• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Yeti

Tribble said:
The Indian army has claimed to have found footprints of the yeti, sparking jokes and disbelief on social media.
The army tweeted to its nearly six million followers on Monday that it had discovered "mysterious footprints of mythical beast 'Yeti' at the Makalu Base Camp [in the Himalayas]".

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1122911748829270016

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48101717
Click to expand...

They've got to mean centimetres and not inches, surely? That's colossal.
 
lordmongrove said:
The yeti is no myth. Both fossil and genetic evidence is mounting to support the existence of this creature.
Click to expand...
Fossil evidence does not prove current existence and barely supports it.

Please cite you sources for the genetic evidence because the staggering implications of that appear to have passed me by.
 
Coal said:
Fossil evidence does not prove current existence and barely supports it.

Please cite you sources for the genetic evidence because the staggering implications of that appear to have passed me by.
Click to expand...
TV naturalist Mark Evans recovered eDNA from a lake in Bhutan that belong to a primate sharing 99% of it's genetic makeup with humans. Professor Bryan Sykes took mitocobdrial DNA from the tooth of Khwit, a supposed human / alamsty hybrid. His analysis suggests Kwit's mother, Zana was decended from an unknown African hominin. We also have genetic material in African and New Guinea populations that suggests interbreeding with hominis currently unknown.
As for fossils, we now know that relations of human ancestors were more numerous than we ever dreamed of. As well as Homo florisiensis we have the Denisovans and two as yet un-named hominnis from Red Deer Cave in China (from as recently as 10,000 years ago). Both florisensis and the Red Deer Cave hominns seem to be more closely related to Homo habilis that Homo erectus, suggesting that this hominin, that we thought never even left Africa, had a lineage that spread out across Asia.
 
Tribble said:
More analysis, including quotes from @Sharon Hill .

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...-by-the-indian-army-are-probably-just-a-bears
Click to expand...
I was harsh. But I think this was weird and ridiculous all around.
Who are these experts? Who are the scientists? Why make such a pronouncement on shoddy evidence? It seems like some stunt for a motive or agenda (tourism? politics?). Why did they not consult locals?

And finally, the weirdest of all -- why is the public bonkers over bad evidence, footprints! of all things. Boring. News today is that news is not really news but entertainment and distraction.
 
lordmongrove said:
TV naturalist Mark Evans recovered eDNA from a lake in Bhutan that belong to a primate sharing 99% of it's genetic makeup with humans.
Click to expand...

Where is the paper? Never saw it on "Science Today" (or anywhere else), where it ought to have been massive headline news.

lordmongrove said:
Professor Bryan Sykes took mitocobdrial DNA from the tooth of Khwit, a supposed human / alamsty hybrid. His analysis suggests Kwit's mother, Zana was decended from an unknown African hominin.
Click to expand...

Where is the paper?

(The program I saw concluded Zana was a negress, nothing more surprising than that.)

lordmongrove said:
We also have genetic material in African and New Guinea populations that suggests interbreeding with hominis currently unknown.
Click to expand...

'suggests'.

In what time frame? This generation? 100 years ago? a million years ago?

Plus "Where is the paper?"

lordmongrove said:
As for fossils, we now know that relations of human ancestors were more numerous than we ever dreamed of. As well as Homo florisiensis we have the Denisovans and two as yet un-named hominnis from Red Deer Cave in China (from as recently as 10,000 years ago). Both florisensis and the Red Deer Cave hominns seem to be more closely related to Homo habilis that Homo erectus, suggesting that this hominin, that we thought never even left Africa, had a lineage that spread out across Asia.
Click to expand...

As for fossils, they have little to do with surviving creatures. One might as well say the existence of a T-Rex is more likely because we have a fossil record.

If you keep stating myths are 'facts', produce the hard evidence.
 
Sharon Hill said:
I was harsh. But I think this was weird and ridiculous all around.
Who are these experts? Who are the scientists? Why make such a pronouncement on shoddy evidence? It seems like some stunt for a motive or agenda (tourism? politics?). Why did they not consult locals?

And finally, the weirdest of all -- why is the public bonkers over bad evidence, footprints! of all things. Boring. News today is that news is not really news but entertainment and distraction.
Click to expand...
How is "Scientifical Americans: The Culture of Amateur Paranormal Researchers" selling btw? I might invest in a copy. I say 'invest'.
 
Coal said:
How is "Scientifical Americans: The Culture of Amateur Paranormal Researchers" selling btw? I might invest in a copy. I say 'invest'.
Click to expand...
It’s a book based on a thesis with lots of references that takes a scholarly look at science LARPers published by a company who does not market their inventory well, overcharges and underpays. I think you can do the math. I hit my “typical” sales quota of 300 already. That’s the state of things. I’m not offended if you read it from a library or nab a pirated ebook. One doesn’t make any profit from these kinds of books. I just am happy to see it mentioned.
 
I haven’t seen a cryptid story go so negative and widespread since, maybe, the Georgia Bigfoot hoax of 2008. Is the view of the Yeti changing? At least with the media savvy crowd?
 
lordmongrove said:
Looks like a sideshow gaff carved out of an animal hoof.
Click to expand...

According to the forum piece, it has been confirmed as NOT an animal hoof. They don't know what it is. This all depends on how good their expert examiner was, of course.
 
GNC said:
According to the forum piece, it has been confirmed as NOT an animal hoof. They don't know what it is. This all depends on how good their expert examiner was, of course.
Click to expand...
I don't think is actually been properly examined. I wouldn't put money on it being real though!
 
Coal said:
Where is the paper? Never saw it on "Science Today" (or anywhere else), where it ought to have been massive headline news.



Where is the paper?

(The program I saw concluded Zana was a negress, nothing more surprising than that.)

In his book. The African was misinterpreted by the media to mean modern African but Sykes is explicit that it is not. I was in e-mail conversation with him about this and his is still working on the DNA with another genetisist. It's not Homo sapien.

Mark Evens was working with a French genetisist. I am currently trying to contact him, with little luck so far. The findings were shown in a documentary called Lost Kingdom of the Yeti. https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Kingdom-Yeti-Special/dp/B07DC7ZJXJ



'suggests'.

In what time frame? This generation? 100 years ago? a million years ago?

Plus "Where is the paper?"

Again Sykes book is a good source for this but there is a good starting point here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter...ic_and_modern_humans#Archaic_African_hominins

This Australian doc has some interesting info on late hominin survival too...



As for fossils, they have little to do with surviving creatures. One might as well say the existence of a T-Rex is more likely because we have a fossil record.

Fossils have allot to do with living animals. The 'hobbit' remains were sub-fossils! Fossils can reveal whole lineages unthought of before their descovery. For example it now seems that Homo habilis or something closely related left Africa and spread out as far as east Asia,

If you keep stating myths are 'facts', produce the hard evidence.
Click to expand...

The yeti may be a legend but it's not a myth.
 
What are you banging on about Coal? I never said i thought the supposed yeti finger was real. I was sent pictures of it months ago and have said from the start that i think its a gaff.
 
RE: Zana as a purported African slave.

No, Coal, no no no. Forget the flashy TV serial. Professor Bryan Sykes later wrote an important book which goes into much more detail on the topic. (The Nature of the Beast The First Scientific Evidence of survival of apemen into modern times .GB: Coronet, 2014). This is what you need to refer to - and the last two chapters in particular.

There he provides details on how the DNA from Zana's descendants are `very, cvery unusual` and wonders if they could reperesent a `survivor of an antique race of humans` (p-306). Later on, in the concluding chapter, he opines `I think my view has altered more in favour of there being `something out there` than the reverse `(p-311).

With your fetishsim for `papers` I would have thought you might have known better than to use T.V as your first source of information.
 
lordmongrove said:
What are you banging on about Coal? I never said i thought the supposed yeti finger was real. I was sent pictures of it months ago and have said from the start that i think its a gaff.
Click to expand...

This:
lordmongrove said:
The yeti is no myth.
Click to expand...

As usual, you're making statements of incontrovertible existence, which you then fail to provide hard evidence for.

lordmongrove said:
Both fossil and genetic evidence is mounting to support the existence of this creature.
Click to expand...

Fossil evidence does not support or is evidence for current existence.
What genetic evidence? Provide some, do. Papers? Studies? Results from accredited laboratories?

Believe whatever stuff you like, but if you're going to state thing as facts, the onus is on you to provide hard evidence. Otherwise you're no better than homeopaths and Dr. A.J. Wakefield.
 
Coal said:
This:


As usual, you're making statements of incontrovertible existence, which you then fail to provide hard evidence for.



Fossil evidence does not support or is evidence for current existence.
What genetic evidence? Provide some, do. Papers? Studies? Results from accredited laboratories?

Believe whatever stuff you like, but if you're going to state thing as facts, the onus is on you to provide hard evidence. Otherwise you're no better than homeopaths and Dr. A.J. Wakefield.
Click to expand...

You were talking about the supposed yeti finger which i was not at all convinced of from the word go. I said the yeti was no myth. Myths are symbolic stories, the yeti hence is no myth. As for for the rest of it, i cant force Professor Sykes, Mark Evens or his French friend to work any faster or publish stuff. I only have a twitter account for Evens but i'm trying to contact the French genetisist.
 
lordmongrove said:
You were talking about the supposed yeti finger which i was not at all convinced of from the word go. I said the yeti was no myth. Myths are symbolic stories, the yeti hence is no myth. As for for the rest of it, i cant force Professor Sykes, Mark Evens or his French friend to work any faster or publish stuff. I only have a twitter account for Evens but i'm trying to contact the French genetisist.
Click to expand...
"The yeti is no myth"

myth
/mɪθ/
noun
noun: myth; plural noun: myths

  1. 2.
    a widely held but false belief or idea.
    "the belief that evening primrose oil helps to cure eczema is a myth, according to dermatologists"
    synonyms:misconception, fallacy, mistaken belief, false notion, misbelief, old wives' tale, fairy story, fairy tale, fiction, fantasy, delusion, figment of the imagination; More
So, no evidence = it's a myth.
 
Coal said:
"The yeti is no myth"

myth
/mɪθ/
noun
noun: myth; plural noun: myths

  1. 2.
    a widely held but false belief or idea.
    "the belief that evening primrose oil helps to cure eczema is a myth, according to dermatologists"
    synonyms:misconception, fallacy, mistaken belief, false notion, misbelief, old wives' tale, fairy story, fairy tale, fiction, fantasy, delusion, figment of the imagination; More
So, no evidence = it's a myth.
Click to expand...
You are conflating myth with legend, two different things. I'm happy to say the yeti as it stands is a legend until we get a type specimen b but not a myth. Myths are symbolism.
 
Coal said:
I can. I could.
Click to expand...

I've been enjoying your sceptical (as opposed to skeptical) ripostes, and I know you're never going to convince those who vehemently disagree with you, but they're not the only ones reading these threads, if you catch my drift.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top