ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bigfoot , dna , Ed Smith , Melba Ketchum

Reply
Old 24th August 2011, 03:48 PM   #321
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,666
There seems to be quite a bit of variability, at least for the medulla (black section down the middle). Both of these are cow hair.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg figure19.jpg (8.1 KB, 137 views)
File Type: jpg figure142.jpg (4.2 KB, 137 views)
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 03:58 PM   #322
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,525
After looking at the FBI site and others, my sense is that the variability within a species, across body sites and even in same hair shaft are much greater than what would allow identification from your "line up" of images.
i.e. it ain't that simple.
__________________
unlikely to stay thirsty, my friends.

Last edited by DennyT; 24th August 2011 at 04:01 PM.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 04:10 PM   #323
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
After looking at the FBI site and others, my sense is that the variability within a species, across body sites and even in same hair shaft are much greater than what would allow identification from your "line up" of images.
i.e. it ain't that simple.
You would be correct that it's not easy to ID by morphology, it takes more training than I have. We need to see if it is a consistent trait of black bear hair to have the uniserial ladder medulla. The cattle hair would be a closer comp. but I think that would take us into measuring the diameter of the hairs which can't be done without the right kind of microscope. Also you wouldn't likely take my word for it that no ovoide bodies were observed, and I'm not about to photo every millimeter of all the hairs.

Last edited by southernyahoo; 24th August 2011 at 04:12 PM.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 04:12 PM   #324
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,666
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
Here is a comparison of bear, chimp, and the unknown.


Attached below is another bear sample. The width of the medulla varies for a given animal. Maybe it can't help us much.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg figure135.jpg (7.0 KB, 135 views)
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 04:18 PM   #325
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,800
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Attached below is another bear sample. The width of the medulla varies for a given animal. Maybe it can't help us much.
You know what's needed? A bigfoot hair to compare the suspect hairs with.

It we only had that.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 04:39 PM   #326
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
You know what's needed? A bigfoot hair to compare the suspect hairs with.

It we only had that.
Well it just might be some scientists opinion that the one on the left "is".
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 04:45 PM   #327
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,800
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
Well it just might be some scientists opinion that the one on the left "is".
I'll not hold my breath.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 04:53 PM   #328
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,666
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
Well it just might be some scientists opinion that the one on the left "is".
Wait. Which is the unknown?

Originally Posted by southernyahoo
Here is a comparison of bear, chimp, and the unknown.
This word ordering suggests that it is on the right.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 05:11 PM   #329
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,113
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
You can't dictate what length of hair you would find. The length can help rule out alot of animals. Where are the measurements of pattys hair, or is that subjective opinion?
Classic 'footer dodge.
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 06:47 PM   #330
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Wait. Which is the unknown?



This word ordering suggests that it is on the right.
It is the one on the left, I have to make sure you are paying attention.





southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 07:14 PM   #331
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,713
Exposure and wrapping in the branches/burrs might cause the hairs to curl.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 07:16 PM   #332
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,713
Roger gave widely varying lengths for Patty's hair, iirc. From short to 4 inches.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 07:23 PM   #333
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,643
After looking at many websites on hair - this looks most like bovine hair to any other samples I've seen on the internet. Any in the area of matching color? (or previous owners with them?)
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 07:29 PM   #334
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by River View Post
After looking at many websites on hair - this looks most like bovine hair to any other samples I've seen on the internet. Any in the area of matching color? (or previous owners with them?)
Yes, it shouldn't be a big mystery...but if you can keep it "unknown", you can keep claiming it's from a sasquatch.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 07:33 PM   #335
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,713
Wouldn't there have been sasquatch skin cells all over that tree? Did anyone swab any branches?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 07:55 PM   #336
Deacondark
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 334
I live in the Ark-La-Tex area, and I can tell you that the woods in some places are thick with wild boar. And they get into trees and undergrowth and root around, tearing off branches and leaving hair all the time. I've seen it quite a bit, and never thought "Bigfoot". I always thought "Wild boar" and reached for my pistol. Them things will tear you up pretty bad if you're not careful.
Deacondark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 08:07 PM   #337
Deacondark
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 334
Here is a link to a study on the rooting effects on tree regeneration as a result of Wild boar: http://www.stewardsofthecoastandredw...radication.pdf

And here is a video of a guy showing a wild boar rub: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrFfd-OD7N4
Deacondark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 08:25 PM   #338
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,713
Ahh, but there were hairs at 4 feet...
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2011, 12:42 AM   #339
Deacondark
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Ahh, but there were hairs at 4 feet...
I've seen wild boar that were 3 feet tall. And given peoples propensity to exaggerate, and hairs ability to fly around, 4 feet is not out of the question. If it were Bigfoot, shouldn't it be higher than that? Oh wait, maybe he was going at it in quadrupedal mode!
Deacondark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2011, 04:06 AM   #340
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by River View Post
After looking at many websites on hair - this looks most like bovine hair to any other samples I've seen on the internet. Any in the area of matching color? (or previous owners with them?)
Black Angus cow would be your closest match, Photo's online seem to satisfy the cortex color and general appearance of the medulla. There is other characteristics to make a positive ID.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2011, 04:09 AM   #341
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Yes, it shouldn't be a big mystery...but if you can keep it "unknown", you can keep claiming it's from a sasquatch.
Ready to name "Mr. Good science" yet?
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2011, 04:30 AM   #342
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
Ready to name "Mr. Good science" yet?
No. I only know of one sasquatch hair expert, and you already used him.

It's very common for footers to report "unknown" for specimens supposedly from sasquatch, so don't look at me with that squinty eye.

In fact, I think it's nearly a universal result from sasquatch DNA/hair sample testing.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2011, 06:18 AM   #343
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
No. I only know of one sasquatch hair expert, and you already used him.

It's very common for footers to report "unknown" for specimens supposedly from sasquatch, so don't look at me with that squinty eye.

In fact, I think it's nearly a universal result from sasquatch DNA/hair sample testing.
You said it yourself that morph ID is problematic, yet for some reason a footer is supposed be the expert in it?

Unknown is the proper reference to them as long as you have no definate concensus from the "real experts". So who are they?

I've noted that skeptics are quick to call "bad science" when any "expert" finds the evidence in favor of BF. Would they do the same if they had chosen the expert?Yes my eyes are squinting.

I've worked on being completely objective in getting a straight and repeated answer on them. I don't want to just believe they are BF,I'll put that on the line, I want to know, just like you.

I'm pitting my confidence in what the results would be against your skepticism, we'd both be on the hook.

If you think "good science" can ID them, you shouldn't have a problem with this.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2011, 06:29 AM   #344
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,713
"Unknown" is not the proper reference for "bad sample" or "inconclusive" or "degraded".

It's something said deliberately to maintain interest.

It's quite common in the cryptid world, imo.

They even do it with photos of poor mangy creatures found by the road or washed up on the beach. Keep insisting that "no one can identify it".
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2011, 08:44 AM   #345
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,800
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
I've noted that skeptics are quick to call "bad science" when any "expert" finds the evidence in favor of BF.
What evidence would that be? "Unknown" hairs? Inconclusive DNA? Unverifiable anecdotes or suspicious film?

How about a corpse? That would be cool.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2011, 09:02 AM   #346
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
"Unknown" is not the proper reference for "bad sample" or "inconclusive" or "degraded".
If it's inconclusive, how could it be anything other than "unknown"?

Quote:
It's something said deliberately to maintain interest.
It's something said when you can't say anything else.


Quote:
It's quite common in the cryptid world, imo.

They even do it with photos of poor mangy creatures found by the road or washed up on the beach. Keep insisting that "no one can identify it"
I'm sure it happens where something seems cryptic , and decomposed. You can take issue with claims when the due investigative process is not done, but don't complain about the investigation if you also want to use the argument there is no mystery, yet the evidence needs to be properly tested.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2011, 09:15 AM   #347
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,713
"Unknown" implies that the DNA sample was good, and they got a good profile, and they couldn't identify that good profile.

If you had several of these good profiles from different samples found in different places, you'd have a much better start towards a case for an unknown creature.

It seems like we never hear about any good profiles from these samples. If we do hear about the results, it always seems to be an odd story with a result that no one can use for anything.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2011, 11:09 AM   #348
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
"Unknown" implies that the DNA sample was good, and they got a good profile, and they couldn't identify that good profile.

If you had several of these good profiles from different samples found in different places, you'd have a much better start towards a case for an unknown creature.

It seems like we never hear about any good profiles from these samples. If we do hear about the results, it always seems to be an odd story with a result that no one can use for anything.
I understand that frustration, and thats exactly what Dr. Ketchums study is about. Parcher was concerned too that you wouldn't get to see the provenance of the samples or look at the evidence that is being studied, or see that the profiles were complete. Hopefully you will get to see more from the others and the results published.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2011, 12:34 PM   #349
The Shrike
Master Poster
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,835
I guess I still don't understand why "bovine" and "equine" have apparently been ruled out as candidates for the suspected bigfoot hairs. The wide, even medulla matches well as far as I can see. (Note that bovine should include goats - often turned loose in that part of the world to help knock back the cedar - and equine should include mules and donkeys. For that matter, what's the likelihood of something else, like llamas from this location?)

Finally, I have no hair/DNA expert in mind that I would immediately recommend as a peer referee for Ketchum's paper. I trust that if she's sent her manuscript to a decent journal that the editor there will be able to find people with the relevant expertise to critically examine the work.
The Shrike is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2011, 03:02 PM   #350
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
I guess I still don't understand why "bovine" and "equine" have apparently been ruled out as candidates for the suspected bigfoot hairs. The wide, even medulla matches well as far as I can see. (Note that bovine should include goats - often turned loose in that part of the world to help knock back the cedar - and equine should include mules and donkeys. For that matter, what's the likelihood of something else, like llamas from this location?)

Finally, I have no hair/DNA expert in mind that I would immediately recommend as a peer referee for Ketchum's paper. I trust that if she's sent her manuscript to a decent journal that the editor there will be able to find people with the relevant expertise to critically examine the work.
Well you could always argue that someone let an exotic animal loose or that some animals you mentioned were the culprit. I have to rely on what the various labs have told us. With each try to get them identified both by morphology and DNA it becomes more and more apparent that either these hairs are stumping the experts because it is rare or the DNA really doesn't match when comparisons are run. The one tech seemed confident they had good enough sequences, and with that the hairs should have been identified even if it was the rare llama
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2011, 03:04 PM   #351
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,525
Is belief in Bigfoot a requirement for this scientist?
__________________
unlikely to stay thirsty, my friends.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2011, 07:48 AM   #352
The Shrike
Master Poster
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,835
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
Well you could always argue that someone let an exotic animal loose or that some animals you mentioned were the culprit.
I believe I mentioned cows, horses, goats, donkeys, and mules. Are these creatures rarities in Oklahoma? I've seen representatives of all of them during my field work in that part of the world. As for llamas, you might check here to learn more about them: http://oklahomallamaassociation.homestead.com/. With over 7000 visitors to their website, I think llamas might be more common in the state than you realize.

Other exotics? Why not? There's quite an industry in Texas (e.g., http://www.texasexotichunting.net/te...ichunting.html), does this not exist in Oklahoma? Certainly someone could plant some strange hair in a redcedar, twist off a branch and yell "bigfoot!" You do realize how ridiculous it is to consider bigfoots living in the location you indicated and the habitat illustrated in the photo, right?

You still haven't explained why the "mystery hairs" aren't equine. The micro-structure looks like a dead ringer to me.
The Shrike is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2011, 12:56 PM   #353
kmortis
Biomechanoid
Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Moderator
 
kmortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,023
Mod WarningPlay nice folks. Keep it civil and on topic. Unless a bigfoot recently registered, the topic is not the other posters.
Posted By:kmortis
__________________
-Aberhaten did it
- "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe
-Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping
- Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm
kmortis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2011, 03:24 PM   #354
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
I believe I mentioned cows, horses, goats, donkeys, and mules. Are these creatures rarities in Oklahoma? I've seen representatives of all of them during my field work in that part of the world. As for llamas, you might check here to learn more about them: http://oklahomallamaassociation.homestead.com/. With over 7000 visitors to their website, I think llamas might be more common in the state than you realize.
I didn't say those animals are rare, I've speculated that whatever the hairs are from must be rare, atleast in that it's hairs are rarely submitted as unknowns to labs.


Quote:
Other exotics? Why not? There's quite an industry in Texas (e.g., http://www.texasexotichunting.net/te...ichunting.html), does this not exist in Oklahoma? Certainly someone could plant some strange hair in a redcedar, twist off a branch and yell "bigfoot!" You do realize how ridiculous it is to consider bigfoots living in the location you indicated and the habitat illustrated in the photo, right?
I said you could argue, but didn't say you would be arguing with me.

Yeah, I spent a couple days there out of curiousity, like many other groups and organizations. I had a look around and found evidence of something large dark and shaggy. I decided to test the hairs. If they are not bigfoot then it might explain the sightings as a misidentification. There's always that for an upside


Quote:
You still haven't explained why the "mystery hairs" aren't equine. The micro-structure looks like a dead ringer to me.
You are asking the wrong person. If you found hair and was curious enough to have them examined, you wouldn't come asking me. If you want to assemble a comparison using the provided pics, have at it, just don't call it proof of anything without an experts opinion to back it up.

Though, any hair and fiber expert won't make a judgement based on a couple micrographs. There is the cuticle scale pattern, diameter, length, degree of wave, cross sectional shape, color, pigmentation density and distribution and medulla structures, when present to consider. Each species has some unique combination of all these atributes and with each atribute having a range of variability.

If this explanation is still needed after the paper is published then we'll pursue it further.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2011, 04:36 PM   #355
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,525
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
I didn't say those animals are rare, I've speculated that whatever the hairs are from must be rare, atleast in that it's hairs are rarely submitted as unknowns to labs....


Though, any hair and fiber expert won't make a judgement based on a couple micrographs. There is the cuticle scale pattern, diameter, length, degree of wave, cross sectional shape, color, pigmentation density and distribution and medulla structures, when present to consider. Each species has some unique combination of all these atributes and with each atribute having a range of variability.
Do you really think these statements are true? If so, can you provide evidence that they are? Who makes these claims? What record do they have? There are a lot of tests that have been devised in science, education, medicine etc that just don't turn out to be very useful...they give too many false positives and false negatives to be helpful. And subjective issues are always problematic.
What good is it if the best expert in the world gets 73% correct? What good is it if the worst guy gets 32%? What if he's honest and says i dont know 68% of the time and you gaily pronounce 68% of all sample to be "unknown" wink wink bigfoot....SEND YOUR SAMPLES TO THIS GUY!! Great for business, unlike most fields where competence is valued. how do you know which guy you've got? Is he better on domestics in Oklahoma than wilds in Alaska?


I have the idea, as I mentioned and you suggest, that determination of species from a hair is not at all a simple matter and that some who profess to be able to do it are simply arrogant. As a result, no information or misinformation often results. I would suggest consuting the FBI at Quantico VA to get a referral to the person they consider to be the best.
I think it's just not a good test.
__________________
unlikely to stay thirsty, my friends.

Last edited by DennyT; 26th August 2011 at 04:41 PM.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2011, 06:25 PM   #356
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post


I have the idea, as I mentioned and you suggest, that determination of species from a hair is not at all a simple matter and that some who profess to be able to do it are simply arrogant. As a result, no information or misinformation often results. I would suggest consuting the FBI at Quantico VA to get a referral to the person they consider to be the best.
I think it's just not a good test.
I don't necessarily agree that it's arrogant, I mean you would'nt say that Todd Disotell didn't debunk alot of hair samples that he's been sent. I fully expect that for instance Dr. Lynn Rogers of WRI in Eli Minnesota could identify a bear hair when he see's it, to include his lab assistants since he studies Black Bears in the wild.

I expect that some animal hairs are easy to ID becuase they are distinctive in some way while others form groups that reguire a trained eye to distinguish.

It's just a far better plan to go after DNA especially when trying to ID a cryptid because the comparisons can be done across all catalogued species by computer in the blink of an eye and with greater accuracy. The downside is that the sample needs to be relatively fresh with root tissue.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2011, 07:26 PM   #357
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,800
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
It's just a far better plan to go after DNA especially when trying to ID a cryptid because the comparisons can be done across all catalogued species by computer in the blink of an eye and with greater accuracy. The downside is that the sample needs to be relatively fresh with root tissue.
We've identified cryptids through DNA? Where?

Last edited by Resume; 26th August 2011 at 07:40 PM.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2011, 07:52 PM   #358
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
We've identified cryptids through DNA? Where?
Denisovans, a new homind was identified with DNA they got from a couple teeth and a pinky bone. they wouldn't have called it a new species of human without the DNA.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2011, 08:09 PM   #359
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,800
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
Denisovans, a new homind was identified with DNA they got from a couple teeth and a pinky bone. they wouldn't have called it a new species of human without the DNA.
Not a cryptid in the spirit of Footie, Nessie or Champ. But you know that.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2011, 08:11 PM   #360
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
Denisovans, a new homind was identified with DNA they got from a couple teeth and a pinky bone. they wouldn't have called it a new species of human without the DNA.
How is that a cryptid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.