Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

'Yeti finger' DNA test results to be revealed


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#31    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,833 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 08 February 2012 - 05:45 AM

What a sad end to this story. I always thought several random bones were stolen, not a complete finger, and that only samples remained to date. The hand itself was stolen some time ago. Previous analyses indicated this might have been Neanderthal in origin, but this latest test seems to indicate otherwise, that is considering an original bone was tested. To be perfectly honest, the finger in the picture does not look like it came from this hand, and I have to wonder how anyone could replace a finger which is in that state without anyone realising it.



Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Edited by psyche101, 08 February 2012 - 05:47 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#32    Night Walker

Night Walker

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where women glow and men plunder

  • We're all storytellers. We all live in a network of stories. There isn't a stronger connection between people than storytelling.

    J.M. Smith

Posted 08 February 2012 - 07:20 AM

View PostPersonFromPorlock, on 07 February 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

But keep in mind that the religious have been known to improve on the evidence (to preserve the faith of the faithful) and if an original 'yeti' hand rotted away, it's not inconceivable that it might have been replaced with a convenient human hand.

Is it not both more conceivable and more likely that there has never been an authentic Yeti hand (or scalp or anything)? That Eastern religions have engaged in pious fraud (“improving on the evidence” in order to “increase faith by whatever means available”) in the same manner as our Western religions (eg Shroud of Turin, Shards of the True Cross, the Baptismal Forgery, etc)?

The reality or otherwise of the artefacts doesn’t really matter – it is the story that is important…

Posted Image Yes! Canada's most fearsome predator. The Kodiak Marmoset – it's the world's largest smallest primate. "My God! He's killing us..."

The Yowie-ocalypse is upon us...

#33    evancj

evancj

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,777 posts
  • Joined:07 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern, UT

Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:52 PM

View PostNight Walker, on 08 February 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Is it not both more conceivable and more likely that there has never been an authentic Yeti hand (or scalp or anything)? That Eastern religions have engaged in pious fraud (“improving on the evidence” in order to “increase faith by whatever means available”) in the same manner as our Western religions (eg Shroud of Turin, Shards of the True Cross, the Baptismal Forgery, etc)?

The reality or otherwise of the artefacts doesn’t really matter – it is the story that is important…

I think this is the most likely explanation NW.  :tu:

Edited by evancj, 08 February 2012 - 10:52 PM.


#34    evancj

evancj

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,777 posts
  • Joined:07 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern, UT

Posted 08 February 2012 - 11:45 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 08 February 2012 - 05:45 AM, said:

What a sad end to this story. I always thought several random bones were stolen, not a complete finger, and that only samples remained to date. The hand itself was stolen some time ago. Previous analyses indicated this might have been Neanderthal in origin, but this latest test seems to indicate otherwise, that is considering an original bone was tested. To be perfectly honest, the finger in the picture does not look like it came from this hand, and I have to wonder how anyone could replace a finger which is in that state without anyone realising it.



Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Your right psyche. How can we really know if this finger was from the original hand? The chain of custody is very questionable.

Edited by evancj, 09 February 2012 - 12:04 AM.


#35    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,833 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:03 AM

View Postevancj, on 08 February 2012 - 11:45 PM, said:

Your right psyche. How can we really know if this finger was from the original hand? The chain of custody is very questionable.

Thanks mate.
I would like to see more than just an article that states the bones are probably the ones in question. What I find very sad about the entire lacklustre result is that several who had tested this hand before felt the markers indicated Neanderthal origin. As such, I always felt the hand should be of paramount importance, my biggest hope is to find a Neanderthal specimen something akin to Otzi the Iceman, or the peat bog bodies. It seems that such may be plausible in a place like the Himalayas. They only found George Mallory about a dozen years ago. His body remained well preserved for 75 years, which indicates the conditions for preservation are present. I admit, it's a long shot, a real long shot, but one I think that would be worth having a look at.

It just seems such a quick and quiet end to a mystery that has been alive for so long.









*NB For readers who do not know who George Mallory is, he is the guys who is famous for answering the question : Why climb Mount Everest, with: Because it is there. Whilst the words may not be Mallory's the attitude certainly was.

Edited by psyche101, 14 February 2012 - 06:11 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#36    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    BigFoot Whisperer

  • Member
  • 3,022 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Location:Planet Elsewhere

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 15 February 2012 - 06:39 PM

Junior Chubb said:

Quote

"In the story of this finger the Yeti finger had been swapped with a human finger on the original hand, maybe this happened again as it changed owners and was missing for years."

I remember that.

maybe it did happen again. but I suspect we'll never know if it was.
there's just something so "unholy" about monks lying
:unsure2:

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#37    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    BigFoot Whisperer

  • Member
  • 3,022 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Location:Planet Elsewhere

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 15 February 2012 - 06:41 PM

View Postevancj, on 08 February 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

I think this is the most likely explanation NW.  :tu:


it is a very valid point, I agree.

but... wouldn't those monks be somewhat dumb to think they can fool modern science?

hmmmm......

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#38    Night Walker

Night Walker

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where women glow and men plunder

  • We're all storytellers. We all live in a network of stories. There isn't a stronger connection between people than storytelling.

    J.M. Smith

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:27 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 15 February 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

but... wouldn't those monks be somewhat dumb to think they can fool modern science?

hmmmm......

That doesn’t seem to bother the ongoing fabrication of Bigfoot claims and evidence by modern Western folk. Seriously: Why all the fakery? If people didn’t think they could get away with deception then our courts and prisons would largely be empty (and there would most likely be no cryptozoological “evidence” beyond what is misidentified).

The Yeti artefacts were not created to fool modern science. Like the multitude of other pious frauds, those authentic Yeti fakes were created in order to provide “proof” within a specific cultural context for those who may doubt the reality of the stories. The Yeti, like other supernatural beings (spirits, angels, demons, lake monsters, etc), has an important role to play within some specific cultures and as such, it is important that people believe it to be real. That the Yeti is culturally significant and often perceived to be real doesn’t mean there is a tangible reality to it.

Besides, how could anyone in the mid 20th century and earlier (let alone the humble folk of the Himalayas) have known anything about future developments in DNA technology? It does not make the monks stupid or even liars - it just makes them human...

Posted Image Yes! Canada's most fearsome predator. The Kodiak Marmoset – it's the world's largest smallest primate. "My God! He's killing us..."

The Yowie-ocalypse is upon us...

#39    ZaraKitty

ZaraKitty

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,202 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I can see it in their eyes, they've already died.

Posted 10 March 2012 - 05:08 AM

What if bigfoot is really just a big hairy man? Who lives in the bush?

The internet is a series of tubes, and those tubes are full of cats.

#40    orangepeaceful79

orangepeaceful79

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,461 posts
  • Joined:05 Jan 2012

Posted 11 March 2012 - 03:58 AM

View PostZaraKitty, on 10 March 2012 - 05:08 AM, said:

What if bigfoot is really just a big hairy man? Who lives in the bush?
A big hairy man who lives in the bush that we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for?


#41    U. N.Owen

U. N.Owen

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 48 posts
  • Joined:07 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sometimes Central Russia, sometimes Central United Kingdom.

  • `I am too much of a sceptic to deny the possibilty of anything` T.H. Huxley

Posted 12 March 2012 - 07:20 PM

^I seem to recall you, Orange, in a previous post letting slip that you are `a teacher by trade`. If this is really so, then you ought to have learnt that Repetition-Does-Not-Create -Understanding:The `broken record technique` only works in self-assertion situations, not in teaching (and still less in debate). In other words if you find that other posters have this (to you) irritating tendency not to bowing down to your (to you) evidently superior logic then it mat just be that they have thought about it as seriously as you have but reached different conclusions.


Some of my best friends are sceptics and I have no problem with jousting with them: I do feel a little insulted, however, if they continually repeat the same position as if I had not heard it the first time.


Your sole contribution to these threads, and apparently your only purpose for being here, is to endlessly recycle the claim that there is NO evidence for any man-like apes in any part of the world.You say this because you dismiss all eyewitness accounts as being inferior to your own interpretation of them and all recordings, footprints and other physical traces as being of no value.

It is a point of view, and one which you are welcome to, but I am curious as to why it gives you such a special thrill to keep reposting it as though you imagine that those who disagree with you are plain stupid and can only be addressed in this repetitive manner.

Perhaps you have a Biology degree, or some-such, and therefore imagine that this allows you to pull rank on everybody else.(Despite the fact that Man-like ape research, at this stage, is not a biological issue.)  If you had done any serious background research on this topic -I mean outside of the internet (and watching that TV show which I have never seen) you would know that there are well qualified minds, probably better than yours or mine, that disagree with this conclusion of yours: David Attenborough and Jane Goodall. to name but two. These people are by no means yeti-advocates, but they do have the honesty to acknowledge room for new discoveries within their own specialism.

One telling thing about you, and your fellow  interchangeable Career-sceptics is that here is no corresponding room for doubt in your own ideological schema. You have already made your mind up. and have pulled the drawbridge up against any incoming new information.Whilst a yeti `believer` can often be heard dismissing apparent evidence, accepting that they got something wrong,and even expressing pangs of scepticism, a Mr Neo-Orangechecker will never forward anything but a flat out scepticism at all times. Nuances, aren't macho enough for you, right?

Interest in the Unknown, contrary to what you seem to think, is not about `belief` but about what-if thinking. In this case: What if there are man-like apes in our midst? This is not a `belief-system` that sustains me (three meals a day and love does that) it's a hypothetical question. Before you go and say something to the effect that this has no room in `science` then think again, and read again. Albert Einstein conceived of one of his theories about the speed of light following a daydream about sunbeams. (Don't ask for a link! It's out there somewhere!)

Perhaps you are just ordinary guys at heart and have wandered on to the wrong forum by accident.I myself dislike cricket, but it would never occur to me to join a cricket forum with the sole aim of telling people about that fact.Perhaps you would also feel less heroic if you realised that Career-Sceptics, in this section of the forum at least, are well in the majority-so you're not even sticking up for the little man, either.

Please, career-Sceptics, do not reply to this post  by saying one more time that there is no evidence for man-like apes: I heard you the first time. It would be much better for you to give us some insight into your reasons as to why this is so important to you that you have keep on repeating it to intelligent people who just happen to disagree.


#42    Farmer77

Farmer77

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined:04 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Desert

  • "Science has done its utmost to prevent whatever science has done" - Charles Fort

Posted 12 March 2012 - 07:59 PM

View PostU. N.Owen, on 12 March 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

^I seem to recall you, Orange, in a previous post letting slip that you are `a teacher by trade`. If this is really so, then you ought to have learnt that Repetition-Does-Not-Create -Understanding:The `broken record technique` only works in self-assertion situations, not in teaching (and still less in debate). In other words if you find that other posters have this (to you) irritating tendency not to bowing down to your (to you) evidently superior logic then it mat just be that they have thought about it as seriously as you have but reached different conclusions.


Some of my best friends are sceptics and I have no problem with jousting with them: I do feel a little insulted, however, if they continually repeat the same position as if I had not heard it the first time.


Your sole contribution to these threads, and apparently your only purpose for being here, is to endlessly recycle the claim that there is NO evidence for any man-like apes in any part of the world.You say this because you dismiss all eyewitness accounts as being inferior to your own interpretation of them and all recordings, footprints and other physical traces as being of no value.

It is a point of view, and one which you are welcome to, but I am curious as to why it gives you such a special thrill to keep reposting it as though you imagine that those who disagree with you are plain stupid and can only be addressed in this repetitive manner.

Perhaps you have a Biology degree, or some-such, and therefore imagine that this allows you to pull rank on everybody else.(Despite the fact that Man-like ape research, at this stage, is not a biological issue.)  If you had done any serious background research on this topic -I mean outside of the internet (and watching that TV show which I have never seen) you would know that there are well qualified minds, probably better than yours or mine, that disagree with this conclusion of yours: David Attenborough and Jane Goodall. to name but two. These people are by no means yeti-advocates, but they do have the honesty to acknowledge room for new discoveries within their own specialism.

One telling thing about you, and your fellow  interchangeable Career-sceptics is that here is no corresponding room for doubt in your own ideological schema. You have already made your mind up. and have pulled the drawbridge up against any incoming new information.Whilst a yeti `believer` can often be heard dismissing apparent evidence, accepting that they got something wrong,and even expressing pangs of scepticism, a Mr Neo-Orangechecker will never forward anything but a flat out scepticism at all times. Nuances, aren't macho enough for you, right?

Interest in the Unknown, contrary to what you seem to think, is not about `belief` but about what-if thinking. In this case: What if there are man-like apes in our midst? This is not a `belief-system` that sustains me (three meals a day and love does that) it's a hypothetical question. Before you go and say something to the effect that this has no room in `science` then think again, and read again. Albert Einstein conceived of one of his theories about the speed of light following a daydream about sunbeams. (Don't ask for a link! It's out there somewhere!)

Perhaps you are just ordinary guys at heart and have wandered on to the wrong forum by accident.I myself dislike cricket, but it would never occur to me to join a cricket forum with the sole aim of telling people about that fact.Perhaps you would also feel less heroic if you realised that Career-Sceptics, in this section of the forum at least, are well in the majority-so you're not even sticking up for the little man, either.

Please, career-Sceptics, do not reply to this post  by saying one more time that there is no evidence for man-like apes: I heard you the first time. It would be much better for you to give us some insight into your reasons as to why this is so important to you that you have keep on repeating it to intelligent people who just happen to disagree.


GREAT FREAKING POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :tu: THIS needs to be a sticky at the front of the crypto forum section!

I don't suffer from insanity, I rather enjoy it

#43    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,694 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 12 March 2012 - 08:19 PM

View Postorangepeaceful79, on 11 March 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

A big hairy man who lives in the bush that we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for?

View PostU. N.Owen, on 12 March 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

Please, career-Sceptics, do not reply to this post  by saying one more time that there is no evidence for man-like apes: I heard you the first time. It would be much better for you to give us some insight into your reasons as to why this is so important to you that you have keep on repeating it to intelligent people who just happen to disagree.
I would add that there is NOT "absolutely no evidence whatsoever". There is no Scientifically Accepted evidence. There is a difference.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#44    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,833 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 13 March 2012 - 06:11 AM

View PostU. N.Owen, on 12 March 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

^I seem to recall you, Orange, in a previous post letting slip that you are `a teacher by trade`. If this is really so, then you ought to have learnt that Repetition-Does-Not-Create -Understanding:The `broken record technique` only works in self-assertion situations, not in teaching (and still less in debate). In other words if you find that other posters have this (to you) irritating tendency not to bowing down to your (to you) evidently superior logic then it mat just be that they have thought about it as seriously as you have but reached different conclusions.


Some of my best friends are sceptics and I have no problem with jousting with them: I do feel a little insulted, however, if they continually repeat the same position as if I had not heard it the first time.


Your sole contribution to these threads, and apparently your only purpose for being here, is to endlessly recycle the claim that there is NO evidence for any man-like apes in any part of the world.You say this because you dismiss all eyewitness accounts as being inferior to your own interpretation of them and all recordings, footprints and other physical traces as being of no value.

It is a point of view, and one which you are welcome to, but I am curious as to why it gives you such a special thrill to keep reposting it as though you imagine that those who disagree with you are plain stupid and can only be addressed in this repetitive manner.

Perhaps you have a Biology degree, or some-such, and therefore imagine that this allows you to pull rank on everybody else.(Despite the fact that Man-like ape research, at this stage, is not a biological issue.)  If you had done any serious background research on this topic -I mean outside of the internet (and watching that TV show which I have never seen) you would know that there are well qualified minds, probably better than yours or mine, that disagree with this conclusion of yours: David Attenborough and Jane Goodall. to name but two. These people are by no means yeti-advocates, but they do have the honesty to acknowledge room for new discoveries within their own specialism.

One telling thing about you, and your fellow  interchangeable Career-sceptics is that here is no corresponding room for doubt in your own ideological schema. You have already made your mind up. and have pulled the drawbridge up against any incoming new information.Whilst a yeti `believer` can often be heard dismissing apparent evidence, accepting that they got something wrong,and even expressing pangs of scepticism, a Mr Neo-Orangechecker will never forward anything but a flat out scepticism at all times. Nuances, aren't macho enough for you, right?

Interest in the Unknown, contrary to what you seem to think, is not about `belief` but about what-if thinking. In this case: What if there are man-like apes in our midst? This is not a `belief-system` that sustains me (three meals a day and love does that) it's a hypothetical question. Before you go and say something to the effect that this has no room in `science` then think again, and read again. Albert Einstein conceived of one of his theories about the speed of light following a daydream about sunbeams. (Don't ask for a link! It's out there somewhere!)

Perhaps you are just ordinary guys at heart and have wandered on to the wrong forum by accident.I myself dislike cricket, but it would never occur to me to join a cricket forum with the sole aim of telling people about that fact.Perhaps you would also feel less heroic if you realised that Career-Sceptics, in this section of the forum at least, are well in the majority-so you're not even sticking up for the little man, either.

Please, career-Sceptics, do not reply to this post  by saying one more time that there is no evidence for man-like apes: I heard you the first time. It would be much better for you to give us some insight into your reasons as to why this is so important to you that you have keep on repeating it to intelligent people who just happen to disagree.


Hi UN Owen

I have to ask though, how often do believers bring in the "what if" debate? What we do see on a regular basis is people coming in and saying "I did not believe until I saw  one, now that I have I do and you should believe too!". Such statements are an insult to logic in general, and from a personal perspective. I think if you have a good look back through the forum you will find many "what if" debates but mostly between skeptics. Some believers such as Tia often give skeptics a reason to think more about a subject, for instance How Would a Hominid Get here? To which Tia put fort that we might be dealing with a species that is subject to convergeant evolution, a marsupial Yowie, that sort of debate I think you will find is welcomed. There are many career-believers as well, that will not for a second recoginse that a fleeting glimpse is hardly sufficient to make any sort of determination. I am sure that you will find many skeptic posts citing figures, facts and peer reviewed papers that show the hypothesis' put forth do not fill the bill. I guess you have seen only the worst sid of skepticism in this thread, mostly brought on by jaded people who have also heard the same story upteen times with the same conclusion i.e. Bigfoot is real because I saw him. I do however agree with you that this does not need to be the status quo, and indeed, I agree heartily that skeptics and believers can compliment each other, and I can say I have personally experienced such. In a faceless Internet forum though, there is going to be more wild claims that people frown upon. These "epiphanies" are not being recognised as personal ones but that is largely what they are. It's something of a catch 22. As long as people are willing to believe the enthusiasts will remain divided. I think the state of what are considered "professional groups" shows us what a sorry state the entire subject is in. People like the AYR give a thinking person reason to disbelieve.

In short, it takes all types. Skeptics might be a thorn in the sides of some, but without them, a whole bunch of believers would be patting themselves on the back saying how they now know what the Government is hiding from them and how they showed up the scientific community. Yet without believers, what would skeptics discuss? The weather perhaps.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 13 March 2012 - 06:13 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#45    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,833 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 13 March 2012 - 06:14 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 12 March 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

I would add that there is NOT "absolutely no evidence whatsoever". There is no Scientifically Accepted evidence. There is a difference.


What is evidence that is not supported other than hearsay?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users