Comments on: Pangboche Yeti Finger Found: DNA Results Given

By: Zilla

Zilla — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 04:47:44 +0000

I didn’t mean any disrespect to anyone, William. But you’re right: my post was a little mean spirited and vague, looking back on it. Let me explain. At heart, I am a skeptic. I do believe in a number of cryptids, with Bigfoot leading the way. But these cryptids tend to have a smoking gun of sorts: proof I just can’t argue with and therefore must believe. Bigfoot has the Patterson film. There is little to say about that thing other than I highly doubt it’s a hoax. The Yeti has no such proof. It is mostly reliant on eyewitness testimony. Many sightings are compelling, but they are just that: sightings. I have seen exactly one Yeti photo in a book I once read, and it was a rock formation (hence my comment.) I don’t doubt the Sherpas, but I have nothing but their word to go on. There are no photos, videos or DNA samples to look at and give opinion on. As it is, Yeti sightings are rare, and bears can account for many of them, as can the footprints. The Shipton prints are interesting, but not conclusive for me to believe in the creature. I’m just naturally skeptical towards cryptids with nothing but sightings to study. I could be wrong, there is no doubt. It’s just how I feel about the Yeti at this time. If I see something to prove me wrong, I’ll recant everything I said here. It’s just my current feelings. And yes, I have seen that video, and it is interesting indeed, and is one of the things that does bring me back to the Yeti every so often. But again, it’s not conclusive. You can’t just say there is a new species based on that. I hope this answers your post and again, I meant no disrespect to anyone.

By: DAVEINCAPS

DAVEINCAPS — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:52:56 +0000

I wish there was an edit feature for these postings. My typos keep sneaking in.

By: DAVEINCAPS

DAVEINCAPS — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:46:15 +0000

The results point to two equally valid conclusions–the hand was from a human or the hand was from a Yeti and Yetis are human.

Everyone seems willing to accept the former but not the latter. Why?

True, the non-apelike characteristics of these creatures are not proof they are human or a human subspecies but it is certainly suggestive of that. And dismissing that possibility out of hand as you do is just as silly as… well my insistence that they are human.

But I have no doubt what when (if?) a creature is captured or recovered and decisive tests can be performed on it that I will be proven right.

By: Cass_of_MPLS

Cass_of_MPLS — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:25:37 +0000

DAVEINCAPS “Greater faith I have not seen”. Your categorical statement that “Yetis ARE human” while unscientific (and certainly unproven) is REFRESHING. One knows where you stand.

But the only conclusion we can draw from descriptions of the Yeti is that it is “human-like” in some ways.

It may be MORE than human (as in that Peter Cushing/Forrest Tucker movie where Forrest is playing Tom Slick—more or less.

Okay…the Yeti may be more than human…it may also be less.

OR it may be simply “other”.

One cannot conclude from a superficial physical resemblance that the DNA of a Yeti will be the same as that of a human…and it certainly should NOT be the same as, say, homo sapiens (“modern human).

I am afraid we must conclude that this hand did not, after all, belong to the Yeti.

By: DAVEINCAPS

DAVEINCAPS — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:09:47 +0000

Don’t you people get it? Yeti’s, Sasquatch, etc. ARE human. At worst they’re a subspeciies without enough genetic variation for their DNA to be distinguished from ours–at least with the test that was run.

It’s so simple. If evidence is to be believed they walk upright with human-like feet (as in ‘not ape-like’). Most close encounter reports from those that keep their wits usually state the face is not ape-like. Give one an all-over body wax and with their oft reported 7-foot stature he could hide in plain sight as a basketball player.

By: Hapa

Hapa — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:13:04 +0000

Although I am dissapointed with the results (I wished we had proof), I’m glad this Pangboche hand mystery is solved. Now we can move on to other things in the quest for the Yeti.

I have no reason to doubt the results. There have been occasions in Cryptozoological research where a “Case Closed” situation occurred which sounded, to say the least fishy. On the MonsterQuest episode about Cryptid bears the skull of the original McFarlane’s bear (not to be confused with the bear character on the Cleveland Brown show, produced and voiced often by Seth McFarlane) was given to a researcher to examine, and it turned out to be a normal Brown Bear skull, not even a big one, totally at odds with the original writings of the discoverer. Almost as if the skull had been accidentally switched around in the archives where it was kept (not an impossibility). Perhaps McFarlane’s bear skull was a victim of a mishap in records and is still gathering dust at a university somewhere.

But this DNA result, until someone comes forwards with evidence that undermines it, should be accepted.

By: alan borky

alan borky — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 15:49:55 +0000

Me own suspicion why Slick’s family kept quiet over the years, Loren, was because it was acquired under the most dubious of circumstances.

And since finger bones all round the world are considered tantamount to powerful magic wands in the hands of the right/wrong shamanic operator, then this guy Slick must’ve been mighty persuasive to get them to part with what some Tibetans would view as a ‘vajra thunderbolt’ extracted from a kind of god.

Saying that I’m most struck by the superficiality of the BBC’s investigation of the DNA.

They simply pronounce it human, not even bothering to find out if it’s, say, Tibetan, Chinese, European, or even Denisovan.

As is usually the case with such programmes, one’s always left with the impression they didn’t want to look too deeply into it in case they found something Dawky and the boys might pull them up over.

By: William

William — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:45:53 +0000

In response to “Zilla’s” post above: how can you so summarily discount all the eyewitnesses to the Yeti, including the Sherpas who reside there? I presume you watched the video where they were provided detailed drawings of bears, gorillas, and prehistoric man and without fail always pointed at the more human figure. You are claiming these Sherpas who live there are so stupid they cannot tell a rock formation or a bear from a Yeti? I find this to be a very condescending view of these people, not to mention the climbers who have sited these creatures. Would they also be such poor observers to confuse a bear for a Yeti, when bears normally traverse with four legs not two???
Also, rock formations do not move. Most sitings by climbers report moving figures rather than stationary ones. Not to mention the piercing calls that have been reported? How do bears and rock formations explain those?? I think the Yeti is as probable as the Skunk Ape or the Sasquatch, but I do believe they may be lower in numbers and that is due to the conditions they survive in.

By: diogenes

diogenes — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:18:13 +0000

An early example of the thievery and dishonesty that surrounds Bigfoot/Yeti “hunters/researchers,” and this involving an old beloved moral icon – Jimmy Stewart. Who do Euro-descendants think they are in relation to the world, or monks? The arrogance of this Yeti/Sasquatch legacy is embarrassing. The sample not tested/found until just recently, had they only asked permission. Certainly by now they would have obtained it. I am surprised so few seem to notice or be bothered by how the sample was obtained or where it remained forgotten. That might explain why a whole BF community would put up with MM allowing so many to believe he was a lawyer for a decade, or any of the many shenanigans I ave come across in my short attempt to find an altruistic BFer….there are a few, but as poor and as trounced as me…
Shameful really, in every way. Perhaps if everyone gets so excited about this they might try a formal request to NA Tribes to test some of the skeletons in the basement of the Smithsonian. Am I being a moral prude? Look at how the current groups and individuals behave and I don’t think so. I think the moral lines of theft and dishonesty should be our minimum. How does one boycott such information? Not possible, but the monks, and many others won’;t forget.

By: fooks

fooks — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:15:38 +0000

filangies, dancing filangies!

how can that “look” anything?

what does the DNA say?