Guest Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 The problem with the Yeti as opposed to the Sasquatch is the lack of physical sightings by people other than the local indigenous population. There is also a dearth of photo evidence of the Yeti, let alone on film. With Bigfoot you at least have the PG film and other films and photos. You also have audio recordings. Ok, the vast majority of these are dubious, but it does place the creature into the public arena. The remoteness of the Himalayan region does play a part as well. That you can drive along a road in the US and have a BF cross in front of you is a disntinct advanatage! There was a brief piece at the end of the programme where the presenter spoke about a 'recent' re-translation of a TIbetan manuscript, that described the Yeti as a hybrid bear. I don't think that translation is that recent, as I've come across it before in a book somewhere and also as part of a documentary some fifteen years ago. I can't remember where though, it was back in the early days of cable TV on some sort of programme about crpytid animals I think. Thet didn't show the stuffed polar/brown bear hybrid in the Tring Natural History Museum very clearly, but to me it doesn't look too different to a bear, not the sort of differences that would lead me to think I was looking at a completely different animal were I to see one in the wild. Whatevet the locals call Yeti, be it this bear hybrid or a relic hominid, it has to be radically different from the other bear species in the region to attract the attention. Otherwise it would be, "Oh, one of my goats got eaten by a brown bear", other than "My goats were savaged by the Yeti! Ten feet tall it was, with big fangs and glowing red eyes!" For my part, I think Sykes has hit upon something here that identifies a previously unknown species of large animal. If it is the Yeti, then its mystery solved. But that doesn't prove BF, Yeren, Alma etc aren't what people are saying what they are, just that one of the famous cryptids has turned out to be a new species of bear all along.
Guest shoot1 Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) I'm playing the role of Devil's Advocate for the sake of argument here: You also don't have a cottage industry of Yeti hoaxers and parasites to confuse everything so the argument against the conclusions of the Yeti documentary is simple - they found a bear but they haven't disproven the existence of the traditional version of the Yeti. I realize now that even if the DNA tests are negative and every current photo, video, and recording of the North American Sasquatch is proven to be fraudulent, skeptics and critics will say that we are all "nutters" because the legend is going to live on no matter what negative findings are presented. Now I'm not skeptical, but I'm 100% cynical. So screw the hunt for DNA - photos, videos, sworn testimony, consistent sketches, and recordings don't do anything to advance our knowledge, we need a concerted effort to get a body or nothing at all. Edited October 21, 2013 by shoot1
southernyahoo Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 DNA will always be informative and definitive in regards to species ID. Sykes wouldn't be involved if it wasn't. Describing a new species from it may be difficult if BF DNA is human, but then so would it be with a specimen and the same DNA. 1
Guest shoot1 Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) It's clearly informative but I disagree on it being definitive. Yes, he did "definitely" identify a new species, but did Sykes define the Yeti as being a bear or is it still open to debate? Edited October 21, 2013 by shoot1
Guest Stan Norton Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) The problem with the Yeti as opposed to the Sasquatch is the lack of physical sightings by people other than the local indigenous population. There is also a dearth of photo evidence of the Yeti, let alone on film. With Bigfoot you at least have the PG film and other films and photos. You also have audio recordings. Ok, the vast majority of these are dubious, but it does place the creature into the public arena. The remoteness of the Himalayan region does play a part as well. That you can drive along a road in the US and have a BF cross in front of you is a disntinct advanatage! There was a brief piece at the end of the programme where the presenter spoke about a 'recent' re-translation of a TIbetan manuscript, that described the Yeti as a hybrid bear. I don't think that translation is that recent, as I've come across it before in a book somewhere and also as part of a documentary some fifteen years ago. I can't remember where though, it was back in the early days of cable TV on some sort of programme about crpytid animals I think. Thet didn't show the stuffed polar/brown bear hybrid in the Tring Natural History Museum very clearly, but to me it doesn't look too different to a bear, not the sort of differences that would lead me to think I was looking at a completely different animal were I to see one in the wild. Whatevet the locals call Yeti, be it this bear hybrid or a relic hominid, it has to be radically different from the other bear species in the region to attract the attention. Otherwise it would be, "Oh, one of my goats got eaten by a brown bear", other than "My goats were savaged by the Yeti! Ten feet tall it was, with big fangs and glowing red eyes!" For my part, I think Sykes has hit upon something here that identifies a previously unknown species of large animal. If it is the Yeti, then its mystery solved. But that doesn't prove BF, Yeren, Alma etc aren't what people are saying what they are, just that one of the famous cryptids has turned out to be a new species of bear all along. Yes you're right. Whilst this thing's DNA was a perfect match for the pleistocene polar bear, phenotypically it may be very different indeed. That would certainly make sense given the unusual descriptions from both native and European witnesses. The reported whistling is also most un bear like, as indeed is the Shipton print actually. Edited October 21, 2013 by Stan Norton
Guest Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 The one advantage to specimen verification in this situation is that there are a number of people experienced in tranquing polar bears for study, and you're less likely to kill it with a tranq shot, since it physiology should be relatively slose to known bears. However, they hunt and dart them from helicopters and I don't think the Himalayas are suitable for helicopter operations.
Guest Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Yes the Yeti isnt comparable to the BF. Much less evidence, very, very much class B encounters, and so on. And most people into it found a bear to be a possible explanation. Looking forward to the NA Episode. As it seems they tested Smeyas shoe, which should definitly contain DNA of the creature he shot, its going to be interessting anyway. Are there any other samples known that made it into the paper/show?
Guest Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 The conclusion seemed to be that the hybrid polar-brown bear COULD be mistaken for the Yeti but it wasnt definitively said that there is no Yeti and this bear is the complete explanation. Maybe that door is being left ajar to fit with further results to be revealed...? Another point of interest mentioned - as we have no previous knowledge of this newly discovered species we cannot determine its behaviour and traits. Sykes stated that 'we know polar bears hunt humans' so maybe this accounts for some of the eye witness accounts and native tales of a feared beast roaming the mountains. As Sykes has confirmed (see email below which i previously posted in the Sykes thread) the complete results of all sample studies will be published in a journal once the peer review process has been completed, along with the statement released by Bigfootology via Facebook - it begs the question - will any of the 3 episodes of the Bigfoot Files reveal the full results?? Subject: RE: OLCHP Date: 11 August 2013 18:28:07 Dear Kezra, Thank for your enquiry. The situation at the moment is that most of the analysis has been completed and I am writing up the results. As for pub date, that depends on the journal. Regards Bryan Bryan Sykes MA PhD DSc Professor of Human Genetics Wolfson College, Oxford,OX2 6UD
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Yes you're right. Whilst this thing's DNA was a perfect match for the pleistocene polar bear, phenotypically it may be very different indeed. That would certainly make sense given the unusual descriptions from both native and European witnesses. The reported whistling is also most un bear like, as indeed is the Shipton print actually. Well, of course, there are numerous yeti sightings reported by Europeans (Tonbazi, Whillans, Matthiessen ...OK we'll call that one a ????; etc.), enough - combined with the native sightings - that a reconstruction indicating a pongid seems to be pretty much a 'type' for what is being seen. (Me, I go for Whillans. Talk about somebody who had virtually no interest in getting embroiled in this kind of ^%!$!; it was all climbing and beer with Whillans. Oh, women, check. Speaking of climbers: I have no way of concluding about Messner. Sheesh, Reinhold, make up yer mind.) Meldrum recently theorized that the Shipton and Cronin tracks represent the same animal, the former a rather mild case of macrodactyly. Google that and you'll see that it's indeed a mild case, and the difference between the tracks conceivable. If this is a bear, well, it's a pretty interesting bear, I'll wager.
Guest Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) So, how different is this bear from MacFarlane's Bear? I have not seen the show yet. I have to wait for Nat Geo to show it in November. Thanks Edited October 21, 2013 by Hellbilly
Guest Stan Norton Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) Nobody knows. Its DNA is a match for the archaic polar bear so perhaps it looks more polar than anything. If it is the yeti then it may be very peculiar, to confuse people who are familiar with bears. Edited October 21, 2013 by Stan Norton Removed quote of previous post
Guest Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) Was able to watch the program, and I really liked it. The videography was great. Brief, but relevant witness accounts. The travel log part in keeping with the BBC traditon, and I like it b/c I won't ever go there. The reality of even a helicopter drop off at altitude and a weather change was meaningful and brings home the vast remote wild lands They did a great job of justifying the result based on the personal witnesses of several..as well as the history/myth They ignored the human/yeti reports (if that is a big issue.. I don't follow Yeti news.) but that might be a favor to that inquiry too, if it is distinguishable, by not mixing the witness to sample provenance/picture... . The bear print was basic, but fairly persuasive and enjoyable for the bear itself But, no detail on the actual genomes. Perhaps the ancient polar bear is already on file as open access? Or, b/c his data is yet to be published with a paper... And the significance of the result was appropriately hailed, his personal explanation, to be the first, but framed within scientific curiosity and method well enough stated. (Our culture still requires an announcement of position and legacy) There were no obnoxious monster shots, or blurry night ops stuff, and they mention, a few times, it was not a "hunt" for Yeti... (very sensitive to the crypto branding IMO.).. nor any suspense music really..or that I noticed. so Great on those points. At the least I expect the same tenor for the US show, and it seemed IMO a step up in production value for a crypto show I also liked the MC, enthusiastic, but nothing over the top, and easy listening. . Edited October 21, 2013 by apehuman
Guest Junior Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/watch-bigfoot-files-yeti-dna-episode-1.html If you have not seen can watch on link above..
MarkGlasgow Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 It's clearly informative but I disagree on it being definitive. Yes, he did "definitely" identify a new species, but did Sykes define the Yeti as being a bear or is it still open to debate? Sykes can only work with the samples he's provided and certainly struck gold with the few that he managed to source. We cannot however suddenly dismiss the many accounts from sherpas who insist that the Yeti is more than a type of bear.
Recommended Posts