Jump to content

The Sykes / Sartori Report - Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project

Guest gershake

By Guest gershake
in General Bigfoot Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

Everyone is taking everything out of context. What I know as FACT. 

 

1. Sykes has not commented on the results, and there is no reliable source for EVERYTHING being an ancient bear. It's called heresy.

2. He makes NO MENTION whatsoever to Bigfoot/Sasquatch findings, again, all heresy and the news articles have sensationalized it. 

3. Many "Footers" (Bigfootology, etc.) are apparently "very excited" about the results of the BIGFOOT side of things, not the Yeti.

 

I don't think a bear will "change the way we think of human history."

 

Keyword: Human

Edited by Austin M.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExTrumpet Wildman

ExTrumpet

Posted
Posted

Everyone is taking everything out of context. What I know as FACT. 

 

1. Sykes has not commented on the results, and there is no reliable source for EVERYTHING being an ancient bear. It's called heresy.

2. He makes NO MENTION whatsoever to Bigfoot/Sasquatch findings, again, all heresy and the news articles have sensationalized it. 

3. Many "Footers" (Bigfootology, etc.) are apparently "very excited" about the results of the BIGFOOT side of things, not the Yeti.

 

I don't think a bear will "change the way we think of human history."

 

Keyword: Human

 

Now, this might be heresy!   :laugh:

Everyone is taking everything out of context. What I know as FACT. 

 

1. Sykes has not commented on the results, and there is no reliable source for EVERYTHING being an ancient bear. It's called heresy.

2. He makes NO MENTION whatsoever to Bigfoot/Sasquatch findings, again, all heresy and the news articles have sensationalized it. 

3. Many "Footers" (Bigfootology, etc.) are apparently "very excited" about the results of the BIGFOOT side of things, not the Yeti.

 

I don't think a bear will "change the way we think of human history."

 

Keyword: Human

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest SDBigfooter

Guest SDBigfooter

Posted
Posted

Can't we look at a hair sample and generally know the species based on the physical characteristics?  Maybe that was just my interpreatation of all that Melba "morphology" talk.

 

I am having a hard time understanding these tidbits.  From the little we do know, it sounds like the sample from the hunter was known to be from a bear.  It was taken from an unusual looking bear and tested to be bear.  Is that any surprise?  Also, he had a good amount of samples and two came back as this bear?  

 

All I know is that this is getting the skeptic's hopes up it seems.  This "nail in the coffin" talk is hilarious coming from people who seem to have already made their minds up.  To ask the question of whether this will finally close the door on this subject is saying a lot. 

 

There has been a fair amount of buildup to this story and for the goods to be released/leaked before even a single documentary seems a little counter productive. 

 

I am still excited for each of the vids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExTrumpet Wildman

ExTrumpet

Posted
Posted

Definitely meant *Heresay....

 

Or maybe even "hearsay?"   :good:

 

Hearsay

A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Or maybe even "hearsay?"   :good:

 

Hearsay

A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

 

The fact that I keep screwing up is extremely embarrassing. Oh well. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Stan Norton

Guest Stan Norton

Posted
Posted (edited)

Have I missed something Stan? Do we not know that bears exist? And did we not know that bears exist in the Himilayas? And did we not know that brown bears and polar bears interbreed? I do think its a big deal to proponents because you all want to grab at any straw you can reach to validate your belief system.

So finding out that a large mammalian species thought to be long extinct is in fact roaming the high Himalayas has no bearing here? Are you serious? One of the key sceptical arguments has been that the idea of an unknown large beast is ludicrous. The parallel with sasquatch is blindingly apparent.

Edited by Stan Norton
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oonjerah Bukwas

Oonjerah

Posted
Posted (edited)
"Hairsay" might fit here as a coined word.

 

A note I wrote to a pal:   "Dr. Sykes Yeti quest.  There's been an

announcement pre-TV-show. The yeti is a bear; at least the samples

he was given are from bears.  As if the Himalayan people cannot tell

a bear from a hairy man.  Bears usually bipedal only briefly.  But the

news media likes this story far better than it did the announcement of

a new book about Yeti.  So that works publicity-wise." 

 

I also had a bad notion about Bigfoot Files, part 2.  What if the show

goes with Igor Burtsev as their Russian Yeti expert?  I truly hope 

they will be more respectful of the subject. 

 

Could Bigfoot USA be a bear? ... Dr. Sykes did sit down with Justin Smeja. 
Edited by Oonjerah
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

The date (the 20th) ... Is that just the date that the show will air in the UK? Will it air here, or do we know? Do we have a date on the paper yet?

 

(I'm trying to play catch up)

It will be aired on Channel 4 on sunday 8pm and can be watched on the channel 4 replay site called 4oD. Google 4oD install and you should be able to watch it a few hours after it is broadcast :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JDL Skunk Ape

JDL

Posted
Posted

I'm happy to accept that an archaic bear roams the Himalayas.  As I recall there are other species in the area that are considered archaic, such as a breed of small horses.  I would suppose that there is a measure of isolation given the terrain that creates a reservoir of archaic species.

 

Happy for the bear.  Of course, we'll never find a dead one.

 

Has nothing to do with yeti, other than to demonstrate that a large archaic species can exist in the area under the nose of modern science.

 

Avoid the following logic flaw.

 

We found hair.

Hair is bear.

Yeti has hair.

Yeti is bear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Darrell

Guest Darrell

Posted
Posted

But its not an archaic bear. Its not an unchanged long thought extinct bear. Its a hybrid polor/brown bear. And guess what? Science is researching it, and finding proof. Yes Proof! Of a bear, not a yeti or a bigfoot. It doesent exist out side of science or whatever, its a bear! We know bears exist right?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

I admit I'm far from an expert on DNA, but he said he got a 100% match from a hair that came from a creature that was killed 40 years ago.  I thought hair would normally be too degraded after that long of a period.  Is that not right? 

 

The other hair was found 10 years ago and 800? miles away, which is pretty interesting as well.  These newly found bear species seem to really be spread out.  Also, one was found in a bamboo forest and another at a very high altitude.

 

I think we are all so caught up in whether this would prove that the Yeti exists that we forget that the new bear is a pretty cool discovery too.  Large, thought to be extinct Polar bear living in at least 2 areas and no photos.  Possibly a very strange looking and acting bear as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...