Jump to content

' Mythical Yeti Could Be Descended From Ancient Polar Bear '


Recommended Posts

Guest Urkelbot

And that US figure is distorted by a number of the world's largest cities.

 

Most Americans have absolutely no idea how much of this land is seen by few, if any, pretty much ever.

Thesamecan be said of Nepal and Bhutan. Ive been to Nepal and to get to Sargamatha park where everest is you have to fly. Then there are zero roads or cars. Everything is portered on yaks or for even cheaper human backs. The great majority of people live in the lowlands and never travel anywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thesamecan be said of Nepal and Bhutan. Ive been to Nepal and to get to Sargamatha park where everest is you have to fly. Then there are zero roads or cars. Everything is portered on yaks or for even cheaper human backs. The great majority of people live in the lowlands and never travel anywhere.

Oh, I agree.  The thing is that no one realizes how true it is of North America, when most consider it almost a given for Nepal and Bhutan.

 

Of course I don't think maintaining yeti databases is a big thing in those countries either, besides which the topic may be a more accepted part of the culture and made less of.  A Sherpa was once asked to list the local wildlife:  black bear; serow; bharal; snow leopard; yeti; pygmy hare....let's see....barking deer....

 

I don't see much about either the NA or the Himalayan hominoid that merits outright dismissal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad we "went" to Tibet on Sunday.  It's reminding me more & more ...

Most of the objections to Bigfoot are Urban objections. 

 

There are towns in this county, but no cities.  We're all pretty close to the

woods & open fields. I only know 3 other people who believe in Bf, one of

them is a knower. But the majority of my neighbors take the city view &

laugh at the notion of Bf living nearby or existing at all. 

 

I guess I'll blame TV for this ... for educating us country folks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always tout the power of "bootsole cred" in assessing the evidence.  That requires:

 

1) lots of time spent outside;

2) lots of time THINKING about that time; and

3) reading encounter reports, lots of them.  (I mean, that's just basic interest in the topic.)

 

I'd agree; "urban objections" sums it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GuyInIndiana

What's in a name? Why's it so HARD for people to understand that just because someone once upon a time came up with "Yeti", it didn't mean to them back then what *you* think it means today. It's just a bear. Stop thinking of *Yeti* as a primate. It has nothing to do with descendancy from or of DNA. It was a bear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron

Well man-bear it is then!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's Man-Bear. 

 

Wiki: Abominable Snowman - Etymology
 
"The appellation "Abominable Snowman" was coined in 1921, the same year Lieutenant-
Colonel Charles Howard-Bury led the joint Alpine Club and Royal Geographical Society
"Everest Reconnaissance Expedition" which he chronicled in Mount Everest The
Reconnaissance, 1921. In the book, Howard-Bury includes an account of crossing the
"Lhakpa-la" at 21,000 ft (6,400 m) where he found footprints that he believed "were probably
caused by a large 'loping' grey wolf, which in the soft snow formed double tracks rather like
a those of a bare-footed man". He adds that his Sherpa guides "at once volunteered that the
tracks must be that of 'The Wild Man of the Snows', to which they gave the name 'metoh-kangmi'".
"Metoh" translates as "man-bear" and "Kang-mi" translates as "snowman" ... (more) 
 
I have been wondering, til now, whether it was Locals or Westerners who first called Yeti a man. 
Link to post
Share on other sites
GuyInIndiana

^^^Well, I'm in the school that says "we don't know that, yet."  And in this field, that is the school to be in.

 

So Sykes' DNA work is wrong? He says it's what he's found, "but we don't know that yet"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stan Norton

So Sykes' DNA work is wrong? He says it's what he's found, "but we don't know that yet"?

What he means is that we cannot know whether the creature that Sykes has identified is actually the yeti. It is a robust contender but ultimately it is not in itself conclusive proof either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

So Sykes' DNA work is wrong? He says it's what he's found, "but we don't know that yet"?

Two hairs do not a Yeti make. Because a few hairs came back as bear, some are ready to write off Yeti as non-existant? How many purported BF hairs have come back as bear, yet that didn't end it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Two hairs do not a Yeti make. Because a few hairs came back as bear, some are ready to write off Yeti as non-existant? How many purported BF hairs have come back as bear, yet that didn't end it?

 

Normally I would agree with this, but with both of these samples showing ancient bear DNA the circumstance becomes unique.

 

So now we have a very rare animal thought to be extinct roaming the exact same area as the very rare Yeti. Either that's an astronomical coincidence or they're one in the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GuyInIndiana

No one is saying "Yeti" isn't real. It is.,. and THAT it is a bear. The interpretation of calling a YETI something from the primate is a modern interpretation of it.

 

or as SY said...

 

 

Or Yeti is their name for a bear. You can't rule out that there might be a communication barrier.

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