John Green's conclusion:, Go ahead and shoot one. Options

[Apeman]

A body is needed, regardless if it is shot dead by a hunter, run over and knocked into a coma by drunks in a pickup....

Welcome to forum Fox but I think you're missing the point here. Of course some sort of physical material will ultimately be required to convince the world at large, no one is questioning that or at least I'm not. The debate here, at least the one I'm enaged in, is about the statement that going out and shooting one is the ONLYmeans to that end and/or that doing so is somehow imperative for their survival and therefore justified.

edited for completeness....

This post has been edited by Apeman: Aug 26 2007, 07:09 PM

[GuyInIndiana]

I'm completely mystified how this "thread concept" keeps coming up time and again.

"We NEED a body..." Really? To protect them? This old tired arguement?

Since when did they NEED, OUR protection?

*that wasn't a rhetorical question... I REALLY NEEEEEEED to know why they do, and "why" we need the government to acknowledge they exist and 'do something' about it*

[BobZenor]

A body is needed, regardless if it is shot dead by a hunter, run over and knocked into a coma by drunks in a pickup, struck by lightning, tricked into stepping into a giant rat trap or has just succumbed to a garlic overdose on the backsteps of a mobile home. I don't care what side of the fence you are on as far as hunting or animal rights in general, suggesting that anything other than a actual specimen will ultimately prove that these creatures exists just aint reasonable thinking and I wouldn't even attempt to argue such a point with an individual using logic or common sense. It's a moot point and a waste of time to change someone's mind when we can clearly see where the six decades of previous research and discussion has brought us thus far, to about the same place it started out.

The best tools for this quest is either a rifle or a buzzard, which maybe some of the "no kill" folks could just follow around in the woods until he eventually led them to a BF that has peacefully passed away in his sleep.

<emphasis mine>Proof is an ambiguous or relative term. In order to get absolute proof you might need a body. I would say that a video or a reliable witness with a hair that happened to have a root attached would be proof enough for most scientists to come to the conclusion that they must actually exist.

This is also answering Hunster's question. There are several types of tests that are not particularly conclusive in establishing an unknown animal like tests for the presence of certain blood proteins or some similar sort of test. I don't know what tests have been run on all the samples or how long each test has been the test of choice to determine an unknown species.

Now, they have a test that would very likely show how closely it is related to other animals. I mentioned it earlier, it is sequencing the d-loop or hypervariable region of the mitochondria. If you did that test, it would be reasonable to assume that a good sample would indicate an animal that could not be a primate that is known to exist and it would tell you approximately how closely related it was to existing animals. If they had such a sample, they could then do the more extensive analysis on the rest of the nuclear DNA to confirm that it was not human or some other animal. That sort of analysis would be very compelling evidence that would be virtually impossible to fake. As of yet, we haven't had that mitochondrial test confirm anything except an another known animal that I am aware of. I cannot imagine that those results, if from a sasquatch, would be confused with a modern human. It would be highly unlikely, in my opinion, that it would be so close to a modern human that it would be called a modern human by that test unless it was run on a very short segment of DNA. A body is probably the only way to prove it to everybody but I would think the vast majority would be highly influenced by a properly done DNA analysis.

This post has been edited by BobZenor: Aug 26 2007, 09:11 PM

[FoxJr]

I'm completely mystified how this "thread concept" keeps coming up time and again.

"We NEED a body..." Really? To protect them? This old tired arguement?

Since when did they NEED, OUR protection?

*that wasn't a rhetorical question... I REALLY NEEEEEEED to know why they do, and "why" we need the government to acknowledge they exist and 'do something' about it*

Who knows what they need to survive or what kind of shape the population is really in? Who can say some recently introduced disease (such as the bird flu edidemic) or some new technological developement in agriculture or forestry management (genetic engineering and/or pine beetle pesticide use both come to mind) is not currently effecting the BF negatively. Who would swear that man's encroachment into their environment in the last few years hasn't inadvertantly introduced a virus or parasite for which the BF have no resistance to? There is alot more questions than answers, and common folks sitting around debating about whether or not they should shoot one or if they have pets to play with aint helping to answer many of them. Nor is it conducive to enticing a serious, well funded, organized scientific effort to finally prove this creature' existence.

What is the point of all these forums and BF websights? Why have some people dedicated their lives and fortunes, often in spite of ridicule and great personal risks, in the pursuit of this creature? Was it to just get a peek at one and go on back home and try to rebuild their lives? I just can't comprehend anyone who tries to reason that the BF are just fine and dandy and need to be left alone, except by a few elite members of the BF community who claim to have some type of regular relationship or intimate knowledge that is just too important to share with the rest of the world.

[RayG]

My experience with skeptics over this report tend to go like this:

"Who's Bryan Sykes?"

"I can't seem to get ahold of Mr. Sykes to personally confirm this."

"The evidence is obviously lacking."

"The DNA sample must have been contaminated."

"It was probably the DNA of a local monkey."

"Even if it's an unknown animal, who says it's a yeti?"

Please, let's be frank about this:

When dealing with minds like the ones that reply such, nothing but a complete, bleeding, stinking carcass will do.

My own skeptical reply to you on this Dr. Sykes/DNA topic was: "Though the hair might possibly be from a Yeti/Bigfoot, it might also be from a newly discovered primate that is NOT a Yeti/Bigfoot."

Since a newly discovered primate was discovered [very close to the same area as the mystery hairs], after Dr. Sykes made his pronouncement, it's entirely possible the hair may be from that critter and not Yeti/Bigfoot. I'm not aware of any further testing to confirm or deny that possibility, nor am I aware of any further Yeti/Bigfoot hair discoveries in the Bhutan. This doesn't deter some from equating Dr. Sykes inability to identify the hair with unquestioned acceptance that it came from a Yeti/Bigfoot.

I also provided this link which mentions at least five recent primate discoveries, though only one of those was located in near the area of the purported Yeti hair.

RayG

[Huntster]

(Huntster @ Aug 26 2007, 04:55 PM)
Let's be frank about this:

We have to kill one in order to get our wildlife management authorities to act.

I totally disagree.

It might be the likeliest, easiest, and quickest way but it is not a must. One could be hit by car, found dead, bones recovered, foot found in a bear trap, etc., etc., ...

Whoops! I have to agree with that.

.....or something like the wildly unlikely field anesthesia procedure we talked about years ago could happen or be orchestrated therein saving at least one life,....or, as was the case with the Tanzanian kipungi monkey, a good enough video or series of photographs could get the ball rolling and start an initial scientific investigation, which might lead to a body/bones being found....

I find that highly doubtful.

....Likewise with a good DNA sample in the proper hands....

Only if the "DNA" is a body part (head, hand, foot, etc) that is undeniably not another known ape or human.

....We do not "have to kill one....

I'll concede that a person doesn't have to actually kill it intentionally. If it's just found dead or killed by accident (train, motor vehicle, etc), that will work.

....And as I said earlier, "hoping that the proper authorities and scholars then devote time and resources to learn their populations numbers, range, densities, reproduction, habitat needs, etc so we can determine the species health and needs" is pretty easy to say, but when a fair amount of people trying for 40 years, with lots of toys, and a potential financial windfall at stake can't even snap a decent photograph, I still contend there isn't much in the magical scientific black box that is going make learning these things much easier than it is now....

I agree. That just makes the need for funding that much more apparent.

....At least not quickly enough to save them if they are indeed in any sort of risk of extinction....

Maybe, maybe not.......

[Huntster]

(Huntster @ Aug 26 2007, 05:09 PM)
Please, let's be frank about this:

When dealing with minds like the ones that reply such, nothing but a complete, bleeding, stinking carcass will do.

Except for the completeness, I'm sure you're 100% right. Fortunately for us all though, there a lot of other flavors of scientists who will bite with A LOT less....

That is already known. The problem is that those scientists don't appear to have access to adequate resources to prove anything with regard to this pheneomenon.

...Since these folks likely won't be the ones to go out and do the field work if/when the discovery happens by whatever means, they really aren't the ones that need to be convinced of anything, so we shouldn't worry. Maybe some will control some of the funding, but some won't, and a few (more) properly motivated scientists will find the necessary funding and could be enough to tip the balance and find the elusive definitive proof. We shouldn't get our panties in a bunch and resort to the frustration of needing to kill something to prove it exists because of a the expressed viewpoints of some outspoken skeptics.....

You may be right. I just don't think so. I think this phenomenon should have been funded much better than it has been, and I don't see anything short of shocking that will gain such funding.

It appears to be Catch-22.

...As for Sykes, it's hard to make much of some popular magazine quotes. I've made multiple attempts to contact him (or anyone in his lab) as a fellow scientific academic, but to no avail. I think that if he really had something scientifically meritous he would have figured out a way to publish it or would at least be willing to talk about it to someone like me privately. I gather he either has little faith in his result, which is totally understandable in a case like this, or perhaps spoke too early, also understandable, or maybe he's working hard to get more samples and verify it? And from the quote it could be an unidentified caterpillar, he should have at least been able to categorize the sample to some taxonomic level.....

All valid questions. But that is the crux of my position and (I believe) Green's frustration:

Physical evidence like this (hair that even has DNA evidence attached) that isn't clearly that of an undescribed ape (hand, head, foot, accompanying photo/film, multiple witnesses, etc) just isn't going to cut the muster.

And with all the layers of evidence required to establish discovery, especially with the current myth/joke/popular culture/etc aspect of sasquatchery, it's simply easier to hunt one with a rifle than with a photographic team/DNA lab/multiple witnesses/proper casting media combined with perfect print/etc.

I wish it weren't so, but I'm afraid that's just the way it is.

.....But we shouldn't expect much scientific reaction to a quote like this no matter how esteemed the speaker is. The fact that he even analyzed it in this light (which makes the number at least 5 labs that I know of which have analyzed purported bigfoot or yeti samples) speaks to the open-mindedness of many scientists and their willingness to use scientific methods to consider this mystery.....

I agree. The man/lab analyzed it. They stated what they found.

It establishes nothing, but despite the investigation, it also isn't explained.

....Doesn't that in and of itself give a little weight to my contention that not all scientists demand a body- at least to start with?...

Yup. It's just that it's becoming clear that overwhelming evidence is necessary to break appropriate funding loose.

[Huntster]

....There are several types of tests that are not particularly conclusive in establishing an unknown animal like tests for the presence of certain blood proteins or some similar sort of test. I don't know what tests have been run on all the samples or how long each test has been the test of choice to determine an unknown species...

I always assume that DNA can be established from a sample, then relatively easily compared with known species of the area. If no match occurs, we end up with the "unidentified" ruling (which is, as we've seen, useless).

If this isn't true, that illustrates all the more that DNA analysis without a significant body part that itself rules out most other possibilities is nearly useless unless accompanied by layers of other evidence.

.....Now, they have a test that would very likely show how closely it is related to other animals. I mentioned it earlier, it is sequencing the d-loop or hypervariable region of the mitochondria. If you did that test, it would be reasonable to assume that a good sample would indicate an animal that could not be a primate that is known to exist and it would tell you approximately how closely related it was to existing animals. If they had such a sample, they could then do the more extensive analysis on the rest of the nuclear DNA to confirm that it was not human or some other animal. That sort of analysis would be very compelling evidence that would be virtually impossible to fake. As of yet, we haven't had that mitochondrial test confirm anything except an another known animal that I am aware of....

Do you know if such a test has been conducted on suspected sasquatch DNA?

Is it a prohibitively expensive test?

(Huntster @ Aug 26 2007, 08:09 PM)
My experience with skeptics over this report tend to go like this:

"Who's Bryan Sykes?"

"I can't seem to get ahold of Mr. Sykes to personally confirm this."

"The evidence is obviously lacking."

"The DNA sample must have been contaminated."

"It was probably the DNA of a local monkey."

"Even if it's an unknown animal, who says it's a yeti?"

Please, let's be frank about this:

When dealing with minds like the ones that reply such, nothing but a complete, bleeding, stinking carcass will do....

My own skeptical reply to you on this Dr. Sykes/DNA topic was: "Though the hair might possibly be from a Yeti/Bigfoot, it might also be from a newly discovered primate that is NOT a Yeti/Bigfoot."...

And I agree that you are correct. That is why "nothing but a complete, bleeding, stinking carcass will do."

[Lyndon]

My experience with skeptics over this report tend to go like this:

"Who's Bryan Sykes?"

"I can't seem to get ahold of Mr. Sykes to personally confirm this."

"The evidence is obviously lacking."

"The DNA sample must have been contaminated."

"It was probably the DNA of a local monkey."

"Even if it's an unknown animal, who says it's a yeti?"
Please, let's be frank about this:

When dealing with minds like the ones that reply such, nothing but a complete, bleeding, stinking carcass will do.

Spot on Hunster. You are absolutely right. I can also add that Dr Frank Poirier, who agrees with the analysis done on supposed Yeren hairs at Shanghai's Fudan University that they were "unknown higher primate" but not monkey, ape or human was called a 'yahoo' here and the university was accused of not knowing what they were doing. I had to leave the forum for a few weeks in order to calm down. LOL.

As for Sykes, it's hard to make much of some popular magazine quotes.

Wasn't a magazine quote Apeman. He was filmed saying it. That's where the quote came from. The whole expedition was part of a Channel Four documentary and Sykes was filmed at the end.

Just pointing out your assumption is wrong about it being a 'magazine' quote.

This post has been edited by Lyndon: Aug 27 2007, 01:30 AM

[BobZenor]

.....Now, they have a test that would very likely show how closely it is related to other animals. I mentioned it earlier, it is sequencing the d-loop or hypervariable region of the mitochondria. If you did that test, it would be reasonable to assume that a good sample would indicate an animal that could not be a primate that is known to exist and it would tell you approximately how closely related it was to existing animals. If they had such a sample, they could then do the more extensive analysis on the rest of the nuclear DNA to confirm that it was not human or some other animal. That sort of analysis would be very compelling evidence that would be virtually impossible to fake. As of yet, we haven't had that mitochondrial test confirm anything except an another known animal that I am aware of....

Is it a prohibitively expensive test?
My own skeptical reply to you on this Dr. Sykes/DNA topic was: "Though the hair might possibly be from a Yeti/Bigfoot, it might also be from a newly discovered primate that is NOT a Yeti/Bigfoot."...

It is expensive but it is done regularly in universities so it is probably not prohibitively so. Perhaps someone knows the pricing. It was done on the bison sample and was apparently going to be done on the Skookum sample. It has the advantage of not being confused with a human if done correctly. I believe that it can even spit different groups of humans. It would also give the phylogenetic relationship which would be much more than an unidentified primate. It could say for example that it is approximately half way between a chimp and a human if that were the case. It would be very specific in the way that it was half way. Half of the base-pairs that were different from a chimp would also be different on it. Half would be different from both. I am only speaking in generalities of what you would expect to see on my hypothetical example. I only use it to counter the argument that DNA couldn't be nearly conclusive evidence. If the results were published, I don't see how they could reject that sort of data. The rest of the DNA could then be used to verify it in the much more complicated and probably less reliable methods when dealing with an unknown. It would confirm that you didn't find some sort of strange bacteria or something else. At that point, I would assume that it would become an academic matter and not cost the researcher anything.

What test did Dr. Sykes use? How was it determined to be unknown. There are so many possible answers, there is no way for anybody to know how reliable what he did was without knowing that. Is it possible that his data was squelched by academics? Maybe it is possible but it wouldn't likely happen very often in my opinion.

[Apeman]

Wasn't a magazine quote Apeman. He was filmed saying it. That's where the quote came from. The whole expedition was part of a Channel Four documentary and Sykes was filmed at the end.

Sorry, read it as text so assumed it started that way. A TV doc probably makes it even less valid, but I just found the other thread where you guys exhausted this....

I can also add that Dr Frank Poirier, who agrees with the analysis done on supposed Yeren hairs at Shanghai's Fudan University that they were "unknown higher primate" but not monkey, ape or human was called a 'yahoo' here and the university was accused of not knowing what they were doing.

If that is exactly what he said, he should be considered a yahoo. If a "higher primate" (which can mean different taxonomic levels to different people) is not a monkey or ape or human, then it doesn't exist. The only way to determine (from DNA) that it is a higher primate is to determine it is one of those three categories (two if you're like me and consider humans to be apes)- monkey, ape, or human. Do you have any further information on his claim or that analysis?

Hunster- I think we've finally come to some level of mutual understanding, thanks for bearing with me, but now I want to know how you think $10M (just for fun) and a bunch more scientists are going to change things?

And for the DNA stuff...Bob is spot on. A properly analyzed DNA sample should be easily placed somewhere on the tree of life- the bacteria branch, the primate twig, the dog family, etc. Saying a sample is from something "unknown" should be regarded as either dubious or incomplete. For just the initial rule-out part, a properly set-up lab should be able to run a sample for less $200 material costs these days not including human resources, it is NOT prohibitively expensive. Verification/confirmation, etc. will ramp up those costs. And as I said, I know of purported sasquatch samples that have been analyzed and come back as deer, bear, bacteria, horse, human, or contaminated by something else in the lab (e.g. human, bacteria, gorilla, etc), at least one of these is published in a journal. You have to remember also that when starting with fecal samples any of these results could actually be things digested by whatever made the sample, so these sorts of results unfortunately are not definitive for a carnivore or omnivore. Hair and blood samples would be expected to be cleaner but are also lower yield.


Apeman

[FoxJr]

Welcome to forum Fox but I think you're missing the point here. Of course some sort of physical material will ultimately be required to convince the world at large, no one is questioning that or at least I'm not. The debate here, at least the one I'm enaged in, is about the statement that going out and shooting one is the ONLYmeans to that end and/or that doing so is somehow imperative for their survival and therefore justified.

edited for completeness....

We are pretty much on the same side of the fence here, as I am not 100% sure how I would feel myself if I did pop a cap in one, especially if it proved to be a species really on the brink of extinction and my actions ended up contrubuting to this. On the other hand, I think that 40 years of waiting for the answer is beyond being patient, especially for the folks who have really dedicated their lives to this endeavor. Suppose that during this time that instead of cameras and plaster of paris being the primary tools of BF field research, these same people incorporated a high powered rifle first and foremost as a method for collecting evidence. Although I realize this would not be a real popular approach among the scientific or environmental communities, I personally think this matter would have been resolved a long time ago.

I do find, from time to time, websites and forum posters claiming to be genuine, dedicated, died in the wool Sasquatch slayers (although most just come across as kinda kooky) with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing a specimen thusly becoming rich and famous for their effort. But seriously question how many people REALLY have the time, motivation and/or finances (not to mention savvy and skills) to effect an effort of any real significance into some suspected BF environment?

Additionally, I can just imagine my own wife's reaction to such an undertaking:

My Wife: "Hey Hon, where ya going with that rifle? You know I told you I wasn't cooking no more of them nasty little squirrels for you!"

Me: "No Sweetie, I ain't going squirrel hunting, I'm on a quest to kill me a bigfoot, to prove once and for all to all the skeptics across the world that
they do indeed exist, and to show all the high handed, university scientists and govt. beaurocrats that they have been wrong on this all these
years and make them eat crow as I revel in the glory of my deed for society and the good of mankind!"

My Wife: "Well it don't matter I ain't cooking no nasty bigfoot either!"

Sadly, she is pretty much a no-nonsense kinda of gal, but I love her anyway!

This post has been edited by FoxJr: Aug 27 2007, 06:45 PM

[RayG]

I can also add that Dr Frank Poirier, who agrees with the analysis done on supposed Yeren hairs at Shanghai's Fudan University that they were "unknown higher primate" but not monkey, ape or human was called a 'yahoo' here and the university was accused of not knowing what they were doing. I had to leave the forum for a few weeks in order to calm down. LOL.

Lyndon, did you ever email Dr. Poirier with regards to this topic? When I communicated with Dr. Poirier back in March, he said: "I sent the hairs out for DNA analysis many years ago. It was not done. I have reminded that person just last week to see if I can move the process along. I am not optimistic."

The International Journal of PIXE, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1990) 43-54 contains info about hair analysis of an "unknown primate", but I wasn't able to access the information. Maybe Saskeptic, Apeman, or one of the other scientists that frequent this board would have better luck. Hint hint.

RayG

[Huntster]

.....What test did Dr. Sykes use? How was it determined to be unknown. There are so many possible answers, there is no way for anybody to know how reliable what he did was without knowing that. Is it possible that his data was squelched by academics? Maybe it is possible but it wouldn't likely happen very often in my opinion.

I don't know what test was performed. If Lyndon is right and this was a TV documentary, the documentation is likely owned by whoever hired Sykes to perform the test. It may be that they're profiteers, and think they have something valuable, or Sykes was taken out of context.

I doubt "his data was squelched by academics", but I also think it's highly likely that Sykes may have come to regret being involved with the situation and will say no more about it.

....Hunster- I think we've finally come to some level of mutual understanding, thanks for bearing with me, but now I want to know how you think $10M (just for fun) and a bunch more scientists are going to change things?...

I don't know if funding and official study will change anything except for the fact that funding and official study finally occurred.

From my count there has been nearly $40 million funded on Ivory Billed Woodpecker activity in the past few years and many millions more spend on SETI. We'll see what that buys.

This post has been edited by Huntster: Aug 27 2007, 07:30 PM

[DarkRabbit]

Just my humble opinion.

One body will not be enough when dollars start being thrown out, and solicited, for research if this critter is ever discovered.

DR

[RayG]

...I also think it's highly likely that Sykes may have come to regret being involved with the situation and will say no more about it.

Apparently so. Bobbie Short tried to obtain some further info from him regarding the hair testing and writes about it here.

RayG

[Apeman]

Maybe Saskeptic, Apeman, or one of the other scientists that frequent this board would have better luck. Hint hint.

Nope sorry, already tried. My U doesn't any more than abstract access.

[Lyndon]

Sorry, read it as text so assumed it started that way. A TV doc probably makes it even less valid

Not sure how a t.v documentary makes it less valid than a magazine quote. A person is less likely to be misquoted saying such and such when on film and less likely to have their sentence chopped and re-worded and taken out of context as per a magazine text.

If that is exactly what he said, he should be considered a yahoo. If a "higher primate" (which can mean different taxonomic levels to different people) is not a monkey or ape or human, then it doesn't exist.The only way to determine (from DNA) that it is a higher primate is to determine it is one of those three categories (two if you're like me and consider humans to be apes)- monkey, ape, or human. Do you have any further information on his claim or that analysis?

My mistake. 'Higher' primate wasn't mentioned. I've replayed the docu. Primate that wasn't human, ape or monkey was though. I must have been thinking of something else with the 'higher primate' quote. I don't know what.

Poirier did not conduct the analysis himself. He was there in attendance when Shanghai's Fudan University carried it out via PIXE process however. The hairs were declared primate but not monkey, human etc etc.

Apparantely, further analysis was carried out at Birmingham University in England and the same conclusion was reached. I do not know what process was used there.

Ray G emailed Poirier and Poirier said he still agrees with the analysis.

Poirier, it should be noted, was a complete skeptic on the Yeren prior to the hair analysis.

The International Journal of PIXE, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1990) 43-54 contains info about hair analysis of an "unknown primate", but I wasn't able to access the information. Maybe Saskeptic, Apeman, or one of the other scientists that frequent this board would have better luck. Hint hint.

RayG

Let's see.

[Lyndon]

I don't know what test was performed. If Lyndon is right and this was a TV documentary, the documentation is likely owned by whoever hired Sykes to perform the test.

Zoologist Dr Rob McCall might have been expedition leader but I'm not positive. He was the one who retrieved the hair from the den, after an eye witness reported a 'migoi' (yeti) using it. McCall suspected it to have been a bear, albeit perhaps a possible new subspecies, which was the main assumption of some of the expedition members.....that the migoi might be an unknown bear.

The entire expedition was filmed for British t.v's Channel Four series 'To The Ends Of The Earth' (2001). This was a periodic series of one off documentaries following people doing extraordinary things around the world. The gathering of the hair was filmed, as were Sykes' comments at the end of the documentary after the expedition returned.

It may be that they're profiteers, and think they have something valuable, or Sykes was taken out of context.

Sykes doen't appear to have been taken out of context. He certainly has not retracted his statement since. However, we must bare in mind that Sykes wasn't on the expedition, nor was it his expedition to begin with. He was simply asked to perform analysis on the hair. He did his job and he couldn't identify it.....which was something very unique in his experience. I believe Dr Rob McCall is also of Oxford (I might be wrong on that) so it could have been a mate doing another mate a favour. I don't know.

Reading around the net I have found so many other people who have tried to contact Sykes. It's more likely he is tired and fed up answering questions on the same matter over and over again, particularly as he did not instigate the matter and it's also likely that he cannot do any more than he already has and the hair still remains a mystery.

I doubt "his data was squelched by academics", but I also think it's highly likely that Sykes may have come to regret being involved with the situation and will say no more about it.

Yes, he is more likely bored of the whole thing. This was half a dozen years ago now and he still gets enquiries. This does not mean his conclusions were wrong though.

This post has been edited by Lyndon: Aug 28 2007, 01:10 AM

[RayG]

Not sure how a t.v documentary makes it less valid than a magazine quote. A person is less likely to be misquoted saying such and such when on film and less likely to have their sentence chopped and re-worded and taken out of context as per a magazine text.

Yes, but a person making a statement in front of a TV camera might have worded it differently for print. Consider the stammering contestant in the Miss Teen USA pageant, for example. Stick a microphone in someone's face and you're getting them to either respond off the top of their head, or remember something that was scripted earlier.

Making claims to the general public in a TV program, or publishing your claims in a book, is a far cry from having them replicated and published in a scientific journal, though I'm not sure that's what Apeman meant.

My mistake. 'Higher' primate wasn't mentioned. I've replayed the docu. Primate that wasn't human, ape or monkey was though. I must have been thinking of something else with the 'higher primate' quote. I don't know what.

Poirier did not conduct the analysis himself. He was there in attendance when Shanghai's Fudan University carried it out via PIXE process however. The hairs were declared primate but not monkey, human etc etc.

It's simply astounding that they made such a startling determination and then dropped the ball, so to speak. Interest seems to have almost instantly evaporated.

Apparantely, further analysis was carried out at Birmingham University in England and the same conclusion was reached. I do not know what process was used there.

Are you certain of this?

Ray G emailed Poirier and Poirier said he still agrees with the analysis.

Which unfortunately, means very little.

Poirier, it should be noted, was a complete skeptic on the Yeren prior to the hair analysis.

What's needed is replication, not conversion.

RayG

[Apeman]

Stick a microphone in someone's face and you're getting them to either respond off the top of their head, or remember something that was scripted earlier.

Making claims to the general public in a TV program, or publishing your claims in a book, is a far cry from having them replicated and published in a scientific journal, though I'm not sure that's what Apeman meant.

Yes, that's what I meant. I've made blunders myself on documentaries and there is usually no forum for clarifying them. At least in most print media you can write a correction or clarification when you're misquoted, misrepresented, or simply use the wrong word- another thing I've had the pleasure of experiencing. This discussion is really neither here nor there, because a statement made for a TV documentary is really about as scientifically (in)valid as a similar thing written in a popular media article- as Ray pointed out.

I think this whole Bhutan hair case is mostly sad but so typical of this field: a tantalizing find that somehow got botched in the end. No wonder the skeptics LOVE us so much.

I thought I'd posted this somewhere before but can't find it, so here's the somewhat infamous yeti hair DNA paper that I mention from time to time. One of the authors is a colleague of mine who reassured me that the April 1 date of the paper helped make for a fun publication but is in a no way an indicator that the analysis is a joke- though there are clearly some tongue-in-cheek references in the text. I like this paper because it is sooooo scientifically uninteresting, yet got published in a good journal. Even though it has a"negative" result, I think it is a good counter to a lot of arguments made here about the difficulty of getting bigfoot related research properly published. It shows how something like "The Skookum Cast is only an elk" or "Dermal ridges can be explained as artifacts" could make their way into the scientific literature if properly handled. Those sorts of pubs might even eventually pave the way for "Uncatalogued primate DNA sequenced from Oregon scat sample" because authors could argue, "Well, your journal has published articles before that had no scientific interest except for being bigfoot related."

Anyway, here's the paper:  MilinkovitchYeti.pdf ( 442.4k ) Number of downloads: 42


Apeman

[RayG]

I think this whole Bhutan hair case is mostly sad but so typical of this field: a tantalizing find that somehow got botched in the end.

Seems to be just enough scientific investigation to get speculation tossed around, but not enough to actually conclude anything.

Hauled out my weathered and dog-eared copy of Big Footprints last night to see what Dr. Krantz had to say about hair testing, and I found this on pages 207-208:

"A recent British television expedition recovered some supposed wildman hair from local investigators in central China, and had them analyzed by scientists in Shanghai. Some of the sample were eliminated as belonging to various known species. Six remaining hairs were morphologically very similar to human hair, and distinguishable from a sample of other primates, but their chemical constitution was unique. These hairs reportedly contained only 16 amino acids instead of the normal mammalian 17, and their iron-to-zinc ratio was 50 times higher than human and 7 times higher than in the primate sample. The hairs also had a higher acid protein content than in human or other primate hair, and they differed from all these in containing more calcium, chromium, magnesium, iron, cobalt, copper, and strontium. Such distinctions are indeed impressive, but unfortunately they constitute on evidence for a new species. One would expect wildman hair to be chemically closest to human, with these two forming a group in contrast to other primates. Instead, we find human and other primates hair standing together in sharp contrast to that of the wildman specimens. Given its morphological similarity to human hair, this supposed wildman sample has clearly been contaminated by some chemical agency, perhaps dyes or preservatives. What the hair actually represents is undeterminable on present evidence."

End result? We just don't know.

RayG

[Saskeptic]

I looked for that Fudan University paper in PIXE, and I don't have access either. Here's the abstract:

"The aspects of the PIXE technique in the Van de Graaff Laboratory of Fudan University are reported. The analytical precision is within 5% when handling with care and within 10% in routine analysis. Some recent applications of PIXE are presented, including the pathogeny analysis of Kashin-Beck’s disease and cancer, hair analysis of pregnant women and an unknown primate, and PIXE analysis in DNA study."

Not exactly a smoking gun here. The abstract only indicates that the PIXE technique was used to analyse the hair. It provides no specifics on the result of that analysis.

I don't see any compelling evidence from any example of hair or DNA analysis mentioned in this thread. And when you (the researcher) do find that evidence, you don't publish it in an obscure trade journal dedicated to application of an esoteric technique, you go for Science or Nature.

Many thanks to Apeman and others for making multiple points in this thread that I hold dear.

[Huntster]

(Huntster)
...I also think it's highly likely that Sykes may have come to regret being involved with the situation and will say no more about it.

Apparently so. Bobbie Short tried to obtain some further info from him regarding the hair testing and writes about it here....

Yet, he doesn't appear to be afraid of controversial subjects. I ran across this today.......:

....Well-known Oxford geneticist Sykes (The Seven Daughters of Eve), in this lively and thought-provoking book, gives a genetic twist to the battle between the sexes. All human existence, he says, stems from the battle between the X and Y chromosomes to further their own reproduction at the expense of the other. The Y chromosome is passed on only by fathers, while mitochondrial DNA is passed on only by mothers. Sykes shows that many members of several Scottish clans (most notably the Macdonalds) can be traced via their Y chromosomes back to a common ancestor. Researchers have also been able to trace the extent of Viking settlement and intermarriage in the British Isles and northern Europe through Y chromosome distribution. Sykes's argument for a genetic role in homosexuality will undoubtedly be controversial. Using Dean Hamer's pedigrees, he claims that evidence points less to a "gay gene" than to mitochondrial DNA playing the leading role in a Machiavellian plot to further its own reproduction. Sykes concludes by noting that, as evidenced by declining sperm counts and high percentages of abnormal sperm, among other variables, the Y chromosome is a genetic mess and is deteriorating so quickly that men could become extinct. Those who find that a happy thought will want to snap up this book, as well as readers interested in learning what our chromosomes tell us about where we came from and where we may be headed.....

[Huntster]

(Lyndon @ Aug 28 2007, 02:41 AM) .....My mistake. 'Higher' primate wasn't mentioned. I've replayed the docu. Primate that wasn't human, ape or monkey was though. I must have been thinking of something else with the 'higher primate' quote. I don't know what.

Poirier did not conduct the analysis himself. He was there in attendance when Shanghai's Fudan University carried it out via PIXE process however. The hairs were declared primate but not monkey, human etc etc.

It's simply astounding that they made such a startling determination and then dropped the ball, so to speak. Interest seems to have almost instantly evaporated.....

Yes, interest seems to have almost instantly evaporated, then no, it's not really astounding that they made such a startling determination and then dropped the ball, so to speak.

No interest, no gain.

They've moved on.

Ray G emailed Poirier and Poirier said he still agrees with the analysis.

Which unfortunately, means very little.

Yup. Damned unfortunate, but it fits the past trends.

Poirier, it should be noted, was a complete skeptic on the Yeren prior to the hair analysis.

What's needed is replication, not conversion.

What's needed is persistence.

.....I think this whole Bhutan hair case is mostly sad but so typical of this field: a tantalizing find that somehow got botched in the end. No wonder the skeptics LOVE us so much....

Yup. We're easy.

But, then, skepticism is the easiest ideology there ever was. All you have to do is demand that absolute proof is delivered to your feet, then proclaim that you were righteous all along.

.....I thought I'd posted this somewhere before but can't find it, so here's the somewhat infamous yeti hair DNA paper that I mention from time to time. One of the authors is a colleague of mine who reassured me that the April 1 date of the paper helped make for a fun publication but is in a no way an indicator that the analysis is a joke- though there are clearly some tongue-in-cheek references in the text. I like this paper because it is sooooo scientifically uninteresting, yet got published in a good journal....

Do you think the date and tongue in cheek was what got it published?

Even stiff-necked pinheads need comedy every once in a while.........

[Lyndon]

Yes, but a person making a statement in front of a TV camera might have worded it differently for print. Consider the stammering contestant in the Miss Teen USA pageant, for example.

Well I think if you'd heard Sykes speak you'd get the idea he was anything but stammering. He appeared sober and considered and very well spoken.

Stick a microphone in someone's face and you're getting them to either respond off the top of their head, or remember something that was scripted earlier.

Not always. I don't think it was a case of a camera crew stumbling into Sykes' lab immediately after he performed the analysis and shoving a mic in his face before he gathered himself.

Making claims to the general public in a TV program, or publishing your claims in a book, is a far cry from having them replicated and published in a scientific journal, though I'm not sure that's what Apeman meant.

Of course it's not the same. The flip side however is that not all scientific conclusions and opinions are published in scientific journals.

As I said, Sykes wasn't the instigator so it wasn't down to him to write a paper. He appears to have been asked by a colleague to analyse the hair, which he did, and then he gave his conclusion. He's not a cryptozoologist. He analysed the hair, couldn't identify the DNA (uniquely) and that was that.

It's simply astounding that they made such a startling determination and then dropped the ball, so to speak. Interest seems to have almost instantly evaporated.

Yes I agree. Again, on the flip side, no retraction of the original conclusion has been made. To all intents and purposes.....it still stands.

Are you certain of this?

I am certain that I have read a few sources that state a further test on the Yeren hair was carried out at Birmingham University. I am not certain that it actually was the case.

Which unfortunately, means very little.

It means that a western scientist who was present at the analysis of the hair in China agrees with the Chinese scientist who performed the analysis. That's two scientists. If the Birmingham analysis was authentic, then that's more.

Seems to be just enough scientific investigation to get speculation tossed around, but not enough to actually conclude anything.

But Sykes concluded that the hair DNA was unidentifiable and a mystery....and that was unique in his experience. That wasn't speculation. Again, he hasn't retracted his statement or altered his conclusion.

This post has been edited by Lyndon: Aug 29 2007, 12:33 AM

[Huntster]

Well I think if you'd heard Sykes speak you'd get the idea he was anything but stammering. He appeared sober and considered and very well spoken....

For the record, Sykes is no spring chicken:

.....Bryan Sykes is Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford, and a Fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford. He published the first report on retrieving DNA from ancient bone (Nature, 1989), and has been involved in high-profile cases dealing with ancient DNA, such as those of Ötzi the Iceman and Cheddar Man, as well as those by people claiming to be members of the Romanovs—the Russian royal family. His work also suggested a Florida accountant by the name of Tom Robinson [1] was a direct descendant of Genghis Khan[2], a claim that was subsequently disputed [3].

Sykes is best known for his popular science books and as the founder of Oxford Ancestors, a genealogical DNA testing firm....

This guy is a world renowned geneticist. It isn't the local lab declaring uncertainties.

[chronic]

I don't understand your logic.
You don't have to be smarter than the animal that you kill...

Yes, you do.
You can't use a chimp for a medical experiment if it can out-debate you as to why you shouldn't. This logic requires no understanding. When you lose an argument, you're wrong, that IS the logic.