Sign In
Register
Help
Board Index
Analysis came back as being 'most likely' a bear...I don't think they did a full DNA analysis to match the species though....
Destination Truth: Hair of Unknown Primate
Rate Topic:
#31
- Paranormal Investigator
-
- Group: Member
- Posts: 762
- Joined: 21-May 05
- Gender:Male
- Location:The darker side of your subconcious...
-
Only in the darkness, can you see true light...The Steel Circle
*by Isis*
Posted 08 November 2009 - 12:45 AM
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
'Even now in Heaven there are Angles carrying savage weapons.' - Saint Paul
'Even now in Heaven there are Angles carrying savage weapons.' - Saint Paul
Top
MultiQuote
#32
- Alien Embryo
-
- Group: Member
- Posts: 111
- Joined: 15-July 09
Posted 09 November 2009 - 02:35 AM
Agent. Mulder, on 06 November 2009 - 12:07 AM, said:
this wasnt inconclusive.
They couldn't conclude what animal the hair came from. In my book, that's inconclusive.
Quote
I would say this constitutes a large discovery on part of the DT team. Don't see why others in the field are not a little more excited.
Now put 2 + 2 together.
#33
- Giver to all that Meow
-
- Group: Member
- Posts: 4,998
- Joined: 20-January 07
- Gender:Female
- Location:London, Kentucky (AKA Narnia)
-
www.freekibblekat.com - VISIT NOW :) Go give free kibbles to kitties.
Posted 09 November 2009 - 02:47 AM
The conclusion was that it was an unidentifiable primate. This would technically constitute a a conclusion given that the DNA did not successfully match any animal in the database. Inconclusive would suggest that the DNA sample was damaged or incomplete to the degree that information could not be used to obtain any information.
#34
- Ectoplasmic Residue
-
- Group: Member
- Posts: 136
- Joined: 25-August 09
- Gender:Male
-
Remember yourself, always and everywhere
-G.
Posted 09 November 2009 - 03:07 AM
drpaxton, on 08 November 2009 - 06:35 PM, said:
They couldn't conclude what animal the hair came from. In my book, that's inconclusive.
Come on, is that the very best you can do? Seriously?
If it IS from a Yeti (a very big if), then, wouldn't it be from an unknown animal? What other possible result could there be from a hair sample of a Yeti.
To me, inconclusive means a hair sample which is too tainted to provide a good DNA sample. This one was fully sequenced, not damaged, not partial. Just unknown.
I guess I can give you credit for the fact that it doesn't actually conclude anything. So, there you are right I guess. But it is a big deal.
Of course, not being a skeptic, and being a debunker means automatically and de facto that this must be false?
Goodness gracious!
#35
- Ectoplasmic Residue
-
- Group: Member
- Posts: 136
- Joined: 25-August 09
- Gender:Male
-
Remember yourself, always and everywhere
-G.
Posted 09 November 2009 - 03:09 AM
JayRob303, on 07 November 2009 - 04:45 PM, said:
Analysis came back as being 'most likely' a bear...I don't think they did a full DNA analysis to match the species though....
We were not watching the same show. Did you get further info somewhere?
They did not at all say bear. I think you are thinking of the Monsterquest episode on the Yeti.
This came back as most definitely NOT a bear, but an unknown primate. They were conclusive on that, and that the sequence did NOT match anything in the database. They did a full sequence, and it didn't match anything.
I imagine we're not talking about the same show....
#36
- Alien Embryo
-
- Group: Member
- Posts: 111
- Joined: 15-July 09
Posted 09 November 2009 - 03:55 AM
Quote
Come on, is that the very best you can do? Seriously?
If it IS from a Yeti (a very big if), then, wouldn't it be from an unknown animal? What other possible result could there be from a hair sample of a Yeti.
To me, inconclusive means a hair sample which is too tainted to provide a good DNA sample. This one was fully sequenced, not damaged, not partial. Just unknown.
I guess I can give you credit for the fact that it doesn't actually conclude anything. So, there you are right I guess. But it is a big deal.
Of course, not being a skeptic, and being a debunker means automatically and de facto that this must be false?
Goodness gracious!
If it IS from a Yeti (a very big if), then, wouldn't it be from an unknown animal? What other possible result could there be from a hair sample of a Yeti.
To me, inconclusive means a hair sample which is too tainted to provide a good DNA sample. This one was fully sequenced, not damaged, not partial. Just unknown.
I guess I can give you credit for the fact that it doesn't actually conclude anything. So, there you are right I guess. But it is a big deal.
Of course, not being a skeptic, and being a debunker means automatically and de facto that this must be false?
Goodness gracious!
Ok, because people love to argue semantics when they want to steer away from something I'll amend my post that started the trend.
There are tons of Bigfoot/Yeti/Skunkman/Apeman...etc. shows on every month, 8 out of 10 find a hair sample that is "unidentifiable". Makes good TV. OP proves it.
This post has been edited by drpaxton: 09 November 2009 - 03:56 AM
#37
- Alien Embryo
-
- Group: Member
- Posts: 20
- Joined: 18-June 09
Posted 09 November 2009 - 09:55 AM
Tarmac_Chris, on 07 November 2009 - 11:42 PM, said:
I would say this constitutes a large discovery on part of the DT team. Don't see why others in the field are not a little more excited.
I think it's arrogance. A lot of serious researcher's want to distance themselves from the like of Destination truth and monsterquest. I was at a CFZ conference last year and could taste the bitterness about DT being spewed out.
I don't know why though, at the end of the day not many people are going to remember who was the first to provide evidence or "discover" an animal. It may have a short term effect on funding but who off the top of their head remember's who discovered the gorilla or komodo dragon? Serious researcher's need to the acknowledge the power of TV as a medium and work with it, not against it.