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 -

Russian official admits staging bogus yeti sightings


Eldorado
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

I don't know where you were  at the onset, but I *told* posters in here, there was no video to the episode I was referring to from Animal Planet.
And it was never found by anyone in this thread either. But you missed that. So you cannot hold me liable for having no link. I thought I would tell
the story about the Berry expedition (Yes, @Trelane, BERRY, not Evans) just to be sociable and let posters know what happened.


Do you see the SHOOT SHOW that this thread has turned into???  And I place all the blame on you sceptics. Anything for an argument. anything.

"Boo hoo, I don't have any evidence for the claims I make and you skeptics are being meanies!"

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Resume said:

There was at least bear that wandered above the tree line; it doesn't,mean it lived there.  Further, if you don't think animals stray far from the range humans decided they occupy, you know nothing about the subject.

Talk about p***-poor arguments.

 

Again, Resume, I am *not* saying animals don't stray STOP LYING! Don't you read my responses to you? Jeeeeeeeezuas

I do not want to know what the animals *can* do, I want  to know what they DID do, or don't you READ, for god's sake. GET A LINK. Show me.

You're trying to start an argument, aren't you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Resume said:

A link to something that is common knowledge?  Until recently, coyotes were confined to the western plains and rural areas, now, the Cook County IL coyote is the most studied group of coyotes in the country.  This information is mundane,

I ain't talking about COYOTES. 

get a LINK showing me that bear in Bhutan want above the tree line. Get that link or drop your damm argument. 

 

"Bhutan only has one kind of black bear and it does not go above the tree line on mountains (about 12000 feet) which as much lower in altitude as to where the Yeti tracks were found by Berry in pervious expeditions (15000 feet, about) , and where the DNA from an unknown hominid was found in a lake (about 24,000 feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Resume said:

Where is the scientific verification of the claim 99% human (whatever that means).

I told everyone in this thread right from the onset I had no link for that statement. Still don't. I told them I simply saw the episode but I cannot find it on youtube, still can't.

However, someone else found a link to some other Animal Planet episode where the original Berry expedition was referenced, *praise the lord*,
and they repeated the exact words of Steve Berry (you got that @Trelane, BERRY, not Evans) that I had already told posters in this thread.

What he said was, "the DNA was 99% human, which means it's not human".

And instead of taking this as a nice piece of evidence to ponder, the "honest sincere" sceptics in here went right into their negativist campaign. Way to go! Bleeping "A"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Resume said:

Where is the scientific verification of the claim 99% human (whatever that means).  Exactly where in the sequence is this established?  Where are the original blasts so they can be verified?  Is any of the original sample remaining so an independent blast can be made?  

These questions need to be answered before any claim of novel primate DNA can be justified.

Right but eot just arm waves and parrots his own bs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Resume said:

"Boo hoo, I don't have any evidence for the claims I make and you skeptics are being meanies!"

you should apologize. instead it's just another way for you to screw with people. 

And this is supposed to be a thread where people explore possibilities???  Ya right :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

What he said was, "the DNA was 99% human, which means it's not human".

And instead of taking this as a nice piece of evidence to ponder, the "honest sincere" sceptics in here went right into their negativist campaign. Way to go! Bleeping "A"

Post a link to berry saying that, your made up story isnt evidence, post a link to the evidence.

Insted of posting proof in the form of the published peer reviewed work so everyone can make up his or her own minds eot belives his blustering and ad hominem will make up for him never backing up his claims,

Eot, for skeptics to examine the evidence you first must present it you making up what you claim berry said isnt evidence.

You failed earl.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

you should apologize.

And this is supposed to be a thread where people explore possibilities???  Ya right :lol:

Post the links and people will explore them.

Edited by the13bats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I ain't talking about COYOTES. 

get a LINK showing me that bear in Bhutan want above the tree line. Get that link or drop your damm argument. 

 

"Bhutan only has one kind of black bear and it does not go above the tree line on mountains (about 12000 feet) which as much lower in altitude as to where the Yeti tracks were found by Berry in pervious expeditions (15000 feet, about) , and where the DNA from an unknown hominid was found in a lake (about 24,000 feet

Yes, a bear wandered from its previously assumed range, as established by its DNA being found there, what of it?  It's as mundane as a great white shark, a coyote or a cougar doing the same. So science discovers new things, whodathunk?

What hasn't remotely been established is the discovery of unknown hominid DNA;; that is a bald assertion with zero (o) evidence to back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

What he said was, "the DNA was 99% human, which means it's not human

 

That bald statement is gibberish.  It has no context, and no evidence in its favor.  It is a weak claim.

I missed this:

Quote

And instead of taking this as a nice piece of evidence to ponder, the "honest sincere" sceptics in here went right into their negativist campaign. Way to go! Bleeping "A"

Because that is not evidence; that is an bald assertion for which evidence need be provided.

 

Edited by Resume
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

you should apologize. instead it's just another way for you to screw with people. 

And this is supposed to be a thread where people explore possibilities???  Ya right :lol:

Apologize for what, pointing out the flaws in your reasoning?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Post a link to berry saying that, your made up story isnt evidence, post a link to the evidence.

Insted of posting proof in the form of the published peer reviewed work so everyone can make up his or her own minds eot belives his blustering and ad hominem will make up for him never backing up his claims,

Eot, for skeptics to examine the evidence you first must present it you making up what you claim berry said isnt evidence.

You failed earl.

I continue to be astounded that people do not understand the difference between claims and evidence.  I guess these are the same folks that think doing research means reading facebook posts or watching David Icke videos.

Edited by Resume
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Resume said:

I continue to be astounded that people do not understand the difference between claims and evidence.  I guess these are the same folks that thing doing research means reading facebook posts or watching Davis Icke videos.

I would be delighted if earl to suppprt his claims or anyone would post proof berry said 99% human DNA means non human and the published report for peer review of said DNA testing etc, i keep asking for it but he wont post it. Yet he critiques everyone for not examining the evidence he has yet to post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, the13bats said:

I would be delighted if earl to suppprt his claims or anyone would post proof berry said 99% human DNA means non human and the published report for peer review of said DNA testing etc, i keep asking for it but he wont post it. Yet he critiques everyone for not examining the evidence he has yet to post.

As I've stated previously, the claim of 99% human is meaningless gibberish without context.  It is what a 12 year-old might say on a playground.  A DNA blast result of novel non-human hominid would be a GIANT biological discovery, with a deluge of requests from biologists around the world to see the blast sequences and test them independently.  It would be in all the relevant journals from Nature to Primate Biology and later, front page news.  Instead, all we have are claims from self-promoters and tv presenters about 99% human (WHATEVER THAT MEANS) and speculation from morons like us lot on obscure internet forums.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

Yes, you are fibbing again which you do a lot in threads, you make it up as you go but people see through your bs.

Post the link showing berry made that claim then post the link of a published peer reviewed work proving what you claim berry said, no amount of your ad hominem will work to derail it,  post your proof or admit fail and move on.

You know full well he can't. That's why he keeps moving the goal posts.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately EOT doesn't read, or read very well. That expedition with Evans also had Berry as part of the team as well. Still, no claim of "unknown hominid" substantiated anywhere.

"....and another one's gone, and another one's gone. Another one bites the dust."

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2021 at 8:28 PM, Resume said:

These questions need to be answered before any claim of novel primate DNA can be justified.

 

BTW, Resume,

I never said that the primate DNA can be justified, not in a court of law, with other scientists, anything.
All I ever said was what transpired with that 3rd expedition by Steve Berry to Bhutan. Ok? You've been by'otching and arguing over nothing.

I find it quite odd that the original Animal Planet episode is nowhere to be found, as I find it odd that the news of this finding did not startle scientists worldwide, apparently.
And please don't lay the task of explaining it all on me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2021 at 9:18 PM, Resume said:

Yes, a bear wandered from its previously assumed range, as established by its DNA being found there, what of it?  It's as mundane as a great white shark, a coyote or a cougar doing the same. So science discovers new things, whodathunk?

What hasn't remotely been established is the discovery of unknown hominid DNA;; that is a bald assertion with zero (o) evidence to back it up.

 

 

No one from that first Animal Planet episode with Steve Berry narrating ever said anything about finding bear tracks, or finding bear scat, or scat of any kind, 
nor did anyone ever say that the eDNA found was from anything other than the Argali Sheep and some unknown specimen that is "99% human"

Where do you keep coming up with this "bear" story?? It does not exist as I know of. 

 

What I find humorous is, you and all others in here have NO PROBLEM whatsoever taking Berry's word for it that one eDNA sample taken from hoofprints
in the snow turned out to be the Argali Sheep. Yet you could make the same charge in here, there is "zero (o) evidence to back it up". But you don't.

Being hypocritical? ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2021 at 10:18 PM, Trelane said:

You know full well he can't. That's why he keeps moving the goal posts.

He just proved that beyond any doubt in his last two posts that range from admitting he made up stuff to admitting he has no proof of his claims and his alleged source vanished, how lame.

most people in his shoes would be humiliated beyong measures apologize to all and lay low but he wont he will be right back to make up more lies and blame others of his never ending failures,

Back on my ignore list he goes.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

BTW, Resume,

I never said that the primate DNA can be justified, not in a court of law, with other scientists, anything.
All I ever said was what transpired with that 3rd expedition by Steve Berry to Bhutan. Ok? You've been by'otching and arguing over nothing.

 

Allow me to quote you.

Quote

Which means, there is no bear whatsoever at the altitude on that mountain that Berry found the lake with the eDNA showing an unknown hominid.

And this.

Quote

Anyway, as it stands *right now*... the DNA of some unknown hominid has been found atop that mountain,

You are clearly advocating the claims of some tv presenter/self promoter.  No discovery of 99% human (whatever that means) or unknown hominid "transpired," just unverified (and apparently unverifiable) claims as to such.  So call them that: unverified claims of unknown hominid.

Edited by Resume
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

 

What I find humorous is, you and all others in here have NO PROBLEM whatsoever taking Berry's word for it that one eDNA sample taken from hoofprints
in the snow turned out to be the Argali Sheep. Yet you could make the same charge in here, there is "zero (o) evidence to back it up". But you don't.

Being hypocritical? ya.

It's a trivial, mundane fact that Argali sheep exist.  There is no evidence (beyond anecdote) that Yeti exist.  How difficult is this to understand?

Edited by Resume
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Resume said:

Allow me to quote you.

And this.

You are clearly advocating the claims of some tv presenter/self promoter.  No discovery of 99% human (whatever that means) or unknown hominid "transpired," just unverified (and apparently unverifiable) claims as to such.  So call them that: unverified claims of unknown hominid.

I'm doing it as casual conversation. Sometimes in here, *depending on the speaker or subject matter*, one is expected to only talk about proven facts.

So let's look. As far as "unverified claims" are concerned, were you sensitive to the fact that Steve Berry is quoted as saying he found DNA of a sheep?
He never verified that, but no, you and other posters did not take umbrage, Resume. Not at all, so it depends.
Were you caring that you claimed *without evidence* that a bear would go to the top of Gangkhar Puensum in Bhutan? Again, it did not phase you.

You have to lighten up, Resume. You and the other sceptics in here. Casual conversation never hurt anyone and everyone should be allowed to do it when there is no choice. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to derail a perfectly well derailed thread.... but someone please for the hell of rabbits tell me what you think those tracks are.

It isn’t an upright walking primate so let’s get that out of the conversation.... I’ve googled and asked people about nearly every sort of mountain goat there is and even got into a fight with a fella whether mountain goats make tracks like that in full gallop (they don’t).

 

utterly baffling. I feel like there is an obvious animal I’m missing. Great thread.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Resume said:

It's a trivial, mundane fact that Argali sheep exist.  There is no evidence (beyond anecdote) that Yeti exist.  How difficult is this to understand?

So if science shows a new discovery we should ignore it? How hard is that to grasp?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nobu said:

I hate to derail a perfectly well derailed thread.... but someone please for the hell of rabbits tell me what you think those tracks are.

It isn’t an upright walking primate so let’s get that out of the conversation.... I’ve googled and asked people about nearly every sort of mountain goat there is and even got into a fight with a fella whether mountain goats make tracks like that in full gallop (they don’t).

 

utterly baffling. I feel like there is an obvious animal I’m missing. Great thread.

 

Maybe there is hope to get it back on track, Nobu. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.