Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
david4121

Do bigfoots exist really?

532 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Carnoferox
7 minutes ago, Razumov said:

Two possible candidates for the Yeti and Almasty of Asia:

Junzi imperialis

F1.medium.gif

180625223033_1_540x360.jpg

 

Denisovans

denisovanhumantooth.jpg?w=640

Well it certainly isn't a small gibbon from China. Once again, footies remain clueless about paleontology/archaeology.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
6 minutes ago, Razumov said:

You really wanted to burn him at the stake, didn't you?

No, I'm just pointing out that his research isn't reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
Just now, Carnoferox said:

No, I'm just pointing out that his research isn't reliable.

No, you wanted his blood when he started taking Bigfoot seriously. The hatred against him before he even published anything was palpable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
4 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Well it certainly isn't a small gibbon from China. Once again, footies remain clueless about paleontology/archaeology.

Do we have any real evidence of how large the unknown Gibbon got?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
Just now, Razumov said:

No, you wanted his blood when he started taking Bigfoot seriously. The hatred against him before he even published anything was palpable.

How would you even know this when his yeti paper was published 4 years ago and I'm only discussing it with you now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
Just now, Carnoferox said:

How would you even know this when his yeti paper was published 4 years ago and I'm only discussing it with you now?

You darwinist skeptics were boiling with rage at him at the time.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
2 minutes ago, Razumov said:

Do we have any real evidence of how large the unknown Gibbon got?

The scale bar in the photo of the skull is only 1 cm, so not very big. Do some research instead of pulling random apes out of a hat.

http://sci-hub.tw/http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6395/1346

1 minute ago, Razumov said:

You darwinist skeptics were boiling with rage at him at the time.

I doubt anyone was "boiling with rage". I was just disappointed that a published paper on cryptozoology (a rare thing nowadays) turned out to be a bust. Sykes is doing no favors to either side of the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, Razumov said:

If Sykes results are negative, how is that going to fail peer review?

Says the man researching "Zana"

 

Get lost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
11 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

I doubt anyone was "boiling with rage".

The kind of "skeptic" that spends his life in a bigfoot forum has a very highly selected personality type, and you are all the same. You saw Bryan Sykes as betraying Darwinism and going over to the Dark Side, and you all bitterly hated him for that before he published a single thing.

Edited by Razumov
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
2 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Get lost

Get hoaxed by white trash again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
21 minutes ago, joc said:

Don't know where you got that I like Blues.

The truth is...I love the blues!B)

Gotta love the family bro! Now clue up on reality and it's all good.:lol:

 

Yea everyone that comes in here says that.:huh:  I still can't figure out their attraction to BF threads. Maybe they think they are social justice warriors trying to save me from myself. Who knows. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
3 minutes ago, Razumov said:

The kind of "skeptic" that spends his life in a bigfoot forum has a very highly selected personality type, and you are all the same. You saw Brian Sykes as betraying Darwinism and going over to the Dark Side, and you all bitterly hated him for that before he published a single thing.

What? He didn't go against evolution or any facet of modern science at all. His conclusion was an unknown species of bear, which, while poorly supported, wasn't extremely implausible. It was his methods that were criticized, not researching the yeti in the first place. Are we talking about the same guy here?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
Just now, Carnoferox said:

What? He didn't go against evolution or any facet of modern science at all. His conclusion was an unknown species of bear, which, while poorly supported, wasn't extremely implausible. It was his methods that were criticized, not researching the yeti in the first place. Are we talking about the same guy here?

No, it was his taking the Bigfoot seriously in the first place that provoked a blast of hatred from your types, it was evident before he published anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
2 minutes ago, Razumov said:

No, it was his taking the Bigfoot seriously in the first place that provoked a blast of hatred from your types, it was evident before he published anything.

Syke has never published anything about Bigfoot. Did you even read his paper? There have been plenty of scientists who have published research on cryptids and are still taken seriously (Charles Paxton, Darren Naish, Ben Speers-Roesch, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
22 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

The scale bar in the photo of the skull is only 1 cm, so not very big.

Does they know how old the Gibbon was when it died?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
3 minutes ago, Razumov said:

Genetic analysis of hair samples attributed to yeti, bigfoot and other anomalous primates

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4100498/

I should've worded that better. The main focus of this paper is the samples attributed to the yeti that Sykes hypothesized to be from an unknown species of bear. The bigfoot samples were inconsequential and all turned to out to be from known animals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
3 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

I should've worded that better. The main focus of this paper is the samples attributed to the yeti that Sykes hypothesized to be from an unknown species of bear. The bigfoot samples were inconsequential and all turned to out to be from known animals.

Which is why the hatred of him is so irrational.

You skeptics also missed stuff in his book that might actually get him fired or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jenn8779
On 11/8/2018 at 7:18 AM, PrisonerX said:

I see you've co-signed another poster's insult, which was directed towards me, clearly indicating that you're looking to ridicule and mock rather than to discuss. 

Do not expect anyone to treat you with respect or answer your questions when carrying yourself as such. 

I honestly meant no disrespect. I just have a twisted sense of humor. My apologies! :lol:

I am very interested in your theory though if you are willing to indulge me and post it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
5 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

The main focus of this paper is the samples attributed to the yeti that Sykes hypothesized to be from an unknown species of bear.

Most of the tested samples were from "Bigfoot" reported finds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
5 minutes ago, Razumov said:

Does they know how old the Gibbon was when it died?

An analysis of the specimen's age was not performed, but it doesn't appear to be a juvenile. The largest extant gibbon, the siamang, only grows to a height of about 1 meter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
Just now, Carnoferox said:

An analysis of the specimen's age was not performed, but it doesn't appear to be a juvenile. The largest extant gibbon, the siamang, only grows to a height of about 1 meter.

I don't think its a strong case, but a giant snow gibbon would explain the Yeti myths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
2 minutes ago, Razumov said:

Most of the tested samples were from "Bigfoot" reported finds.

But they aren't discussed much because they don't matter to Sykes' work on the yeti. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
Just now, Carnoferox said:

But they aren't discussed much because they don't matter to Sykes' work on the yeti. 

Your claim the paper wasn't about Bigfoot is bizarre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
5 minutes ago, Razumov said:

Which is why the hatred of him is so irrational.

You skeptics also missed stuff in his book that might actually get him fired or something.

Not sure where you're getting any hatred of him from my posts.

2 minutes ago, Razumov said:

I don't think its a strong case, but a giant snow gibbon would explain the Yeti myths.

It's a very weak case with a lot of grasping at straws. Not only are gibbons small, but their general morphology differs from the hominid-like characteristics of most cryptohominids.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.