Comments on: Russia’s “Big White Man”

By: Lyndon

Lyndon — Fri, 18 May 2007 05:51:26 +0000

This seems strangely similar to another Russian incident (or is it the same one???) from Dmitri Bayanov’s book.

This one is alleged to have occured on Jan 24th 1992 at an army barracks in Kargopol, some 300 miles north east of Leningrad. Again, two creatures were supposedly seen by multi witnesses on the army barracks. One seemed to have been an adult male, and the other a younger smaller one.

Is there a mix up in dates and locations or are they two separate reports???

By: dontmean2prymate

dontmean2prymate — Wed, 16 May 2007 06:27:57 +0000

Laugh, lads, if you will, but I’ve searched the known world for the great white apeman forty years now, since it bit off my good judgement. A gold coin to the cursed soul who can find it.

By: sausage1

sausage1 — Wed, 16 May 2007 06:18:53 +0000

Re: lack of cameras at Russian military base. I find it just as unlikely that Maya Bykova would visit a site with such a history, see the creature twice, and still take no photos.

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Tue, 15 May 2007 19:46:04 +0000

While I concur with Alanborky’s statements regarding lack of photographic evidence from soldiers and civilians, that still doesn’t entirely explain the matter. Mystery Man in quite right in suggesting that a Russian military base (Especially by 1992) should have surveillance cameras. Further, I should think the base commander would take an interest in the matter. Whose to say that these reports of a big white man weren’t really of a spy in a winter camo ghillie suit?

The data suggest 4 possibilities-

1- This never happened.

2- Something like this did happen, but the facts have been embellished in the retelling.

3- This did happen, but everyone involved was completely incompetent.

4- This happened, it was investigated, surveillance footage documented, and for whatever reason, the evidence has either been destroyed, misplaced, or classified.

3 seems quite unlikely to me, and if it is 4, there should be some evidence somewhere. I don’t suppose Russia has anything similar to a FOIA? Of course, we might want to narrow it down a little more than some military base 50 km from Leningrad first…

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Tue, 15 May 2007 18:11:29 +0000

AlanBorky, thanks for that. Artists are frequently treated worse than, than, than bigfoot witnesses. Think about how much further along we’d be if someone with an artist’s talent and ability were to draw their impressions instead of the sub-cro-magnon images we get because most people can’t draw and don’t even try. When I look at Robert Bateman’s paintings of sasquatch I open myself to a wealth of information and perceptions that even the best police report can never get approximate.

By: alanborky

alanborky — Tue, 15 May 2007 15:17:02 +0000

mystery_man, I think some of the difficulties you’re having with terms like ’specimens’ are because it’s been translated into English by a Russian. ‘Specimens’, here, could easily’ve been referring to any statements witnesses provided.

Saying that, even US and UK soldiers to this day are forbidden from producing personal photographic material which might be militarily compromising.

And as for Russian soldiers in 1989, not only were they very poorly paid, with very poor access to such luxuries as cameras, but they still had the KGB seriously breathing down their neck.

By: alanborky

alanborky — Tue, 15 May 2007 15:08:03 +0000

O, and apropos jodzilla’s, “An artist? Oh boy…”

Jodzilla, speaking as one myself, I can assure you us artists, being by definition highly visually oriented, are better equipped than most to function as accurate visual witnesses.

Though I do take your implied observation we’re also better equipped than most to embellish what we see if we’re so inclined.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Tue, 15 May 2007 15:06:11 +0000

So, they don’t typically keep cameras or anything of the sorts at military bases? I find it very odd that the creature had such a high profile, being seen by all of these personell for prolonged periods, by “hundreds of civillians” and yet not a single shred of photographic evidence was obtained. I am also curious about one passage here that says “Sapunov and his team collected many specimens indicating that there were two creatures: one male and one female.”

What does this mean exactly? Does this mean the actual creatures were captured? Does it mean evidence, and if so what kind of evidence was it that led them to the conclusion that there was a male and a female creature? Why all of the vagueness here?

I know there will be people who will come up with alolt of farfetched reasons why no photos were obtained, but another good reason is that this never really happened. I do not doubt the possibility of the existence of these Russian “wildpeople”, and I do not deny the possibility that some could be palebald or white, however I find this particular account to be doubtful.

By: alanborky

alanborky — Tue, 15 May 2007 14:54:27 +0000

…then again, they say it was tall and nicknamed ‘the marked one’ - and I’m sure I spotted the words ‘pie’ and ‘bald’…

My god! It’s a well known scientific fact tattoophile Nick Redfern likes pie! And he hasn’t got a good alibi for the forty years Mecheny kept showing up!

By: alanborky

alanborky — Tue, 15 May 2007 14:52:19 +0000

Hmmm, a humanoid type creature covered in white hair…

Did any of the witnesses mention by any chance whether this critter was also dressed somewhat like Father Christmas on holiday in Miami?