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 -
Still Waters

Man claims Yowie hair found on fence

59 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Still Waters

An Australian ‘Yowie hunter’ claims to have discovered a foul-smelling hair sample belonging to the mythical beast on a rural mountain range.

Yowie researcher David Taylor, 49, was exploring bushland north of Mackay in Queensland, on Sunday, when he spotted hair tangled on a barbed wire fence.

Mr Taylor, who claims to have crossed paths with one of the apelike creatures in 2010, said the thick strands of hair had a distinct odour of ‘rotten meat’.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6718863/Yowie-Man-finds-mysterious-foul-smelling-hair-fence-torn-apart-Australian-bigfoot.html

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Well this is easy, give the hair to real accredited DNA guys like sykes ir disotell and lets see what it is... otherwise its nothing of use.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover

A real DNA guy like Sykes? You haven't been following all this nonsense very carefully have you. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
22 minutes ago, oldrover said:

A real DNA guy like Sykes? You haven't been following all this nonsense very carefully have you. 

Oh let me guess you hate sykes becauses he proved yeti was what monks knew all along, a type of bear.

And being a true believer you worship at the alter of  Melba Ketchum, :rolleyes: No?

I could be wrong about you and unlike you did with me i wont assume, if im wrong post links that discredit sykes, if legit ill remove him from my list.

Or since you call it all nonsense you are just trolling me in that case...next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
1 hour ago, the13bats said:

Oh let me guess you hate sykes becauses he proved yeti was what monks knew all along, a type of bear.

And being a true believer you worship at the alter of  Melba Ketchum, :rolleyes: No?

I could be wrong about you and unlike you did with me i wont assume, if im wrong post links that discredit sykes, if legit ill remove him from my list.

Or since you call it all nonsense you are just trolling me in that case...next.

Nope guess again. I find the idea of the yeti and bigfoot utterly absurd, I find the yowie doubly so as it's located in Australia, a continent whose only terrestrial Eutherians not introduced by humans are rodents. 

Also I do not hate Sykes, but his TV programme and the associated Oxford Lucerne Hominid Project was fatally flawed. The yeti etc is a cultural phenomena, so the attempt to 'rationalise' it by bringing bears into it was always going to be a bit difficult to clarify and formalise as a subject to test. As in, some people claim to see a big hairy man beast, some people bring in bear hairs, there's a big gulf between the two methodology wise if you're posimg a testable questiom. Worse his DNA analysis, the polar bear hybrid, was found to be wrong, which if you saw the programme, it's never been formally published as far as I'm aware, was a large part of his conclusion. 

His latest book based on the Zana nonsense is, to me, very distasteful and quite obviously as badly flawed as the above. 

So, no, not a true believer, not trolling you either, rather pointing out to you that the evidence can be of a poor quality, and from unreliable sources on both sides of this utterly nonsensical debate about hairy men down the woods. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

As rover points out, there are plenty of proper *certified* testing labs that will do dna, and they do not involve bigfoot aficionados - the sample can be analysed without prejudice that way...

 

Me, I'd send it to one of those genealogy places that offer dna analysis ... and tell them it was my dad's.....

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

As rover points out, there are plenty of proper *certified* testing labs that will do dna, and they do not involve bigfoot aficionados - the sample can be analysed without prejudice that way...

 

Me, I'd send it to one of those genealogy places that offer dna analysis ... and tell them it was my dad's.....

I don't think I'd waste money getting it tested, but it certainly would not be a good idea to give it to bigfoot aficiinados !

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

what do you know we are almost completely simpatico,  i do not believe in any large bipedal hominids living out there, yeti is a different story and not a hominid or bipedal,  yeti was only thought to be bigfoot like or a primate from attention junkies and true belivers of bigfoot mostly from the west.

Sykes its not a bigfoot aficiinado he has addressed the other scientists who said his ancient polar bear conclusion is wrong and agreed with them and its a different type of Himalayan bear, so no real big deal yeti is still like i said a "bear" and monks knew it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-30479718

His findings on zana havent been questioned that i have seen but rather he has been ripped and shredded and accused of being a racist for saying zana because of his finding of her 100% sub Saharan African decent, i never saw where Sykes said that she was sub human or a beast in fact his funding defend the poor soul but rather dr igor Burtsev For decades called zana and her son sub human, ape men, Neandertal crosses of Almasty and human or ape and human etc keep in mind this is the guy who believed janic carter grew up with bigfoot insulting jane goodall by calling carter the goodall of bigfoot.

Burtsev seemed devastated by sykes finding because it put about 50 years of hiscwork in a trash can.

Zana was played off and labled a beast and ape woman and other nasty things before sykes was even born. All we have on zana her son etc are embelished anecdotes told and retold by people desiring to label her a beast or ape women.

I do not have a list of unbiased certified unknown hair testing labs but i personally would have faith in disotell or sykes if you dont thats fine,

Back to this thread, do i think the found hair is from yowie? No, i doubt yowie exist, but i get way tired of true believers spewing "unknown hair so it must be from. Xxxx creature" no, unknown means zero its unknown, test it at the lab you see what its from, better yet have two labs test it then swallow when they come back and tell you it from a dingo, or paddy melon

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy

A decent size feral boar will destroy a fence if caught.It is either a boar or Red deer,both are common there.(If yowies existed they would be too intelligent to struggle in a fence)So whether you believe yowies exist or not, the fence wrecker wouldn't be one.Another culprit could be a feral scrub bull.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Openozy

Not wanting to derail this great thread but meh,

Whats the biggest hog you have seen?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy
7 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Openozy

Not wanting to derail this great thread but meh,

Whats the biggest hog you have seen?

 

Biggest feral pig we caught was 120kg,feral pigs are usually way under 100kg.It had six dogs holding it ,including two pits and it dragged them and me down a hill.

Edited by openozy
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
7 hours ago, the13bats said:

what do you know we are almost completely simpatico,  i do not believe in any large bipedal hominids living out there, yeti is a different story and not a hominid or bipedal,  yeti was only thought to be bigfoot like or a primate from attention junkies and true belivers of bigfoot mostly from the west.

Sykes its not a bigfoot aficiinado he has addressed the other scientists who said his ancient polar bear conclusion is wrong and agreed with them and its a different type of Himalayan bear, so no real big deal yeti is still like i said a "bear" and monks knew it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-30479718

His findings on zana havent been questioned that i have seen but rather he has been ripped and shredded and accused of being a racist for saying zana because of his finding of her 100% sub Saharan African decent, i never saw where Sykes said that she was sub human or a beast in fact his funding defend the poor soul but rather dr igor Burtsev For decades called zana and her son sub human, ape men, Neandertal crosses of Almasty and human or ape and human etc keep in mind this is the guy who believed janic carter grew up with bigfoot insulting jane goodall by calling carter the goodall of bigfoot.

Burtsev seemed devastated by sykes finding because it put about 50 years of hiscwork in a trash can.

Zana was played off and labled a beast and ape woman and other nasty things before sykes was even born. All we have on zana her son etc are embelished anecdotes told and retold by people desiring to label her a beast or ape women.

I do not have a list of unbiased certified unknown hair testing labs but i personally would have faith in disotell or sykes if you dont thats fine,

Back to this thread, do i think the found hair is from yowie? No, i doubt yowie exist, but i get way tired of true believers spewing "unknown hair so it must be from. Xxxx creature" no, unknown means zero its unknown, test it at the lab you see what its from, better yet have two labs test it then swallow when they come back and tell you it from a dingo, or paddy melon

If you can get the Channel 4 documentary I'd definitely recomend you watch the Russian episode to see just how truly mental yeti hunting is over there, especially the interview with Burstev. In which he speaks Almasty. It's a bit awkward to watch. 

If Sykes' DNA analysis of Zana is correct, in that she's sub-Saharan, then it paints a very sad and disturbing picture. Abkhazia is on the fringe of the old Ottaman Empire. Where African slaves would have been held back in mid 19th century, so her presence wouldn't be suprising. But that's not all he's saying. Sykes' claim, published in his book  The Nature of the Beast: The First Genegic Evidence on the Survival of  Apeman, Yeti, Bigfoot, and other Mysterious Creatures into Modern Times, is that this poor woman ( if she ever existed in the first place) was not a modern African, but one of an ancient group, unrelated to any other group of modern humans. This has not gone down well. That's where the racist tags have come from. And it's fuelled the yeti hunters claims. I don't think Sykes is a racist, I think he's insensitive, and an oppurtunist though. 

I agree that all we have of Zana and Khwit are the deranged witterings of Russian bigfoot hunters. 

I do disagree though that the 'yeti' which as you've said represents our culture's interpretation of theirs, can be pigeonholed holed as a bear. It's not an apeman clearly, but it is more complex and rather nebulous from a Western perspective. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Yeti is a type of bear a scientific fact no pigeon holing, nothing nebulous, i have no interest in debating semantics of the various descriptions people have assigned to the label "yeti" the most common being a bigfoot type, monks know its a bear, Reinhold Messers research came to the same conclusion as did DNA, so i dont care if its miscategorized as a bigfoot type, i deal in science, but yeah the "yeti" means different things in the minds of different people and one thing in the reality of science.

Sorry, i really thought igor Burstev had passed away, im sure hes pleased i was mistaken  any way i saw his rather ridiculous almasty talk he gave to a laughing mark evans, again burstev thought janice carter was legit, but his claiming to know almasty speech, where do i start with all thats wrong with that, burtstev blind true belief is another reason sykes DNA results didnt go down well with him, it placed 98% of his bologna and cheese in a trash can, 50 plus years of tripe.

Science can be brutal however i saw sykes heart when justin Smeja was crying when he had been exposed as a hoaxer, sykes did feel badly for him,

Quote

not a modern African, but one of an ancient group,

No, of course there isnt anything at all racist in that unless a person is just reaching to take focus off what skyes is proving because yeah, his DNA results did deeply upset a lot of people, im not even convinced that in context its even all that insensitive, zana is long gone her feelings arent hurt, and my guess is she wasnt a beast she wasnt any ape woman just a rather unfortunate abused slave that was the spring board for a lot of made up tall tales,

It does leave me to wonder if sykes found DNA to make him believe zana was lets call it pre human, "sub" sounds derogatory in this context, would her tested descendants show this, in other words would their DNA be 100% modern human,  now its engaging the mind.

Ive been up, yikes about 22 hours gotta rack out a few so if you dont beat me to it i gotta go look into that....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Interesting article.  Enjoyed it.  Can’t wait for the dna results and I wonder if the man’s prediction will be correct and it will return indeterminate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
8 hours ago, the13bats said:

Yeti is a type of bear a scientific fact no pigeon holing, nothing nebulous, i have no interest in debating semantics of the various descriptions people have assigned to the label "yeti" the most common being a bigfoot type, monks know its a bear, Reinhold Messers research came to the same conclusion as did DNA, so i dont care if its miscategorized as a bigfoot type, i deal in science, but yeah the "yeti" means different things in the minds of different people and one thing in the reality of science.

 

 

No, just fundementally no. Sykes and co were making a for profit TV show. And that is all it is. Absolutely not science, which if valud, demands far more rigour and a well defined idea to test.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
1 hour ago, oldrover said:

No, just fundementally no. Sykes and co were making a for profit TV show. And that is all it is. Absolutely not science, which if valud, demands far more rigour and a well defined idea to test.  

You sound lost, You need to go look it up, doesnt matter it was a tv documentary, sykes work was real,  tv docs dont prove anything sykes did,  you want to ignore sykes isnt the only DNA scientist who haven proven the "Himalayan yeti is a type of bear, the guys who showed it wasnt his ancient polar bear are on board,

In addition go read Reinhold Messers decades of field research his is a great story, his conclusions,  yeti is type of bear,

The monks for 100s of years,  yeti is type of bear,.

if you are wanting to go track those sources down and tell them they are wrong fine, if you are one of those who says Himalayan yeti isnt a bear and its still out there fine, go hunt it down and prove it.

If you want to wax about how some peoole still cling to the "yeti" label isnt a bear its like a "bigfoot" go nuts, heck to some people yeti is an ice chest cooler.

Im good with yeti is a type of bear, obviously you are not good with it and seem to have deep hang ups over it, the way you are addressing me on it is too much like trolling

ive said it all ad nauseam so i cant waste more time have a good one im done.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker

David Taylor: "I'm sending the fresh sample to be tested on the Sunshine Coast, which will take about 21 days for results. 'If it's anything like previous times, it will be inconclusive and won't match up to any animals."

I question whether there will be any DNA test at all. Taylor has never released any reports of hair analyses and the supposed previous results of "inconclusive and won't match up to any other animals" does not sound like any sort of clinical biological analysis...

Taylor does, however, set a precedent for Yowie research by hiring a professional media manager (Cater News) which licensed his untested images for commercial u$e:

29gewj7.jpg source - https://www.facebook.com/SunshineCoastYowieResearch/

Edited by Night Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
14 hours ago, oldrover said:

If Sykes' DNA analysis of Zana is correct, in that she's sub-Saharan, then it paints a very sad and disturbing picture. Abkhazia is on the fringe of the old Ottaman Empire. Where African slaves would have been held back in mid 19th century, so her presence wouldn't be suprising.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazians_of_African_descent

An_African_man_in_Karabakh_by_George_Ken

 

If Zana was a local African, there is no reason to believe any of the stories about her. The story that she was a mentally ill slave with hulk strength comes from a work of fiction. She might have been just a member of a local family. The local traditions of milk-kinship and trading babies between families made mixed race families much more common than in Europe.

https://www.georgianjournal.ge/discover-georgia/29876-the-tale-of-afro-abkhazians.html

https://face2faceafrica.com/article/the-little-known-story-of-the-african-caucasians-enslaved-in-russia-in-the-17th-century

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
23 hours ago, oldrover said:

Worse his DNA analysis, the polar bear hybrid, was found to be wrong, which if you saw the programme, it's never been formally published as far as I'm aware, was a large part of his conclusion.

The results of the hair tests have been published:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2014.0161

 

He has never published anything scientific on the Zana testing, and he never will.

23 hours ago, oldrover said:

His latest book based on the Zana nonsense is, to me, very distasteful and quite obviously as badly flawed as the above.

Sykes seems to have deliberately lied about the age of Zana's L2c MTDNA in order to hold onto some kind of unknown hominid theory.

This is from his book DNA USA: A Genetic Portrait of America

12048-c205a9872c0eab4653b788bf1b8238ef.jpg.png.00c3c9a1bdd3b449f1c3bc7bec02adb7.png

This is from his book Bigfoot, Yeti, and the Last Neanderthal

12049-26e95642e3e38247b31fa0e9a110f020.jpg.png.50ee7ef0b951b49b57674f05e17050ea.png

He also deliberately suppressed the existence of the second skull in the Zana case, despite being given samples of it repeatedly by the Russian team.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
3 hours ago, the13bats said:

You sound lost, You need to go look it up, doesnt matter it was a tv documentary, sykes work was real,  tv docs dont prove anything sykes did,  you want to ignore sykes isnt the only DNA scientist who haven proven the "Himalayan yeti is a type of bear, the guys who showed it wasnt his ancient polar bear are on board,

In addition go read Reinhold Messers decades of field research his is a great story, his conclusions,  yeti is type of bear,

The monks for 100s of years,  yeti is type of bear,.

if you are wanting to go track those sources down and tell them they are wrong fine, if you are one of those who says Himalayan yeti isnt a bear and its still out there fine, go hunt it down and prove it.

If you want to wax about how some peoole still cling to the "yeti" label isnt a bear its like a "bigfoot" go nuts, heck to some people yeti is an ice chest cooler.

Im good with yeti is a type of bear, obviously you are not good with it and seem to have deep hang ups over it, the way you are addressing me on it is too much like trolling

ive said it all ad nauseam so i cant waste more time have a good one im done.

 

 

Forgive the observation, but I think at some point you need to get some sort of understanding of how science works. The Sykes C4 documentary has never been well recirved by those who do. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

As razumov pointed out you need to do better homework before posting false or misleading info.

Your lame troll like attempts at insults aside of course this really doesnt have much or anything to do with Sykes being in a documentery thats just smoke and mirrors ( from the people his findings upset ) what it has to do with is his bottom line findings like yeti is a type of bear and zana was sub-Saharan African still stand and it devastated a lot of biased true believers who didnt like the findings one little bit,

If a person doesnt like or disagrees with him his email is out there hit him up to set him straight on it you wont be the first or last,

Poking at me about it couldnt be a bigger waste of your time because i neither care or take forums personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam

Seeing there is no Yowie to compare it to, at most it will be inconclusive. Can't claim proof of Yowie hair when you have no Yowie.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
21 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

Seeing there is no Yowie to compare it to, at most it will be inconclusive. Can't claim proof of Yowie hair when you have no Yowie.

True belivers will cling to and claim 'inconclusive" or "doesnt match our known data base" etc is an automatic jump to it being proof of what they are trying to prove, nope, sorry it doesnt mean that by a long shot.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
52 minutes ago, the13bats said:

As razumov pointed out you need to do better homework before posting false or misleading info.

Your lame troll like attempts at insults aside of course this really doesnt have much or anything to do with Sykes being in a documentery thats just smoke and mirrors ( from the people his findings upset ) what it has to do with is his bottom line findings like yeti is a type of bear and zana was sub-Saharan African still stand and it devastated a lot of biased true believers who didnt like the findings one little bit,

If a person doesnt like or disagrees with him his email is out there hit him up to set him straight on it you wont be the first or last,

Poking at me about it couldnt be a bigger waste of your time because i neither care or take forums personal.

Oldrover is correct, Sykes' work is shoddy and his conclusions are unwarranted. There are better studies on yeti DNA out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Then show me "yeti" from the samples he tested are not a type of bear...post links to the better DNA tests showing the creature labeled "Himalayan yeti" isnt a type of bear.

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.