I really think that this is a major find and I'm really surprised that this isn't discussed here lenghtily. So I'm starting this new thread in the General Discussion area. For those who aren't up to date: A TV crew from the Syfy channel, Josh Gates and his Destination Truth team, found a clump of hair during their recent expedition in Bhutan. Back home the hairs got analyzed by an expert. Result: the DNA is from an unknown great primate.

I know that this isn't the first time that Yeti hair was analyzed and labeled "unknown primate": Some years ago a TV team from the BBC found hairs in the same general region. They let it test and it supposedly was from an unknown primate. They should compare those two samples.

Blogsquatcher made a transcript of Josh Gates interview with the expert:

Here is my transcript of Josh Gates' interview with Dr. Melba Ketchum, a forensic analyst with DNA Diagnostics, Inc., from the latest episode of Destination Truth:

Ketchum: I didn't think we would have anything to talk about here, to be honest. I was just going to rule out yeti and be done with it. I submitted the sequence that we obtained from this hair sample to a large international database that scientists use to deposit their sequence data. Well, at first I was very skeptical, because we've had these things come into our lab in the past, and they never panned out to be anything interesting. However, this sample did test very clearly on the human panel of markers. That makes it a primate, and it makes it a large primate.

Gates: And how are we sure that it isn't just human contamination or that it's just DNA from human hair?

Ketchum: The hair, visually, is not human. It's coarser than horse tail hair.

Gates: (voiceover) what she told me next seemed unbelievable.

Ketchum: Initial searches indicate that it's an unknown sequence. There are literally millions of sequences in this database. And we're really shocked that it didn't match any of the species, exactly, in the database.

Gates: What would be required in order for us to say, from a DNA standpoint, the yeti is a real animal.

Ketchum: If we're going to prove that there potentially is a new species, with this first hair sample, we really need more hair samples like it. And once you establish there is a group of animals, that will go a long ways towards proving that there is a new species indeed.

Hmmm. I wonder whether the original sample from Bhutan examined by Professor Sykes was submitted to the same database - if so, then why didn't this new sample match it?

Great news if it's true. What other news sources have reported on it up to this point? Google search comes up blank. I'm not knocking Blogsquatcher, just curious if anyone else picked up the story yet. I would love to read more.

You can watch the episode here.

Cool thanks.

Pretty interesting. I hope she was right. I'm discarding the fact that she said it was too visually coarse to be human hair because she never saw my SOS pad of a hairdo. That was a pretty big clump that they found. I hope something good comes out of this but judging by the corniness of that show, I doubt it. What was with that Yeti at the end? And that strange sexual tension dynamic in the beginning?

Very interesting.

If you looked in the Media section where this should be posted you will see some have been talking about it from the time of the airing of the show.

But anyway, I sure wish someone would start collecting these "Unknown Ape" DNA results so they could be compared with each other. Seems every time it is done they say no matches was found. Well how about all of the other DNA test that had the same result did they match this unknown sample ? Every time it make it sound like it was the first time that has happened when we all know it has many times already.

Great news indeed. I hope there are future updates on this subject.

The next logical questions are there any known primates in the area of research other than human?

I seem to recall a show where there was a primate that would sometimes venture into the area where sightings of Yeti would occur.

I you remember the show Rem of the Yeti that Jeff Corwin suggested a bear was the culprit of some of the sightings.

If this is fact that is very big news, there have been many disappointments from these type of shows in the past.

Keeping my fingers crossed!!!!!!!!!

Pretty cool...indeed!!!!

Sorry, I'm mistaking something here. The supposed Yeti hair that was analyzed by Sykes in 2008 turned out to be from a goat. But I mean another one. I can't remember when exactly it was, maybe in the late 90s. A british TV crew went to the Himalaya, one of the scientists found some hairs in a tree. It was analyzed and was from an unknown primate. But I don't know anymore if it was DNA-tested. And I don't know if it was a BBC crew.

So maybe the Destination Truth find is a premiere!

Could somrone research which seperate facilities have DNA samples of posiblr bf/yeti hair and their results; then, act as a go between on comparing.I know thst The Ohio State University supposedly hs samples of bf hair, I heard of a University in the UK having samples but I don't remember which one.

I think it's an excellent idea for someone, or some organization, to collect all of the incidents of "unknown primate" results. Perhaps DNA, or other forensic test, results could be matched against each other to determine if there are common attributes among them.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall the Snelgrove Lake DNA came back as unknown primate also, gerry

I remember that. You're right.

In Bhutan :

The order Primates contains all the species commonly related to the lemurs, monkeys, and apes, with the latter category including humans. It is divided informally into three main groupings: prosimians, monkeys of the New World, and monkeys and apes of the Old World.

Suborder: Haplorrhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Parvorder: Catarrhini
Superfamily: Cercopithecoidea
Family: Cercopithecidae (Old World monkeys)
Genus: Macaca
Assam Macaque Macaca assamensis VU
Rhesus Macaque Macaca mulatta LR/nt
Subfamily: Colobinae
Genus: Semnopithecus
Gray langur Semnopithecus entellus LR/nt
Genus: Trachypithecus
Golden Langur Trachypithecus geei EN
Capped Langur Trachypithecus pileatusEN
Family: Loridae (Lorises)

Genus: Nycticebus
Slow loris Nycticebus bengalensis

Bryan Sykes< Professor of Human Genetics ay Oxford Institue of Molecular Medicine

Paul Feurst associate professor of molecular genetics at The Ohio State University.

Hans Brunner associate of Deakin University of Melbourne, Australia

Walter Birkby of the Univerity of Arizona.

If these people are still there , they have alleged samplesd.

As an aside, Cryptozzo a California company tried cloning alledged bf hair and got two goats and a bear.

I believe this one had the other Yeti sample.

That's pretty interesting. Can you imagine the ramifications if just several of these "large unknown primate" samples from disparate places matched??

That would be pretty compelling evidence, and I bet it would cause a lot more scientists to take a much more serious look at this whole Bigfoot thing.

The TV crew were from Channel 4 here in the UK (not BBC) and the programme was aired around 2001 I think (I still have it recorded on VHS so must check). The sample was also from Bhutan so I found it interesting to read this thread and see that Josh Gates has come up with another one. I know he can be a showman and a little corny but evidence is evidence and if it's real this has got to be significant

Since this is definitely an UNKNOWN primate, the presence of known primates is irrelevant.



Again, irrelevant. A known primate would have left hairs that tested as whatever type of primate it was.



More irrelevancies. The hair tested as primate, not bear.



Yes it is.

Irrelevant to you perhaps, Mulder. Is it just me or do you jump into every thread feet first and start refuting and arguing?

All of this stuff is relevant!
Think about it: are you going to put all of your faith in a single lab? Especially since some have argued (many times) that a result of "contamination (human)" could have also been "unknown primate"? And vice-versa?
These questions are totally relevant because the next logical step in backing up the claim of "unknown primate" is to find possible species that might represent a misidentification and check the sequences against them. This is the logical next step. Now, the lab may have already done this, but we don't have that information so we ask these questions here on the forums. Unless/until we actually see the DNA report for ourselves, all of this is relevant.

Nope, not just you T.

The expert addressed the contamination issue.



They would have done that BEFORE they declared it an unknown primate...that was the purpose of submitting it to the registry for comparison.



No, it's already been done.



So you're presuming the lab people are stupid enough NOT to check before issuing their finding, even when they explicitly said they DID check.

this is awesome i think to be continued

I do beleive there is a rule about addressing the post, not the poster, is there not?

I addressed the specific claims he made in his post...would you care to address mine?

How is it definite? She said she used a large database. Are all known primates in that database? I'm sorry that I did not entirely capitalize certain words. I hope you are still able to read it.

Because the lab sent the results to a database that confimed that.

Your "objection" depends on an assumption of incompetence on the part of the expert, which is absurd.

Interesting info... but I will refrain from judgements or conclusions until this evidence can be corrobarated, or other equally impressive evidence surfaces....

Was the hair sample from the show considered Yeti the long strands of hair found first by the group or the second smaller sample that was in a small clump? Hopefully this will panout and other samples will be produced soon for comparison.

No, that is incorrect.

You're assuming what I assume... Wait what. I believe her to be competent and truthful. How she is edited is something completely different. I hope you can see the difference.
They set out to make a show. They never find an animal in any of these types of shows but they need substance. When they find fibers they are sitting pretty. They have a smart producer who presents a string of facts which are all true. None of these facts stated what specific database she used. This is where your assumption begins. They led you and you followed. Knowing what database she used and it's contents is crucial. They are not all equal or complete.



.....but props on quoting "objection". That was funny

Where are you getting this information?
And could you please provide a link?

You've missed my point entirely Mulder. You are basing your opinions on something you read ABOUT A TV CREW. Doesn't this raise questions in your mind?
My point was that WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE REPORT. Therefore we CANNOT assume it is legitimate. We have seen (several times) faked evidence used to promote fictional television or movie releases.
THIS SHOULD BE YOUR FIRST RED FLAG.

Without posting the DNA report or a verifiable link to it, none of the claims made can be verified.
Which is why (here it comes, my first point that you missed) ALL of these questions are relevant. And why we have internet forums. And why these questions need to be asked. And why we need to think critically. Trust me, if the report is made public I'll be the first one to say, "you were right, Mulder." But until then I find it really hard to grasp your willingness to accept this story at face value when we've seen NOTHING to verify it. Now do you see my point?

I know that I liked this episode a whole lot! In the previous show they stumbled across an ancient honest to God dinosaur track in Chile!

While in general I think the veracity of the test shown is on the level (unless someone can show the lab or the tech are non-existent, or they never processed the hair, or the conclusions were different) it is correct that "we" haven't seen the/a report, and that neither are i's are dotted or are t's are crossed. Second (as suggested by Gordon in discussing this), it seems likely that limited genetic tests are being run, testing only small parts of the DNA. While this doesn't invalidate the tests, it does limit the scientific usefulness.

What I suggest is this: First, the scientific members of the BF community should show interest (to the SciFi channel) in seeing the full results, including offering their services (such as they are) to facilitate the documentation and disclosure of the discovery. Let me emphasize this should be in a support capacity (including interviews), not an attempt to co-opt the find. Second, said scientists, and appropriately experienced members of the BF community should encouage preservation and eventual full sequencing of the DNA, even if that means third party funding (since this is an unknown animal, its possible that this may be excessively expensive, but one would hope this is not the case). Both these efforts must be undertaken seriously and politely. Last, if these two goals are not achieved (or similar alternatives), the likely result will be that the findings will be ignored and the genetic information may be lost. As seems to happen everytime this situation presents itself

Wiser, more networked, heads than I should consider making this their #1 priority, as the discovery of a extant hominid or proto-hominid species would both revolutionize anthropology and greatly legitimize the BF community.

PF

A few months ago I emailed the Oxford DNA lab, where Sykes did the 2001 test, in an attempt to find out what the current status of that hair sample is. They never responded. My guess is the political pressure is too great for them.

We now have two independent DNA samples of the yeti, and the larger scientific community sleeps. Nevethless, this is really exciting stuff. This recent development has brought me off the fence. To me this is scientific proof the yeti is real. Knowing that the yeti is real, the idea of a real yeren and bigfoot does not sound far fetched.

So your objection is now incompetence or outright fraud on the part of the producers of the show.

Present your evidence for said incompetence/fraud or retract the objection.

I think alot of you in this thread have raised valid points about not having the official DNA report - on paper.

I for one wonder how anyone would/could go about getting this done?

I am sure we would all like to see the specifics of the report as to what DNA databases the sample was run through and the actual report itself in black & white so we would at least have something tangable other than just word of mouth.

I suppose you could send a written request to the show & or the DNA lab that ran the test but if they refuse to disclose the information/results then what?

Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me that that show & that DNA company hold all the cards as far as if they choose to disclose the report & encompassing information or not.

As I said previously, I hope we get some kind of follow-up on this potential ground breaking discovery and that it doesn't just slip through the cracks as time wears on.

The information is provided in the transcript presented, along with a source citation.




No, I'm basing it on the report of the scientific expert cited.



The ball is in your court to prove a charge of fraud.



There is no reliable basis to assume that the facts presented are not the true facts. If you wish to charge the lab and/or the show with fraud, then it is incumbent upon you to prove your case, not me to DISprove it.

sigh

Negative. You are putting words in my mouth and guessing what I am implying instead of just reading the words. I chose them carefully. This is twice now. Does everything have to be a fight with you?

How do you get "incompetence/fraud" out of me saying "smart/true"? Do you see how these words are dissimilar?



I need a vacation.

Mulder,

Dude, seriously, I've always sympathized with your side in almost every single argument I've seen you engaged in here but the fact that you're perpetually arguing should be a testimonial to time spent doing what you love, which seems to be arguing! Just relax and enjoy a topic that doesn't bring so many bubbles into your blood.

There are those here that are awarded the researcher's badge of honor every time they find an article on google and post it with an apparent sense of accomplishment akin to writing it themselves. I've seen these people tear after you with their logic and their fingers quivering over their keyboards, just waiting to do some real BF research and put you in your place! And believe me, I've seen the results of these witch hunts and find them utterly ridiculous, hilarious and pointless at the same time. Nothing ever gets discussed except the discussion of whats not being discussed because there always seems to be a goad too enticing to ignore and you end up trading pointless replies with everyone for at least 2 or 3 pages worth of thread and the actual topic gets completely lost.

FuriousGeorge and Spazmo I don't believe, are of this ilk and while I may not believe everything you do, neither am I. This topic is like the only thing happening in this field right now (as sad as that is) that holds even a glimmer of interest for me and I'd like to see it discussed for a while without the 2 or 3 pages of futility attached so if you don't mind, please just try and get along with people?

Much cheers

Oh come on Mulder. Stop putting words in other people's mouths.
NOBODY here made any kind of "fraud" claim. We are simply trying to get the idea into YOUR SKULL that these are legitimate questions that need to be asked.
You are arguing based on assumed absurdity that YOU are introducing into this discussion.

The rest of your talk about fraud speaks for itself. YOU were the first one to bring "fraud" into this discussion, no one else.

Are you really the type of person that thinks it must be true simply because you "read it on the internet"? REALLY?
Do you question anything, ever?
Do you have any idea how this makes you sound? Especially KNOWING what has come before this and the results, time after time, coming up empty?

I feel a really bad Santa Claus analogy coming, but I'll spare you (and the mods).

Excuse me? Do you own a share of the profits for this show or something? Seems you're just a bit too eager to make demands of other posters who disagree with you.

Quote:
Ketchum: I didn't think we would have anything to talk about here, to be honest. I was just going to rule out yeti and be done with it. I submitted the sequence that we obtained from this hair sample to a large international database that scientists use to deposit their sequence data. Well, at first I was very skeptical, because we've had these things come into our lab in the past, and they never panned out to be anything interesting. However, this sample did test very clearly on the human panel of markers. That makes it a primate, and it makes it a large primate. (unquote)
-------------------------------------------------------------
My curiosity is piqued... I'll bite.
What in the human panel of markers says "it's a large primate?"
If they can sequence it to the extent that they know it's a "large" primate... what else was in that sequencing?
I say 'sequencing' because I didn't know you could achieve such detail as "size" as in "large" primate from markers alone.

Does the yeti hair have a medulla or not. If not, where did the markers come from?
Human hair sometimes has a medulla, sometimes not.

I came late to this interesting subject, I'll read back over the posts and see if I can figure it out.

The DNA sequence was probably compared to the knowns in Genbank or some other similar data base. The human panel of markers would most likely contain mostly makers unique to the human genome. Knowing more about how many markers and what percent are unique to humans would most likely be what is behind the statement that the primate was large, as some of the markers may not be common to the other great apes.

Edit to say.....maybe Bob Zenor could comment on this finding?

SY.

My only comment is that it sounds like a mitochondrial DNA comparison. I am not familiar enough with the method to know exactly what she meant by human panel of markers but I assume it matched closely to a human sequence and the panel was just a sequence of human DNA she compared it to. Mitochondrial sequences sure don't show size but like you said, it might just be assuming that it is an ape. Nothing else from DNA would show size no matter what markers they used. All large apes start out small after all.

What she said was interesting but what was not said surely makes me suspicious. Perhaps the sequence was too short to get anything but a rough guess about it being some sort of ape. That is also suspicious and doesn't really make sense because I would think she would have to have a long sequence to submit it or it wouldn't mean much. If she had a long sequence, that would be a big deal and deserve a lot more attention than it got on the show. She should have an analysis of how closely related to humans it was. That would be fairly simple to estimate just by the percent differences in base pairs and hopefully there is more is to come but they seemed to leave it hanging. That chunk of hair looked like it came from the floor of a barbershop so I am assuming that wasn't a video of the actual hair but instead a recreation for the camera. I also think she might have been taken out of context but it does sound like she was impressed.

After reading this updated thread, I have come to the conclusion that a few of you are in need of a stiff drink... Now that I think of it, after reading the thread I need a stiff drink.... Like I said before, no sense in arguing.... be patient until more tangible information is available.... Many of us have waited a good portion of our lives for monumental evidence prooving BF's existence.. If this turns out to be the afore mentioned "monumental evidence", is a few more days, or weeks really gonna make that much difference?

Hang on, gotta cry foul here...


You used the word "MONUMENTAL" in a thread that has nothing to do with Larry Battson. There's a monumental thread for that, ya know...


Seriously, you're right on target ElDonkey. We need something more tangible, and I for one am happy to wait for it before making a judgement. And during that waiting period, we can entertain ourselves by asking relevant questions and having a lively discussion.

I appreciate the kind words, but I am sure someone out there in cyberspace will find a way to rip my "call for patience" to shreads....

Hi

No way that will ever happen here you must have logged into the wrong forum ~

Peace
Tim