Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
MikeG said:
So, all you guys climbing into Sykes for getting involved in this, how about a bit of credit for him now?
Click to expand...

I suppose I'm relieved that he apparently has not become entrapped in some bigfooter web of deception. Given his previous carelessly ambiguous statements and some of information we'd been fed along the way, I have no regrets for the skeptical arm's reach at which I've held Brian Sykes.
 
Why does everyone keep wasting their time on Bigfoot. It would be more likely to come across a dinosaur out in the woods, as opposed to a Bigfoot. At least we know dinosaurs existed. As if there is this one elusive Bigfoot for every hundreds or thousands of miles with no families or colonies of these things populating the earth. It be like suspecting there might be a monkey in the Amazon, but it, and actually THEM, have eluded us forever in the past, and we just cant seem to prove they exist. If everyone concentrated on a cure for cancer, rather than this, maybe we could have had a cure by now.
 
MikeG said:
For what?
Click to expand...
Whoopsie, I had shortened it. This should make it a lot clearer. "Each test cost £200,000, and delivers results in days that used to take years."

But nevermind. I'm now convinced Bigfoot is just a rabid racoon. And superhero scientist Brian Sykes now pwns that racoon. I actually can't wait for his next YouTube™ installment of You & Your Racoon: How He Keeps Fooling Everyone Including You.
 
LTC8K6 said:
What happened to "the course of human history"?

Is that in episode 3?
Click to expand...

Yes. It looks like it is to do with the Almasty, and particularly the story of Zana, reputedly some sort of wild-woman. It looks as though there won't be any particular mention of orang pendek or other wild-man stories. It's a fair guess from the "human history" part of the quote that DNA from the skull they dug up of one of Zana's off-spring is going to prove that a certain group of humans was somewhere earlier or remained later than previously thought.
 
Iamme said:
Why does everyone keep wasting their time on Bigfoot. It would be more likely to come across a dinosaur out in the woods, as opposed to a Bigfoot. At least we know dinosaurs existed. As if there is this one elusive Bigfoot for every hundreds or thousands of miles with no families or colonies of these things populating the earth. It be like suspecting there might be a monkey in the Amazon, but it, and actually THEM, have eluded us forever in the past, and we just cant seem to prove they exist.
Click to expand...

New monkeys are found in the Amazon quite regularly. Here is the latest. Two were discovered in 2002.

Iamme said:
If everyone concentrated on a cure for cancer, rather than this, maybe we could have had a cure by now.
Click to expand...
What, because a whole lot of scientific time, money and energy has been diverted from cancer research into the search for BF? Yeah, righto...........
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Smeja's sample was stated to be from the young one, not the adult, and it was a bear. In other words, Smeja either didn't get the sample from the animal he killed, or he doesn't recognise a young bear from 2 feet away.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Sykes said he was initially excited by the sample because it didn't look like bear hair. It seems black bears actually come in lots of different colours, and this one was unusual.

I was a bit surprised though, when Smeja said he originally thought he was seeing a bear but then he realised it couldn't be because it was on two feet. Surely he knows that bears often stand upright on their back legs?

There was a clue to the type of testing undertaken, too. "Each test cost £200,000, and delivers results in days that used to take years".
Click to expand...
I thought it was the genetic analysis machine that cost £200,000, not each test. I haven't yet deleted the programme from my hard disc, I'll check the exact wording later.
 
Pixel42 said:
I thought it was the genetic analysis machine that cost £200,000, not each test. I haven't yet deleted the programme from my hard disc, I'll check the exact wording later.
Click to expand...

This is what Mark Evans says:

Back in the lab the hairs have entered the sampling machine, which analyses organic samples and produces DNA sequences. It costs over £200,000, and achieves in hours what use to take many days. Each hair sequence will then be run through Genbank, the DNA database of life on earth.
Click to expand...

So I was right, the £200k is the cost of the machine, not each individual test.
 
Pixel42 said:
So I was right, the £200k is the cost of the machine, not each individual test.
Click to expand...
Each individual test costed about $2,000.
http://bigfootology.com/
UPDATE – August 2013
Thanks to all who have contributed samples to the project. We have collected and analysed over thirty samples and results are being prepared for publication. Following normal procedure, no results or other information will be available prior to publication, so please do not enquire.

Though the collection phase is now over, hair samples can still be submitted for analysis, but the costs (about $2,000 per sample) will no longer be covered.

Bryan Sykes.
Click to expand...
 
Iamme said:
Why does everyone keep wasting their time on Bigfoot. It would be more likely to come across a dinosaur out in the woods, as opposed to a Bigfoot. At least we know dinosaurs existed. As if there is this one elusive Bigfoot for every hundreds or thousands of miles with no families or colonies of these things populating the earth. It be like suspecting there might be a monkey in the Amazon, but it, and actually THEM, have eluded us forever in the past, and we just cant seem to prove they exist. If everyone concentrated on a cure for cancer, rather than this, maybe we could have had a cure by now.
Click to expand...

Well, there actually ARE monkeys on the Amazon, so that probably wasn't the best example to choose.

However, I see your point. Why continue to look for something when there is...

NO physical evidence
NO bone evidence
NO fossil evidence
NO scat evidence

....and the evidence we do have (other than videos of dubious origin and authenticity) is also evidence for American black bears that are known to inhabit exactly the same geographical ecosystem where alleged Figboot is sighted?

Shaky, poorly defined, out of focus videos do not cut the mustard with me. So what will convince me that Figboot really exists?

1. The body. A Clear and unequivocal corpse, autopsied by a leading vet and confirmed by a leading anthropologist, both of whom have no connection whatsoever with Figbootery, and then published in reputable mainstream scientific journals.

2. Capture of a living specimen, the reality of which is again confirmed by a leading anthropologist who has no connection whatsoever with Figbootery. Said specimen to be accessible to all mainstream media.


Also, a clear, sharp and well defined trail camera photo might convince me that Figboot was at least worth further study. However, with the number of trail cameras now out in the wilderness; trail cameras that are high resolution and DO take clear, sharp photos of animals in the wild, it utterly defies belief that not one of them has so far been able to take a clear photo of Figboot!
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Yes. It looks like it is to do with the Almasty, and particularly the story of Zana, reputedly some sort of wild-woman. It looks as though there won't be any particular mention of orang pendek or other wild-man stories. It's a fair guess from the "human history" part of the quote that DNA from the skull they dug up of one of Zana's off-spring is going to prove that a certain group of humans was somewhere earlier or remained later than previously thought.
Click to expand...

It's about time, I tried to get Stubstad to chase after it, glad someone finally got around to analyzing Zana's son's skull.
 
Pixel42 said:
It seems black bears actually come in lots of different colours, and this one was unusual
Click to expand...

they certainly do...

http://www.bear.org/website/bear-pages/black-bear/basic-bear-facts/16-black-bear-color-phases.html

"Black bears come in more colors than any other North American mammal. They can be black, brown, cinnamon, blond, blue-gray, or white."

"In western states that have mountain meadows and open park-like forests, over half the black bears (Ursus americanus cinnamomum) are brown, cinnamon, or blond."


ETA> From www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/henner.htm

"Hair Color
The frequent question about predominant hair colors can be answered with 623 sighting records from John Green’s database. Slightly over 60% are listed as "Dark" or "Black", including such variants as brown-black, red-black, and dark brown. About 30% are described as "Brown", including dark-brown, light brown and red-brown. The "Grey" category (8%) includes dark and light grey, grey-brown, silver-grey, silver and silver tipped. "Light", off-white, white, and blond account for about 7%. The excess beyond 100% results from slight overlap in the categories. All purported sasquatch hairs in my possession (11 regional samples) show a reddish tinge under the microscope...

Change in Coat Color with Age
A suspected gradual darkening in hair color with adulthood was explored and not confirmed by the database, which produces identical height averages for coat colors grouped from dark through medium to light. Some tendency toward a geographical cline in coat color, i.e., lightening with higher latitudes, has been suggested in the literature with limited data."


Now there's a surprise aye? The range of colours found among black bears in the areas where Figboot is allegedly seen, just happens to be a similar to the range of colours that Figboot is reported to be.

Funny that!
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
...Now there's a surprise aye? The range of colours found among black bears in the areas where Figboot is allegedly seen, just happens to be a similar to the range of colours that Figboot is reported to be.

Funny that!
Click to expand...
“Coincidences mean you're on the right path.”
― Simon Van Booy
 
The skull of Khwit (also spelled Kvit) is still extant, and was examined by Dr. Grover Krantz in the early 1990s. He pronounced it to be entirely modern, with no Neanderthal features at all. If Krantz's verdict on the skull is correct, and the skull itself is indeed that of Zana's son, it would indicate that Zana may have been a member of an isolated hunter gatherer tribe so culturally different from her captors' society as to make Zana seem non-human to them, even though she was indeed a modern human. Another account by Russian anthropologist M.A.Kolodieva described the skull as significantly different from the normal males from Abkhazia: the skull "approaches closest the Neolithic Vovnigi II skulls of the fossil series".
Click to expand...

From the wiki entry.

Also curious as to why samples related to this would have been among the last received by Sykes
 
smartcooky said:
they certainly do...

http://www.bear.org/website/bear-pages/black-bear/basic-bear-facts/16-black-bear-color-phases.html

"Black bears come in more colors than any other North American mammal. They can be black, brown, cinnamon, blond, blue-gray, or white."

"In western states that have mountain meadows and open park-like forests, over half the black bears (Ursus americanus cinnamomum) are brown, cinnamon, or blond."


ETA> From www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/henner.htm

"Hair Color
The frequent question about predominant hair colors can be answered with 623 sighting records from John Green’s database. Slightly over 60% are listed as "Dark" or "Black", including such variants as brown-black, red-black, and dark brown. About 30% are described as "Brown", including dark-brown, light brown and red-brown. The "Grey" category (8%) includes dark and light grey, grey-brown, silver-grey, silver and silver tipped. "Light", off-white, white, and blond account for about 7%. The excess beyond 100% results from slight overlap in the categories. All purported sasquatch hairs in my possession (11 regional samples) show a reddish tinge under the microscope...

Change in Coat Color with Age
A suspected gradual darkening in hair color with adulthood was explored and not confirmed by the database, which produces identical height averages for coat colors grouped from dark through medium to light. Some tendency toward a geographical cline in coat color, i.e., lightening with higher latitudes, has been suggested in the literature with limited data."


Now there's a surprise aye? The range of colours found among black bears in the areas where Figboot is allegedly seen, just happens to be a similar to the range of colours that Figboot is reported to be.

Funny that!
Click to expand...


My personal opinion is that mistaken identity accounts for only a very small portion of claimed bigfoot sightings. The phenomenon is (of course again IMHO) ripe with hoaxing and story telling. That is what primarily makes up the bigfoot legend/myth. Most sightings are likely just made up, not someone seeing a bear or other animal and mistaking it for something it's not.

Of course you have the bigfoot enthusiasts that will imagine that every sound they hear in the bush must be a bigfoot. (or around their homes)


tanawts_zps71037d50.jpg
 
Last edited:
River said:
My personal opinion is that mistaken identity accounts for only a very small portion of claimed bigfoot sightings. The phenomenon is (of course again IMHO) ripe with hoaxing and story telling. That is what primarily makes up the bigfoot legend/myth. Most sightings are likely just made up, not someone seeing a bear or other animal and mistaking it for something it's not.

Of course you have the bigfoot enthusiasts that will imagine that every sound they hear in the bush must be a bigfoot. (or around their homes)
Click to expand...

So if you discount the hoaxes and the camp-fire story telling, the imagined noises in the night, and the outright lies, and leave only the "genuine" sightings; the ones where honest people have actually seen something dark and shadowy walking upright through the bush, what proportion of those do you think might be misidentified bears or other animals? Some? Many? Most? All?
 
Last edited:
^^I promise you that folks have much more to lose than they do to gain by coming forward and telling their stories. The ridicule and laughter they face from those they tell is enough to silence most of them.

Of the people I've spoken to about their encounters, they have been almost relieved to be able to talk about it.

Additionally, not all encounters are dark and shadowy. Many happen in broad day light and are very unambiguous to the witnesses. Very honest, forthright people just having something happen to them they cannot explain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom