Bigfootology

To get extra info and find out what has been going on re. the Sykes DNA tests check out Bigfootology:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Bigfootology/169864543051503

Up-date of Strange & Weird -A Naturalists Viewpoint

I have spent most of the day up-dating my book Strange & Weird -A Naturalists Viewpoint, to look at and respond to the Sykes DNA testing issue.

It is very poor science since all it has proven so far is that there might/possibly could be a hybrid bear in the Himalayas but who knows?  And that some hair samples with very poor provenance have proven they are not from a Sasquatch.

That the programme makers -even Sykes- had already concluded they were dealing with myths was not a good sign.

As I have allready written, decades of research by zoologists and others -such as Jeff Meldrum's work on footprint casts- was not even dismissed. It just was not even considered because the Great God DNA had decided some dubious (at best) hair samples were NOT from Yeti or Sasquatch.  Which is like having four blonde human hairs for DNA testing and concluding their is no such thing as a red haired, black, grey or brown haired person.

I am awaiting the Almasty programme but so far, with no major Bigfoot research community fight-back with evidence and facts, the uninformed public now believes that only sad little loonies see or believe in yeti/bigfoot BECAUSE DNA has proven they don't exist. Even the case for the yeti being a bear is flawed because it only proves the hairs are from a bear.

So let's see what this coming Sunday has to offer.

STILL No Bigfoot Researchers Responding to the Sykes Bigfoot DNA Results???

If anyone knows of any serious Bigfoot/Sasquatch research groups who have made a statement regarding the Sykes DNA testing 'proving Bigfoot is a myth' -could you let me know?

No responses to my messages or any statements I can find. Hiding your head in the sand UNTIL the media start calling saying "Yeah, but you said DNA would PROVE Bigfoot exists but its proved it doesnt!" is not going to help.

I give up.

Channel 4 Bigfoot Files

Well, as it seems the entire Bigfoot/Sasquatch investigation community are huddled in a corner crying and refusing to break their silence over Prof. Syke's DNA test results of "Bigfoot" hairs last night, I thought I'd do some checking with my TV chums.

 According to 'Dave' - a friend so of course I'm not giving out his full name, he has a family to support--  in Channel 4 production, next week's Bigfoot Files "proves Almasty do not exist"....

I can't believe Prof. Sykes set out to just kill the subject. I had a lot of respect for him and previous work. I'm hoping its just Channel 4 doing an hatchet-job. Bad editing. Anything. 'Dave' offered to have an informal chat with someone in production who had worked on the programmes.

'Dave' casually mentioned "that 1960s Bigfoot film" (Patty) and that he had seen the Monster Quest "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" and that had experts from a number of fields who had studied tracks and so on.  He said he thought that might have been looked at?  He was told: "No, we used Professor Sykes before" (I  looking at "unidentified" Yeti hair from the programme To The Ends Of The Earth, I think). "DNA will say yes or no. That's science. Not much else matters."

The guide for the third episode reads:

The 'Almasty' is Russia's very own Bigfoot. It has been written about for over 300 years, and Russia's Almasty hunters claim there have been over 10,000 encounters over the years.

The big theory in Russia is that it's a surviving hominid, possibly even a Neanderthal.

Mark Evans travels to Russia and investigates one of the highest profile Bigfoot stories in the world: the tale of Zana, the so-called Wildwoman: a living Almasty said to have been found in the remote Caucasus in the 1870s.

She was alleged to have had four children by her captors over the years. Almasty hunters have tracked down her descendants and Bryan Sykes uses cutting edge tests to analyse their DNA and test the Neanderthal theory about Zana.

Mark also meets a giant among Almasty hunters, seven foot tall former heavyweight boxing champion of the world Nikolai Valuev, who is now Duma Deputy (the equivalent of an MP) for Kemerovo in Siberia.
Mark joins him as he checks out the latest hot Almasty sighting and meets the three kids who claim to have captured one on camera near a frozen lake.

Finally, in Moscow, Professor Sykes reveals the results of his DNA tests on Zana's relatives. The results are unequivocal, extraordinary and totally unexpected.

Will this overturn the supposedly proven myth Zana case genuine?
 I doubt it as they used that last line on the Yeti summary!

For more background info check here:
http://alamas.ru/eng/publicat/Almasty_e.htm

Sykes DNA Results -Where Is The Bigfoot Investigators Response?

 Prof. Jeff Meldrum and a Sasquatch track

So, last night, after Channel 4s Bigfoot DNA programme which at one point looked like it was going to be straight faced about Bigfoot (the sudden "loony tunes" type jingle when two "Bigfootologists"(??!) appeared gave the game away, I posted to Bigfoot Discovery Project/Museum, Bigfoot Encounters -in fact, every Bigfoot site I could think of to explain WHY this programme had not disproven the existence of Sasquatch.

Got up this morning expecting to see responses....nothing.

In fact, my comments have vanished from a couple sites including The Museum of the Weird, Bigfoot Discovery Project/Museum

Cryptozoology Online, based in the UK offered up -performer Lou Reed was dead.  Then, they are not that credible.

Cryptomundo. Nothing. Well, "Best Bigfoot Beard"??

Bigfoot Evidence gives a link to "Rev. Jeff" and his thoughts"........

Cryptozoology News....nothing.

BFRO -nothing.

I am shocked. The Bigfoot community got some advance warning about the results so you might expect them to start putting the response together before everyone dismisses "Bigfootologists" as goofy nut jobs. Nothing. I am seriously hoping the silence is being miss-read by me and that there is a counter offensive about to start and pre-empt the US screening. If not, AFTER the show will be too late.

I corresponded with Ivan T. Sanderson and others at SITU about Sasquatch just as I did with George Haas (Bay Area Group) and many others. By this time those people would have been launching a counter offensive.

Next Generation I guess.

There were, as I mentioned in the last posting, LOTS of evidence that was just dismissed without even investigating -"well, plaster casts are all fake and don't provide any evidence" and Mark Farmer, who I at first thought was going to be serious smarmed his way through brief interviews.

Sykes and Farmer joked about how "Bigfootologists" hearing the mythical Bigfoot "wood-knocking" and who responded back were probably 'communicating with other "bigfootologists" who thought they were communicating with bigfoot. Oh how I laughed.

Thing is, serious Sasquatch researchers go out into the field and note things, today more and more on video, such as "odd smell at 11.50pm" or "Wood knocking heard and responded to at 1230 am" (usually with knock sequence and times. This all goes on the internet so some keen eye is quickly going to point out that two groups were in the same area and reported the same thing -they were NOT communicating with Bigfoot.

But let's not even think about that.

The major problem, as any naturalist will tell you, is that fur and hair in the wild is left everywhere.  You have to SEE the animal brush up against a wire fence, post or something else then grab the samples. The provenance of the samples Sykes used were what we would call "non-worthy" and would not be tested. What about all the other "unidentified by testing" samples from universities, etc., we hear about? Are they not cooperating on this project?

What about the alleged fecal matter in cold storage?

But no, "Bigfoot is a modern myth" fits better.

And Smeja? No doubt he innocently picked up the sample thinking it was from the Bigfoot he shot when in fact it was left there when two bear predators fought over the carcass. yowch.

In my last book I pointed out WHY I had been changed from a total skeptic to someone thinking there really IS something out there. And I still do.

The Bigfoot community needs to get its collective ass together NOW.

Sasquatch Does NOT Exist

According to Prof Sykes the question of whether Sasquatch exists is answered. It does not. 

Was Meldrum and his work with alleged sasquatch footprints spoken to? No.

Was Grover Krantz' work looked at? No.

Was the "Patty" footage even mentioned? No.

Minnesota Iceman?  No.

Any of the solid cases? No.

Not even dismissed because the programme was only interested in the hair DNA and I can tell you as a naturalist of 40+ years there are hairs everywhere in the wild. You HAVE to see the animal leave the hair and get it.

Smeja was proven a liar -I did say from the start I never believed that tale based on hearing and seeing his interviews.

So now everyone will believe there is no Yeti and no Sasquatch -mainly because Sasquatch hairs were NOT collected.

It was Channel 4 -what did I expect.

But Sykes could only base results on those hair samples and I was a little taken back by his end words seemingly dismissing it all as a modern myth.

Channel 4 TV "Bigfoot"

My original posting was as follows:

It's Official -The Yeti Is A Bear....Probably.

It is, supposedly, a series that hominologists / cryptozoologists  and others are getting excited over.  On Cryptozoology sites there is talk of UK contacts ready to record and upload the 'episode' to You Tube.

However, if you have read a newspaper, listened to the radio or seen TV snippets you'll know -EVERYONE KNOWS- the conclusion drawn -bear.

Zoologically it is interesting but just because someone said "these are yeti hairs" does not mean they are allegedly from a hominid.  On the other hand, if it proves yeti reports are of a 'new' species of bear that in itself is interesting.

It does NOT mean that Sasquatch is a bear.  Evidence suggests otherwise but scientists ARE taking note and studying material they are given.

And in case you missed the item:

New DNA research may have finally solved the mystery of the yeti. 

Tests on hair samples were found to have a genetic match with an ancient polar bear, with scientists believing there could be a sub species of brown bear in the High Himalayas that has been mistaken for the mythical beast.

Yetis, also known as the "Abominable Snowman" or "Bigfoot", have been recorded for centuries in the Himalayas, with local people and mountaineers claiming to have come face-to-face with hairy, ape-like creatures.

Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at the Oxford University, set out to collect and test "yeti" hair samples to find out which species they came from. In particular he analysed hairs from two unknown animals, one found in the Western Himalayan region of Ladakh and the other from Bhutan, 800 miles to the east.
After subjecting the hairs to the most advanced DNA tests available and comparing the results to other animals' genomes stored on the GenBank database, 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 - a time when the polar bear and closely related brown bear were separating as different species.

Professor Sykes believes that the most likely explanation is that the animals are hybrids - crosses between polar bears and brown bears. The species are closely related and are known to interbreed where their territories overlap.

The professor said: "This is an exciting and completely unexpected result that gave us all a surprise. There's more work to be done on interpreting the results. I don't think it means there are ancient polar bears wandering around the Himalayas.

"But we can speculate on what the possible explanation might be. It could mean there is a sub species of brown bear in the High Himalayas descended from the bear that was the ancestor of the polar bear. Or it could mean there has been more recent hybridisation between the brown bear and the descendent of the ancient polar bear."

A photograph of a "yeti' footprint, taken by British climber Eric Shipton at the base of Everest, sparked global mania after it was taken in 1951.

Legendary mountaineer Reinhold Messner, who became the first man to climb Everest without oxygen, has studied yetis since he had a terrifying encounter with a mysterious creature in Tibet in 1986.
His own research backs up the Prof Sykes' theory. H e uncovered an image in a 300-year-old Tibetan manuscript of a "Chemo" - another local name for the yeti, with text alongside it which was translated to read: "The yeti is a variety of bear living in inhospitable mountainous areas."

Prof Sykes added: " Bigfootologists and other enthusiasts seem to think that they've been rejected by science. Science doesn't accept or reject anything, all it does is examine the evidence and that is what I'm doing."

His investigations features in a new three-part Channel 4 documentary series, Bigfoot Files, which starts on Sunday.

A book by Prof Sykes about his research, The Yeti Enigma: A DNA Detective Story, is to be published next spring.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/dna-research-tackles-yeti-mystery-230129938.html#LKVn18w

Given that for many decades, even since the advent of DNA testing (very expensive), those looking for the Yeti have found hairs and other "artefacts" of yeti and just checked under a microscope and said "bear" or found fecal matter with hair -"bear" I find it funny.

There are going to be people out there screeching "That should have been MY discovery!"  And whis is it NOT their discovery? Because they would not test further.  Science "knows" everything out there and now that this pompous attitude has been dropped and DNA testing carried out....

I do not think many who are versed in the subject believed that yeti and Sasquatch/Bigfoot were related. The yeti never conformed to behaviour noted in Bigfoot.  Also, there are the attacks by yeti -killing one or more yak and even injuring people.

But, I am sure some will point out, just because these are said the be yeti hair does not necessarily mean they are yeti hair.  It won't stop the manic "Yeti is a mystery ape" crowd.

What does this all mean, though? Well, now every TV company, scientific institution are going to be getting money together for trail cams and better scientific evidence -even the first 'yeti' footage!

Luckily, the yeti is protected in its homeland and I think anyone thinking of going to hunt one would get very swift kicking out of the country.

After watching the programme last night I wrote:

My initial notes on Channel 4 TVs "yeti" programme titled "Bigfoot" (naturally):

C4s Yeti documentary. Travelogue. Talk about bears but not the reports that differ from what might be bears. 

A brown bear paw cast that matches (if you take away the bear claws and ignore the dissimilarities) Shipton's yeti foot print -plenty of sarcastic comments suggesting hoaxy climbers and natives not able to tell a bear -and we are talking a BEAR- from what they call a yeti.

Two hairs dis-prove the yeti are anything than a bear "might be" "could be" "possibly" "If they still exist". 

DNA was interesting but Sykes got 10(?) minutes of the programme and judging by a BBC interview he DOES have unidentified hair samples but it seems C4 cut that. If you have samples send them to him because he is serious even if the series isn't!

what a pile of s***.

Does the Yeti exist? Going by this programme -maybe, possibly, we don't know. 

 

Now here is the problem. I have absolutely no doubt that Professor Sykes is genuine. I think that is beyond question and there is no "hidden agenda" as someone put it to me.  He admits to having unidentified hairs and he has a true scientific curiosity which is to investigate the evidence and see where it leads because THAT is what science is supposed to do.

I've worked with TV people -Sky, BBC, ITV and Channel 4 and there is one thing you learn: despite every promise from those working on a piece for TV you can guarantee that they are being nice and "tolerant" toward you because they NEED your imput.  Some are genuinely nice but know that the final edit is not theres.  

You get the "oh, maybe they ought to lay off the strong stuff" or "That must have been one Friday night" -suggesting drink was involved in the witnesses cases -I got an apology from the BBC when they made it sound that I was a loony eccentric and I presented my credentials as having been a member of the official Partners Against Wildlife Crime (PAWS), UK police forces advisor on exotic animals and of course having my name on a couple of conference papers not to mention write ups as being "a noted naturalist". But that apology was from the reporter. "I am sorry but the editor/director makes the decisions" and so I blacklisted any future work from the BBC.

I did expect something like "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" but that was a mental aberration on my part.  The presenter was THE main feature of the programme so we got no real look at Sykes' work. It was, as I wrote, a travelogue.

I should not have expected more from Channel 4 -I've heard two conversations today where members of the public were saying "Did you see that on TV -they proved the yeti and bigfoot were bears". And THAT is what will stick in peoples minds. None will have read a book or even Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science or even seen the TV programme of the same name. They do not care.

The rather sarcastic "gentlemen climbers wouldn't pull a hoax" line was so insulting. The travelogue was there for one reason: so that C4s resident "animal expert" could start leading people up the bear trail and then edit Sykes down to "its a bear. possibly. might be"

If you were expecting science you'll be disappointed -they were building the programme up in that way but it was a sham.

Again, though, if you have possible Sasquatch hair GET THEM TO PROFESSOR SYKES!