Ghideon

@CharonY have posted good answers, I'll just add a few layman notes. If the sample is indeed unknown or unidentified due to some reason that's all there is to say: "unknown" or "unidentified". Cryptids does not exist according to current evidence available in mainstream science. No lab is going to have big foot, chupacabra or other cryptids' DNA in store for reference. An unknown sample could possibly be classified as a potential new species, related to some other known species and call for further scientific research. But I can't find a scientific argument why "unknown" DNA alone would be evidence for existence a cryptid. Another related thread* was just posted, possibly an example where a DNA test could return "unknown". If a hair sample belonging to an extinct species was analysed, without any context or details known, the result might be "unknown"? *) https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120650-18000-year-old-dog-found-in-permafrost/?tab=comments#comment-1124191

Can you provide or point to a definition of obsevable, observed, unobserved that you use in your idea?

What is a cryptoid*? Is this about Cryptozoology? *) Do you mean cryptid?

Since there are different types of DNA tests, what type of test did the hypothetical lab use on the hyptetical hair sample? I guess the experted outcome could be method dependent.

Are you arguing that radiation from particle annihilation are measured wrong or that the models that predicts the outcome of experiments are wrong? Both? Something else?

What is a Matter/Antimatter fight? I've seen this before...

When a skeptic professional receives an email message from someone claiming to be able to deliver telepathic messages, why should the professional be interested? Do you see some logical issue from the professional's point of view? What did you write that could possibly raise interest?

Facebook may actually be what OP is looking for? According to CNN, Mark Zuckerberg states that the future of Facebook is telepathy: Source: https://money.cnn.com/2015/06/30/technology/facebook-telepathy/index.html https://www.washington.edu/news/2013/08/27/researcher-controls-colleagues-motions-in-1st-human-brain-to-brain-interface/ But of course, the University of Washington (and Facebook) seems to be talking about possible development of mainstream concepts, not any nonsense posted in this thread.

Good idea with documentation! I think I would try to create situations that others could not resist to document and let media/others do the work. Be persistent until there's no way to deny that something unique is going on. Lets be creative: -Send messages to animals, such as trained dogs. -Send messages to individuals who have lost hearing. -Send messages in foreign language, to multiple, reasonably high ranked military staff and media. Use your imagination, message could be something like "Psychic special forces of XX stand by, prepare for mental transfer of your orders... Abort! Abort! message intercepted by enemy psychic." (replace XX with some agency of choice) In the above examples the telepath needs to be exposed until there are plenty of scientists interested in the new and unknown phenomenon. probability that OP posses real, scientifically verifiable telepathic abilities = X probability that OP is some individual wanting to discredit a mr Ungab = Y By reading the material provided so far, I claim that Y is much larger X *) If telepathy actually existed some of these ways could be considered unethical or not legal.

Again: Exactly how have you tested and been able to study your claimed abilities so far? How did you get the detailed knowledge you claim to possess? Provide details*. Just a reminder: you are claiming existence of telepathy on a forum dedicated to mainstream science. What do you expect when posting the above? You seem to miss the point (by far more than 10 meters). From a scientific point of view a human possessing telepathic powers, even limited, would be a rather spectacular discovery. *) Not anecdotes of someone with frowning lips.

Language skill is not an issue so far. The issue that you do not post any detailed answers or provide any analysis. The actions look more what I would expect from a fraud. Again: Exactly how have you tested and been able to study your claimed abilities so far? How did you get the detailed feedback you have claimed? Provide details. There are hundreds of ways to stir up some interest without mentioning telepathy and/or staying anonymous until enough interest have been raised. Send fitting messages in various contexts and it would be literarily impossible to avoid further investigation. The lack of ability to think outside the box, be creative and provide ideas about this what I would expect from frauds or someone confused. Try to think as a sceptic for a while, can you see how incredibly unlikely it is that someone would be interested in doing that? Especially in the context of the lack of ability to provide anything remotely scientific? But if my next trip to the Philippines happens to bring me to Mindanao I'll PM you an exact location and a time-slot where you can send me a telepathic message from less than 10 meters. Compared to the documented telepathic abilities of the rest of humanity you actually claim abilities on x-men level.

Ok. Then why not post som quality answers instead of repeating yourself? Exactly how have you tested and been able to study your claimed abilities so far?

Question: How are you able to claim all these precise details about your ability and also claim that no-one is willing to take part in tests? Who told you details about your claimed ability? I would expect someone just trying to troll the forum to be more creative. Maybe someone trolled you into believing you have psychic powers? Did you pay someone for some kind of "test"? According to wikipedia the metro population is > 2,500,000. If you try my suggested method for some period of time, and get zero responses, that would be a hint that you completely lack any kind of telepathic ability?

Ok. Since you seem to have no problem going public: -Visit a crowded area. -Randomly walk about sending "Would you like to explore telepathy and make a lot of money?" into random peoples' minds. Maybe add an email address as well. -Wait for responses. I'm sure someone that is able to receive the message will believe they have the psychic powers and be willing to explore further?

Good idea to try to try to control the odds to make it easy to explain/understand statistical outliers and "real" statistical evidence. How about simplifying further: pick ten words and use them in long sequences where the same word may occur multiple times? It would represent numerical sequences and make probability calculations easier. It could also reduce the possible bias introduced by the recipient not knowing about or heard about the uncommon words picked randomly. Agree. I would not announce such abilities here on the forum* if I believed there was any kind of truth behind the claims. I would not be worried at all about sceptics. Personally I would be seriously worried about anyone showing interest. If there would exist any kind of evidence supporting the claims made I believe there are many individuals that would like to get some money or other opportunity from the claimed abilities. Whit or without the cooperation of the individual possessing telepathic powers. *) Most members here are nice but the posts are visible to any visitors afaik.

Then you do not need to tell participants about telepathy? Give them a pair of wireless headphones, tell them that communication will be tested and run the test suggested by Strange. Tell the receiver individual to write down messages and estimate ”sound quality”. you could also send some real speech into the headphones as comparison.

Is this what you are looking for?http://www.ddbst.com/en/EED/PCP/TCN_C95.php, Dortmund Data Bank, Thermal Conductivity of n-Propyl and Isopropyl Alcohols at Various Temperatures and Pressures

Strange's approach seems good so I'll add to it. I think a detailed definition of "message" is useful. Some notes regarding definitions of message: -Is a message text only? -Can a message be numerical? -Can the message consist of random letters? -Can a text message be delivered in a different language? -Is a message delivered exactly letter by letter? -Will the receiver be able to distinguish "peace" from "peas"? -Does the receiver have to know about the subject or understand the words that makes up the message? -How does the receiver "know" that they have the message? What kind of sensation is triggered? -Is "intention" or feelings delivered with the message? Example: "Now that was just freaking awesome" could be a sarcastic comment or meant as a compliment. Some additional notes to start modeling the phenomenon*: -Is the effect exactly the same for all receiving individuals or are there differences? -What happens at the sending side if there is no individual receiving the message? -What happens with the other people around, will they receive the message? -What happens if you do not know if there is a person in the receiving room? Can you tell? -Can the receiving individual choose to not listen to messages? -Over what range can the message be transferred? -What happens at maximum range, are some parts dropped? Some messages are not transferred? Other? -Are some recipients are more sensitive, receiving messages at longer distances? *) I'm of course completely convinced that this (and other) experiments will fail, telepathy does not exist. But discussing pros and cons of possible approaches is interesting.

Where does the paper say that? The paper states the following (bold by me)

Here is a paper with plenty of references and discussion of evolutionary patterns: Evolution of Air Breathing: Oxygen Homeostasis and the Transitions from Water to Land and Sky, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926130/ (I have not had time to read all of the paper)

In the short video clip the dust(?) particles are moving so the glass pane is not stationary relative to the camera. It is not possible to tell if effects are from moving the glass or if pressure is squeezing the wd40 mix or if other effects are shown. Note that the magnet does not affect light (if that is what you suggest). I'm not sure I follow, you squeezed the magnet and the magnet got positive a charge? How? Please try to clarify and to back up your claims. Can you explain why you think that?

Over here, where streetlights are needed 16 hours per day this time of the year, I think that could save quite some energy especially in less crowded areas. One test* of equipment claimed to reduce energy consumption 40-50%. But I don not think increased maintenance costs etc. were discussed in this test. In context of OP, in these tests there are discussions about the type of light source to use and also about how far ahead (and behind) the light should be at 100%. Less serous note: Smartphone runs out of battery: No smartphone flashlight and also no streetlights = complete darkness? *) Fact sheet: www.grow-smarter.eu Stockholm pdf

We have sent spacecrafts there*, twice. Does the measurements from Voyager magnetic field sensor and other instruments match your predictions? *) edge of the heliosphere List of Magnetic Fields Investigation papers: https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/science/bibliography/mag/ Article about five recent papers: https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/news/details.php?article_id=116

Ok! So discussion is purely related to electromagnetic concepts. A better way of educating yourself may be to do the opposite: continue posting. Start posting questions about current models and theories in mainstream sections of the forum, there is a great chance that members will provide both good answers and references to other sources (books or online).

Hello. Can you describe, in some detail, the improved understanding of gravity?