Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Image

US Scientists Invited To Russian Yeti Hunt 195

Posted by samzenpus from the bring-two-pairs-of-boots dept.
First time accepted submitter Lindan9 writes "After an apparent increase of yeti sightings in the Kemerovo and Altai region of Siberia, a group of scientists from around the world are meeting to examine evidence possibly proving yeti existence. The scientists suspect there is a population of several dozen living in the area. The team hopes to spot a yeti or still living neanderthal man during their search of the area's mountains." I hope they find two pristine horns faster than I did.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Scientists Invited To Russian Yeti Hunt More

US Scientists Invited To Russian Yeti Hunt

Comments Filter:

  • Yeti Hunt? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SniperJoe ( 1984152 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2011 @03:37PM (#37617206)
    Did anyone else think that it was going to involve a bunch of Russians sitting around in camouflage with vodka and firearms?

    • That's ridiculous. These men are scientists!

      They'll be drinking vodka from test-tubes and beakers, obviously.

    • Re:Yeti Hunt? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2011 @03:40PM (#37617258)

      Did anyone else think that it was going to involve a bunch of Russians sitting around in camouflage with vodka and firearms?

      That's called the Russian military

  • Pristine Horns are from WoW (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05, 2011 @03:45PM (#37617312)

    >two pristine horns

    For anyone who missed the joke, this is a reference to a particularly obnoxious quest from World of Warcraft where the required items have a very low drop rate - meaning the player has to slaughter a preposterous number of yetis in order to complete it.

    • In unrelated news, the skinners in the area report a 5000% income increase during the same period.

  • Nyeti (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lucas123 ( 935744 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2011 @03:46PM (#37617316) Homepage
    I see crazy knows no borders.

  • Waste of time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by plsenjy ( 2104800 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2011 @03:48PM (#37617342)

    Instead of paying a group of scientists to run around out there, why don't they equip a drone with an infrared camera to do a swath of the area and locate and photograph anything with a heat signature about the size of a deer or larger? Sure, you'll get a lot of deer, but you're more likely to sight the yeti this way than not.

    • [...] you're more likely to sight the yeti this way than not.

      Actually you're more likely not to sight the yeti this way, because there is no yeti. At least their way the scientists can drink vodka and have a story that might get them some tail in the future (so long as they leave out the part about the yeti and focus on the snow capped mountains).

    • You mean more likely to site the yeti this way then any other method. "More likely to site the yeti this way then not" implies a high probability of it existing. To me a rise in sitings without a rise in photographic evidence in this day and age, is a tale tell sign it is unlikely to be real. Your average 10 year old has a 3 megapixel camera on their celphone. So if the yeti, bigfoot, the lochness monster etc... exist and are being sited more often by people now then they used to be, why don't we have any n

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Fned ( 43219 )

        Your average 10 year old has a 3 megapixel camera on their celphone.

        You'd think we'd have a lot more pictures of muggers, but when presented with an unexpected, apparently dangerous situation, most people don't go for their camera.

        That's why, for example, when there's, say, a fight on a city bus, where there have to be at least twenty cellphone cameras, you get, maybe, one actual video. Sometimes.

    • Re:Waste of time (Score:4, Informative)

      by WastedMeat ( 1103369 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2011 @05:11PM (#37618466)
      Not that such a thing exists, but if it did, infrared may not be the way to go. If something has adapted to live in Siberia, it will be well insulated which means that the temperature of the outermost layers of skin and/or fur will remain close to ambient temperatures. Polar bears, for example, are not effectively detected on infrared cameras.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tftp ( 111690 )

        On top of that, there are trees in Siberia. More than one. Probably more than one billion. Most are tall fir and pine trees. There is no chance of seeing anything through the foliage.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jamesh ( 87723 )

        Not that such a thing exists, but if it did, infrared may not be the way to go. If something has adapted to live in Siberia, it will be well insulated which means that the temperature of the outermost layers of skin and/or fur will remain close to ambient temperatures. Polar bears, for example, are not effectively detected on infrared cameras.

        So what? All they have to do is send the drones in and look for places without a heat signature? :)

  • You'd think you'd see more evidence of mystery items like UFOs, ghosts and Yetis. Phones have been a real boon for photographing tornados and crimes.
  • Did you see the measuring tape in the picture in TFA? 10 inches does not make a foot! If the measuring tape is wrong....

  • many people think this is madness (Score:5, Informative)

    by wierd_w ( 1375923 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2011 @03:57PM (#37617490)

    Many people think the search for cryptids is a waste of time, and not an area where any serious discoveries could be made, due to the large number of very unscientific crackpots.

    The alarming number of such crackpots claiming to be cryptozoologists casts a very thick layer of tarnish on the more sincere and truly scientific in that speciality, but the assertion that nothing good can come from those few, due to the noise in the channel from the many, is not a sound assertion, and is a guilt by association rhetorical fallcy.

    Other people will assert that any large macrofauna like "sasquatch", or "yeti" would surely have been discovered by now, but that is also an erroneous assertion. (Not that far removed from the false assertions made by several prominent politicians concerning the closure of patent offices during the 1900s, basing such rhetoric on the assertion that "everything worthy of a patent has already been invented." History clearly shows this is not the case.)

    If these are *real* scientists looking for evidence of a cryptid, then I wish them well, and hope they find something. The methods they report in their field journals will surely be useful, even with a null result.

    If however, this is just a bunch of poorly trained "enthusiasts" claiming to be crytpozoologists, but lacking any measure of proper scientific method, then this expidition is a colossal waste, and I hope they get frostbite of the penis for wasting resources and time.

    Sorry.. I felt I needed to clarify that issue.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )

      If you are a cryptozoologists, you are a crackpot.

      Seriously, you are. We have a branch of science about animals and discovering species. They do actual scientist.
      Since there is no proof of Yeti, or bigfoot, or lochness monster.

      They might as well be looking for Frankenstein's monster.

      When a person is so attached to an idea, that they wont let it go even with continuous lack of evidence,, they invent there or science; which would be fine if they applied the scientific method, and proper research, but they don

      • Untrue.

        Real cryptozoologists research things like Orang Pendek.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_Pendek [wikipedia.org]

        This is a cryptid, since has not yet been officially "discovered", but is widely reported, leaves footprints and nests, and has a sensible basis for existence.

        Crackpots look for magical creatures.

        Scientists look for mundane creatures.

        • It hasn't been discovered because it doesn't exist. The wiki article you linked talks about, at length, how nobody has ever gotten anything beyond some footprint castings and hair samples that were inconclusive. Thanks for the link though. Crackpots are fun to laugh at...

          • Amusingly, people said the exact same things about the lowland gorilla and the orangutan, back when they were cryptids.

            There are quite a few cryptids that turned out to be real [listverse.com] that established zoologists insisted were not real, just as you asserted about Orang Pendek.

            The difference between a cryptid and a known species is that somebody managed to snag a living sample of the latter. Unless people actually look for those animals, that is very unlikely to happen.

            As such, people who genuinely look for such an

            • Ugh. Dude, I'm not gonna argue with you about the existence of Bigfoot. If you wanna believe, go ahead and believe.

              Just try not to make yourself sound like a scientist because that tarnishes the real science going on things like dark energy and curing cancer. Bigfoot people provide ammo to creationists. And that is lame.

              • I believe I already pointed out that scientists look for mundane things. "Bigfoot", the cultural and mythical creature is not a mundane creature.

                A hypothetical large ape meeting the physical description of "bigfoot" is a mundane creature. You can conduct experiments and create hypotheses of the latter. That makes it the pervue of science, even if you don't like it.

                Scientists also research how having to pee effects judgement. An ignobel was awarded on that very topic. Simply because something is silly, doe

          • Crackpots are fun to laugh at...

            You won't be saying that when science finally accepts the truth of...The Time Cube!

      • If you are a cryptozoologists, you are a crackpot.

        I used to fully agree with that statement. However, I occasionally watch the show "MonsterQuest" (usually to see where the logic flaw is). They have had numerous people on who identify themselves as "cryptosoologists". The overwhelming majority are crackpots. They have had one or two who appear to be scientists who specialize in examining the specimens that various "monster hunters" have found and identifying what they come from. While they appear to accept that undiscovered fauna may exist, they, also, app

    • Wikipedia begs to differ:
      "Cryptozoology is not a recognized branch of zoology or a discipline of science." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoological [wikipedia.org]

      Cryptozoologists are not scientists (there is no such thing as a cryptozoology degree). They are ALL crackpots.

      • Now that I can relate to, but that is also linguistic pedantry.

        The fundemental logic still does not hold:

        All cryptozologists study cryptids.
        All cryptozologists are crackpots.
        Therefor anyone who studies cryptids is a crackpot.

        The logic is clearly faulted, when we substitute a few terms.

        All snails are gastropods.
        All snails have shells.
        Therefor all gastropods have shells.

        This is patently untrue, as there are many species of gastropod that do not have shells. (Slugs for instance.)

        All you have managed to assert

        • I think my logic was more like:
          Until 1983 the words "cryptid" and "cryptozoologist" did not exist, and I'm pretty sure lowland gorillas and orangutans were well known by the western scientific community before that.
          Some people who refer to themselves as "cryptozoologists" think they are scientists.
          The only scientists who changed their field to "cryptozoology" lost any respect they held previously in the scientific community.

          You can play word games all you want but that won't make the lochness monst

          • Example species: "Giant Squid"

            Reported well before 1600 by japanese fishermen, with eyewitness accounts of them attacking fishing boats.

            Western science, for hundreds of years, insisted such a fanciful creature not only didn't exist, but also couldn't exist.

            The terms you cite were created in 1983, as you state. However, the Giant Squid was not a scientifically proven species until the 1990s, a full decade later.

            • Western science, for hundreds of years, insisted such a fanciful creature not only didn't exist, but also couldn't exist.

              Citation?
              As I recall, biologists weren't sure whether or not to classify Giant Squid as a new species or jsut write them off as just larger versions of already classified species up until the 1990s. It wasn't a matter of biologists saying "There's no, nor could there ever be, such thing as a squid over 10 feet long!" Rather, it was some scientists doubting if the deep ocean in today's world could provide enough food for creatures to grow that large. And do you really think that giant squid attacked Japane

              • The arguments against existence were:

                It lives very deep in the ocean, where no sunlight reaches. This is presumed to have little if any nutritional sources, so a squid that size, living that deep, annot exist. It would starve to death.

                This was before the invention of reliable submersables that could go that deep, which discovered a wide abundance of chemotrophic lifeforms near deep ocean hotspots.

                Then, as you pointed out:

                Ok, so maybe a squid could still eat and live that deep, but how do we know that this i

                • It lives very deep in the ocean, where no sunlight reaches. This is presumed to have little if any nutritional sources, so a squid that size, living that deep, annot exist. It would starve to death.

                  This was before the invention of reliable submersables that could go that deep, which discovered a wide abundance of chemotrophic lifeforms near deep ocean hotspots.

                  But you illustrate the point perfectly, when you make declarative statements about something you know nothing about, in this case because no one had any direct experience, then you are just a stupid asshole.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by DZign ( 200479 )

                It was not only squids but other deep-see fish that were discovered when submarines could dive deeper and deeper.

                I remember reading as a kid some old books/magazines from the 1960ies about the amazing discoveries of weird deep-see fish that were done as submarines started to explore the deep see. They discovered fish living at debts that were not thought to be able to exist..there wasn't any mythological about them, no information or stories that they existed.. scientists up to then believed the bottom of t

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Morty ( 32057 )

      If however, this is just a bunch of poorly trained "enthusiasts" claiming to be crytpozoologists, but lacking any measure of proper scientific method, then this expidition is a colossal waste, and I hope they get frostbite of the penis for wasting resources and time.

      Even if they're just enthusiasts, they don't necessarily need to follow the scientific method to produce value. They can prove their claims conclusively by capturing one live specimen and bringing it back to civilization.

      It won't happen, but it's possible.

  • How can the purple yeti be so red,
    Or chestnuts, like a widgeon, calmly groan?
    No sheep is quite as crooked as a bed,
    Though chickens ever try to hide a bone.
    I grieve that greasy turnips slowly march:
    Indeed, inflated is the icy pig:
    For as the alligator strikes the larch,
    So sighs the grazing goldfish for a wig.
    Oh, has the pilchard argued with a top?
    Say never that the parsnip is too weird!
    I tell thee that a wolf-man will not hop
    And no man ever praised the convex beard.
    Effulgent is the day when bishops turn:
    So le

  • Seems doubtful (Score:3)

    by Belial6 ( 794905 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2011 @04:08PM (#37617642)
    It seems doubtful that there is undiscovered fauna the size of a man, although not impossible. That being said, the impact of discovering a tribe of Neanderthals still alive would produce profound effects on society. Would they have 'Human' rights? Can they breed with humans? How would you feel about your sister dating one? What is the status of a human/neanderthal hybrid child? Depending on their intelligence level, it would be one step shy of meeting sentient aliens.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tmosley ( 996283 )
      A new species of monkey was recently discovered in Papua New Guinea, along with a new species of large cat, IIRC. There are certainly strange things to be discovered out there.

      I don't see a tribe of Neanderthals being among them, though. There is little reason for a hominid to live in such a harsh climate, and they would have interacted and, as we have found out recently, interbred with humans until they were fully hybridized.

      If there is a Yeti, the likelihood of it being a hominid is close to zero.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Belial6 ( 794905 )
        Whether they interbred with humans until they were fully hybridized or not depends on how remote their habitat is, and how shy they are of other hominids. If they are isolated enough to not have been discovered, then it would not be unthinkable that they would not have interbred. I see no interbreeding reason that an ape that has not had contact with humans would be any more likely than a hominid that has not had contacts with humans.

        Of course, it would be almost as much fun if it was a post homo sapie

    • Unless you're a negroid African, you probably have neanderthal DNA in you (remember to tell the white supremacists they're all half-breeds).

      And, what happens if Global Warming turns out to be good for the Yeti population?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Belial6 ( 794905 )
        That doesn't answer the questions. There would likely be a far cry between a hominid that was 1/100000th neanderthal, and one that is 100% or even 50% neanderthal.

        • Modern non-African humans are up to 4% Neanderthal (by DNA). So, that would be five generations in breeding terms (1/32nd). That used to be the threshold for being sold as a slave in Louisiana (1/32nd black).

          I would hope we would not treat them any different than an Amazon tribe.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Belial6 ( 794905 )
            What about modern African humans? Neanderthal are a completely different species.

            • What about modern African humans?

              The negroid type seems to be all homo sapien. The Arab and Caucasian Africans have neanderthal DNA.

              Neanderthal are a completely different species.

              were [nytimes.com].

    • I believe these questions were already answered in that TV Show, Cavemen [wikipedia.org].

      Of course, nobody watched it so we still don't know the answers.

    • There was a large species of peccary discovered a few years ago in Brazil, probably (there's not quite enough data on it). Formal descriptions was published in 2007. It weighs some 50 kg, so the size of a man, if the man is very small. Teh Wiki has teh details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Peccary [wikipedia.org].

      As for interbreeding with them, well, if you have a frank talk with a farmer, you will learn about different local customs.

  • Putin (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05, 2011 @04:12PM (#37617702)

    They should send Putin. Putin could catch a yeti with his shirt off.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ukemike ( 956477 )

      They should send Putin. Putin could catch a yeti with his shirt off.

      why would we care if the yeti is wearing a shirt?

  • definition of 'scientist'.

    Poop and hair. where is the poop and hair?

    • There have been a couple of scientists that I've called poop and hair, but I've never felt the need to generalize that to a definition of the entire group.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mugnyte ( 203225 )

      definition of 'scientist'.

      Poop and hair. where is the poop and hair?

      i say the same thing to my dog when he looks guilty.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mugnyte ( 203225 )

      Poop and hair. where is the poop and hair?

      I say the same thing to my dog when he looks guilty.

  • I did a quick search on this "conference" and I can tell right away this is a typical pseudoscience gathering.
    The organizer, Igor Burtsev, holds a degree in a different area (history) and everything he published about yeti so far was sensationalist drivel, not scientific research.
    Oh, it is on Fox News website? Must be fair and balanced then. Sorry.

  • When they're done in Siberia, those scientist should go for a dip in Loch Ness.

  • The lead scientist has already found Yeti. They live on Carter Farm in Tennessee. See his published article:

    http://alamas.ru/eng/publicat/Burtsev2.htm [alamas.ru]

  • Monsters in the Monestary [imdb.com]. The yeti cry was scary.

  • "We find that we can only spot the Yeti after ingesting at least 2 litres of vodka, therefore somehow this creature must be attracted to the liquid."

  • Pull off a sick ski run and he'll show up to ruin your day. Then make sure you ski Faster.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've finally learned what `upward compatible' means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes." -- Dennie van Tassel

Close