ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags "Bigfoot Files" , bigfoot , Brian Sykes , yeti

Reply
Old 23rd October 2013, 08:09 AM   #321
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,884
Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome View Post
The overlapping bear prints looked nothing like the Shipton prints, imo. Not sure how Mark Evans was so convinced by the result
He was convinced because they new Sykes had Bear DNA from the Yeti sample. It fit the script. Do not confuse the documentary with the science BEHIND the documentary. The science will come out later, when Sykes writes a paper titled "Purported Yeti sample yields ancient polar/brown bear hybrid"
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 08:14 AM   #322
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,789
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
.....The science will come out later, when Sykes writes a paper titled "Purported Yeti sample yields ancient polar/brown bear hybrid"
I'll have a little 5p bet that there will be absolutely no mention of yeti (or any of the other locals names for what we know as yeti) anywhere near his paper. I speculate that he will simply report the DNA findings and the conclusion that there is something interesting going on in the Himalayan bear population. Why would yeti get a mention?
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 08:15 AM   #323
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,884
Science was done on the TV in that Documentary.

"Purported Yeti DNA Yields odd hybrid bear from ancient Norway"

That's it. The other stuff was just fluff.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 08:28 AM   #324
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,344
Originally Posted by luark View Post
One interesting part of the documentary was that they got a tame grizzly bear to walk around, and showed how its hind and front feet often go in the same place on the ground, making a combination track that looks like a Bigfoot track.
I wonder what Meldrum makes of the idea of bigfoot tracks (when they aren't just hoaxes) being bear tracks overlapping this way.
I'm a bigfoot hopeful and I don't feel bad about Sykes' results, I think it's very interesting and goes a long way to explain evidence.
Meldrum has already ID'd bear tracks, overlapping and single, as bigfoot tracks.

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 08:31 AM   #325
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,382
So, where does this new Yeti/Bear theory leave the supposed Yeti scalp? "Yeti" seems a broad term for many of the local fears.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 08:34 AM   #326
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,789
Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome View Post
So, where does this new Yeti/Bear theory leave the supposed Yeti scalp?......
As much a fraud now as it ever was......
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 08:43 AM   #327
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,382
Well it was clearly a fake, but it backs up my original theory, that the "Yeti" is a myth, not a bear or a relic hominid.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 08:51 AM   #328
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,382
"Yeti," in ancient texts, seems to be a demon, anything threatening was then given the name "Yeti." That's what I gather.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 09:31 AM   #329
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,055
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
Edited by jhunter1163:  Moderated content removed.
Edited by jhunter1163:  Edited for civility.


I think it is premature to announce that Yeti is a bear. The hairs are only that, not a type specimen. Meaning the source cannot be verified, or corroborated with anything in the area. (only by hearsay) The hairs origin is unknown, and could be exactly what they have been DNA typed to be and, have nothing to do with yeti, or any "sightings" in the area. They may just be hairs from an ancient bear with nothing to do with this yeti thing. (perhaps a the hairs are from another area/source than claimed)

That is not saying that what has been reported as yeti could not be a yet to be discovered bear. It just seems unlikely that would be the case. A much more likely scenario (IMHO) is that these hairs have nothing to do with yeti, and are part of the hoax/misidentified/deluded collection of claimed bigfoot and yeti evidence. Not surprising at all.

With no other corroborating evidence, all you have is maybe ancient bear hair that is related to polar bears. (still alive? extinct currently? no way to verify) Still no "yeti" or bigfoot.

It is much like trying to say that bigfoot in the usa are a bear of some sort. (aside from some misidentifications) No, bigfoot is not a bear, it is a hoax and so is yeti. A bear is a bear is a bear. Still bear.
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY

Last edited by jhunter1163; 23rd October 2013 at 12:42 PM.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 09:45 AM   #330
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,922
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Polar Bears don't live near the Himalayas. Their ranges do not overlap by like 6000 miles.
This is what mystified me about Sykes' hybrid hypothesis when I watched the programme. What two species exactly does he think it's a hybrid of? If one of its parents is some kind of polar bear then we're looking not only for a living specimen of the occasional hybrid (with the brown bear presumably) but also for a population of polar bears.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 09:46 AM   #331
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,443
Originally Posted by River View Post
...With no other corroborating evidence, all you have is maybe ancient bear hair that is related to polar bears. (still alive? extinct currently? no way to verify) Still no "yeti" or bigfoot.
Just a nitpick. The hair could indicate that it is from a bear whose ancestor may have been the transition/hybrid between a polar and brown bear. It is not necessarily (or likely) to be a hair from an ancient bear.
Quote:
It is much like trying to say that bigfoot in the usa are a bear of some sort. (aside from some misidentifications) No, bigfoot is not a bear, it is a hoax and so is yeti. A bear is a bear is a bear. Still bear.
And as in the US, the explanation for some yeti "sightings" could indeed be misidentification of brown bears and their tracks.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 09:50 AM   #332
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,252
Originally Posted by luark View Post
I wonder what Meldrum makes of the idea of bigfoot tracks (when they aren't just hoaxes) being bear tracks overlapping this way.
Here is a comment from Meldrum about the study in general:

"Just to add my nickel's worth, in light of recent conversations with journalists --

My concern is that the results from examination of a single gene from only two hair samples, of potentially questionable origin, would be taken as the final resolution of the yeti question, which is a complex phenomenon. To the sherpas the yeti is the embodiment of the spirit of the mountains. That spirit can be manifested physically in various forms -- a bear, a man-like ape, a pilgrim. My examination of footprints attributed to the yeti clearly shows that many are indeed bear tracks. The famous mountaineer Rheinhold Messner developed the thesis that the yeti was a merely a bear, based largely on this ambiguity.

Dr. Syke's findings are interesting, and reinforce the role of bears in the phenomenon, but they do not conclusively answer the question of whether there is an unrecognized ape species in the Hamalayas. From my field of expertise -- footprints -- the best evidence for an unrecognized ape species comes from the McNeeley-Cronin biological survey of the Arun Valley. An exceptionally fresh and clear trackway of a bipedal ape was observed and documented. (see attachment depicting my reconstruction of the foot based on the track photos and plaster cast, which was seized at the border). It suggests an arboreal ape with a divergent big toe that clearly inhabits the high forested valleys and occasionally crosses the intervening passes leaving tracks in the snow.

The "yeti" has only to do with sasquatch in that it may be another relict species of primate, as yet unrecognized by science. Descriptions of sasquatch and their footprints are quite distinct". - Dr. Jeff Meldrum

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2...-on-sykes.html
dmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 10:12 AM   #333
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,055
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Just a nitpick. The hair could indicate that it is from a bear whose ancestor may have been the transition/hybrid between a polar and brown bear. It is not necessarily (or likely) to be a hair from an ancient bear.And as in the US, the explanation for some yeti "sightings" could indeed be misidentification of brown bears and their tracks.

True, I should have included that in a possible scenario. The thing that bothers me about that is this:

Quote:
Professor Sykes found that he had a 100% match with a sample from an ancient polar bear jawbone found in Svalbard, Norway, that dates back at least 40,000 years - and probably around 120,000 years

It seems that he had a 100% match to something. Without any sort of corroborating evidence as to where the source hair came from, it is pretty speculative (at best) to say it is in any way related to the yeti phenomenon. If we take a closer look at the bigfoot/yeti phenomenon the misidentified bear could very well be attributed to a very small portion. However, the greater portion of claims are not. They are hoaxes/fabrications or people simple deluded. The misidentified bear tracks are mostly likely being "identified" by sasquatch enthusiasts. (does this fit into the deluded category? lets make bear tracks into a monster track!) Anyhow, I doubt that these hairs have anything to do with yeti, and more to do with humans trying to pass them off as yeti hairs. (regardless of if the hairs belong to a bear that was a transition from polar to brown in ancient times or in present)
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY

Last edited by River; 23rd October 2013 at 10:22 AM.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 10:27 AM   #334
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,500
^Amazing how he plays the plays the rational, skeptical observer at the same time he is working the industrial strength manure spreader.

What's up with this?

"From my field of expertise -- footprints -- the best evidence for an unrecognized ape species comes from the McNeeley-Cronin biological survey of the Arun Valley. An exceptionally fresh and clear trackway of a bipedal ape was observed and documented. (see attachment depicting my reconstruction of the foot based on the track photos and plaster cast, which was seized at the border). It suggests an arboreal ape with a divergent big toe that clearly inhabits the high forested valleys and occasionally crosses the intervening passes leaving tracks in the snow."

Sorry Don Jeffrey, but when you make unsubstantiated claims like this you forfeit the right to have your opinion "count more" than that of any bumpkin raising his hand to speak at a town hall gathering on Finding Bigfoot. When you start publishing some of your ideas in a legitimate journal then we can begin to take you seriously. Until then, not so much.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 10:32 AM   #335
luark
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome View Post
The overlapping bear prints looked nothing like the Shipton prints, imo.
Snow melts and sublimates, making small prints larger and rounder.
luark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 10:53 AM   #336
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,382
Luark: I'm aware of the melting-factor, but the Shipton prints look absurdly (intentionally?) different, imo.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 11:32 AM   #337
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,686
Originally Posted by River View Post
Quote:
Professor Sykes found that he had a 100% match with a sample from an ancient polar bear jawbone found in Svalbard, Norway, that dates back at least 40,000 years - and probably around 120,000 years
It seems that he had a 100% match to something.
I struggle with this "100% match" aspect.

Is it really possible to match DNA from two independent sources that are 40,000 to 120,000 years old? Would there not be some degradation and therefore a margin for error?

AIUI, the only way you can get a 100% match is to test two DNA samples from the same person (or identical twins). Even the DNA of two different individuals of the same species will differ; that is why it works for identification of individuals.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 12:20 PM   #338
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,443
It is not a 100% match of the entire genome, since there is only a partial mDNA for the GeneBank reference anyway.

I read it as a 100% match for the significant (identifying) part in the pleistocene polar bear GeneBank reference sample.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 12:36 PM   #339
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,055
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
It is not a 100% match of the entire genome, since there is only a partial mDNA for the GeneBank reference anyway.

I read it as a 100% match for the significant (identifying) part in the pleistocene polar bear GeneBank reference sample.

^ This is probably correct. Seeing as the whole genome is nowhere near available to substantiate small divergences. (depending on what is available) The thing that gets me is, tying it to the whole yeti thing. Seems more like a publicity move than anything you can substantiate with a hair submitted from a third party with no real way of verifying the source or area it came from.

Its interesting because of what the claims were that go along with the hairs and where/when they were to have been found. (unsubstantiated) I think its just more an attempt at a headline meant to grab an audience than any real proof of the "yeti legend solved". To me it is more myth and hoaxville, not bearville. Misidentified bears seems like a very small percentage of what is known as the bigfoot phenomenon. (more humans fabricating etc) Although it is relevant and a small part of it for sure.
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY

Last edited by River; 23rd October 2013 at 12:39 PM.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 12:42 PM   #340
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,443
I agree (as I think most in this thread do) that the "Yeti exists, and it is a bear" is quite obvioulsy incorrect - merely a headline grabber.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 01:25 PM   #341
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,789
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
I agree (as I think most in this thread do) that the "Yeti exists, and it is a bear" is quite obvioulsy incorrect - merely a headline grabber.
From the moment I first saw the trailer, I read this the diametrically opposite way: "Yeti doesn't exist: it was just a bear all along". Which is why I am still so surprised by the amount of resistance in here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 01:28 PM   #342
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,686
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
It is not a 100% match of the entire genome, since there is only a partial mDNA for the GeneBank reference anyway.

I read it as a 100% match for the significant (identifying) part in the pleistocene polar bear GeneBank reference sample.

So its a 100% match within the limitations of what is testable?

Originally Posted by River View Post
The thing that gets me is, tying it to the whole yeti thing. Seems more like a publicity move than anything you can substantiate with a hair submitted from a third party with no real way of verifying the source or area it came from.
So, as you see it...

40,000 year old polar bear > well documented and sound chain of custody > DNA testing > match

Unknown animal or species > no documentation or record of existence > DNA testing > match


... there is a problem with the bit in red?

The only thing we know for sure is that wherever the hair came from, its a match for the 40,000 year old polar bear. To me this looks like the unknown animal is a 40,000 year old polar bear.

I don't see where the Yeti comes into it either.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 01:29 PM   #343
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,382
It's a bit like saying "Nessie is a Sturgeon," sure, it's been mistaken for Nessie, but it ain't the whole picture, it's myth.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 01:32 PM   #344
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,344
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
From the moment I first saw the trailer, I read this the diametrically opposite way: "Yeti doesn't exist: it was just a bear all along". Which is why I am still so surprised by the amount of resistance in here.
That makes no sense.

They haven't shown that the Yeti doesn't exist...nor could they. If they found 5 new bears it wouldn't prove that the Yeti doesn't exist.

Their whole premise is that the Yeti is a bear...which they can't prove either, but it's their story line.

The story is that there is a Yeti, and it's a previously unknown Polar bear relative that people are seeing. A Polar bear relative that behaves differently, and may be "more bipedal". A Polar bear relative that confuses hunters with it's behavior. Etc.

The Yeti exists, and it's an odd bear.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

Last edited by LTC8K6; 23rd October 2013 at 01:33 PM.
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 01:36 PM   #345
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,382
"Yeti" may merely mean "Boogyman" in some cultures, a broad range of things, open to interpretation & imagination.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 01:52 PM   #346
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,252
So, yeti exists, and it's an odd bear. That is to say, we have found what we believe to be the source of the yeti myth and it is not a giant, bipedal ape. It's an odd bear.

While that does not remove the possibility of an undiscovered primate running around the Himalayas, for most reasonable people I think it will greatly reduce that possibility. What are the odds of an unknown bear and a giant ape-man cavorting around up there?

Transplant the same scenario to the Pacific Northwest and replace bear with whatever Sykes finds if he finds anything and the same logic, you would think, should apply. I'll wager that will not be the result with Bigfoot advocates. No matter what the result is, it will be a win somehow for Footers.
dmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 02:26 PM   #347
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,344
Yes, imagine if Sykes said that bigfoot existed and was a new bear that behaved different, and was mistaken for a primate because it went bipedal more often than known bears.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 02:44 PM   #348
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,686
Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
So, yeti exists, and it's an odd bear. That is to say, we have found what we believe to be the source of the yeti myth and it is not a giant, bipedal ape. It's an odd bear.

While that does not remove the possibility of an undiscovered primate running around the Himalayas, for most reasonable people I think it will greatly reduce that possibility. What are the odds of an unknown bear and a giant ape-man cavorting around up there?

Transplant the same scenario to the Pacific Northwest and replace bear with whatever Sykes finds if he finds anything and the same logic, you would think, should apply. I'll wager that will not be the result with Bigfoot advocates. No matter what the result is, it will be a win somehow for Footers.
I read somewhere, article about something called "ecological niche modelling". Effectively, it is a study that uses computer modelling with mathematical algorithms to predict the geographic distribution of species.

A biologist called Jeff Lozier (University of Illinois) and some other researchers developed such a model for what they considered to be an obviously false set of data; Bigfoot sightings. They collecting all reported sightings in Washington, Oregon and California in an attempt to predict their distribution. They came up with a reasonable plausible model of where Bigfoot might live. However, when they compared it with a model they had previously developed for the black bear, the two models turned out to be "statistically indistinguishable."

This would tend to lead to the conclusion that the vast majority (if not all) Bigfoot sightings are simply misidentified black bears.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 23rd October 2013 at 02:52 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 02:50 PM   #349
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,443
Unfortunately, footers can spin that that to mean that bf is as plausible as black bears.
Because a. they are dishonest and misrepresent the paper's conclusion or b. are dishonest and cannot understand the paper's conclusion
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 03:01 PM   #350
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,686
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Unfortunately, footers can spin that that to mean that bf is as plausible as black bears.
Because a. they are dishonest and misrepresent the paper's conclusion or b. are dishonest and cannot understand the paper's conclusion
And of course the response here is that black bears have been very frequently documented, filmed (clearly!) and photographed (clearly)

The same cannot be said for Figboot.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 03:10 PM   #351
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,997
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
From the moment I first saw the trailer, I read this the diametrically opposite way: "Yeti doesn't exist: it was just a bear all along". Which is why I am still so surprised by the amount of resistance in here.
Ditto on that, no yeti, just some bear family/species/group or whatever that had some surviving mtDNA from an ancient polar bear. I'm assuming he thinks this is what people are misidentifying as a so called yeti.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 03:12 PM   #352
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,997
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I read somewhere, article about something called "ecological niche modelling". Effectively, it is a study that uses computer modelling with mathematical algorithms to predict the geographic distribution of species.

A biologist called Jeff Lozier (University of Illinois) and some other researchers developed such a model for what they considered to be an obviously false set of data; Bigfoot sightings. They collecting all reported sightings in Washington, Oregon and California in an attempt to predict their distribution. They came up with a reasonable plausible model of where Bigfoot might live. However, when they compared it with a model they had previously developed for the black bear, the two models turned out to be "statistically indistinguishable."

This would tend to lead to the conclusion that the vast majority (if not all) Bigfoot sightings are simply misidentified black bears.
Yeah, Melba cited them as a source for her paper, don't you remember?
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 03:30 PM   #353
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,686
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Yeah, Melba cited them as a source for her paper, don't you remember?
Melba. That would be the woman whose "Bigfoot DNA" turned out to be Opossum DNA?

Sorry, I don't keep up with junk science
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 03:43 PM   #354
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,443
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Yeah, Melba cited them as a source for her paper, don't you remember?
Seems my earlier post was on the money.
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Unfortunately, footers can spin that that to mean that bf is as plausible as black bears.
Because a. they are dishonest and misrepresent the paper's conclusion or b. are dishonest and cannot understand the paper's conclusion
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 03:46 PM   #355
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,997
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Melba. That would be the woman whose "Bigfoot DNA" turned out to be Opossum DNA?

Sorry, I don't keep up with junk science
You didn't miss anything. The point was that it was a tongue in cheek type paper but she cited it as evidence for bigfoot. No lie.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 05:59 PM   #356
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
From the moment I first saw the trailer, I read this the diametrically opposite way: "Yeti doesn't exist: it was just a bear all along". Which is why I am still so surprised by the amount of resistance in here.

Could that be due to the personality of the general forumite skeptic perhaps?
Alan Lowey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 06:09 PM   #357
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Alan Lowey View Post
Could that be due to the personality of the general forumite skeptic perhaps?
Or more likely due to perfectly reasonable skepticism at extraordinary claims made from a couple of poorly documented samples? Occam's razor.
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 06:23 PM   #358
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,055
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
So its a 100% match within the limitations of what is testable?



So, as you see it...

40,000 year old polar bear > well documented and sound chain of custody > DNA testing > match

Unknown animal or species > no documentation or record of existence > DNA testing > match


... there is a problem with the bit in red?

The only thing we know for sure is that wherever the hair came from, its a match for the 40,000 year old polar bear. To me this looks like the unknown animal is a 40,000 year old polar bear.

I don't see where the Yeti comes into it either.


Not quite. There are many possibilities to the origin of the hair. (i think that is what we're all talking about, not what the hair is) The hair could be from a extinct bear that is of the same type as the 40,000-120,000 year old bear in genbank. It could also be an existing (or more recent) bear with the same DNA, of the same breed. The thing that seems most important to me about this is, are we talking about something currently walking around now? Or is this about some old hairs planted or a story made up as to their origin.

I don't see much argument for the DNA testing. (if it is indeed 100% match with the samples in genbank) I see a huge question mark on when or where this hair came from.

Spot on as to the yeti mentioned in the story. Seems like that's a sensational headline that brings dollars and interest more than any credible claim.
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY

Last edited by River; 23rd October 2013 at 06:24 PM.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 06:43 PM   #359
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
Sykes: Sasquatch Files, Episode 2

In anticipation of this coming Sunday's episode of the 'Bigfoot Files' screened on Channel 4 in the UK, I've started this thread.

This week it's the North American Sasquatch which is under investigation. From the short clip at the end of the 'Yeti' episode, I'm not expecting much. Maybe I'll be happily surprised at a new piece of DNA evidence? Will Prof Sykes do the same as he did with the Yeti and identify a real animal as the entity behind the legends? Either way, the documentary series is still much better than initially expected, so a new and informative perspective is looking likely and will make good viewing. Touch wood.


ETA:

Quote:
Mark Evans visits America's Pacific Northwest in search of 'Sasquatch'. In 1958 a digger driver called Jerry Crew found a series of huge footprints in Willow Creek, Northern California and the Bigfoot legend took off.

Since then the region has had over 1000 Bigfoot encounters. But for decades science has scorned the idea of Bigfoot, and anyone who studies it.

Mark meets some of the Bigfootologists who believe they've come face to face with these creatures: Justin Smeja, who claims to have shot two Sasquatch; Vietnam vet Dan Shirley, who claims he can communicate with Bigfoot by 'wood knocking'; Derek Randles, who's been a Sasquatch obsessive since a close encounter in 1985; and Native American Marcel Cagey, who says a Sasquatch changed his life.

And Professor Sykes reveals the results of his DNA tests on the hair samples he's collected. Will the results confirm the Bigfootologists' stories or will it be bad news?


Now I'm really looking forward to it.


................

Last edited by Alan Lowey; 23rd October 2013 at 06:53 PM.
Alan Lowey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2013, 06:57 PM   #360
Alan Lowey
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 736
I just had a thought. Prof Sykes' declaration that a new species of hybrid megafauna bear is still in existence in the Himalayas must be getting adventurous film crews excited. How long before an expedition claims the prize of the first TV quality footage of the mega-bears in their natural habitat and confirms their existence to the world?
Alan Lowey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.