Jump to content
WSA

Lost Kingdom of the Yeti

Recommended Posts

WSA

Not sure if this has been discussed here or not...Animal Planet's documentary about an expedition to Bhutan to uncover "once and for all, yada, yada...", BUT it did include some interesting science by one member, a French geneticist who specialized in sampling environmental DNA. She sampled snow inside of footprints and pulled water from streams to see if any unknown DNA was present. I think this originally aired back in May of this year.  I have been searching around but can't find any documentation of what her actual conclusions were regarding the samples.  Anybody know anything about this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BOQUK

Yes, watched this recently in the UK and there was some DNA extracted from footprints in the snow and the results came back as an Argali sheep which no one had ever seen in the area or knew existed there but more intriguingly the samples taken from a pond thousands of feet up the mountain came back as 99% human. It ended there with no real conclusion and hopefully it will be followed up. The Brit guy, Mark Evans is a scientist and has done a previous documentary on the yeti and seems to be quite interested in getting to the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Thanks Boquk. That was what I wanted to know. I got pulled away at the end and couldn’t find out what the resolution was. This was a fairly well produced travelogue and the scenery was featured to really nice effect. Check it out if you haven’t. 

 

So so how many times do DNA samples need to come back as human, or humanesque before the idea starts to penetrate? The evidence of the use of language alone....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
18 hours ago, BOQUK said:

.........from a pond thousands of feet up the mountain came back as 99% human

 

13 hours ago, WSA said:

So so how many times do DNA samples need to come back as human, or humanesque before the idea starts to penetrate?

 

WSA you are so on point with that question! My thinking exactly. I am also convinced that SOMEWHERE there is already an answer to that question. Has to be. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

It really is a bridge-too-far for some, even if they accept the premise of existence.  DWA and I still have that debate as we fall into decidedly different camps on this point. To me, it explains so much about the nature of this animal, and why it is able to evade being detected more than it is. DWA would read the sighting reports looking for confirmation of primate behavior, and I see just the opposite. The tell for me really is how many people have held a gun in their hands, even sighted that gun on a BF, only to be repelled at the idea of shooting one. Even if you ignore all the other aspects of behavior and interactions that, to me, tells you all you really need to know.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Hear you on that. My own set of thoughts, which is the result of a large accumulation of knowledge with the requisite pinch of logic and common sense, paints an odd picture of the creature. The picture is it looks Human, acts Human as far as a feral Human might act, but with a severely diminished capacity for projecting its thoughts into the future. It therefore cannot imagine an outcome. So. Physically, damn near Human. Maybe 99% Human which is far, far more advanced than say, Chimpanzees. But brain-wise, is not Human- Only animal.

 

That concept, bear (or pick another animal) in Human form has been hard for some to fathom. There are Humans that have the mentality of three year olds; No capacity for thinking beyond the present. To me, Sasquatch is a primitive Human who is only capable of living and reacting in the moment. That is what I think we are dealing with. There is also no capacity for possessing a moral code beyond not inflicting harm on its own. And in its mind "its own" may include us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
2 hours ago, hiflier said:

Hear you on that. My own set of thoughts, which is the result of a large accumulation of knowledge with the requisite pinch of logic and common sense, paints an odd picture of the creature. The picture is it looks Human, acts Human as far as a feral Human might act, but with a severely diminished capacity for projecting its thoughts into the future. It therefore cannot imagine an outcome. So. Physically, damn near Human. Maybe 99% Human which is far, far more advanced than say, Chimpanzees. But brain-wise, is not Human- Only animal.

 

That concept, bear (or pick another animal) in Human form has been hard for some to fathom. There are Humans that have the mentality of three year olds; No capacity for thinking beyond the present. To me, Sasquatch is a primitive Human who is only capable of living and reacting in the moment. That is what I think we are dealing with. There is also no capacity for possessing a moral code beyond not inflicting harm on its own. And in its mind "its own" may include us. 

 

That is hard to imagine. It sort of goes against a lot of behavior that is reported. Your theory also calls every single habituator a liar, in my mind.

 

You also don't hear of them wandering into restaurants and hotel lobbies looking for a meal like you do a black bear. They have to understand consequences, and that means they are thinking beyond the "right now". No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
9 hours ago, NatFoot said:

They have to understand consequences, and that means they are thinking beyond the "right now". No?

 

I think understanding consequences is a product of accumulating experiences. An example would be the rat that runs the maze to get to the cheese or training a dog to do things. Bears recognize coolers and have a great sense of smell and they react accordingly. Humans also behave according to accumulated experiences but there is a difference: Human behavior also stems from what they have heard or read about the experiences of others.  Humans therefore say not only "if I do this then this will happen" they can also project their imagination into the future and foresee a different outcome, or sort of the "what if I were to......" of a situation. 

 

If I was a deer crossing a clearing I would be normally all sensed up looking for predators. I would not put it together that I could be shot dead from a distance even though my buddy last year met that same fate while standing right next to me. It would be a loud noise and my buddy falling down. I might equate a loud noise with my buddy falling down as part of my experience but I wouldn't wonder ahead of time if there was going to be a loud noise the next time I was in that same area. That kind of learning requires an ability to project a "what if".

 

If a BF could think like we do, and that is all that separates it from us, then it could very well could have been building and driving cars by now. We can build and drive cars because we have the capacity to understand the many basic principles needed in order to create them. All from our experiences and the experiences derived from others. Because we can record, pass down, and understand information regarding principles and concepts our species advances. Sasquatch does not. It can learn things, it could be taught things, but beyond its basic needs it does not have a built in capacity to understand concepts and principles. So, Human in physical form and function, not Human in the area of higher thinking. Almost as if the body evolved without the pre-frontal cortex evolving with it.

 

The physical body is there- the physical brain, or a necessary part of it, is not. Its not that far off from the difference between us and the Great Apes. Sasquatch is obviously physically closer to us but I also think that is where the similarity ends. Thy could be called a type of forest people but I also think they are given credit for that mostly because of their close physical make up to Humans. It allows them to sort of act like Humans but are not Much in the way of Human outside of their bodies.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

I would have to opine that any predator has to possess temporal awareness, both past and future, or they would quickly starve to death. I see that as an entry-level skill.  The accounts are full of encounters where BF predicted human activity.  Hard to say exactly where their average IQ falls, no doubt.  Like most populations, you have the bright and dim bulbs, certainly. Inbreeding in a narrow gene pool could contribute to limited cognitive abilities across a discreet population, as with all animals. 

 

What I've always wrestled with is how our definition of "human" presupposes a single species and is not useful to differentiate between one or more with human-like qualities.  BF forces you to tear up that definition, and it just one of the roadblocks that get in the way of understanding where this being fits in our taxonomy. All we usually do  is say, "If it CAN'T do [insert behavior or ability] it can't be human. And then we find out things like...oh, ravens use tools too, and dolphins have vocabularies of language for complex thought...and on and on.    Maybe we is all human, which is to say none of us are. We just is.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot

Good points but I disagree with the deer and hunting analogy. Deer change their behavior during hunting season and use areas they don't during normal parts of the year to stay concealed. They know there is extra danger in the woods and it's not like they are just thinking they're hiding from extra coyotes, mountain lions, etc in the fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

 

On contemplation though I think there might be one absolute differentiator, that might help to define Sasquatch....our ability to harness and use fire. No matter how surprising the behavior of other animals might be, and similar to human behaviors, we're not likely to ever see that ability in another species.   There is of course a theory that it was this leap in technology that allowed for the growth of the human brain, through the cooking of meat and the increase in potential caloric intake to fuel such an energy-intensive organ.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

All I can provide is a basic outline of why we and Sasquatches are different. The fire thing is of course big. The knowledge that deer move away from previously hunted areas in hunting season doesn't come from things like more Human activity in the woods and the different smells associated with that activity? Not saying it doesn't happen as you say though NatFoot. Deer still get taken as do bears. Not having hands limits them as well. At least severely limits them in the types of things that we can do. Sasquatch has that incredible advantage of having hands as well, but doesn't have the brain to progress itself technologically even to the most basic Human level of advancement. It sees us, it watches us, and just throws rocks at us. I don't know how else to think of this.

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

I think what always will stand in our way is we lack the intrinsic ability to imagine a degree of consciousness other than our own...which is a comfortable mindset when you are referencing "dumb" animals like lizards and wallabies. Not so useful when talking about an animal that is probably only a smidge off of our total DNA, and (except for being hirsute and larger) pretty much one of "us".  How different is their consciousness from ours? THAT is the only question I really care about . 

 

So, I'm left to wonder, do they not embrace technologies like we have because they can't, or is it as simple as they have no evolutionary drive to do it?  When you think about it, you realize if something is supremely adapted to an existing environment, and are evolutionarily successful, why do you need that technology? We adapted through technology, I believe, because we were getting our butts kicked out there on the savannah, scavenging hyena carcasses and huddling at the top of trees at night. By all indications, Sasquatch never had that vulnerability.  You might even predict WE developed technology mainly to defend our genes from animals like Sasquatch, and maybe even them specifically.      

Edited by WSA
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot

All interesting points. Hopefully some of these are answered in our lifetimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
1 hour ago, NatFoot said:

All interesting points. Hopefully some of these are answered in our lifetimes.

 

Agreed and it is something I have been working hard to accomplish. I want to know those answers. Is there a dead one out there somewhere? Probably. But what I find kind of important? We supposedly have the Pangboche Yeti hand at a museum in the UK. The finger supposedly bone tested as Human. Would testing it again with today's technology show anything different? And even MORE, MORE, MORE important than that? Does the morphology of the hand show a thumb placement that is NOT Human? I mean, aren't the base of Sasquatch thumbs supposed to be located farther back when compared to a Human's?  Has that ever been looked at?

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×