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 1
Still Waters

Three separate sightings of yetis in Siberia

43 posts in this topic

I Do Believe They Exist .. And I Too Hope We Never Get To Catch One .. Even Tho I'd Be Very Curious To See What They're All About :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.c...bed/eVUPoBGJo1o

Edit: Humm... Nope that did not work.

Edit: There used to be a button for embedding videos, but I don't see it anymore and I too am now unsure how to do it...

Edit #3d: Nope that did not work either...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eVUPoBGJo1o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's not as simple as saying these things live in areas that humans don't frequent. These things are reported in some of the most populous regions of the planet - every state in the US and every providence in Canada. Therefore logic dictates that a breeding population exists in all of North America, correct? A population of that size simply could not remain hidden and would produce much evidence of its existence than the occasional questionable footprint and blurry video.

you say that such a popuation of this species could not remain hidden but that is because you are *assuming* that this creature is like many others, and you should not make that assumption since it has yet to be captured/examined.

obviously, if this beast exists, it is quite different. perhaps it has a way of tanscennding dimensions, you can't say "no" unless you have evidence.

there are just too many ppl in the same regions for centuries making the same claims.

there HAS to be something to it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you say that such a popuation of this species could not remain hidden but that is because you are *assuming* that this creature is like many others, and you should not make that assumption since it has yet to be captured/examined.

obviously, if this beast exists, it is quite different. perhaps it has a way of tanscennding dimensions, you can't say "no" unless you have evidence.

there are just too many ppl in the same regions for centuries making the same claims.

there HAS to be something to it.

Yeah I agree theres just to many things still not known by man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you say that such a popuation of this species could not remain hidden but that is because you are *assuming* that this creature is like many others, and you should not make that assumption since it has yet to be captured/examined.

obviously, if this beast exists, it is quite different. perhaps it has a way of tanscennding dimensions, you can't say "no" unless you have evidence.

there are just too many ppl in the same regions for centuries making the same claims.

there HAS to be something to it.

So, in your world, one can make any kind of creature up, and say " it might exist ", because someone can not say " no " unless they have evidence.

Nice..... :no:

Yeah I agree theres just to many things still not known by man

Like?

Edited by Sakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in your world, one can make any kind of creature up, and say " it might exist ", because someone can not say " no " unless they have evidence.

Like?

Man doesn't know about every creature on this planet and to say that something just doesn't exist is stupid.

Edited by R4z3rsPar4d0x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man doesn't know about every creature on this planet and to say that something just doesn't exist is stupid.

So, just saying things exist with no physical evidence at all is not stupid?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man doesn't know about every creature on this planet and to say that something just doesn't exist is stupid.

You cannot use our LACK of knowledge as evidence for whatever crypto animal you believe in. A LACK of evidence is just that. Its zero, nothing, zilch, nada. Nothing CANNOT be evidence of something. Its like writing a blank check that covers everything, and my banker says writing blank checks and handing them out is a dumb idea. Much like claiming that because we don't know everything then anything could likely exist. Just dumb - the theory. Not you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, just saying things exist with no physical evidence at all is not stupid?....

I think it depends on the situation. Clearly if I make up a creature, say the Hoopak, (Which is a tall thin creature, much like a snake that screws its tail into the ground and then hunts by standing on end and tossing rocks at food animals.) (Totally make up) (NOTE: A hoopak is a slingshot/spear used by kender in the D&D Dragonlance series of books.) then we can discount it immediately as it is totally made up and not even physically possible.

But if a creature is repeatedly reported and seems actually physically possible, and the region is relatively unused and untraveled, then the possiblity should be be discounted out of hand. It was just such information/reports that has led to the discovery of many animals that we know today.

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends on the situation. Clearly if I make up a creature, say the Hoopak, (Which is a tall thin creature, much like a snake that screws its tail into the ground and then hunts by standing on end and tossing rocks at food animals.) (Totally make up) (NOTE: A hoopak is a slingshot/spear used by kender in the D&D Dragonlance series of books.) then we can discount it immediately as it is totally made up and not even physically possible.

But if a creature is repeatedly reported and seems actually physically possible, and the region is relatively unused and untraveled, then the possiblity should be be discounted out of hand. It was just such information/reports that has led to the discovery of many animals that we know today.

However, you must take many other things into consideration:

The amount of sightings in areas that are well populated.

The footprints that cannot be tracked.

The lack of any evidence.

The lack of any clear photos or videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends on the situation. Clearly if I make up a creature, say the Hoopak, (Which is a tall thin creature, much like a snake that screws its tail into the ground and then hunts by standing on end and tossing rocks at food animals.) (Totally make up) (NOTE: A hoopak is a slingshot/spear used by kender in the D&D Dragonlance series of books.) then we can discount it immediately as it is totally made up and not even physically possible.

But if a creature is repeatedly reported and seems actually physically possible, and the region is relatively unused and untraveled, then the possiblity should be be discounted out of hand. It was just such information/reports that has led to the discovery of many animals that we know today.

You just gave smugfish a new cryptid :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, just saying things exist with no physical evidence at all is not stupid?....

Im saying if yeti/bigfoot doesnt exist than why are there accounts of it being sighted all over the world practically, and obviously what you said is a stupid thing to do, thats why you have to have witness accounts of the creatures actual existance. Remember lack of evidence doesnt mean the evidence is not around we just havent found it yet. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im saying if yeti/bigfoot doesnt exist than why are there accounts of it being sighted all over the world practically, and obviously what you said is a stupid thing to do, thats why you have to have witness accounts of the creatures actual existance. Remember lack of evidence doesnt mean the evidence is not around we just havent found it yet. :tu:

Search the threads here for Bigfoot, patterson film, etc....

Every thing is explained numerous times as to why they do not exist.....From fossils, to physical evidence, to breeding population, to dead bodies, to trail cameras, to environment ( people around ).....No need to post it all again.

And yes, " lack of evidence " does mean " no evidence ".....There is none at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

everything seems to happen in Russia man i wish i was there!!!Russia rocks but yeah that's very true there still many unknown creatures and etc that science is unaware of and seems to refuse to accept.science is ignorant and very limited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These creatures won't be found because they don't exist.

We have identified new species at the bottom of the deepest oceans. We have identified new mammals, reptiles and insects in the most remote corners of the planet. Yet some would have us believe that we are unable to locate a large bi-pedal primate that (if you believe all the reports) lives on practically every continent on earth.

When does common sense enter this discussion?

These "creatures" haven't been found because they don't exist.

Fair enough, but I think the most we can conclude is that bigfoot doesn't exist in human-populated places and that people in those places enjoy a good story. That doesn't absolutely rule out the existence of a breeding population in some sparsely-inhabited place like (for instance) northern Burma. Or even Siberia, although I suspect the winters wouldn't be survivable without hibernation.

In this case I'm more inclined to believe in Russian publicists blowing smoke than yet another Yeti, though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panda's and Gorillas were just folklore not too long ago too despite countless eyewitness accounts and no physical evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panda's and Gorillas were just folklore not too long ago too despite countless eyewitness accounts and no physical evidence.

Yes, but they were 'folklore' to people far away: to the people who lived near pandas and gorillas, they were just critters. And in an age of near-instant, near-ubiquitous communication, we're all 'near' bigfoot - if he's there.

Edited by PersonFromPorlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panda's and Gorillas were just folklore not too long ago too despite countless eyewitness accounts and no physical evidence.

The main difference being that once people started looking for Pandas and Gorillas, they found them rather quickly because being real animals, they leave behind actual evidence, participate in the food chain, die and leave carcasses, etc. All things which all "cryptids" we discuss in these threads have somehow failed to do for hundreds of years. Because they are most likely fake.

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.