Being the one whose decision to go with “potentially explosive” in the head of this blog I am criticizing (hey, it brought me here, didn’t it?), it says much for Loren - and for Cryptomundo - that this discussion is here for you to read.

So, kudos there. All sides heard from, and all that. On with the search.

“One well publicized expedition to Bhutan reported that a hair sample had been obtained that, after DNA analysis by Prof. Bryan Sykes, could not be matched to any known animal. Analysis completed after the media release, however, clearly showed that the samples were from the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) and the Asiatic Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus).”

For what that’s worth. Unless of course someone has something revising that take.

Then of course there is this: DNA findings, without a type specimen to compare them to, are about as valuable as sighting reports - and about as likely to be misleading, unless sheer volume makes that unlikely.

Not to keep this going. OK, to keep this going. But…

No inference of self-aggrandizement was intended, or could reasonably be drawn from anything posted here. Once again:

I am simply referring to the phrase “potentially explosive,” given a life it clearly did not merit.

I didn’t make this rule: when people see a header like that, their expectations go up.

Wherever the phrase came from, whoever used it, it doesn’t matter. The responsible thing to do, from a strictly scientific perspective, is to kill it where one finds it, if something unequivocally compelling isn’t there. And yeti scalps are nothing new. Even the identikit drawing sessions - which should at least raise zoological eyebrows - don’t bring home the prize money unless they are followed up upon.

And it’s the identikit drawing sessions - NOT the scalp - that are the real item of interest here. They link many observations into what seems a consistent picture. This is something I - and people with serious zoological chops - keep harping on (yes, boring, I know) when it comes to the sasquatch. The footprint casts and hair and other relics - yes, even the Patterson-Gimlin film - could all disappear tomorrow. The sighting reports would remain. And they compel scientific attention. Not to mention telling researchers where they might expect to find more evidence.

“Explosive” can only be used when the proof is in. Science says so. Which is one reason science takes the ten-foot-pole approach when it comes to crypto. And one reason why “potentially explosive” evidence like this - and the DNA analysis Lyndon mentions, and the P/G film, and the Peguis video, etc. etc. - rises, spends some time in the limelight, then quietly disappears, relatively untouched by scientific expertise.

Resentment has no place in a scientific discussion. (The frequent violations of protocol by otherwise excellent scientists notwithstanding.) What does the evidence say? Cryptos will have to pardon the resentment, for want of a better word, of folks like me when that question is - and it almost always is - poorly addressed, if addressed at all.

Oh, I read the blog.

It’s just that - as *I* said - using the e-word in the header for something very not-e at the moment is the issue.

Science tends to keep the brakes on until the proof is in; you don’t hear “explosive” until long after the coelacanth is on the boat. That’s all I’m saying.

However, one thing that has become evident is that nobody has actually heard Ms Pickering’s side of the story. I have never even met her, so I knocked off a quick email earlier today, and have invited her to come down to Devon this summer when we have our annual convention.

We will do a filmed Q+A, and I will be happy to accept questions from anyone on this blog site. The film will then be put up on google video/youtube in its entirety. Contact me via the CFZ.

OK, pretty much, except for this:

“Who is trumpeting? Both Loren and I have quite rightly said that this is an interesting story, but until further information is received we can’t speculate further.”

I point you both to what headed up this blog: Is New Yeti Evidence Potentially Explosive? Um, then one reads the blog. Not exactly. Then we can’t even pin down who said “explosive,” or if the word was even used.

Using the word “explosive” in the above context is trumpeting, for attention. Sorry, that’s just the way it is.

If one must even consider the above newsworthy, a proper heading would be: [Sigh] Yeti Again Around The Mulberry Bush…

This is interesting since it closely matches the word, Mrigu, which I found in an old newspaper article from the 1950’s (at the height of Yeti Fever). The article stated the Mrigu was a Tibetan word for this snowman. However, I have been unable to find any other documentation on the term. Anyone else heard of it?

I have been reading this site for a long time and been a big fan of Loren’s books for years but have always been in too much of a hurry to register. Thanks for always keeping this site entertaining as well as informative!