume any were even written. It seems there are too many easily accepted default explanations when tests turn up inconclusive or contradicting results, such as contaminated , mishandled or mislabled evidence. Published documentation on archeological excavations in the US might be more productive since the protocols used in that field demand thorough testing and documentation.

At the link below, The authors of this book on page 428, conclude that they most likely found human hair in an archelogical excavation of Pendejo Cave in Nevada. While the FBI lab determined they had found Black Bear hair by morphology ,the DNA lab said they extracted human DNA from it, and that it did not correspond to the four known Native American maternal lineages. This could very well be more than a lab and handling mishap, though more samples like that would need to turn up and be studied together.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2tQLRHdQxD4C&pg=PA427&dq=primate+hair+micrographs&hl=en&ei=aC6BTZnKPMLbgQeT6Y2gCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=primate%20hair%20micrographs&f=false

What I am searching is this kind of documentation (site) either recent or old.

So, you are telling me there is none documentation labeled as scientific in the annals of bigfoot history, in fact there aren't any annals in bigfoot studying?

Neither Daris Swindlel, Esteban Sarmiento, George Schaller, Grover Krantz, Ian Redmond, Jane Goodall, Jeffrey Meldrum, John Napier, amongst many published any scientifically aproved documentation refering to unknown primate samples analysis at all?

PS: I had trouble linking the names above with wikipedia (permission not authorized... something like this), any tip?

Thanks

Edited May 20, 2011 by ZeTomes

[southernyahoo]

Neither Daris Swindlel, Esteban Sarmiento, George Schaller, Grover Krantz, Ian Redmond, Jane Goodall, Jeffrey Meldrum, John Napier, amongst many published any scientifically aproved documentation refering to unknown primate samples analysis at all?

To my knowledge none of these have published a paper specifically about biological samples attributed to bigfoot. Dr. Henner Fahrenbach would have been the one to do that but didn't for reasons which I suspect had to do with results that were insufficient for proper phylogenetic placement.

[Guest]

I find this part somewhat puzzling:

Ketchum: The hair, visually, is not human.

Visually? Does she mean as viewed with the unaided eye? Why wouldn't she say microscopically?

RayG

Hm, No. She would assume that the public, especially her contemporaries, would realize that her results were garnered by visual *and* microscopic means..

At least, that is what the scientists that I know do, including my hubby.

Edited May 20, 2011 by SweetSusiq

[Guest ZeTomes]

To my knowledge none of these have published a paper specifically about biological samples attributed to bigfoot. Dr. Henner Fahrenbach would have been the one to do that but didn't for reasons which I suspect had to do with results that were insufficient for proper phylogenetic placement.

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)

[Guest parnassus]

Well said, Norseman, well said indeed!

Sorry, Norseman got it wrong. He was quoting the narrator's melodramatic script. Read the transcript of what Ketchum said. It matched human markers. She thought the hair looked too thick to be human. So she tried to match it against animals and found no match.

No one said the Gates sample was from a Native American.

Edited May 20, 2011 by parnassus

[norseman]

Sorry, Norseman got it wrong. He was quoting the narrator's melodramatic script. Read the transcript of what Ketchum said. It matched human markers.

Yup.......followed by the next sentence.

The hairs seems to score high on the Human panels. Dr. Ketchum concluded that the hairs recovered from Bhutan were from a primate. An unknown primate.

So what do you take issue with? Are you saying Ketchum is wrong? Or she is being misquoted?

She thought the hair looked too thick to be human. So she tried to match it against animals and found no match. No one said the Gates sample was from a Native American.

You wrote this:

http://www.bigfooten...tes-ketchum.htm

That will tell u what Ketchum said. U can read it. There are only three points that are informative:

1. The DNA shows human markers

2. It does not match any known "animal"

3. The hair strands look thick to Ketchum.

Not rocket science: it's human DNA and the hair is that of a human with thick hair i.e. an east Asian, who, by the way, has a number of DNA polymorphisms not found in the typical American DNA. East Asians and Native Americans have thick hair, and polymorphisms different from most Americans.

As best as I can tell, you have already solved the mystery without even seeing the hair. I just found it odd that a lab in Texas would have NO Native American DNA or hair samples in which to compare the Bhutan hair sample with. Because as you state, Native Americans and East Asians are closely related.

If the hair sample ends up being a mundane Bhutan human hair? Fine. But I don't think Ketchum or anyone else has stated thus yet.

[southernyahoo]

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)

Ze Tomes, You may find something of interest here:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/

[Guest parnassus]

Yup.......followed by the next sentence.

The hairs seems to score high on the Human panels. Dr. Ketchum concluded that the hairs recovered from Bhutan were from a primate. An unknown primate.

So what do you take issue with? Are you saying Ketchum is wrong? Or she is being misquoted?

You wrote this:

As best as I can tell, you have already solved the mystery without even seeing the hair. I just found it odd that a lab in Texas would have NO Native American DNA or hair samples in which to compare the Bhutan hair sample with. Because as you state, Native Americans and East Asians are closely related.

If the hair sample ends up being a mundane Bhutan human hair? Fine. But I don't think Ketchum or anyone else has stated thus yet.

The are no quotation marks so she is not being quoted at all. That is the narrator speaking and trying for dramatic effect. Same thing that happened with Snelgrove Lake narrator.

As I mentioned, I would suggest you write to Dr. Ketchum. I can't prove that my interpretation of her remarks is correct. If you do, ask her specifically whether there was anything in the DNA that did not appear to be human and if there was, did she compare it to people who live in Bhutan?

I have not had any luck getting a response from her, and Paulides advises sending correspondence to him, so I suspect she and Paulides are keeping a tight lid on everything.

Edited May 20, 2011 by parnassus

[norseman]

The are no quotation marks so she is not being quoted at all. That is the narrator speaking and trying for dramatic effect. Same thing that happened with Snelgrove Lake narrator.

As I mentioned, I would suggest you write to Dr. Ketchum. I can't prove that my interpretation of her remarks is correct. If you do, ask her specifically whether there was anything in the DNA that did not appear to be human and if there was, did she compare it to people who live in Bhutan?

I have not had any luck getting a response from her, and Paulides advises sending correspondence to him, so I suspect she and Paulides are keeping a tight lid on everything.

I'm fairly confident that IF the narrator was misrepresenting her findings? She would have already asked him to correct the mistake.

As it stands? I'm not wrong in my assertion that she feels it's some sort of unknown primate. You could be 100% correct that this finding is wrong, and could be over turned in the future. But that is yet to be seen.

[Guest RayG]

Hm, No. She would assume that the public, especially her contemporaries, would realize that her results were garnered by visual *and* microscopic means..

At least, that is what the scientists that I know do, including my hubby.

But I don't know if she had examined them both visually and microscopically when she made her statement, and I'm not comfortable with assuming she did. That's why it's a puzzling choice of words to me.

RayG

[Guest ajciani]

I'm fairly confident that IF the narrator was misrepresenting her findings? She would have already asked him to correct the mistake.

In the case of MonsterQuest and Curt Nelson's analysis of the Snell Grove samples, the MQ production team inserted their own script for the narrator to read, which completely misrepresented Nelson's findings.

There was absolutely nothing for Nelson to do. I suspect it would be that way for Ketchum as well. If she didn't say what the producer wanted her to, then they would have voiced it in with the narrator, probably.