Scientists to do DNA analysis on 'yeti hair'
DNA tests are being carried out in the UK on what is claimed to by 'yeti hairs' from India.
The hairs were collected by a yeti believer in a dense Indian jungle where the yeti (also known as Bigfoot, abominable snow man and forestman) had been spotted three days in a row.
Experts at Oxford Brookes University tested the hair and say it is not from any of the 'obvious' animals and it could belong to a currently unknown species of primate.
The hairs will now be sent to separate labs for DNA analysis.
Mr Redmond from primatology department at the Oxford university also says the hairs bear a "startling resemblance" to those collected by Everest conqueror Sir Edmund Hillary.
Some people claim to have seen the a black and grey ape-like animal which stands about 3m (nearly 10ft) tall in the West, South and East Garo hills in Meghalaya, India.
From sighting it is estimated the creature weighs about 300kg and lives on fruit, roots and tree bark.
LINKS
As much as I would love Bigfoot to be real I just can't see it.
Surely it would have been proven by now?
I have seen a big hairy monster about the right weight.
But that was just my husband getting out of the shower!!!!!!
This may be the first piece of proof that the 'theory of evolution' is true.
Is this the 'missing link' between the Ape and Man - as promised by Darwin and Dawkins?
I smell a new book Dawkins:
The - - - - delusion
Two hairs? Well, people accepted California's Bigfoot on less proof than that until its creator admitted it was a fake.
I agree with the earliler comment that this may be another Dawkins book. Perhaps it will be called The Dawkins Delusion, by Yeti.
"Creator of Bigfoot"?
Is that like "creator of deer"? Bigfoot are not ONE animal, it's a species.
Please do some at least SOME research into a subject before you dismiss it in ignorance, or go for the laugh because "everyone else is doing it" and you just have to be one of the IN crowd.
And sorry, but you can't "prove" something to be a fake unless you prove every single piece of evidence found to date is fake. Not likely. Of course there a fakes out there! But all of them?
Then there's the fact that these animals are seen all over the world (miles of foot print tracks and hundreds of plaster casts indicating many individuals not withstanding). This guy who created him makes Santa Claus look pretty lazy.
While circumstantial evidence doesn't prove the case of Bigfoot (or Bigfoots if the singular/plural thing confuses you) this hair analysis certainly is leaning that way.
As far as the animal’s existence should be proved by now: The mountain gorilla wasn't "discovered" until 1902, its habitat much less remote than the forests of the Pacific Northwest. Prior to that it was scoffed at by the "experts" as folklore and wild imaginations of the indigenous people. The footprints were concluded to be fakes (made to scare people away from the area).
Sound familiar?
Perhaps scientific analysis of hair samples (where did you get the number “two”?) which match no know ape species might bring us closer to proof.
An undiscovered ape = Bigfoot(s). Hmmmm.