2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Guest Crowlogic]

Theres no way every single person is lying or mistaken Crow, i dont believe that for a second

You don't but I do.  Why can't it be that way?  Is every person that's seen Elvis after he was pronounced dead lying or making a mistaken ID?  You have too much faith in people if you don't.

Crow:  I'm sorry for where your head is at on this.  I really truly am, and hope you can somehow fix it.

I see it as the broken minded are the ones who are willing to pile special dispensation upon special dispensation in order to maintain a belief in something that denies proof to the believer.

[norseman]

people make both good observers and poor observers, either way you are forced to believe or disbelieve, unless you have experienced something for your self.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

So I ordered my copy of Nature of the Beast by Bryan Sykes, and I will post a review once read, but from other reviews I discovered he discusses some

of the events that took place with Lori Simmons and Adam Davies, as well as with Rhettman Mullis. It delves into the subject from the perspective of an

adventure and inquiry, similar to Adam Davies approach.  What is probably lacking is the hard core scientific analysis. Though it does seem to posit the 

notion of relic hominids being able to survive into modern times, and using Zana as an example.

 

 

TECH Times

Amid continuing debate over the existence of Bigfoot and similar creatures, one geneticist claims he's found strong evidence that a woman who lived in 19th-century Russia may have been a yeti — the so-called abominable snowman.

Discovered in a remote region of the Republic of Abkhazia, a towering woman named Zana was captured by local hunters in the 1850s and sold to a nobleman who "tamed" her and kept her on his estate as a servant until her death in 1890, according to local accounts.

Zana's resemblance was described as that of a wild beast, "the most frightening feature of which was her expression, which was pure animal," wrote one Russian zoologist in 1996.

Now Professor Bryan Sykes at the University of Oxford says he believes Zana had a strain of West African DNA that belonged to a subspecies of modern humans.

Sykes explained that while the woman, said to stand 6 feet 6 inches tall, was genetically 100 percent African, she showed little physical or genetic resemblance to any group living in modern Africa.

Sykes has published a book, The Nature of the Beast, in which he writes that Zana's ancestors could have come out of Africa more than 100,000 years ago and lived for many generations in the remote Caucasus region.

 

 

Advertisement

Advertisement

10s

10s

Zana had at least four children, fathered by local men, and some of her descendants reportedly still live in the area.

Sykes says he conducted DNA tests on saliva from six of her living descendants and on a tooth from one of her sons. He has also done further research on Zana since writing the book. 

"They will be published in the regular scientific press so I can't be more specific," he said (subscription required).

This is not the first time Sykes has been in the news with claims about yetis; Sykes also claims to have discovered genetic evidence in hair samples of a previously unknown species of bear that may be behind sightings of Yetis in Bhutan — a claim cast in doubt by a number of his geneticist colleagues.

They say Sykes' two samples of "yeti" hair came from a polar bear and a kind of rare bear native to high mountain ranges in Asia.

Sykes, however, remains adamant that "anomalous primates" could exist in remote regions of the world, and that dozens of witness accounts convince him there is "something out there."

 

Related Articles Yeti Hair Samples Didn't Come From A Yeti, But Mystery Still Surrounds Its Origin Family of Bigfoot Stalks Bisons At Yellowstone National Park Caught On Cam? Hunters are out to kill Bigfoot in new Destination America series

Edited April 13, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest DWA]

You don't but I do.  Why can't it be that way?  Is every person that's seen Elvis after he was pronounced dead lying or making a mistaken ID?  You have too much faith in people if you don't.

I see it as the broken minded are the ones who are willing to pile special dispensation upon special dispensation in order to maintain a belief in something that denies proof to the believer.

But there's no evidence for your point of view; all of it favors mine.

[Guest Crowlogic]

But there's no evidence for your point of view; all of it favors mine.

I favors your point of view only by the choice the observer makes of the evidence.  The evidence is not beyond reproach which is why it is a matter of choice.  The bigfoot in the freezer what real until proven otherwise and you either believed it at face value or you didn't.  For those who did believe their belief was erroneous.  Todd Standing, Janice Carter,  Enoch, Paul Freeman, Melba Ketchum and any number of other players do not favor your point of view.  They fly in the face of it.   The evidence is open to question and belief or disbelief.  But the reality of the issue is the believers/knowers etc have not been able to produce the real deal and the fakers are certainly not going to deliver the real deal.  

 

Why exactly can't all those people be lying and or otherwise not being accurate or honest.  All politicians are pegged as being dishonest.  Yes there sure can be entire blocks of human beings  that are cut from a particular cloth.  The reality of the evidence points heavily to fakes and hoaxing since each and every headline case has been a hoax.  Should a person have to believe that there are researchers with solid skills and solid intellects who have solved the riddle in a scientifically acceptable fashion?  Where are they?  What have they accomplished?  For the non believer it is as sensible to take the position that bigfoot is a very intriguing possibility and as such  the idea of it is fanning the flames of the possibility makes for great sport and great fun for some.  Human beings love to create things that get the juices flowing so to speak.  For the guy who works at Walmart all week getting out into the field looking for a mysterious being and or maybe being able to say they saw exciting evidence it is a welcome respite from the grind.   I realized after a while that for whatever the reason  wasn't encountering rocket scientists in bigfoot culture.

[Guest DWA]

I favors your point of view only by the choice the observer makes of the evidence.  The evidence is not beyond reproach which is why it is a matter of choice.  The bigfoot in the freezer what real until proven otherwise and you either believed it at face value or you didn't.  For those who did believe their belief was erroneous.  Todd Standing, Janice Carter,  Enoch, Paul Freeman, Melba Ketchum and any number of other players do not favor your point of view.  They fly in the face of it.   The evidence is open to question and belief or disbelief.  But the reality of the issue is the believers/knowers etc have not been able to produce the real deal and the fakers are certainly not going to deliver the real deal.

 

Well, evidence, in the end, isn't a matter of choice.  It says something, without following it we'll never know for dead certain what.  But we can make an extraordinarily strong educated guess, in this case, that it's saying animal (and a very specific kind, at that).   And if it's saying animal...why aren't scientists looking for an animal?   Oh, those people you cite?  What they think flies, utterly, in the face of the evidence.  Why I don't exactly precisely care what they think.

 

Why exactly can't all those people be lying and or otherwise not being accurate or honest.  

 

Because - and this constantly gets missed - of the ridiculously vanishingly beyond wildest lottery long-shot small chance that all of them are lying or being inaccurate or dishonest...and coming up with something this consistent, on information otherwise known only to primate specialists.  (Yet another benefit of reading reports and the opinions of relevant specialists:  knowing that.)   Nothing like this has happened, ever, in the entire recorded history of our species.  Nothing, no nothing even close.

 

All politicians are pegged as being dishonest.  

 

By people who like to blame their problems on others or think in gross generalities, not by actual thinking people.

 

Yes there sure can be entire blocks of human beings  that are cut from a particular cloth.  

 

Never in the history of our species has such a block done anything remotely like this, so, yep, toss that as a reasonable possibility.  Compared to that, sasquatch is chicken/Swiss cheese/kitten/ garden variety ordinary.  There's been *LOTS* of critters like sasquatch.

 

The reality of the evidence points heavily to fakes and hoaxing since each and every headline case has been a hoax.  

 

Nope.  That's not the reality; that's the noses of people easily distracted by silly sideshows.  99.99999999999999999999999999% of the evidence, the public is totally unaware of, as is the mainstream of the relevant sciences.  And doubly astonishing is that all of it is public information!

 

Should a person have to believe that there are researchers with solid skills and solid intellects who have solved the riddle in a scientifically acceptable fashion?  Where are they?  What have they accomplished?  

 

This can only be said by someone vigorously industriously closing himself off from all information but that supporting his case.  That's a joke, posting that.  Right?

 

Edited April 13, 2015 by DWA

[SWWASAS]

I realized after a while that for whatever the reason  wasn't encountering rocket scientists in bigfoot culture.

Should we compare IQ's?   

Edited April 13, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest DWA]

^^^No.Dam.Kidding.  I am not gonna do it, that's for sure, just wonder what's up with people who cannot muster the simple curiosity to do the more accurate, scientific, logical, honest and oh did I mention *fun* thing here.  Not gonna venture an IQ take on that.  Not gonna.

I am simply gonna ask what I'd ask anyone going off with any person, or gang of people, who obviously didn't have it together on something:

 

If they all jumped off a bridge...would you....?

 

The consensus, at the frontiers of science, is 100% wrong.  One hundred percent of the time.

Edited April 13, 2015 by DWA

[SWWASAS]

It would seem that Mr Crowlogic thinks proponents are all intellectually challenged.   Well at least that explains his attitude even though it is not correct in most cases.        

[Guest DWA]

I think that going on and on like that while making no attempt to access the information that people have been loudly yelling, gesticulating and indicating in ASL is *right here, and please read it and think a little* is...well...I'm not gonna exactly consider the opinion of anyone like that about anyone's IQ worth scrawling on a placemat for future laughs, much less taking seriously.

Edited April 13, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

It would seem that Mr Crowlogic thinks proponents are all intellectually challenged.   Well at least that explains his attitude even though it is not correct in most cases.        

The challenge is not one raw intellect.  The intellects in question engage in the same process over and over and come up with the same results.  There is a mechanism in play that prevents the stalwart proponent from putting 2+2 together and realizing that the field delivers nothing.  Can bigfoot culture actually continue without creating scenarios as to why there is 100% failure in finding the thing?  As technology improved bigfoot's inherent abilities to avoid detection were ramped up to excuse it from the detection of new technology.  It becomes more magical, more intelligent, more biologically sophisticated to excuse it from actually being delivered to reality.  That tells me that there is rationalization in play that allows the game to keep going.  

[Guest DWA]

[just holds head]

 

oh, there is rationalization going on all right; and that isn't always rational, is it.

[Yuchi1]

While eyewitness testimony has been found to be one of the weakest forms of evidence in jurisprudence, the statistical probability that thousands of people, over thousands of years, all having the same hallucination, is highly unlikely.

[Guest DWA]

Problem with the studies of eyewitness testimony is all the reasons people have for not telling the truth - intentionally or otherwise - in criminal cases.  Most of those reasons don't apply to sasquatch eyewitnesses.  But the sheer unlikelihood that a mass hallucination, consistent to fine detail, is going on is never taken into account by skeptics.

[WSA]

It's o.k., I've made my peace. I may not ever encounter a living/breathing Sasquatch in my life. I may expire before that species is even documented beyond all doubt (Yeah, given the rate we are approaching this so far...) BUT, if I am fortunate enough to experience either one or both, my reaction is likely to be (I hope), "Well, DUH !!!"  Really, we have long since reached that level of accumulated congruent evidence to make the confirmation a bit of an anti-climax, if, and only if, you are paying attention and following it out to its conclusion. That conclusion is foregone for me and I'm to the point that further denial only makes me chortle all the harder. It is like somebody walking into the plate glass window over and over and over. Each time, after picking himself up, the only lesson learned is that there are no such things as invisible barriers. Go ahead, try it again....   Really, for sheer amusement it can't really be topped, unless it is actually the thrill of exploring really cool evidence that gets more cohesive the longer I look at it.

 

 Guess it is a winner-winner-chicken dinner kind of subject for me.