'Yeti finger' DNA test results to be revealed

[Neognosis]

Guess that sinks it.

[PersonFromPorlock]

Guess that sinks it.

Probably. But keep in mind that the religious have been known to improve on the evidence (to preserve the faith of the faithful) and if an original 'yeti' hand rotted away, it's not inconceivable that it might have been replaced with a convenient human hand.

[+DieChecker]

"...a DNA sample was taken from the skull, and was subjected to DNA probes designed to detect sequences of DNA that are unique to humans (performed by Dr. David Sweet, Director of the Bureau of Legal Dentistry at the University of British Columbia)5. The Starchild skull DNA was found to contain both an X and a Y chromosome. This is conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes" (Emphasis added).

http://www.theness.com/index.php/the-starchild-project/

can't be - wasnt a good dna test, they are lying, not a credible testing source, etc..

So many people have put so much faith into that Star-Child skull, it is much scarier to me then the bigfoot people.

[Myles]

I wonder too.

Would the Elephant Man's DNA come back as human? Andre the Giant's DNA. Would a hypertrichosis afflicted person? How about an albino? How about the Indonesian Tree Man? They probably all come back as human, but stand out from everyone else.

Bigfoots and Yetis could be the same thing. A genetic disorder.

So the hand could still be a Yeti Hand, just not a different species of ape.

But those conditions would not have gone through thousands of years.

[Swede]

can't be - wasnt a good dna test, they are lying, not a credible testing source, etc..

So many people have put so much faith into that Star-Child skull, it is much scarier to me then the bigfoot people.

Agreed! There is another factor that could be considered amusing/questionable. Have had the opportunity to view a number of photos of the "Starchild" skull. While working from photos is does have its limitations, certain factors can be evaluated. One of these is the ability to compare (depending on photo angle) the various cranial components to those known to be consistent with H.s.s.

While there is the obvious distortion of some of these due to hydrocephaly, the various cranial components of H.s.s.would all appear to be present. Parietals, frontals, temporals,zygoma, mastiod processes, nasals, lacrimals, etc., etc. Even the supraorbital foramen.

Which begs the question: Would an "alien" hybrid exhibit the exact same cranial components as a genetically "untampered" H.s.s.?

This aspect does not, of course, even begin to deal with the complex physiological/metabolic/hormonal and related matters.

.

[psyche101]

What a sad end to this story. I always thought several random bones were stolen, not a complete finger, and that only samples remained to date. The hand itself was stolen some time ago. Previous analyses indicated this might have been Neanderthal in origin, but this latest test seems to indicate otherwise, that is considering an original bone was tested. To be perfectly honest, the finger in the picture does not look like it came from this hand, and I have to wonder how anyone could replace a finger which is in that state without anyone realising it.

Edited February 8, 2012 by psyche101

[Night Walker]

But keep in mind that the religious have been known to improve on the evidence (to preserve the faith of the faithful) and if an original 'yeti' hand rotted away, it's not inconceivable that it might have been replaced with a convenient human hand.

Is it not both more conceivable and more likely that there has never been an authentic Yeti hand (or scalp or anything)? That Eastern religions have engaged in pious fraud (“improving on the evidence” in order to “increase faith by whatever means available”) in the same manner as our Western religions (eg Shroud of Turin, Shards of the True Cross, the Baptismal Forgery, etc)?

The reality or otherwise of the artefacts doesn’t really matter – it is the story that is important…

[evancj]

Is it not both more conceivable and more likely that there has never been an authentic Yeti hand (or scalp or anything)? That Eastern religions have engaged in pious fraud (“improving on the evidence” in order to “increase faith by whatever means available”) in the same manner as our Western religions (eg Shroud of Turin, Shards of the True Cross, the Baptismal Forgery, etc)?

The reality or otherwise of the artefacts doesn’t really matter – it is the story that is important…

I think this is the most likely explanation NW.

Edited February 8, 2012 by evancj

[evancj]

What a sad end to this story. I always thought several random bones were stolen, not a complete finger, and that only samples remained to date. The hand itself was stolen some time ago. Previous analyses indicated this might have been Neanderthal in origin, but this latest test seems to indicate otherwise, that is considering an original bone was tested. To be perfectly honest, the finger in the picture does not look like it came from this hand, and I have to wonder how anyone could replace a finger which is in that state without anyone realising it.

Your right psyche. How can we really know if this finger was from the original hand? The chain of custody is very questionable.

Edited February 9, 2012 by evancj

[psyche101]

Your right psyche. How can we really know if this finger was from the original hand? The chain of custody is very questionable.

Thanks mate.

I would like to see more than just an article that states the bones are probably the ones in question. What I find very sad about the entire lacklustre result is that several who had tested this hand before felt the markers indicated Neanderthal origin. As such, I always felt the hand should be of paramount importance, my biggest hope is to find a Neanderthal specimen something akin to Otzi the Iceman, or the peat bog bodies. It seems that such may be plausible in a place like the Himalayas. They only found George Mallory about a dozen years ago. His body remained well preserved for 75 years, which indicates the conditions for preservation are present. I admit, it's a long shot, a real long shot, but one I think that would be worth having a look at.

It just seems such a quick and quiet end to a mystery that has been alive for so long.

*NB For readers who do not know who George Mallory is, he is the guys who is famous for answering the question : Why climb Mount Everest, with: Because it is there. Whilst the words may not be Mallory's the attitude certainly was.

Edited February 14, 2012 by psyche101

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Junior Chubb said:

"In the story of this finger the Yeti finger had been swapped with a human finger on the original hand, maybe this happened again as it changed owners and was missing for years."

I remember that.

maybe it did happen again. but I suspect we'll never know if it was.

there's just something so "unholy" about monks lying

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

I think this is the most likely explanation NW.

it is a very valid point, I agree.

but... wouldn't those monks be somewhat dumb to think they can fool modern science?

hmmmm......

[Night Walker]

but... wouldn't those monks be somewhat dumb to think they can fool modern science?

hmmmm......

That doesn’t seem to bother the ongoing fabrication of Bigfoot claims and evidence by modern Western folk. Seriously: Why all the fakery? If people didn’t think they could get away with deception then our courts and prisons would largely be empty (and there would most likely be no cryptozoological “evidence” beyond what is misidentified).

The Yeti artefacts were not created to fool modern science. Like the multitude of other pious frauds, those authentic Yeti fakes were created in order to provide “proof” within a specific cultural context for those who may doubt the reality of the stories. The Yeti, like other supernatural beings (spirits, angels, demons, lake monsters, etc), has an important role to play within some specific cultures and as such, it is important that people believe it to be real. That the Yeti is culturally significant and often perceived to be real doesn’t mean there is a tangible reality to it.

Besides, how could anyone in the mid 20th century and earlier (let alone the humble folk of the Himalayas) have known anything about future developments in DNA technology? It does not make the monks stupid or even liars - it just makes them human...

[ZaraKitty]

What if bigfoot is really just a big hairy man? Who lives in the bush?

[orangepeaceful79]

What if bigfoot is really just a big hairy man? Who lives in the bush?

A big hairy man who lives in the bush that we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for?

[U. N.Owen]

^I seem to recall you, Orange, in a previous post letting slip that you are `a teacher by trade`. If this is really so, then you ought to have learnt that Repetition-Does-Not-Create -Understanding:The `broken record technique` only works in self-assertion situations, not in teaching (and still less in debate). In other words if you find that other posters have this (to you) irritating tendency not to bowing down to your (to you) evidently superior logic then it mat just be that they have thought about it as seriously as you have but reached different conclusions.

Some of my best friends are sceptics and I have no problem with jousting with them: I do feel a little insulted, however, if they continually repeat the same position as if I had not heard it the first time.

Your sole contribution to these threads, and apparently your only purpose for being here, is to endlessly recycle the claim that there is NO evidence for any man-like apes in any part of the world.You say this because you dismiss all eyewitness accounts as being inferior to your own interpretation of them and all recordings, footprints and other physical traces as being of no value.

It is a point of view, and one which you are welcome to, but I am curious as to why it gives you such a special thrill to keep reposting it as though you imagine that those who disagree with you are plain stupid and can only be addressed in this repetitive manner.

Perhaps you have a Biology degree, or some-such, and therefore imagine that this allows you to pull rank on everybody else.(Despite the fact that Man-like ape research, at this stage, is not a biological issue.) If you had done any serious background research on this topic -I mean outside of the internet (and watching that TV show which I have never seen) you would know that there are well qualified minds, probably better than yours or mine, that disagree with this conclusion of yours: David Attenborough and Jane Goodall. to name but two. These people are by no means yeti-advocates, but they do have the honesty to acknowledge room for new discoveries within their own specialism.

One telling thing about you, and your fellow interchangeable Career-sceptics is that here is no corresponding room for doubt in your own ideological schema. You have already made your mind up. and have pulled the drawbridge up against any incoming new information.Whilst a yeti `believer` can often be heard dismissing apparent evidence, accepting that they got something wrong,and even expressing pangs of scepticism, a Mr Neo-Orangechecker will never forward anything but a flat out scepticism at all times. Nuances, aren't macho enough for you, right?

Interest in the Unknown, contrary to what you seem to think, is not about `belief` but about what-if thinking. In this case: What if there are man-like apes in our midst? This is not a `belief-system` that sustains me (three meals a day and love does that) it's a hypothetical question. Before you go and say something to the effect that this has no room in `science` then think again, and read again. Albert Einstein conceived of one of his theories about the speed of light following a daydream about sunbeams. (Don't ask for a link! It's out there somewhere!)

Perhaps you are just ordinary guys at heart and have wandered on to the wrong forum by accident.I myself dislike cricket, but it would never occur to me to join a cricket forum with the sole aim of telling people about that fact.Perhaps you would also feel less heroic if you realised that Career-Sceptics, in this section of the forum at least, are well in the majority-so you're not even sticking up for the little man, either.

Please, career-Sceptics, do not reply to this post by saying one more time that there is no evidence for man-like apes: I heard you the first time. It would be much better for you to give us some insight into your reasons as to why this is so important to you that you have keep on repeating it to intelligent people who just happen to disagree.

[Farmer77]

^I seem to recall you, Orange, in a previous post letting slip that you are `a teacher by trade`. If this is really so, then you ought to have learnt that Repetition-Does-Not-Create -Understanding:The `broken record technique` only works in self-assertion situations, not in teaching (and still less in debate). In other words if you find that other posters have this (to you) irritating tendency not to bowing down to your (to you) evidently superior logic then it mat just be that they have thought about it as seriously as you have but reached different conclusions.

Some of my best friends are sceptics and I have no problem with jousting with them: I do feel a little insulted, however, if they continually repeat the same position as if I had not heard it the first time.

Your sole contribution to these threads, and apparently your only purpose for being here, is to endlessly recycle the claim that there is NO evidence for any man-like apes in any part of the world.You say this because you dismiss all eyewitness accounts as being inferior to your own interpretation of them and all recordings, footprints and other physical traces as being of no value.

It is a point of view, and one which you are welcome to, but I am curious as to why it gives you such a special thrill to keep reposting it as though you imagine that those who disagree with you are plain stupid and can only be addressed in this repetitive manner.

Perhaps you have a Biology degree, or some-such, and therefore imagine that this allows you to pull rank on everybody else.(Despite the fact that Man-like ape research, at this stage, is not a biological issue.) If you had done any serious background research on this topic -I mean outside of the internet (and watching that TV show which I have never seen) you would know that there are well qualified minds, probably better than yours or mine, that disagree with this conclusion of yours: David Attenborough and Jane Goodall. to name but two. These people are by no means yeti-advocates, but they do have the honesty to acknowledge room for new discoveries within their own specialism.

One telling thing about you, and your fellow interchangeable Career-sceptics is that here is no corresponding room for doubt in your own ideological schema. You have already made your mind up. and have pulled the drawbridge up against any incoming new information.Whilst a yeti `believer` can often be heard dismissing apparent evidence, accepting that they got something wrong,and even expressing pangs of scepticism, a Mr Neo-Orangechecker will never forward anything but a flat out scepticism at all times. Nuances, aren't macho enough for you, right?

Interest in the Unknown, contrary to what you seem to think, is not about `belief` but about what-if thinking. In this case: What if there are man-like apes in our midst? This is not a `belief-system` that sustains me (three meals a day and love does that) it's a hypothetical question. Before you go and say something to the effect that this has no room in `science` then think again, and read again. Albert Einstein conceived of one of his theories about the speed of light following a daydream about sunbeams. (Don't ask for a link! It's out there somewhere!)

Perhaps you are just ordinary guys at heart and have wandered on to the wrong forum by accident.I myself dislike cricket, but it would never occur to me to join a cricket forum with the sole aim of telling people about that fact.Perhaps you would also feel less heroic if you realised that Career-Sceptics, in this section of the forum at least, are well in the majority-so you're not even sticking up for the little man, either.

Please, career-Sceptics, do not reply to this post by saying one more time that there is no evidence for man-like apes: I heard you the first time. It would be much better for you to give us some insight into your reasons as to why this is so important to you that you have keep on repeating it to intelligent people who just happen to disagree.

GREAT FREAKING POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS needs to be a sticky at the front of the crypto forum section!

[+DieChecker]

A big hairy man who lives in the bush that we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for?

Please, career-Sceptics, do not reply to this post by saying one more time that there is no evidence for man-like apes: I heard you the first time. It would be much better for you to give us some insight into your reasons as to why this is so important to you that you have keep on repeating it to intelligent people who just happen to disagree.

I would add that there is NOT "absolutely no evidence whatsoever". There is no Scientifically Accepted evidence. There is a difference.

[psyche101]

^I seem to recall you, Orange, in a previous post letting slip that you are `a teacher by trade`. If this is really so, then you ought to have learnt that Repetition-Does-Not-Create -Understanding:The `broken record technique` only works in self-assertion situations, not in teaching (and still less in debate). In other words if you find that other posters have this (to you) irritating tendency not to bowing down to your (to you) evidently superior logic then it mat just be that they have thought about it as seriously as you have but reached different conclusions.

Some of my best friends are sceptics and I have no problem with jousting with them: I do feel a little insulted, however, if they continually repeat the same position as if I had not heard it the first time.

Your sole contribution to these threads, and apparently your only purpose for being here, is to endlessly recycle the claim that there is NO evidence for any man-like apes in any part of the world.You say this because you dismiss all eyewitness accounts as being inferior to your own interpretation of them and all recordings, footprints and other physical traces as being of no value.

It is a point of view, and one which you are welcome to, but I am curious as to why it gives you such a special thrill to keep reposting it as though you imagine that those who disagree with you are plain stupid and can only be addressed in this repetitive manner.

Perhaps you have a Biology degree, or some-such, and therefore imagine that this allows you to pull rank on everybody else.(Despite the fact that Man-like ape research, at this stage, is not a biological issue.) If you had done any serious background research on this topic -I mean outside of the internet (and watching that TV show which I have never seen) you would know that there are well qualified minds, probably better than yours or mine, that disagree with this conclusion of yours: David Attenborough and Jane Goodall. to name but two. These people are by no means yeti-advocates, but they do have the honesty to acknowledge room for new discoveries within their own specialism.

One telling thing about you, and your fellow interchangeable Career-sceptics is that here is no corresponding room for doubt in your own ideological schema. You have already made your mind up. and have pulled the drawbridge up against any incoming new information.Whilst a yeti `believer` can often be heard dismissing apparent evidence, accepting that they got something wrong,and even expressing pangs of scepticism, a Mr Neo-Orangechecker will never forward anything but a flat out scepticism at all times. Nuances, aren't macho enough for you, right?

Interest in the Unknown, contrary to what you seem to think, is not about `belief` but about what-if thinking. In this case: What if there are man-like apes in our midst? This is not a `belief-system` that sustains me (three meals a day and love does that) it's a hypothetical question. Before you go and say something to the effect that this has no room in `science` then think again, and read again. Albert Einstein conceived of one of his theories about the speed of light following a daydream about sunbeams. (Don't ask for a link! It's out there somewhere!)

Perhaps you are just ordinary guys at heart and have wandered on to the wrong forum by accident.I myself dislike cricket, but it would never occur to me to join a cricket forum with the sole aim of telling people about that fact.Perhaps you would also feel less heroic if you realised that Career-Sceptics, in this section of the forum at least, are well in the majority-so you're not even sticking up for the little man, either.

Please, career-Sceptics, do not reply to this post by saying one more time that there is no evidence for man-like apes: I heard you the first time. It would be much better for you to give us some insight into your reasons as to why this is so important to you that you have keep on repeating it to intelligent people who just happen to disagree.

Hi UN Owen

I have to ask though, how often do believers bring in the "what if" debate? What we do see on a regular basis is people coming in and saying "I did not believe until I saw one, now that I have I do and you should believe too!". Such statements are an insult to logic in general, and from a personal perspective. I think if you have a good look back through the forum you will find many "what if" debates but mostly between skeptics. Some believers such as Tia often give skeptics a reason to think more about a subject, for instance How Would a Hominid Get here? To which Tia put fort that we might be dealing with a species that is subject to convergeant evolution, a marsupial Yowie, that sort of debate I think you will find is welcomed. There are many career-believers as well, that will not for a second recoginse that a fleeting glimpse is hardly sufficient to make any sort of determination. I am sure that you will find many skeptic posts citing figures, facts and peer reviewed papers that show the hypothesis' put forth do not fill the bill. I guess you have seen only the worst sid of skepticism in this thread, mostly brought on by jaded people who have also heard the same story upteen times with the same conclusion i.e. Bigfoot is real because I saw him. I do however agree with you that this does not need to be the status quo, and indeed, I agree heartily that skeptics and believers can compliment each other, and I can say I have personally experienced such. In a faceless Internet forum though, there is going to be more wild claims that people frown upon. These "epiphanies" are not being recognised as personal ones but that is largely what they are. It's something of a catch 22. As long as people are willing to believe the enthusiasts will remain divided. I think the state of what are considered "professional groups" shows us what a sorry state the entire subject is in. People like the AYR give a thinking person reason to disbelieve.

In short, it takes all types. Skeptics might be a thorn in the sides of some, but without them, a whole bunch of believers would be patting themselves on the back saying how they now know what the Government is hiding from them and how they showed up the scientific community. Yet without believers, what would skeptics discuss? The weather perhaps.

Cheers.

Edited March 13, 2012 by psyche101

[psyche101]

I would add that there is NOT "absolutely no evidence whatsoever". There is no Scientifically Accepted evidence. There is a difference.

What is evidence that is not supported other than hearsay?

[orangepeaceful79]

^I seem to recall you, Orange, in a previous post letting slip that you are `a teacher by trade`. If this is really so, then you ought to have learnt that Repetition-Does-Not-Create -Understanding:The `broken record technique` only works in self-assertion situations, not in teaching (and still less in debate). In other words if you find that other posters have this (to you) irritating tendency not to bowing down to your (to you) evidently superior logic then it mat just be that they have thought about it as seriously as you have but reached different conclusions.

Some of my best friends are sceptics and I have no problem with jousting with them: I do feel a little insulted, however, if they continually repeat the same position as if I had not heard it the first time.

Your sole contribution to these threads, and apparently your only purpose for being here, is to endlessly recycle the claim that there is NO evidence for any man-like apes in any part of the world.You say this because you dismiss all eyewitness accounts as being inferior to your own interpretation of them and all recordings, footprints and other physical traces as being of no value.

It is a point of view, and one which you are welcome to, but I am curious as to why it gives you such a special thrill to keep reposting it as though you imagine that those who disagree with you are plain stupid and can only be addressed in this repetitive manner.

Perhaps you have a Biology degree, or some-such, and therefore imagine that this allows you to pull rank on everybody else.(Despite the fact that Man-like ape research, at this stage, is not a biological issue.) If you had done any serious background research on this topic -I mean outside of the internet (and watching that TV show which I have never seen) you would know that there are well qualified minds, probably better than yours or mine, that disagree with this conclusion of yours: David Attenborough and Jane Goodall. to name but two. These people are by no means yeti-advocates, but they do have the honesty to acknowledge room for new discoveries within their own specialism.

One telling thing about you, and your fellow interchangeable Career-sceptics is that here is no corresponding room for doubt in your own ideological schema. You have already made your mind up. and have pulled the drawbridge up against any incoming new information.Whilst a yeti `believer` can often be heard dismissing apparent evidence, accepting that they got something wrong,and even expressing pangs of scepticism, a Mr Neo-Orangechecker will never forward anything but a flat out scepticism at all times. Nuances, aren't macho enough for you, right?

Interest in the Unknown, contrary to what you seem to think, is not about `belief` but about what-if thinking. In this case: What if there are man-like apes in our midst? This is not a `belief-system` that sustains me (three meals a day and love does that) it's a hypothetical question. Before you go and say something to the effect that this has no room in `science` then think again, and read again. Albert Einstein conceived of one of his theories about the speed of light following a daydream about sunbeams. (Don't ask for a link! It's out there somewhere!)

Perhaps you are just ordinary guys at heart and have wandered on to the wrong forum by accident.I myself dislike cricket, but it would never occur to me to join a cricket forum with the sole aim of telling people about that fact.Perhaps you would also feel less heroic if you realised that Career-Sceptics, in this section of the forum at least, are well in the majority-so you're not even sticking up for the little man, either.

Please, career-Sceptics, do not reply to this post by saying one more time that there is no evidence for man-like apes: I heard you the first time. It would be much better for you to give us some insight into your reasons as to why this is so important to you that you have keep on repeating it to intelligent people who just happen to disagree.

I'd like to thank you, firstly, for your well-written and intelligently composed response. I will try my best to address some of your questions.

i actually came to this forum as a revived believer, if you can believe that. As a younger person I was quite simply OBSESSED with cryptids, paranormal, UFO - all of that and sundry. I read as much as I could get my hands on and over the years although the intensity of my quest for knowledge on the subject waned as I ventured into other pursuits, I remained a believer. On new year's day I watched the Finding Bigfoot marathon and it rekindled my interest in the topic. I came across this website as I was looking for information on the topic.

What happened here is that I suddenly one day saw that all the things I had previously thought of as evidence of all the paranormal things I believed in weren't as solid as I'd previously thought. I won't go into all that stuff, because you apparently have heard enough about what I think is evidence and what isn't.

My purpose here is actually somewhat broader than to voice my skepticism actually. I write some fair to middling poetry over yonder in the Writer's and Artist's hangout, and I also like to play in the fun and games section.

What keeps me coming back to post on these topics is not to belittle others or make other poster's feel insulted as I have done to you apparently. I am a firm believer however that people are completely entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. I like facts to be the same for everyone. I'm like most any human I suppose in that I like things to make sense and have order. And for that order to occur, it seems to me that facts should be provable.

I am not opposed to the idea of many paranormal things existing. I would be totally thrilled if someday someone could actually prove, with evidence that Bigfoot was indeed real, or if hauntings actually occurred. I really would be. It would bring back some of the excitement and magic I felt in my youth with regards to these topics. I think that there are things about our world that we don't know yet. Surely we haven't yet learned everything that there is to know. I accept that. What I won't accept is that this lack of total knowledge should be used as some do - like a blank check- for all manner of extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I don't regard myself as a macho person, and I do truly have an open mind. If someone were to provide proof of all or some of these paranormal occurances then I would welcome it with open arms. You mention tracks, recordings, and eyewitness accounts. Those will all indeed have their place as supporting evidence someday if someone actually brings in a bigfoot. All of those pieces of information will serve to enrich our knowledge of bigfoot if indeed it is ever proven to exist. But without hard evidence that can be studied (like a live or dead bigfoot) those things aren't enough to prove it - for me at least, and for many others.

Your Einstein example is a nice touch, but the logic is flawed. Sure Einstein concieved of one of his theories in a daydream, but then he did what so far hasn't been accomplished in the cryptid community - he proved it!

Thanks again for your post. I hope that we can continue a discourse with at least a grudging respect for each other.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

pretty good posts. both you guys, actually

[Myles]

^I seem to recall you, Orange, in a previous post letting slip that you are `a teacher by trade`. If this is really so, then you ought to have learnt that Repetition-Does-Not-Create -Understanding:The `broken record technique` only works in self-assertion situations, not in teaching (and still less in debate). In other words if you find that other posters have this (to you) irritating tendency not to bowing down to your (to you) evidently superior logic then it mat just be that they have thought about it as seriously as you have but reached different conclusions.

Some of my best friends are sceptics and I have no problem with jousting with them: I do feel a little insulted, however, if they continually repeat the same position as if I had not heard it the first time.

Your sole contribution to these threads, and apparently your only purpose for being here, is to endlessly recycle the claim that there is NO evidence for any man-like apes in any part of the world.You say this because you dismiss all eyewitness accounts as being inferior to your own interpretation of them and all recordings, footprints and other physical traces as being of no value.

It is a point of view, and one which you are welcome to, but I am curious as to why it gives you such a special thrill to keep reposting it as though you imagine that those who disagree with you are plain stupid and can only be addressed in this repetitive manner.

Perhaps you have a Biology degree, or some-such, and therefore imagine that this allows you to pull rank on everybody else.(Despite the fact that Man-like ape research, at this stage, is not a biological issue.) If you had done any serious background research on this topic -I mean outside of the internet (and watching that TV show which I have never seen) you would know that there are well qualified minds, probably better than yours or mine, that disagree with this conclusion of yours: David Attenborough and Jane Goodall. to name but two. These people are by no means yeti-advocates, but they do have the honesty to acknowledge room for new discoveries within their own specialism.

One telling thing about you, and your fellow interchangeable Career-sceptics is that here is no corresponding room for doubt in your own ideological schema. You have already made your mind up. and have pulled the drawbridge up against any incoming new information.Whilst a yeti `believer` can often be heard dismissing apparent evidence, accepting that they got something wrong,and even expressing pangs of scepticism, a Mr Neo-Orangechecker will never forward anything but a flat out scepticism at all times. Nuances, aren't macho enough for you, right?

Interest in the Unknown, contrary to what you seem to think, is not about `belief` but about what-if thinking. In this case: What if there are man-like apes in our midst? This is not a `belief-system` that sustains me (three meals a day and love does that) it's a hypothetical question. Before you go and say something to the effect that this has no room in `science` then think again, and read again. Albert Einstein conceived of one of his theories about the speed of light following a daydream about sunbeams. (Don't ask for a link! It's out there somewhere!)

Perhaps you are just ordinary guys at heart and have wandered on to the wrong forum by accident.I myself dislike cricket, but it would never occur to me to join a cricket forum with the sole aim of telling people about that fact.Perhaps you would also feel less heroic if you realised that Career-Sceptics, in this section of the forum at least, are well in the majority-so you're not even sticking up for the little man, either.

Please, career-Sceptics, do not reply to this post by saying one more time that there is no evidence for man-like apes: I heard you the first time. It would be much better for you to give us some insight into your reasons as to why this is so important to you that you have keep on repeating it to intelligent people who just happen to disagree.

I must comment.

It appears to me that the "believer" are the group who will skip right by the evidence moreso than the skeptics. At least the skeptics have past hoaxes (and many of them) to drive them. Believers have nothing (please not the old mountain gorilla). I can understand how the "there is not any substantial evidence" can wear on you. I think the same thing when someone puts a globe in my face. I don't care!!!! The earth is still flat!!!!!!!!!!

[Neognosis]

Your sole contribution to these threads, and apparently your only purpose for being here, is to endlessly recycle the claim that there is NO evidence for any man-like apes in any part of the world.You say this because you dismiss all eyewitness accounts as being inferior to your own interpretation of them and all recordings, footprints and other physical traces as being of no value.

That's because there is NO EVIDENCE. Eyewitness accounts are NOT evidence. This is not the opinion of Orange, nor myself, but a fact. You don't get to decide what you think constitutes evidence of bigfoot, if you are making the claim that bigfoot may be real.There are rules and protocol for things like this in the scientific community. The reason I didn't have to study bigfoot, or leprechauns, or fairies, or chupacabras, or pig-dog hybrids is because they are unknown to science. Because there is no scientific evidence.

you would know that there are well qualified minds, probably better than yours or mine, that disagree with this conclusion of yours: David Attenborough and Jane Goodall. to name but two. These people are by no means yeti-advocates, but they do have the honesty to acknowledge room for new discoveries within their own specialism.

Are we really going to revisit the goodall quote? Folks like Orange sound repetitive because the same nonsense keeps getting re-spouted by various "believers" no matter how many times you provide evidence that they are mistaken. The goodall quote was given on NPR during an interview about something else. And what Goodall says is that she WANTS them to be real, she BELIEVES that they could be real, but she says that there is NO EVIDENCE that they exist.

For some reason, bigfooters think this is an endorsement of their fantasy by an actual scientist. And no matter how many times you point out that Goodall ends her quote with this : "You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."

Goodall says THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, BUT SHE WANTS THEM TO EXIST.

The overwhelming vast majority of biologists, zoologists, naturalists, and every other "ist" that studies north american wildlife agree that there is no evidence for bigfoot, and bigfoot is extremely unlikely to survive in North america without leaving significant evidence.

Now if you don't bring up Goodall again, we won't mention that you are misinterpreting her again.

[Thought]

Agreed! There is another factor that could be considered amusing/questionable. Have had the opportunity to view a number of photos of the "Starchild" skull. While working from photos is does have its limitations, certain factors can be evaluated. One of these is the ability to compare (depending on photo angle) the various cranial components to those known to be consistent with H.s.s.

While there is the obvious distortion of some of these due to hydrocephaly, the various cranial components of H.s.s.would all appear to be present. Parietals, frontals, temporals,zygoma, mastiod processes, nasals, lacrimals, etc., etc. Even the supraorbital foramen.

Which begs the question: Would an "alien" hybrid exhibit the exact same cranial components as a genetically "untampered" H.s.s.?

This aspect does not, of course, even begin to deal with the complex physiological/metabolic/hormonal and related matters.

.

Yes, enough similarities to easily classify it as humanoid. But there are many differences too. Start with the face.