Bigfoot, Yeti, And The Last Neanderthal - Post Your Questions for Professor Sykes

So bigfoots are neanderthals ?

What is the strongest evidence you have ever seen that supports theories bigfoot is a real entity?
Eyewitness reports, or is there harder evidence you have taken as reliable?

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Misterlondon

originally posted by: N3k9Ni
I'm not too familiar with the genetics, but I heard that Bigfoot and humans are closely related in the evolutionary tree. Do you think it would be possible for Bigfoots and humans to interbreed?

No offence but currently big foot is a mythical creature..
We have absolutely no knowledge on big foot genetics.. We don't even know if it actually exists.
And as for Bigfoot breeding with humans, that is a disturbing thought.

No offence, but SO asked for questions to be put here, not a random person's thoughts and knowledge on the subject...

Oh OK.. Sorry.. But i also missed the part where it was OK for a random ass kissing member to take it upon himself to police the thread.
My apologies I'll be careful where I leave my opinion in future..

originally posted by: Misterlondon

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Misterlondon

originally posted by: N3k9Ni
I'm not too familiar with the genetics, but I heard that Bigfoot and humans are closely related in the evolutionary tree. Do you think it would be possible for Bigfoots and humans to interbreed?

No offence but currently big foot is a mythical creature..
We have absolutely no knowledge on big foot genetics.. We don't even know if it actually exists.
And as for Bigfoot breeding with humans, that is a disturbing thought.

No offence, but SO asked for questions to be put here, not a random person's thoughts and knowledge on the subject...

Oh OK.. Sorry.. But i also missed the part where it was OK for a random ass kissing member to take it upon himself to police the thread.
My apologies I'll be careful where I leave my opinion in future..

Cool! Thanks!


Edit: Star for you because of the use of the A word.

Outside of primates, what is your favourite cryptid?

I am biased as I saw one hunting and had time to watch it in my rifle scope for a couple of minutes. You will never convince me otherwise. However, the genetics issue is what interests me. Is the statement, "I am sure they exist" attributable to your study of genetics or is that someone else's statement? I have often wondered if they were somehow related to a neanderthal/other hominid mix of some type.

Have you, or anyone you personally know, encountered any Government agency intervention that would lead you to believe there could be a cover up of Sasquatches?

Have you noticed any stigma from colleagues or any other professional associate that the subject is taboo and possibly career suicide?

Although it would be speculation, has anyone acknowledged the possibility that a Bigfoot could be wearing the fur of other animals, and this is why there isn't any conclusive DNA found when hair samples are studied?

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
Professor Bryan Sykes will be taking your questions for an email-based interview. We tried to organize an Ask Me Anything event with the professor, but even after confirmation, there were some issues with scheduling his involvement.

I have two questions
1.) Is the Professor aware of David Paulides missing 411 books of the disappearances of hundreds of people in American national parks?

The reason this is relevant is because the children that are actually found have said that the “big hairy man took them away”. And they describe a creature that we know as bigfoot.

2.) What does the Professor think of Bigfoot and the Native American beliefs that it is a supernatural creature and the ability to become invisible.

The native Americans also said that they stole children.

Do you personally believe that Bigfoot exists?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Here goes,

I can understand if you doubt the following.

I met a person who was substantially Neanderthal.

My question is, how do you account for that?

Just try it as a thought experiment if you find the logical barriers too high for your comfort.

a reply to: cryptic0void

How did you know they were substantially Neanderthal?

I'd be fascinated by the Professor's opinion on the possibility of feral humans.

I've heard that domesticated pigs quickly resume the skull-shape and other characteristics of their wild-hog ancestors when they go feral, or return to the wild.
Would the same not be possible for humans who go feral, or return to very basic wild living?
The "monkey boy" of Uganda (who was apparently saved by monkeys after being isolated from all human contact as a toddler) for example, had to be shaved after he was found by villagers, because he was covered in fur. This was mentioned but never adequately explained in a documentary series on feral children. Apparently it was not due to starvation.

I'd propose that it's theoretically possible that perhaps due to war, starvation or a village massacre a few individual children might have survived in the wild and gone "feral" while cut-off from all other human cultures and contact.
They might have just managed to survive and developed atavistic characteristics in response to the environment, such as fur and more robust features.
If these remnants managed to survive to sexual maturity and clung on for a few generations, these features could become quite pronounced.
They would still be Homo Sapiens, just with bodies that developed somewhat differently in response to the environment, and without the technology of any culture.
Sizeable pockets of such "wild people" might survive in isolation and fear of other human populations for generations, while others might eventually die-out, or even find their way back into wider societies through capture or interbreeding, and their offspring would quickly look "modern" again.
Perhaps there's a correlation between conflict zones and the emergence of "wild people", and then their disappearance after a few generations from dying out or reintegration with local societies? Their sustainability and duration as separate populations would depend on their particular variables, such as numbers, isolation and environment.

They wouldn't have been isolated long enough to become a separate species of hominids, and would still be able to breed with other humans, and their "mixed" offspring would be fully integrated into wider societies.
This might explain why local tribal peoples talk of the "wild people" and even mating with them, but by the time the scientists get there they are already gone or reintegrated.
With more human encroachment into wild places, it's perhaps doubtful whether the conditions for such mutations to occur still exist, and perhaps the phenomenon will be no more.

Possibly humans are far more adaptable than we think, and under certain environmental conditions human development could switch on completely different genes - a hidden potential we might all still have.
Of course, it's also possible that earlier migrations of Homo Sapiens out of Africa also survived as remnants in wild places for significantly longer. They were just never "domesticated" into modern cultures (by which I include so-called "primitive cultures"), or had their own societies destroyed by newcomers somewhere in history and thus went feral. I'm thinking here especially of Zana, and her DNA which suggests a remnant of an early migration out of Africa.

Nevertheless, if pigs can undergo changes and become hogs in the wild, then why not humans?

originally posted by: Misterlondon
If you had a choice between seeing one alive and no one ever believing you... or capturing one and having it undergo life long misery with tests and imprisonment, but you get world wide fame.. What would you do?

Although weird looking he or she would still be human if they turned out to be neanderthal my bet is the ACLU and others would make a big stink about it and sue.
Btw killing him would be murder and should carry the same penalties according to individual state law.

a reply to: Atsbhct
It was a unique experience to meet the person and I knew right away that I was seeing something out of the ordinary.
The person looked substantially like this.
They also seemed to be aware they were Neanderthal and where aware that they were different in that way.

Professor,
There have been many sightings of bigfoot or a sasquatch type being, fairly recent after an alleged UFO sighting. There are also many cases in that witnesses claim to have seen a bigfoot creature actually come out of, or return to a craft.
Have you ever come across anything similar in your findings that could possibly link the 2 together?

Since one of my questions was already pretty much asked already Do you have any updates from other researchers on Bigfoot DNA testing and the results?

Also, some people and researchers explain Bigfoot as a interdimensional creature. Any thoughts on that?

Hi,

My question is what do you think about the hunting bigfoot shows and hoaxes, like the one in the freezer.

How damaging is it to real researchers and is it some kind of disinfo to hide some sort of truth?

First off, thank you for agreeing to do this. It's very much appreciated.

Have you had any encounters in the field that you'd care to share?

I don't know enough about genetics to ask questions about it, but I'm looking forward to reading your replies.

Again, thank you.

originally posted by: cryptic0void
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Here goes,

I can understand if you doubt the following.

I met a person who was substantially Neanderthal.

My question is, how do you account for that?

Just try it as a thought experiment if you find the logical barriers too high for your comfort.

Oh, you know Beaudine too?

Professor Sykes,
Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to entertain questions, it is greatly appreciated. If nothing else, we have learned in the last decade that the recent history of our genus is not nearly as cut and dry as it was presented only a couple of decades ago with the recent advances in genomic testing and particularly so with the recent discovery of H. Altaiensis and the subsequent revelation of another hominid lineage for which we have only genetic evidence of and no physical remains. Add in recent data from the Red Deer Cave People, and the braided stream analogy for hominid evolution seems to be much more apropos than the conventional "family tree" analogy favored in years past.

As the entirety of physical evidence for H. Altaiensis is nothing more than a few teeth and a couple of phalanges we have no indicators regarding potential morphology of our newest "cousins". Are you aware of any research that is looking into potential corollaries between Altaiensis and Red Deer Cave People who are currently thought to be, until roughly 14 KA to as recently as 11.5 KA, a contemporary, extant remnant of an archaic line of hominids.

Is there any potential relationship between the Red Deer Cave People and either Altaiensis or possibly H. Floresiensis? I have looked for studies that compared the genetic profiles but have not been successful. Are you aware of any studies looking onto this possibility and what are your thoughts on potential relationships between these 3 groups.

As I mention above, we have no way of knowing what morphological characteristics Altaiensis possessed but we do know that RDCP exhibit unique morphological that are not consistent with any other members of our genus. Again, thank you for taking the time to look at and answer everyone's questions.