Comments on: Origins of “Abominable Snowman”

By: SuzieDsouza

SuzieDsouza — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 06:33:39 +0000

If the abominable snowman would have been a reality, he would have been noticed on satellite cameras or aerial videos. However, such things never happened.

Besides, the footprints were noticed on snow, which, by nature, is very unstable. A minor snow storm or a snowball can cause several shapes to form on the surface, some of which might look similar to a giant footstep. Also, normal footprints of a bear or any other animal could become giant footsteps the edges melt away due to sunlight.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:34:32 +0000

Matt,

It is well-documented that the parts of the hand were then given to Jimmy Stewart, who took them to London, for delivery to Professor W. C. Osmon Hill.

Of course, this incident is directly related to Edmund Hillary and the World Book declaring that the Pangboche hand was wired up parts of human bones. After all, by 1960, it was.

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:27:02 +0000

Sasquatch:

I agree with you about the difference between bears and Yetis from the point of view of a Sherpa.

And the “poop” scenes were necessary but very gross. I ALSO hope some hand-washing was done after handling.

By: MattBille

MattBille — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:06:31 +0000

I don’t think the story – if true – of getting a monk drunk and swapping out parts of a relic can be dignified with any other name than “theft.” I’m aware of all the good Byrne has done for conservation, and I’m not calling for him to be extradited or anything. But if he still has the relic, the honest thing to do is send it back.

By: Fhqwhgads

Fhqwhgads — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:24:04 +0000

The real problem with the name is not “abominable” but “snowman”. The first part just sounds like colorful exaggeration, like referring to the Tasmanian “devil”. But calling the Yeti a “snowman” makes him sound like Frosty, and it makes the creature sound entirely made up.

By: sasquatch

sasquatch — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:43:17 +0000

I find it just as unlikely that Sherpas mistake bears for yetis as I do American Indians for the Sasquatch. These people are very familiar with the animals in their neighborhood.

It’d be like a suburban American mistaking an SUV for a Porsche.

I hope the guy with the monkey poop washed his hands in the creek.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:10:24 +0000

In my Tom Slick book (based on taped interviews) and as broadcast on various past documentary programming, such as “History’s Mysteries” and “Unsolved Mysteries,” this Irish explorer has retold his story of getting a lama drunk and replacing parts of the Pangboche hand with human bones supplied by W. C. Osmon-Hill. I will leave it to others to call this “theft.” The UM re-creations of these scenes are classics, and I’m surprised they aren’t on YouTube.

It appears that some revision of history occurred for the MQ interview.

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:27:22 +0000

SOCALcryptid:

You know, I ALSO wondered about the whole “thumb” business!!!

I, too was led to believe Byrne stole that thumb.

What is the “true” account, then???

Good question. Thanks for remonding me of that, SOCALcryptid.

By: MountDesertIslander

MountDesertIslander — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:06:46 +0000

I watched that episode of MonsterQuest last night and was favorably impressed with the program. I am glad you took the time to straighten out that bit of confusion around the genesis of the term ‘Abominable Snowman’. Once again, it’s important to keep the record straight.

What I want to comment on is the investigator who insisted on examining monkey droppings with his bare fingers. He really caught my attention when he started eating the dessicated mountain goat carcass and then proclaimed it “quite good”. That guy is a full immersion investigator. My hat’s off to him. I draw the line at eating carrion.

He is on my list of all time macho cryptozoolgists.

By: SOCALcryptid

SOCALcryptid — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:35:05 +0000

Honestly, I did not like this two hour episode at all.
It was ok if you had no idea what a yeti was.
Loren points out a couple of mistakes which I am grateful for.
I think the biggest mistake was the telling of how the thumb was taken. I thought Peter had to get the monk totally drunk and then he had to steal the finger. Peter then replaced the thumb with other bones. His newest rendition was that the monk just gave him the finger and Peter was on his way. This seems like a tale that has changed over the years. So what is the truth here. Was the thumb given by a monk or did Peter steal it.
Also, why would they send hair samples from that scalp to a lab when a lot of us already knew it was a type of goat and not yeti at all.
The tale of the girl who was attacked by a yeti has also changed. I thought she had taken the yaks down to a stream to drink when she was attacked. Monsterquest shows them just standing in a field when the yeti then sneaks up on them. This story makes more sense when they are face down drinking from a stream.
Again I say, wear scent blocking clothes when out in the field. Keep bright lights to a minimum when hunting with thermal cameras. If I came over a ridge and saw bright lights on the other side of the canyon, I Think I would make a u turn.
One last comment. Why go there in the dead of winter. You will have a better chance finding any creature when food is abundant. Take Sasquatch Attack II for example.
Sorry for being so negative about this episode. I just feel there were too many mistakes being made.