Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Saru

'Yeti finger' DNA test results to be revealed

60 posts in this topic

A finger from the Pangboche hand said to be that of a Yeti has been DNA tested in London.

Set high in a remote Himalayan mountain range stands the Pangboche Buddhist monastery. During heavy snowstorms, it can be found only by travellers who listen for the monks’ ceremonial horns.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Updated: The finger has turned out to be from a human. ( Source )

Edited by Saru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm betting some form of primate... or human... But not a Yeti.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SHOCKED!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe one of Freddy Krueger's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is very sad,even the monks do lie!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find sadder is that I predict, in years to come, this finger will be brought up and still used as "evidence" of a yeti in discussions for years.

The trend with this type of thing seems to be that everyone remembers the "evidence" but few seem to remember when it was discredited, and I end up hearing about it for years and years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find sadder is that I predict, in years to come, this finger will be brought up and still used as "evidence" of a yeti in discussions for years.

The trend with this type of thing seems to be that everyone remembers the "evidence" but few seem to remember when it was discredited, and I end up hearing about it for years and years.

This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Unexplained Mystery.... Explained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find sadder is that I predict, in years to come, this finger will be brought up and still used as "evidence" of a yeti in discussions for years.

The trend with this type of thing seems to be that everyone remembers the "evidence" but few seem to remember when it was discredited, and I end up hearing about it for years and years.

That is because the Illuminati are trying to hide the fact that the Yeti is real and thus they have bought off the DNA testers, or faked the test, or they planted that fake finger there to be found. Bwaaaahhhh ha Ha!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish that the human dna was so old or degraded, or that the lab used was inept and the result came back as "unknown hominid dna."

Footers LOVE that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have turned on my NPR news hoping the station carries the BBC Radio4 at 3:00 PM my time. We don't get any other BBC broadcasts here in Dallas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like more 'cryptid evidence' is not really cryptid evidence. Maybe monks do lie :(

What the monks may have had was the hand of a wildman (feral man / outcast / outsider) and in their eyes (legends) a Yeti. This would explain the human DNA and help the monks keep their integrity.

There is a long time from the finding of the hand to the DNA results. 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. Could the finger be contaminated and thus effect the result?

These can bring up slight questions of its authenticity, and for many will be why Yeti finger will keep on doing the rounds as 'evidence'.

This was a great story, unfortunately it was better before the DNA results came in.

Edited by Junior Chubb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UFOs and Bigfoot, among other paranormal subjects...it's difficult being a witness to these things and being scoffed at by others who have not shared the experience. Oh well, it will all come out in the wash. Does the human DNA really explain this as human as we know it, when we know so little about all that "junk" DNA? Science is all about on-going theories waiting to be proven to our satisfaction. I'm not satisfied that we know enough about DNA to draw a conclusion yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science is all about on-going theories waiting to be proven to our satisfaction.

Well, not really. Theories are based on evidence. They aren't just ideas that we throw out and hope for something to support them. You have the cart before the horse.

I'm not satisfied that we know enough about DNA to draw a conclusion yet.

are you satisfied with out knowledge of the ecology?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UFOs and Bigfoot, among other paranormal subjects...it's difficult being a witness to these things and being scoffed at by others who have not shared the experience. Oh well, it will all come out in the wash. Does the human DNA really explain this as human as we know it, when we know so little about all that "junk" DNA? Science is all about on-going theories waiting to be proven to our satisfaction. I'm not satisfied that we know enough about DNA to draw a conclusion yet.

The lack of understanding about science and the scientific method among the general public is shocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not satisfied with science, until it is proven to my satisfaction. Proof is based on evidence, but invariably opens doors to other mysteries and theories. DNA research is still in its infancy, as is ecological study. Many aspects of both can be safely accepted by virtue of evidence, but we are nowhere near closing the book on either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UFOs and Bigfoot, among other paranormal subjects...it's difficult being a witness to these things and being scoffed at by others who have not shared the experience. Oh well, it will all come out in the wash. Does the human DNA really explain this as human as we know it, when we know so little about all that "junk" DNA? Science is all about on-going theories waiting to be proven to our satisfaction. I'm not satisfied that we know enough about DNA to draw a conclusion yet.

I wonder too.

Would the Elephant Man's DNA come back as human? Andre the Giant's DNA. Would a hypertrichosis afflicted person? How about an albino? How about the Indonesian Tree Man? They probably all come back as human, but stand out from everyone else.

Bigfoots and Yetis could be the same thing. A genetic disorder.

So the hand could still be a Yeti Hand, just not a different species of ape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder too.

Would the Elephant Man's DNA come back as human? Andre the Giant's DNA. Would a hypertrichosis afflicted person? How about an albino? How about the Indonesian Tree Man? They probably all come back as human, but stand out from everyone else.

Bigfoots and Yetis could be the same thing. A genetic disorder.

So the hand could still be a Yeti Hand, just not a different species of ape.

I think you could use this argument for this case but not for the whole yeti/bigfoot existence in general.

It would certainly clear those monks from being called liars. wink2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder too.

Would the Elephant Man's DNA come back as human? Andre the Giant's DNA. Would a hypertrichosis afflicted person? How about an albino? How about the Indonesian Tree Man? They probably all come back as human, but stand out from everyone else.

Bigfoots and Yetis could be the same thing. A genetic disorder.

So the hand could still be a Yeti Hand, just not a different species of ape.

I forgot, did they carbon date the finger? Did they check it for Neanderthal DNA?

I'll go back and check the article.

Edit: A quick Google check seems to indicate that they did not date the finger, or check it against early Homo species. They found human DNA and called it good.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would the Elephant Man's DNA come back as human? Andre the Giant's DNA. Would a hypertrichosis afflicted person? How about an albino? How about the Indonesian Tree Man? They probably all come back as human, but stand out from everyone else.

Yes

they would certainly come back as human DNA. And if their maladies are genetic, they would come back as human with a noted genetic defect.

Bigfoots and Yetis could be the same thing. A genetic disorder.

what gene carries the marker for "imaginary?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes

they would certainly come back as human DNA. And if their maladies are genetic, they would come back as human with a noted genetic defect.

The article says they did not have a complete set of DNA, so they just tried to match what they had and what they had matched against human. They did not say what percentage of a full DNA sample they tested. The Yeti Finger could easily have come off some poor genetic freak who was mistaken for a Yeti.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article says they did not have a complete set of DNA, so they just tried to match what they had and what they had matched against human. They did not say what percentage of a full DNA sample they tested. The Yeti Finger could easily have come off some poor genetic freak who was mistaken for a Yeti.

Current genome sequencing has/is being performed on much older remains, resulting in notable insights:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2011/january/ancient-denisovans-and-the-human-family-tree93500.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-sex-neanderthals-denisovans-gave-healthy.html

The metrics of the limb would appear to be of adult dimension. To propose that an individual born with a condition such as hypertrichosis (combined with gigantism?) would survive to adulthood without communal support (and the knowledge thereof) within the climatic constraints of the region may be rather problematic.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how the majority of public here goes "see its human - told you it couldnt be bigfoot" - but when star-child dna results come back majority says "can't be - wasnt a good dna test, they are lying, not a credible testing source, etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how the majority of public here goes "see its human - told you it couldnt be bigfoot" - but when star-child dna results come back majority says "can't be - wasnt a good dna test, they are lying, not a credible testing source, etc..

"...a DNA sample was taken from the skull, and was subjected to DNA probes designed to detect sequences of DNA that are unique to humans (performed by Dr. David Sweet, Director of the Bureau of Legal Dentistry at the University of British Columbia)5. The Starchild skull DNA was found to contain both an X and a Y chromosome. This is conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes" (Emphasis added).

http://www.theness.com/index.php/the-starchild-project/

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.