' Mythical Yeti Could Be Descended From Ancient Polar Bear '

[dmaker]

Of course I have heard of NAWAC, and if I ever need a group of folks to go and gather me some hickory nuts, they would be my first pick. 

 

Odd analogies about reptiles in closets aside, let's focus on this statement:

 

"Saying that someone could possibly be mistaken is nowhere near beginning to think about possibly some day starting to hunt for the beginnings of looking to find evidence that all of them are."

 

Finding evidence that all witnesses are mistaken is not a practical exercise. You know this. Yet you constantly throw this out there thinking no one notices that it is a ridiculous notion. The best that can be done is to point out flaws or other patterns. For example, an overlay of black bear range and habitat with alleged same for Bigfoot. Bingo, exact match. That lends support to the idea that people are seeing bears and not bigfoots in some of the reports. Also, we have samples that when tested come back as bear. This further supports the bear misidentification proposition. Likewise, showing clinical studies that prove that human beings are prone to certain conditions that lend them to think they saw something that was not there. This could also account for some of the sightings. Also, we have conclusive proof of many, many hoaxes and frauds among Bigfoot evidence. This also supports the idea that some of the reports and physical evidence can be explained by human fabrication. 

 

So you see, there is a lot of evidence that can be brought to bear ( excuse the pun) to support the overall proposition that people are not seeing Bigfoot.  What cannot be done because it is a practical impossibility is to disprove an eye witness report. This is impossible. Again you know this and prefer to pretend that is not true and instead say there is no evidence to support the counter claim, when in fact there is plenty. 

 

Now if someone could just find one Bigfoot. Just one and the advocate claim can be proven.  That just never seems to happen. And as more time goes by it does nothing but bolster the counter claim. 

Edited October 25, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

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

 

If it matches 100% to ancient polar bear then it can't be the Yeti because polar bears are quadrupeds.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Right.

 

Sykes would be the very first one to tell us that he is passing on the specific samples reviewed, and not on the question of yeti.

[Guest]

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

 

 

Cool. You know the drill. Prove it.  

 

Please provide data that proves what every American knows in regards to land surveys and how often people traverse every square inch. Otherwise admit your statement is pure speculation.

 

This has been gone over at least a dozen times, dmaker.  Population densities vs landmass, distribution patterns, the whole nine yards.  All from publicly available sources.

 

Linking to where I posted the data:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/7225-the-ketchum-report/?view=findpost&p=654021

Edited October 25, 2013 by Mulder

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Exactly.  But if you're trying to win the argument that Bigfoot Isn't Real, straws count!  graspgraspgrasp.

[dmaker]

I'm sorry where in that link does it inform me of what every American knows...?

"If it matches 100% to ancient polar bear then it can't be the Yeti because polar bears are quadrupeds." -Mulder

 

Huh? And, in your world, it's not possible that maybe, just maybe the reports are not 100% correct? Until someone bags a bipedal creature up there you are going to hold steadfast that the reports must be true and accurate? 

 

 

I'll never understand the crypto-fanatic.  Why can't you just be satisfied with the natural wildlife of this world?  Why does everything have to be crypto or conspiracy to be interesting? Give it up already.  Do you honestly think that there is an undiscovered odd bear AND a bipedal primate both cavorting around the snowy peaks of the Himalayas?  Seriously?

" Sykes would be the very first one to tell us that he is passing on the specific samples reviewed, and not on the question of yeti."  DWA

 

Uhm, no. That is not the message that I am getting. The message that I see is Yeti is real, and it's a bear. 

Edited October 25, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Stay with the topic, which is:

 

This has been gone over at least a dozen times, dmaker.  Population densities vs landmass, distribution patterns, the whole nine yards.  All from publicly available sources.

 

That's the topic.

 

Plausible, oh yeah.  Disproven, not close.  All available evidence lining up to support the claim:

 

Um, yep, pretty much. 

 

Get down to proving the claim wrong any time you want.  Meanwhile the evidence builds day by day and the proof looks more and more like a matter of patience, and not much needed.

 

But some need to think what some need to think.

 

Others just, you know, prefer evidence.

[dmaker]

"Get down to proving the claim wrong any time you want." DWA

 

(sigh) A claim to existence cannot be disproven. How many times do we have to go over this? Bigfoot cannot be disproven as it has never been proven in the first place.  You really need to stop repeating that as it will never be a valid charge no matter how many times you lay it. You are showing a hallmark of bad science: assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment. You really should stop doing that. It weakens your argument every time that you do. 

 

 

 

 

Get down to proving the claim valid any time you want.

Edited October 25, 2013 by dmaker

[Rockape]

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.

 

Oh yes, I agree, the bear dna findings do point to Yeti being actually a bear, probably an odd looking bear, so that does reduce the likely hood that a Yeti is a bipedal hominid. I just don't think it's definative in a "you can't really prove it doesn't exist" sort of way.

 

I'm just a bit surprised, I guess, that the news has generally been accepted the same way by so many in the BF community when there have been numerous other tests that don't provide proof of a bipedal hominid, which is no different than what Sykes found. I think more people trusted the science in this case. A plus for Bigfooters.

[dmaker]

I am not sure that it has been accepted that way by so many. Mulder and DWA seem to be strongly arguing the opposite.   And for those that are taking it as support to the idea that yeti is, in fact after all, a type of bear it may be a less bitter pill to swallow since it is not home turf. They can allow for misidentification to be at the root of the yeti myth while denying any connection to the North American Bigfoot. If the results of part two are not favorable for Bigfoot, we'll gauge their reaction then. 

Edited October 25, 2013 by dmaker

[Rockape]

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.

 

 

 

Agreed. I've often wondered if this could be explained as being a new species of bear. I would have put my money on it being an unknow species of Sloth Bear. If you've ever seen one, live and up close, they can be rather strange looking bears. A new, larger species of Sloth Bear could explain many BF sightings as well.

 

Not all of them though, to me.

[Guest DWA]

Oh yes, I agree, the bear dna findings do point to Yeti being actually a bear, probably an odd looking bear, so that does reduce the likely hood that a Yeti is a bipedal hominid. I just don't think it's definative in a "you can't really prove it doesn't exist" sort of way.

 

I'm just a bit surprised, I guess, that the news has generally been accepted the same way by so many in the BF community when there have been numerous other tests that don't provide proof of a bipedal hominid, which is no different than what Sykes found. I think more people trusted the science in this case. A plus for Bigfooters.

Well, all I can say is that Sykes's findings don't really reduce the probability of anything.  I restrict the findings to the samples.  There's much that isn't explained, whatever the samples say.  But I think you're saying that, actually.

[Rockape]

 If the results of part two are not favorable for Bigfoot, we'll gauge their reaction then. 

 

That's true, we still have the NA results coming. My Sloth Bear theory still has a chance.

[Guest]

Drop it, dmaker.  You know as well as I do that people don't routinely traverse every square ANYthing of the US.  They tend to stick mostly to the developed area, as the population statistics show.

 

Yosemite park, for example, has lots and lots of people attending to the developed area "attractions" (Old Faithful, et al), only a relative few go for the more "rural" experience with hikes and such, and even then most of the "back country" of the park only sees park rangers on any routine basis.

 

If you know anything about surveying much after the turn of the 20th century (which you apparently don't), most of our topographical surveying is done by satellite and aerial photography.  We don't do the "horde of people with pendulums and compasses" thing much anymore except on special, small scale projects.

 

For that reason, knowing the topography does NOT rationally imply that we "know about the area".  Nor does the existence of a road or cleared way (such as a rail track, hiking trail or other right-of-way) through a region imply any knowledge beyond the narrow corridor of the cleared way itself.

Reason and logic: our friends, and Skeptics' worst nightmare!  The "we know everything about everybit of the us JASA (Just A Straw Argument) is exactly that...JASA.

[Rockape]

I just don't think it's definative in a "you can't really prove it doesn't exist" sort of way.

 

 

Well, all I can say is that Sykes's findings don't really reduce the probability of anything.  I restrict the findings to the samples.  There's much that isn't explained, whatever the samples say.  But I think you're saying that, actually.

 

 

Yes, this still doesn't explain many sightings, especially close sightings where someone got a clear view of something and describes it as a bipedal hominid.  I don't know what they saw, but they knew it wasn't a bear and clearly describe it as a bipedal hominid.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Rockape