• Please be advised there is a potential issue with DD collections, which may result in an excessive amount being taken. Please read the stickied thread in Fortean Times Magazine > General Discussion, Subs etc

Manbeast DNA Investigations & Discoveries Incl Sykes, Ketchum

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
29,623
Location
Out of Bounds
Yeti Debate Swirls: Study Reveals Origin of Mysterious Hairs

The yeti, a legendary shaggy, bipedal beast from the Himalayas, made headlines last year when a geneticist said he had solved the mystery of its origins. But now, scientists have found the hair samples used in that study didn't come from a mysterious animal, but rather from the Himalayan brown bear.

"There is essentially no reason to believe that they [the hairs] belong to a species other than the brown bear," said one the new study's researchers, Eliécer Gutiérrez, a postdoctoral fellow of evolutionary biology at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. ...

Full story at: http://www.livescience.com/50148-yeti-genetics-questioned.html
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
33,618
Does this mean all yetis can be explained away as Himalayan brown bears, then?
 

Xanatic*

Antediluvian
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
5,098
That has certainly been suggested before. Edmund Hillary believed it was a bear. The bear known as the sun bear leaves hindpaw prints which look rather like those of a primate.
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
4,356
I've seen sun bear tracks mamy times, thety look nothing like yeti tracks or for that matter orang-pendek tracks.
 

Zeke Newbold

Carbon based biped.
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
1,123
Well in the end I just couldn't wait for the paperback version of this long anticipated book to come out - and I'm already about a quarter of the way through it (Sykes, Professor Bryan `The nature of the Beast`, Coronet, GB, 2014 Also available as an e-Book).

After having suffered through most of the rather tabloidesque `Bigfoot Files` TV show of about two years ago, I was expecting this to be a thinly veiled exercise in skeptoid ridicule. My prejudices have so far been challenged though.

It appears that Sykes has along standing and genuine interest in the man-like ape issue - and, like many of us, wants to believe, without needing to believe.

He writes with respect for the characters he includes in the story, and always in a interesting way. He fills us in on some background history which I for one was rather sketchy about: the (unresolved) `Minessota Iceman` puzzle, for example. It's all quite a lot less stuffy than John Napier's seventies book on the Yeti - the other attempt by an establishment scientist to broach the issue.

But it's early days and I haven't yet got to the bit where he unveils his much vaunted DNA testing method yet. I might have more to say about that later.

How was it for you?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
29,623
Location
Out of Bounds

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
33,618
Looks like, yeah, they pretty much can! Thanks for the link.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,013
For those who are interested in assessing the quality of the research of Dr. Melba S. Ketchum's 2012 paper:
Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies
here is a link:

http://www.sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/novel-north-american-hominins-final-pdf-download.pdf

Regardless of the whole "Matilda" nonsense, that is irrelevant when compared to the genetic studies of the actual genetic evidence, which was sent to labs blind, to see what they could make of it. The fact that the labs were unable to return results of known genetic sequences should be regarded as being utterly telling. Ketchum is a criminologist with a solid background in the treatment of evidence who has put her professional reputation on the line, and it seems that others either lacked that courage and didn't like returning the results the did when presented with the evidence, or that there is collusion in trying to silence investigation of the topic by trying to blacken the names and credibility of those who seriously try to perform scientific investigation on the subject. Nobody likes a whistleblower, and if they make even one mistake, that is held up as evidence that none of their efforts is credible, even when they are actually very interesting.

No, it's none of that.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
2,527
No, it's none of that.

A refutation is not really an argument without some supporting evidence. I would really like to hear how you reached that conclusion, because apart from the Matilda issue, it seems okay to me, but I admit I haven't had time to chase down every criticism or every footnote yet.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,013
A refutation is not really an argument without some supporting evidence. I would really like to hear how you reached that conclusion, because apart from the Matilda issue, it seems okay to me, but I admit I haven't had time to chase down every criticism or every footnote yet.

You're quite right in your first sentence above, it isn't. But frankly Ketchum doesn't deserve a reasoned argument. No offence to you though AlchoPwn, you seem adecent sort.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
2,527
You're quite right in your first sentence above, it isn't. But frankly Ketchum doesn't deserve a reasoned argument. No offence to you though AlchoPwn, you seem adecent sort.

Thanks oldrover, but why the hate for Ketchum? Please clue me in if you have the time. Private message or a link to an article that formulated your opinion perhaps? Throw me a bone :doggy:
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,013
Thanks oldrover, but why the hate for Ketchum? Please clue me in if you have the time. Private message or a link to an article that formulated your opinion perhaps? Throw me a bone :doggy:

Let me just remind myself, I did go into this when it first came out so obviously it's a while ago now.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,013
AlchoPwn, I really mean no offence to you as I said earlier, but I can't read that again. Surely you must see it for what it is.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
2,527
AlchoPwn, I really mean no offence to you as I said earlier, but I can't read that again. Surely you must see it for what it is.
Please, utterly no offence taken, in fact I suspect your opinion is better informed than my own so I am genuinely interested in what you have to say on the matter. I am the first to admit to occasional bouts of naivety, generally brought on by reading quickly but not closely.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,013
Please, utterly no offence taken, in fact I suspect your opinion is better informed than my own so I am genuinely interested in what you have to say on the matter. I am the first to admit to occasional bouts of naivety, generally brought on by reading quickly but not closely.

First thing about Ketchum's piece is that it's suggested to be a scientific paper, but it's strictly not. There was no peer review prior to its publication, it was not accepted for publication either, it was in every sense of the word self published. Ketchum started her own journal 'DeNovo', and this was the only article that it carried. She's tried to format it like a paper, and to be honest I've read an almost equally lousy pre-review paper a few days ago, but in fact without the peer review, and self published it can't by definition be considered as one. Even if the content was valid the way it was produced destroyes any scientific validity, because that only comes about through the review process.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
2,527
First thing about Ketchum's piece is that it's suggested to be a scientific paper, but it's strictly not. There was no peer review prior to its publication, it was not accepted for publication either, it was in every sense of the word self published. Ketchum started her own journal 'DeNovo', and this was the only article that it carried. She's tried to format it like a paper, and to be honest I've read an almost equally lousy pre-review paper a few days ago, but in fact without the peer review, and self published it can't by definition be considered as one. Even if the content was valid the way it was produced destroyes any scientific validity, because that only comes about through the review process.

Yes, you're quite right oldrover. I read a bit more and discovered that the legitimacy of the paper and the backstory are not as advertised. Her efforts consistently failed peer review in other journals. I think she misrepresented her qualifications. As you say, she created the journal DeNovo out of thin air but claimed to have bought it. Given the other dishonesty it is hard to credit her claims regarding the labs that did the testing either. That is a shame. I believe there was an earlier study of squatch spoor that was identified as brown bear. I would like to hope that there would be labs who would jump at the chance to give squatches the benefit of the doubt and the genetic evidence a red hot go if anything credible was presented. Instead we get this smokescreen of obfuscation and deception. Disappointing.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
4,013
Yes, you're quite right oldrover. I read a bit more and discovered that the legitimacy of the paper and the backstory are not as advertised. Her efforts consistently failed peer review in other journals. I think she misrepresented her qualifications. As you say, she created the journal DeNovo out of thin air but claimed to have bought it. Given the other dishonesty it is hard to credit her claims regarding the labs that did the testing either. That is a shame. I believe there was an earlier study of squatch spoor that was identified as brown bear. I would like to hope that there would be labs who would jump at the chance to give squatches the benefit of the doubt and the genetic evidence a red hot go if anything credible was presented. Instead we get this smokescreen of obfuscation and deception. Disappointing.

Have you seen her Facebook page? It's a little bit, I think 'whimsical' might be the word.

There was the Sykes study recently, but Sykes comes with his own set of problems. I think that might be where the brown bear business you mention came from, certainly there was brown bear DNA in it. Did you see the series on C4?
 

Yossarian

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
97
I would like to hope that there would be labs who would jump at the chance to give squatches the benefit of the doubt and the genetic evidence a red hot go if anything credible was presented. Instead we get this smokescreen of obfuscation and deception. Disappointing.

There absolutely are.

Something that too many in the field of cryptozoology (and other Fortean topics) get wrong is assuming that science, academia and so on are a closed-minded enclave, reluctant to embrace new ideas. It helps them to present themselves as being holders of some kind of forbidden knowledge, because accusing the people in the position to prove you wrong of having an ulterior motive means that you've always got an excuse. The more evidence against your conspiracy theory, the more entrenched your belief in it becomes - because of course they would want you to think that, etc.

But, in my experience, there are plenty of biologists, conservationists and other such experts that would love for something like Sasquatch, or any major undiscovered species, to still exist. I worked with someone who had done a lot of work with small primates in South America, and he loved stories of Orang Pendek. Even one of my heroes, Gerald Durrell, wrote very excitedly early in his career about rumoured living Pterosaurs in the Amazon. They desperately want these things to be true, and the reason they may come across as dismissive or contemptuous to any suggestion of their existence is that such suggestions are usually backed up by junk "science", or else we've all heard it a thousand times before.

If someone could arrive at a lab with credible genetic evidence, there's barely a biologist or animal scientist in the world that wouldn't be bouncing off the walls with excitement.
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
1,354
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
There’s No Sasquatch Conspiracy Afoot, Scientists Say
https://hotalien.com/theres-no-sasquatch-conspiracy-afoot-scientists-say/

Features quotes by Disotell, Sykes, Meldrum and Norman MacLeod. All sound reasonable except for Meldrum, who, in recent Facebook posts, has gone full crank and dismissed every scholarly, skeptical cryptozoology book that fairly questions the lack of good Bigfoot data. He's lost all cred in my opinion.
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
4,356
People see Bigfoot and have done for the whole time they have been in those areas.

People have seen wildmen or beastmen in every inhabited continent through every epoch of history.

People see and have seen Bigfoot.


There is a reason people have not been able to produce scientific, irrefutable evidence. There is a reason for this. I would point you towards Patrick Harpur's book, "Daemonic Reality"...

Quite possibly the very worst book i ever read. Not only utter hogwash but so badly written i had to force myself to finish it. The whole thing was a chore. Harpur's spooks don't leave behind DNA but the yeti and the almasty have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
2,450
Location
Indiana.....in the cornfields
Quite possibly the very worst book i ever read. Not only utter hogwash but so badly written i had to force myself to finish it. The whole thing was a chore. Harpur's spooks don't leave behind DNA but the yeti and the almasty have.
Really...and who has analyzed and proven this Yeti and Almasty dna...I'm all ears. If that's the case then ...case closed...right?

:confused:
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
4,356
Really...and who has analyzed and proven this Yeti and Almasty dna...I'm all ears. If that's the case then ...case closed...right?

:confused:
Dr Eva Bellamaine anylized eDNA samples from a pool in Bhutan in 2018 and found eDNA from a primate sharing 98% pf its genetic makeup with modern man. In other words as closely related to man as a chimpanzee. There is nothing like this currently know to science in Asia. The late Professor Bryan Sykes isolated mitochondrial DNA from teeth from a skull in the Caucasus. He said it was not Homo sapien but an unknown hominin.
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
2,450
Location
Indiana.....in the cornfields
Dr Eva Bellamaine anylized eDNA samples from a pool in Bhutan in 2018 and found eDNA from a primate sharing 98% pf its genetic makeup with modern man. In other words as closely related to man as a chimpanzee. There is nothing like this currently know to science in Asia. The late Professor Bryan Sykes isolated mitochondrial DNA from teeth from a skull in the Caucasus. He said it was not Homo sapien but an unknown hominin.
Thanks for the information.... have they been verified independently by other experts?
Saw this http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2017/11/037.html
https://brofeed.com/study-ties-abominable-snowman-asian-bears/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Sykes
the article does not support that they were from an animal like a yeti...is there a link to a specifc piece that claims this?
Dr Wu - why the sarcasm? I am genuinely puzzled.
I was also puzzled since none of this has made the news or science journals that I know of but perhaps I simply missed the news on this.
:thought:

btw..I'm open mined about 'Bigfoot' and think it 's certainly a possibility , but it seems at times people get a little loose with the facts.
 
Last edited:

Nosmo King

I'm not a cat
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
7,506
Thanks for the information.... have they been verified independently by other experts?
Saw this http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2017/11/037.html
https://brofeed.com/study-ties-abominable-snowman-asian-bears/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Sykes
the article does not support that they were from an animal like a yeti...is there a link to a specifc piece that claims this?

I was also puzzled since none of this has made the news or science journals that I know of but perhaps I simply missed the news on this.
:thought:

btw..I'm open mined about 'Bigfoot' and think it 's certainly a possibility , but it seems at times people get a little loose with the facts.
This article is from 2014

Scientists challenge 'Abominable Snowman DNA' results
By Steven McKenzie
BBC Scotland Highlands and Islands reporter

Published17 December 2014

A theory that the mythical yeti is a rare polar bear-brown bear hybrid animal has been challenged.

Last year, Oxford University genetics professor Bryan Sykes revealed the results of DNA tests on hairs said to be from the Abominable Snowman.

The tests matched the samples with the DNA of an ancient polar bear.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-30479718
 

Nosmo King

I'm not a cat
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
7,506
And this from 2017.

So much for the abominable snowman. Study finds that ‘yeti’ DNA belongs to bears
By Sid PerkinsNov. 28, 2017 , 7:01 PM

Hikers in Tibet and the Himalayas need not fear the monstrous yeti—but they’d darn well better carry bear spray. DNA analyses of nine samples purported to be from the “abominable snowman” reveal that eight actually came from various species of bears native to the area.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...le-snowman-study-finds-yeti-dna-belongs-bears
 
Last edited by a moderator:

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
13,440
This compendium thread collects together all of the previous separate ones concerning DNA analysis - please confine all further DNA discussion to this thread. I will be excavating older material embedded within threads in due course (eg Sykes, Kethcum, etc.)
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
4,356
Thanks for the information.... have they been verified independently by other experts?
Saw this http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2017/11/037.html
https://brofeed.com/study-ties-abominable-snowman-asian-bears/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Sykes
the article does not support that they were from an animal like a yeti...is there a link to a specifc piece that claims this?

I was also puzzled since none of this has made the news or science journals that I know of but perhaps I simply missed the news on this.
:thought:

btw..I'm open mined about 'Bigfoot' and think it 's certainly a possibility , but it seems at times people get a little loose with the facts.
The links you posted were all for the hair and bones, all known to be from bears. I'm talking about the tooth analysis. This is from the Caucasus and different from the HAimalayan samples. Professor Sykes writes about this in his book 'Nature of the Beast' and he has also spoken to me about it. He said the mitochondrial DNA was not homo sapien and he thought it was from an unknown species of hominin arising in West (not east) Africa and migrating out into Asia. He thought they could still be in the Caucasus today. He was working on the samples with another geneticist but then became ill and sadly died of cancer. I'm thinking of writing a piece for FT on both the almasty and Bhutanese yeti DNA samples.
 
Top