Guest Stan Norton Posted October 20, 2013 Posted October 20, 2013 OK. Just finished watching. Conclusion: no alarms and no surprises. Nothing that hasn't been heard already this week. Pretty enjoyable overall. Very weird stuffed Nazi bear-monkey the highlight. Pointless double bear footprint experiment the low. Essentially, we need to find the bear cos it is a very cool DNA result.
MarkGlasgow Posted October 20, 2013 Posted October 20, 2013 Quite incredible. An 'unknown to science' creature proven in week one. Amazing result from so few samples tested
chelefoot Posted October 20, 2013 Posted October 20, 2013 So, did they announce the results of the DNA that Sykes has been testing?
BobbyO Posted October 20, 2013 SSR Team Posted October 20, 2013 For the Himalayan samples they did yeah. Two samples matched from 800 or so miles apart and the samples belonged to an old, thought extinct species of Polar Bear which is incredible to me. The "Yeti" actually is a species that was thought to have died out 40,000 years ago. North America next week.
Guest TexasTracker Posted October 20, 2013 Posted October 20, 2013 that's interesting that his results are taken as gospel.... is this information acceptable for naming the bear species??? If so, that sounds VERY promising for any potential hominid DNA. WOW
MarkGlasgow Posted October 20, 2013 Posted October 20, 2013 Queue an expedition to Nepal to gain a specimen.
BobbyO Posted October 20, 2013 SSR Team Posted October 20, 2013 That's what i thought of straight away Mark, to kill one too to satisfy human's hunger for knowledge even though i guess it goes down the road of newly discovered species now ?
MIB Posted October 20, 2013 Moderator Posted October 20, 2013 If the DNA pool is too limited, loss of even one may be one too many. If we've got DNA proving their existence to science, what's left, the public's curiosity, can be satisfied with photos and video. MIB 1
chelefoot Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 What kind of samples were these (that were found and thought to be extinct Polar Bear)? Hair, scat? Did they say? I'm just trying to figure out what this means. There's Polar bears still alive in the Himalayas that people have been mistakingly calling Yetis?
Guest shoot1 Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 They used hair. The argument against the results is that just because they identified supposed yeti samples as a new bear, that does not mean they identified a yeti - and this will be the same argument used to counter all the results of this study. To me this is just evidence that we need to make a concerted effort to get a "type specimen", be it yeti, Sasquatch, wood ape, skunk ape, Yowie, mapinguary, maricoxi, yeren, Almas, chimiset, Orang Pendek,or whatever the heck will be the easiest to bag. We just need one body to get the ball rolling.
Guest Stan Norton Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 What kind of samples were these (that were found and thought to be extinct Polar Bear)? Hair, scat? Did they say? I'm just trying to figure out what this means. There's Polar bears still alive in the Himalayas that people have been mistakingly calling Yetis? Yes. Hairs were from a preserved corpse of a strange bear/wolf creature shot in Ladakh about 40 years ago and from a supposed tree hollow 'yeti' den from Bhutan. A sample taken from a bizarre stuffed Nazi bear-monkey yielded no DNA due to degradation. So yes there seems to be some kind of Pleistocene relic polar bear in the Himalayas. The argument goes that this animal fits the bill for purported yeti encounters.
Gotta Know Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Yes. Hairs were from a preserved corpse of a strange bear/wolf creature shot in Ladakh about 40 years ago and from a supposed tree hollow 'yeti' den from Bhutan. A sample taken from a bizarre stuffed Nazi bear-monkey yielded no DNA due to degradation. So yes there seems to be some kind of Pleistocene relic polar bear in the Himalayas. The argument goes that this animal fits the bill for purported yeti encounters. A bit hard to follow the bouncing ball here; so is the Nazi bear-monkey considered different than the strange bear/wolf creature shot in Ladakh and the hair taken from the yeti in the Bhutan tree hollow? In other words, are we talking about one new animal or possibly two? If the DNA is too degraded from the Nazi-bear (and the description sounds diff than the Ladakh animal), then what is its value to the study? The Today show made it sound like that was the animal they are claiming to be the Yeti. No? Sidebar: I saw the pic of the Nazi bear-monkey on the Today show; it certainly was not what I expected even a primitive bear (brown and polar bear cross) to look like. It had a strange flap of skin running parallel to its nose that looked like a secondary nostril (almost tube like). Obviously could have been a flaw in the taxidermy, but curious if anyone else noticed the "defect?"
Guest Stan Norton Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) A bit hard to follow the bouncing ball here; so is the Nazi bear-monkey considered different than the strange bear/wolf creature shot in Ladakh and the hair taken from the yeti in the Bhutan tree hollow? In other words, are we talking about one new animal or possibly two? If the DNA is too degraded from the Nazi-bear (and the description sounds diff than the Ladakh animal), then what is its value to the study? The Today show made it sound like that was the animal they are claiming to be the Yeti. No? Sidebar: I saw the pic of the Nazi bear-monkey on the Today show; it certainly was not what I expected even a primitive bear (brown and polar bear cross) to look like. It had a strange flap of skin running parallel to its nose that looked like a secondary nostril (almost tube like). Obviously could have been a flaw in the taxidermy, but curious if anyone else noticed the "defect?" Sorry. Bhutan and ladakh samples from same species, the polar bear, and the ladakh sample was from a creature described in appearance as a mix between a bear and wolf. Noone saw the bhutan animal. The Nazi stuffed animal was supposedly a yeti. It was a bad specimen of taxidermy, having a reconstructed clay jaw. Who knows what it was and whether it was the same as the other two. It looked more monkey like than a bear. Edited October 21, 2013 by Stan Norton
Guest shoot1 Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 I think that taxidermy on previously-unseen animals has consistently been way off the mark. For example this is a Lion from the 1730's:
Recommended Posts