Sykes Yeti DNA Findings Result in Media Insults, Ignorance, and Disinformation


The newly published, but already known, DNA results from inquiry by geneticist Bryan Sykes into the "yeti" and "bigfoot" phenomenon has produced more than just DNA results. It has also resulted in numerous headlines and articles being written that are misleading, condescending, ignorant, false, and overall insulting.

Sure, I'm a "believer" in bigfoot. I believe I have witnessed these creatures in their natural environment. Regardless, that has little to do with my perceptions on how the majority of media portrays this field of study. The recent publishing of the Sykes paper outlining his inquiry into the cryptid field and the resulting DNA analysis has taken a back seat to condescending headlines and articles, as they use the subject as an opportunity to poke fun at those who take this subject seriously.

Headlines such as "DNA Debunks Bigfoot Myth" and "Genetic Testing Shows That Bigfoot Is Not Real" are completely false and misleading. The only thing the DNA tests proved were that none of the hair samples used came from an unknown primate such as a bigfoot or a yeti. Does that mean they do not exist? If the study had been about dogs living in the wild, but none of the test results matched a domesticated canine, would that mean no dogs live in the wild? It simply means the test samples did not come from the sources they were believed to have possibly come from.

Mark Evans and Justin Smeja  during BBC Documentary
Another misleading matter in this whole thing is just about that. Where the test samples came from. I've read various articles that claim a little less than half of the samples came directly from bigfoot sightings. Really? How so? Because someone reported a sighting in a general area, and the hairs were found in that same general area? Did someone pluck the hair directly from a bigfoot creature, or see a clump fall out as it ran away? I'm fairly certain you could find all kinds of hairs in my front yard, that doesn't mean they came from the rabbit I saw out there. This is exactly what happened during the documentary about the Sykes study where Justin Smeja was interviewed about his claim to have shot and killed at least one bigfoot. It was well known within the community that Justin submitted a tissue sample to Sykes that was believed to be that of a bear. This was known information before hand. Yet when the documentary was released, it was edited to make it sound like Smeja claimed to have acquired the tissue sample directly from the bigfoot itself. This was not only misleading, it was an outright lie. Regardless of how you feel about Smeja, or what your opinion is on his claim, he was in fact misrepresented and lied about during this documentary. That is a fact.


Need more? How about this quote from an article released by ABC News:

"Those who believe in the Yeti, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster need basic instruction in sex," said Stuart Pimm, an ecologist at Duke University, in an email. "Each Yeti has two parents, four grandparents and so on," he said. "There should have been herds of (Yetis)," he wrote. "Where were they hiding?"

Really Mr. Pimm? So those of us who believe there is a possibility some of these creatures might exist are just completely ignorant to the process of breeding and populations? There should be "herds" of these animals running around? Yet we're constantly portrayed as the foolish ones.

The true story here should be the fact that during this inquiry into the bigfoot phenomenon, an unknown animal which was thought to be at least extinct, has shown up in the DNA analysis. By the way, that technically classifies it as a cryptid. Sykes discovered evidence supporting the existence of a bear species that the modern world has never seen in an area it isn't supposed to be. A large unknown mammal. If as a result of this study this bear species is officially "discovered", all it does is strengthen the case that there might be large mammals living on this planet that have yet to be discovered by science. That should be the focus of all of these articles and headlines.

I commend Bryan Sykes for the attention he has given this subject, and for the new standards being set for future research into the phenomenon. I just hope he is remembered for discovering an unknown bear species, and not for debunking bigfoot.

Geneticist Bryan Sykes

Comments

  1. Good summery Matt, thanks. Tim,U.K.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This article involves old testing. Sykes has done a new round of DNA testing and he has written a book that does support findings that the Russian Almasty (Russian bigfoot) does exist. Here's an article about that. Copy and past if the link does not work.

      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/856-yeti-dna-book-the-nature-of-the-beast-by-bryan-sykes/

      Delete
  2. Hey Joe
    You out there?

    Many of us in the states have had first hand encounters with the big guy. These stories mean nothing to us. Don't mind the trolls they are nobody with nothing to add

    MMC

    ReplyDelete
  3. Read this late last night. Well said Matt. When I was young news was put out to digest and it was straight forward. There was real investigative journalism at both national and local level. Reports of UFOs very numerous were reported straight on. Same with Bigfoot although they were far less. They were not snickered at and locals tried to find answers. All changed circa 1980. Cable TV, Talk Radio, then in 90s the internet took revenues away and investigative journalism dried up. Now the bubble head bleach blonde with a wink in her eye just reads an AP or Reuters quick take and sensationalizes it. No agency I know of reported that Sykes himself stated this does not mean there are no bigfoots only none showed up in his samples. They also did not report that Sykes only looked at the easy samples and ignored the ones that had little to no medulla and characteristic of bigfoot hair. Apparently the ability to obtain DNA out of these is much more difficult and requires more resources that he may not have had.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't know Matt but I think "THE MAN" has gotten to Sykes, or he is playing both sides of the fence,

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shopping for cars is tough for many people. This is due to the fact that it can be hard to determine what sort of car you really want. Others think they do not have the proper negotiation skills to successfully get the best deal.
    www.jerryallentraveljets.com |

    www.winetourtemecula.com |

    www.bluestraveleraztec.com |

    www.wallofdeathworldtour.com |

    www.tourbystudent.com |

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am really enjoying reading your well written articles. It looks like you spend a lot of effort and time on your blog. I have bookmarked it and I am looking forward to reading new articles.
    www.anyonecanbe.co.uk |

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is a really good read for me, Must admit that you are one of the best bloggers I ever saw.Thanks for posting this informative article.
    http://www.edtechhackathon.com |

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is a really good read for me, Must admit that you are one of the best bloggers I ever saw.Thanks for posting this informative article.
    uvirtualtravel.com |

    ReplyDelete
  9. I like you recommendation. Your recommendation is of well use to people. A great article post, this is something very interesting. I really appreciate your post.
    plasticmedicalparts.com |

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am very happy to read this. This is the kind of manual that needs to be given and not the random misinformation t hat's at the other blogs. Appreciate your sharing this best posting.
    http://www.newslinesonline.com |

    ReplyDelete
  11. I might want to thank you for your elegantly composed substance, its helpful and your written work style helped me to peruse it without any trouble.
    europetravel101 |

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I don't Believe Todd Standing

Tsiatko: The Story Of The Stick Indians