Thursday, December 29, 2011

Conflicting Reports on Russian Yeti Capture


UPDATE: According to The Sun, Marshani is quoted as saying, "...it was a bit of fun made for the kids at the national park here."
Screen capture of the Yeti captured
"It growls and makes strange sounds ... and eats meat and vegetables" -- Bagaudin Marshani, former head of the labour ministry in the territory of Ingushetia

Monsters and Critics reposts the story below:

Moscow - Conflicting reports on the possible live capture of a yeti-like creature were emerging from Russia's rugged Caucasus mountain region, the Interfax news agency reported Thursday.
'The creature looks like a gorilla, about two metres tall, probably a male, and it's very massive. But a gorilla stands four-footed, and this stands vertically, like a person,' Bagaudin Marshani, former head of the labour ministry in the territory of Ingushetia, told the agency.
The creature was being held in a private zoo in the village of Surkhakhi, in Igushetia's Nazran district, some 1,480 kilometres south of the Russian capital Moscow, Marshani said.
'It growls and makes strange sounds ... and eats meat and vegetables,' he said. 'Some people say it's an Abominable Snowman, and others say that it's a great ape. But honestly, I've never seen anything like it.'
Marshani said Russian border troops captured the creature after a hunter shot and wounded what he suspected to be a bear in a forest near Nazran. When the animal rose up on two feet and ran away, he called the authorities.
However, a statement by the border troops command contradicted Marshani's account, stating, 'This information as reported in mass media is not based on fact and is an invention.'
Authorities in Moscow had been informed of the capture and a team of scientists was en route to Ingushetia to investigate, Marshani said.
In September, a search team led by Russian heavyweight boxer Nikolai Valuev found possible evidence of yetis in a remote valley in the country's central Siberian Kemerovo region.
Members of Russia's respected Academy of Sciences later said that hairs and track photographs collected by the Valuev expedition were inconclusive.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Loren Coleman Hilights a difference between Erickson/Ketchum Project and Pangboche Yeti Finger DNA tests


In a comment to Loren Coleman's post on Cryptomundo titled, "Pangboche Yeti Finger In Context: What Does Human Mean?" An astute reader asks a very important question:
Wendigo Truth Force responds:
So I’m a little confused here, admittedly. They found this [Pangboche Yeti] finger bone the other day? And DNA testing is already complete? I thought it took much longer, and that was part of the reason the Ketchum/Erickson debacle is taking so long

Loren Coleman has a great response explaining when the Pangboche Yeti finger bone was found and highlights, by example, a difference between the two DNA studies.

Loren Coleman responds:
The Pangboche finger was found some time ago, filming of interviews were conducted, Peter Byrne was flown in, more taping occurred, and in the meantime the DNA analysis was taking place. A timeline was not published, but it is apparent this BBC program has been in the works for some time. However, unlike the Erickson Project, there were no leaks.
He is referring to the Erickson Project leaks by several sources, the one with the loosest lips may be Richard Stubstad.

Watch this clip from Unsolved Mysteries: Episode #4.29. This 1992 episode talks about the Pangboche Yeti Hand and interviews Loren Coleman at some length.

Erickson What?! Its called the Ketchum Study! Sasquatch DNA Drama Continues



** UPDATE: Please read the correction supplied by Richard Stubstad on Apr 8, 2012  in the comments below.

 A couple of comments from Richard Stubstad indicate Dr Melba Ketchum as the "Official" lead on the Sasquatch DNA research. It is now called the Ketchum Study. Whenever Stubstad refers to the Erickson Project Ketchum Study, "Ketchum" is in quotes. We don't know why. It could be the internet equivalent of underlining her name three times, with arrows pointing to the name.

In a post we did earlier about Dr Meldrum titled, "Meldrum is Interviewed by NPR and is criticized by Wired Magazine" Stubstad responds and breaks the news of the new title of the Sasquatch DNA research:
 "I have discussed with Jeff Meldrum some of the DNA findings and conclusions I reached early on in the "Ketchum" study (as it is now called).
I did not hear the interview, but I think he is extremely intrigued about the progress that other scientists have made in the discovery process, now in terms of complete DNA genomic sequencing.
While neither Meldrum nor I am in possession of irrefutable proof that "sasquatch exists" as a new hominid or subspecies of an existing or past hominid, we do have compelling evidence that this is so -- far beyond the footprints, Double-pleaked normal Distribution of footprint lengths and widths, dermal ridges, and questionable video and film footage.
The latter is at least possible to hoax; but not DNA.
Richard Stubstad
Dec 28, 2011 12:38:00 PM 

In another comment to the post, "Robert Lindsay Gives Biscardi Benefit of the Doubt." Richard offers Biscardi's early role in the Erickson Project Ketchum Study:

Your take on Biscardi is probably correct. It's all about publicity (he's from the Las Vegas show scene, you know?).
Java Bob once told me that Biscardi's MO is: "bad publicity is better than no publicity at all".
The interesting thing is: Now and then he is correct; using the "saturation" method, he's bound to be.
We (that is, an ad-hoc group as the proverbial "we") are currently collecting potential sasquatch DNA samples for a so-called "parallel" study by a non-North American research lab. We have about a dozen samples so far, and we are (of course) vetting these samples before accepting them into the study. Guess who provided the first sample -- once again? Biscardi, that's right. Our vetting procedures indicated his sample was likely from a sasquatch (75% certain; we can't do any better than that without first doing DNA sequencing).
For the "Ketchum" study, he also provided the first samples for the currently ongoing project. Out of five samples, only one tested positively certain as being a hominid other than typical modern human or chimp, etc.
Some of the others were not tested; one may also be from a sasquatch; I just don't know, since it was never tested (to my knowledge).
By comparison, Erickson submitted six DNA samples to the "Ketchum" study; I know for a fact that the first two of these were both from "an unknown hominid", as it were. I have also heard the other four were equally viable -- and non-modern human.
The moral of the story is: Some folks do their homework well; some do not. Both manage to contribute to the state-of-the-art come hell or high water.
Richard Stubstad
Dec 28, 2011 12:27:00 PM

You can go to Richard's Website http://www.sciencealivenews.com/


Please read our terms of use policy.