Martin

Yeti vs Bear DNA

44 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, norseman said:

Yes, but does anyone get tired of the samples coming back as mundane animals!?

 

Yes.   However ... I'm not letting that interfere with an opportunity to observe and learn.    There are lessons in that.

 

First, there is way too much wishful thinking going on.   People are spending a lot of money testing what amounts to "hail Mary" "swings for the fence" without good grounds for the confidence they're showing.

 

Second, Ketchum's was not the only flawed study, Sykes' study was just as bad.   Each of those samples that came back some common animal should have been identified as that common animal by morphology alone.   As I recall, the samples for Sykes went through Rhettman Mullis for examination first, so maybe Rhett is incompetent in that regard.  If not, Sykes KNEW he was testing common animals .. why would he do that except to sabotage the bigfoot community?    Something stinks.

 

Third ... this is more related to the original topic, bear vs yeti ... but still regarding Sykes: Sykes' reputation and expertise are specific to human DNA.   It appears that does not generalize to all mammalian DNA.   His errors regarding bears seem to originate in assumptions about humans / primates he applied and should not have.   Other experts, focused on bears or general wildlife did not make the same mistakes.

 

I can see pretty well that before I spend my hard earned, hard saved money on testing DNA samples, I have to have considerably greater basis for confidence in what I've got than people have had so far.   I have to be sure enough I can state that it is bigfoot no matter what it comes back.    Short of taking it off a body, which I really don't want to do, what's available?   Placenta, maybe?    I don't make it easy on myself, do I?  :)

 

MIB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Yes.   However ... I'm not letting that interfere with an opportunity to observe and learn.    There are lessons in that.

 

First, there is way too much wishful thinking going on.   People are spending a lot of money testing what amounts to "hail Mary" "swings for the fence" without good grounds for the confidence they're showing.

 

Second, Ketchum's was not the only flawed study, Sykes' study was just as bad.   Each of those samples that came back some common animal should have been identified as that common animal by morphology alone.   As I recall, the samples for Sykes went through Rhettman Mullis for examination first, so maybe Rhett is incompetent in that regard.  If not, Sykes KNEW he was testing common animals .. why would he do that except to sabotage the bigfoot community?    Something stinks.

 

Third ... this is more related to the original topic, bear vs yeti ... but still regarding Sykes: Sykes' reputation and expertise are specific to human DNA.   It appears that does not generalize to all mammalian DNA.   His errors regarding bears seem to originate in assumptions about humans / primates he applied and should not have.   Other experts, focused on bears or general wildlife did not make the same mistakes.

 

I can see pretty well that before I spend my hard earned, hard saved money on testing DNA samples, I have to have considerably greater basis for confidence in what I've got than people have had so far.   I have to be sure enough I can state that it is bigfoot no matter what it comes back.    Short of taking it off a body, which I really don't want to do, what's available?   Placenta, maybe?    I don't make it easy on myself, do I?  :)

 

MIB

 

I guess start baiting with bacon in the hopes one dies of a heart attack? :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, norseman said:

 

I guess start baiting with bacon in the hopes one dies of a heart attack? :)

 

With bacon, the first thing I'd catch is myself.   :)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On December 1, 2017 at 5:11 PM, WSA said:

Had more than one acquaintance send me the link with the same kind of '"YOU SEE!!!" message attached. "Meh" is my response. It seems thought-stopping articles like this one are just too enticing to pass up for anyone who has limited knowledge. Well, maybe that is the point.  Doesn't take much for an incurious population to be persuaded there is nothing to see, does it?

 

When I asked my crow-serving acquaintances if the study was looking at mDNA or nDNA, I got not a glimmer of recognition from them.  Right, just give me the Cliff Notes, I don't wanna read some big boring book.  Is it any wonder?  

  

Yes! Someone who understands what's going on. Great post. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2017 at 9:48 PM, MIB said:

 

Yes.   However ... I'm not letting that interfere with an opportunity to observe and learn.    There are lessons in that.

 

First, there is way too much wishful thinking going on.   People are spending a lot of money testing what amounts to "hail Mary" "swings for the fence" without good grounds for the confidence they're showing.

 

Second, Ketchum's was not the only flawed study, Sykes' study was just as bad.   Each of those samples that came back some common animal should have been identified as that common animal by morphology alone.   As I recall, the samples for Sykes went through Rhettman Mullis for examination first, so maybe Rhett is incompetent in that regard.  If not, Sykes KNEW he was testing common animals .. why would he do that except to sabotage the bigfoot community?    Something stinks.

 

Third ... this is more related to the original topic, bear vs yeti ... but still regarding Sykes: Sykes' reputation and expertise are specific to human DNA.   It appears that does not generalize to all mammalian DNA.   His errors regarding bears seem to originate in assumptions about humans / primates he applied and should not have.   Other experts, focused on bears or general wildlife did not make the same mistakes.

 

I can see pretty well that before I spend my hard earned, hard saved money on testing DNA samples, I have to have considerably greater basis for confidence in what I've got than people have had so far.   I have to be sure enough I can state that it is bigfoot no matter what it comes back.    Short of taking it off a body, which I really don't want to do, what's available?   Placenta, maybe?    I don't make it easy on myself, do I?  :)

 

MIB

Hair or scat would do nicely as well. Placenta is a stretch.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2017 at 0:02 AM, dmaker said:

Hair or scat would do nicely as well. Placenta is a stretch.

 

If the big guy is as intelligent as some claim, let's kill two birds with one stone and set out a large number of home DNA cheek swab kits... we'd also have his fingerprints dead to rights. :P

 

Seriously though, it's a shame when the media reports on things they know little about, or when they report in a manner which is not objective.  Again, if the DNA tested in this case were known or suspected to be something other than Yeti, there was little point to be made by testing and publicizing those results unless there was an agenda (such as to "disprove" that Yeti exist or to gain popularity for supposedly and finally putting the question to rest, etc.)  However, the only thing proven was that they found no samples of a Yeti to test.

 

Quite the paradox, really.  It is impossible to prove that Yeti dont exist, yet it is also apparently next to impossible to prove that they do.  Stalemate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, welcome to the Forum. And a paradox it is, DFinTx, and the same can be said somewhat for North America's Sasquatch as well. But I look at it from another angle too. Yes, there are bears in the Himalayas. However, I've not seen anything to date that addresses those bears with regard to these. I'd be curious to see what their paws really look like. Five toes with claws like normal bears? Or not.

Yeti 1.gif

 

Yeti 2.jpgYeti 3.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you sir, nice to get a response from someone whose name I recognize (been reading your "Patty is Real" thread).

 

I probably should've said "stalemate until more evidence is provided" to be more accurate.  But yes, those tracks don't resemble a bear unless it had deformities (which seem doubtful to me because it would make survival in that harsh environment much more difficult).  Interesting stuff for sure.

 

At any rate,  glad to have found this forum because it's darn hard to find people to discuss this sort of thing with in my area.  I'm here to learn, and don't pretend to know much about BF or Yeti. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, DFinTx said:

I'm here to learn, and don't pretend to know much about BF or Yeti. :)

 

HAH! No worries there. There are no experts although a few around here are hot on the trail. Logic and common sense, two wise avenues, will take you as far as any one here has gone and yes, a lot to learn for sure. One chief one? Do NOT go into the woods in a monkey suit ;) See you around the Forum. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this recently on Incorrigible1's similar thread...

 

 

Funny how they weren't interested in the tracks. ;);) 

 

Physical evidence?

In the scientific and serious popular literature most of the debate has centered on the tracks which, whatever one makes of the sightings or the credibility of witnesses to the animal itself, undeniably exist. Skeptics usually explain these as the spoor of - conventional animals such as snow leopards, foxes, bears-or even wandering Tibetan lamas (who evidently do not mind freezing their feet)-and sometimes claim that melting has distorted their shapes into "yeti" prints. Though by now a virtual article of faith among skeptics, this last notion is a dubious one. Napier, no yeti believer, writes that "there is no real experimental basis for the belief that single footprints can become enlarged and still retain their shapes, or that discrete prints can run (or melt) together to form single large tracks."

In any case, some of the tracks are found fresh-in other words, before the elements have had a chance to act on them. Among the more impressive incidents involving tracks is one that happened in 1972 to members of the Arun Valley Wildlife Expedition, a multidisciplinary ecological survey of a deep river valley in far-eastern Nepal where many rare animals and plants live isolated and undisturbed. Its participants, including leader Edward Cronin, a zoologist, were open-minded about the yeti's possible existence and even looked for evidence in the course of their two-year effort, but this was not the main purpose of their endeavor.

On the night of December 17, Cronin and expedition physician Howard Emery, along with their Sherpa guides, camped on a depression at 12,000 feet in the ridge of Kongmaa La mountain. The next morning, when Emery awoke and stepped outside, he was startled to find footprints of a bipedal creature which had walked between the two tents sometime in the night. Nine inches long and four and three-quarters wide, perfectly preserved, the tracks showed, Cronin recorded, a "short, broad, opposable hallux, an asymmetrical arrangement of the four remaining toes, and a wide, rounded heel." They looked very much like a yeti print photographed by mountaineer Eric Shipton in 1951.

Expedition members followed the prints for some distance. The creature had come up and down the slope to the north, crossed through the camp, and proceeded over the south slope. Then it returned to the top of the ridge. Its tracks disappeared down the south slope in scrub and rock. "The slope was extremely steep," Cronin wrote, "and searching for the prints was arduous and dangerous. We realized that whatever creature had made them was far stronger than any of us."

 

0730.jpg

0731.jpg

Edited by PBeaton
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PBeaton, what I find the most curious about the prints and casts in your post as well as mine is the obvious strange configuration of the toes. It's almost as if they are designed for gripping a surface like maybe hard packed snow when climbing up a slope. They appear to be able to curl into material which would be very advantageous over such mountainous snow covered terrain. So the feet/paw could stay flat to disperse weight while the toes dug in. IMO it's a perfect adaptation for the environment in which the prints were found. A wide foot/paw with almost prehensile toes. As someone mentioned, the fore limb could have something like a thumb similar to a Panda (raccoon family) for gripping whatever it is that they eat (bamboo).

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing . I liked the article and the pictures. If the creature does exist in Nepal as reported for many years, they are obviously very rare. 

As far as I know none were discovered in the 2015 earthquake that killed 9000 or so people. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That occurred in April of that year and I've never looked to see the situation afterwards regarding any avalanches. For a country with such an enormous change in elevation (under 200 ft. all the way up to Mount Everest!) one would think there may have been at least bears lost. Since monks had (have) artifacts then unless hunted and killed I'm sure carcasses or skeletons would be found in areas with snow melt.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what I would expect also. There were  avalanches and a second quake, I could not find out about animal deaths . Only humans . 

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites