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

[Guest Darrell]

Just watched that clip from the Today Show. they showed the animal that was shot by the SS expedition. Amazing, the bear looks like, A BEAR!!!

[Cotter]

We know bears exist right?  

 

Do we know upright walking primates exist?

@Darrell:

I may have missed it, but have you offered a suggestion as to why no photos of this bear have been taken in the wild?

[Gotta Know]

Just watched that clip from the Today Show. they showed the animal that was shot by the SS expedition. Amazing, the bear looks like, A BEAR!!!

Strangest looking bear I've ever seen. Could be a trick of taxidermy, but it looks like a bear/ape cross of sorts. The snout on modern bears is more canine-looking, elongated. This look one looks flat to the face, for starters. Not sure what to make of it!

[Guest Darrell]

Do we know upright walking primates exist?

@Darrell:

I may have missed it, but have you offered a suggestion as to why no photos of this bear have been taken in the wild?

Maybe because nobody has tried to? Its the top of the world in a bearly (pun intended) 4th world country. Most of the natives bearly have enough to eat so would think digital cameras are not too common. But I bet it wont be long and we will have pics and a type sample. Oh we already do, its stuffed because somebody shot it!  Its 9 am here in N. Idaho and I bearly have had 2 cups of coffee. Im such a bear when Im grummpy and cold. Bear with me please, I will be more pleasant later.  BTW, do you know what the difference is between a bigfoot and a N. Idaho single mom is? About 50 lbs and a casino jacket, lol.

[Cotter]

^Best post ever.

 

LOL!

 

But back to the nuts and bolts here. 

 

Seems like they can capture a snow leopard.  The Bhutan Foundation has operations in the area.  Perhaps after yer cup of coffee a different possibility will show itself.

 

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&safe=off&sa=N&biw=1369&bih=193&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbnid=KhK1D9vepMnhCM:&imgrefurl=http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/author/abucci/feed/&docid=rJj6kbL-2yo-3M&imgurl=http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/files/2013/06/takin-calf-cornered-wangchuk-Bhutan-2.jpg&w=990&h=742&ei=0mVhUubvAaTL2QWhgIGADA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=433&vpy=-115&dur=2625&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=140&ty=166&page=6&tbnh=150&tbnw=198&start=34&ndsp=7&ved=1t:429,r:37,s:0,i:198

[Guest]

From Bigfootology FB account:

 

"Yes, I can confirm the paper is in peer-review now, and everything is still on schedule. So far everything that has been hitting the press is not new news, and much of what Bryan and I are seeing hitting the net is silliness. The documentary does not compromise the paper in peer-review,..."

 

Well, if the polar bear doesnt compromise the paper in review, then the DNA paper doesnt include it. Maybe, time to get excited again. If the paper isnt about the amazing extinct bear find, it isnt likely to be about finding fox, deer and other known animals either. 

 

Would like to hibernate until the paper finally comes out!! 

[Guest Darrell]

^ "Would like to hibernate until the paper finally comes out!!"

 

I'll take your advice. I cant bear the wait! Could be a chance the animal is now extinct? Its possible the giant panda could have become extinct in the last 50 yrs if not for conservation efforts from outside Asia.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Darrell

[Rockape]

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?  

 

Very ironic it was found not by someone looking for a new species of bear however, but by someone who was looking for Yeti.

 

And yes, we know bears exist. We also know hominids exist, so I fail to see your point.

[dmaker]

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.

 

You missed a key step there:

 

We found hair. 

We claimed hair came from Yeti.

Hair is bear.

Yet is bear. 

[Cotter]

Hi dmaker - I'd like to pose the same question to you as I did Darrell.

How is it we have no photos of this bear in the wild?

 

The 'there are no cameras in Bhutan' answer has been taken.

 

;-)

[Guest]

Cliff Barackman was on the "Joe Show"(internet radio) last night and he seemed convinced that something very exciting will be released about the US samples.  He didn't give details, but he has reliable inside information.

[dmaker]

Cotter, what is the relevance of your question? No photos? I don't know, maybe because the people that live in that region do not own cameras nor do they typically go out looking for the yeti to take pictures? Maybe they saw one and thought it was just a regular old bear, so no great urge to take a picture. We're not talking about the relatively comfortable climate of the PNW, or the forests of Eastern North America. I know of no BFRO ( Bearfoot Research Organization) paid camping trips to the snowy peaks of the Himalayas.   Do you?   Do you honestly not see the huge and ridiculous gap in what you are trying to imply here?

[Guest Urkelbot]

Hi dmaker - I'd like to pose the same question to you as I did Darrell.

How is it we have no photos of this bear in the wild?

 

The 'there are no cameras in Bhutan' answer has been taken.

 

;-)

It's possible the bear is phenotypically very similar to the himilayan brown bear. Enough so that no one ever noticed the difference. Something with a relativly low fecundity like a bear 40,000 years isn't very long. The himilayan bear is rare and this sub species is even more rare or extinct. There could be pictures and parts already that we're thought to be the brown bear. No one will know until after the show and published paper fleshes this all out.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Very ironic it was found not by someone looking for a new species of bear however, but by someone who was looking for Yeti.

 

And yes, we know bears exist. We also know hominids exist, so I fail to see your point.

Ditto and plussed. I completely fail to see the point here. The results of Dr Sykes' study demonstrates that, incredibly, amazingly, there appears to be a very odd bear roaming the high Himalayas. This is not by all accounts 'just' a polar/brown bear hybrid as some would suggest but possibly a 'good' species in its own right or at least a very distinct subspecies - we await further details. This may be a species not recorded by science outside remains dated to some 40,000 yrs BCE - that by anyone's view is a significant event. We do not know what it looks like so the assertion that it is simply a slightly, perhaps indistinguishably, different brown bear may be erroneous: given its high alpine habitat it may well be very different physiologically from the Himalayan brown bear - this may indeed, as Sykes has alluded to, explain why its appearance and behaviour have been reported as atypical for a bear (possibly leading to the Yeti myth). Sykes' interview on BBC radio 4 yesterday morning was insightful and he raised some very intriguing questions (essentially my earlier post was based to a large degree upon his reflections) about the origins and ecology of this bear. 

 

Again, I must repeat: if one cannot see the relevance (on several levels) of this discovery in the context of the Yeti/Sasquatch/relic hominid theory then one should see a doctor - to deny that it has relevance is intellectually disingenuous. It is so blindingly obvious that to spell it out seems stupid. I agree wholeheartedly that it in no way proves the Yeti 'myth' but it goes way beyond a mildly interesting 'just another bear, whoopee! we already knew bears existed' story. I would pay good money to bet that if this forum was and had been dedicated to the purported existence of a hitherto unknown high alpine 'polar' bear in the Himalayas, some of the same characters would be on here poo-pooing the whole thing as ludicrous. " We already know all there is to know about bears!!" There's a whole heap of cultural baggage attached to the Yeti legend and the sceptics are in it as deep and any proponent.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Stan Norton

[Guest]

A new bear species being discovered through this is pretty cool, but I don't think we can draw too many parallels between this and a BF.  We know there are multiple extant bear species today - polar, brown, American black, Asian black, spectacled, sun, sloth - maybe some I'm not familiar with.  Discovery of a large, bipedal ape would be a completely different level of discovery.