 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
The13Bats
|
posted
Mon, Oct 26 2009, 9:43am
|
For well over 30 years I have been a follower and admirer of the work done by Peter Byrne in the realm of hunting for bipedal hominoids,
I was interested in seeing the 2 hour Monster quest episode on the subject of the Yeti even though I have come to the conclusion that MQ is more out to entertain than find facts or prove or disprove anything,
I listened while Byrne told how he was in the Himalayans many years ago as part of the Slick expedition looking for Yeti,
I have heard him tell the story before but last night during the MQ episode he told it differently, he told how he "talked" the monk into "giving" him part of, a finger form the alleged Yeti hand they had up in their monastery.
Many years ago on Unsolved mysteries I watched Byrne in his own words and in UM reenactments tell how he gained access to the monastery by giving the monk scotch, he says he took pictures of the hand and asked if he could have it or a part of it and the monk tells him an adamant No, going as far as being superstitious about what would befall the monastery if the Yeti remains were taken away.
Byrne says he came back the following year after making up a plan with others to replace possibly one finger of the alleged yeti hand with a bone from a human hand,
Byrne says he gave the monk scotch again and the monk drank and passed out and that enabled Byrne to remove the thumb and replace it with the human one which he said took a long time to wire the whole thing together, Byrne says everyone was perfectly happy, they had the hand and it had it's fingers,
The finger is smuggled back to England and is studied and of course the results come back "unknown" but most likely human,
A few years later the Marlin Perkins expedition basically to expose Yeti as a hoax finds the Yeti hand and report it being wired together and a "fake" the wires being on it from Byrne taking a finger and wiring it together years before.
So here is my quandary,
Both stories told by Byrne cannot be true, did he talk the monk into giving him the finger or did he in all intents and purposes steal the finger?
I always respected Byrne and would hate to believe he is just as full of it as many of the others involved in this fringe science.
I can see the hand being wired going either way, if he stole the finger then he had to wire it up and if the monk gave him a finger he would still wire it up to appear un tampered with.
So let me hear some food for thought....
Thanks
Cheers,
P. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
de_hart
|
posted
Mon, Oct 26 2009, 10:36am
|
|
It appears to me that he done his "talking" with scotch and that he is not very proud of it, that the Perkins story corroborates that. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
Rangoon
|
posted
Mon, Oct 26 2009, 11:56am
|
I have come to the conclusion that MQ is more out to entertain than find facts or prove or disprove anything,
No startling revelation there to be sure.
I don't know what your opinion of John Green is but he stated his opinion of Byrne, saying that Peter Byrne was a complete fraud. Bigfoot encounters site has an article explaining some of the history between these two and indeed Loren Coleman was involved with both gentlemen through Tom Slick. Loren Coleman's version of the story is that Byrne got the monk drunk and stole it which invalidated the sample imo. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
MJLehde
|
posted
Mon, Oct 26 2009, 12:29pm
|
|
It seems that wire being used to hold the hand together isn't as important as whether the thumb was actually ever switched in the first place. We have only Byrne's word on that and it's always seemed to me to be a very handy "rimshot" way of dismissing the later tests that showed it to be human. (Not unlike the Shroud of Turin believers who claim that the fire damage to the shroud changed it's carbon dating results so they can then ignore the tests that prove it to be a fake.) If only that portion of the hand was said to be switched then why not test the rest that was not switched? Since belief in the Yeti is at an all time low in Tibet and Nepal it might be possible to obtain the samples for testing and then settle the question of the hand once and for all. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
Rangoon
|
posted
Mon, Oct 26 2009, 2:19pm
|
I was very lucky enough to be friends with a sherpa who earned his living as a mountain guide. Of course I could not restrain myself from asking if he ever saw a yeti.
His reply was uproarious laughter. He stated clearly that superstitious people ascribe every yak disappearence or "bump in the night" to the yeti and many others keep the story going for the tourists. He had serious scars from being mauled by a bear and it was to bears that he pointed as the real culprits.
Sadly since 911 Chongba has not been able to return to the US that I know of and we are not sure if he is still alive. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
Ella
|
posted
Mon, Oct 26 2009, 3:09pm
|
Well, great balls of fire, Goon, after reading some news about ole Pete a few years ago, I consider him a complete a**h*le, excuse my language. He's been a real bad boy. He publicly accused Loren Coleman of coming to his house and stealing some slides from him, and then after being publicly accused of that, Loren allegedly paid him for the slides. Well, I consider that to be really dastardly behavior on the part of Peter Byrne. If he had a problem like that with Loren, he should have settled it privately with him and not brayed it all over the world. Loren has denied the accusation, and whether he did snitch a few slides from Peter is not the issue here. I tend to believe Loren, who is too intelligent to pull a fool stunt like that if for no other reason, but even if it were true or Peter thought it was true, he was totally without moral standards or conscience to go public with his belief unless he had proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and even then, he should have settled it with Loren in private rather than try to discredit him and ruin his reputation. All he did was discredit himself, making himself look like an arrogant, self-centered, complete fool. I read what he wrote on some web site, and he comes off as a real j*ck*ss.
On the other hand, he wrote a really good book about his years in the PNW, mainly Oregon, researching BF. It was many years ago, I think way back in the seventies, and was called (I think!), "Bigfoot: Monster, Man or Myth?" Then I heard he went to Nepal or somewhere in the Himalayas to study the Yeti. So he got the monk drunk, LOL? Sounds to me like he drinks too much his ownself and might ought to put the plug in the jug before it kills him, he's not exactly a spring chick! :D :D |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Peter Byrne is a good man. I met him once in the early 1990s at a convention. He couldn't have been more down to earth, friendly and courteous.
Please don't make assumptions about people you've never met. It's ignorant. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
Rangoon
|
posted
Tue, Oct 27 2009, 7:21am
|
|
Do you feel you should make an absolute judgement based on one casual meeting? Many salesmen are smooth to your face yet can be dastardly thieves in reality. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
Ella
|
posted
Tue, Oct 27 2009, 11:17am
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
Ella
|
posted
Tue, Oct 27 2009, 11:16am
|
This is not an assumption, but an opinion based on a statement that Peter Byrne wrote for the public. I'm sure you could find it on Google somewhere if you wanted to, even though it was some years ago. Such behavior, IMO, is just plain unethical and cruel. You have a right to defend Peter just as I have a right to defend Loren, whom I've never met personally but corresponded with him by e-mail quite a few times, and also have read a good number of his books. If you want to think I'm ignorant, that's fine with me.
BTW, Larynx, your profile pictures are so cute! You're the same age as my daughter. The pictures are really clever, especially the one with the eyeshine, just like a Bigfoot's! :) |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: What happened? Posted twice! |
| From: | |
Ella
|
posted
Tue, Oct 27 2009, 1:28pm
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Ella, I'm sorry I was a little "full-throttle" in my posting. Got home after a really bad day and went to the forums (GREAT IDEA!), but that doesn't excuse me calling you ignorant. I apologize for that.
I've always admired Peter Byrne and as I said, he was extremely nice and didn't seem the least bit arrogant. That's all I'm basing my opinion of the man on. And you have every right to believe what you want of him. I've never met Loren Coleman but he's always seemed to be fairly lucid when it comes to cryptozoology. I know a lot of people on here don't care for him, but to each their own.
And thanks for the compliments! That was very sweet of you! |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
Ella
|
posted
Thu, Oct 29 2009, 12:53pm
|
Dear Larynx, no need to apologize, I'm ignorant about a lot of things, diesel mechanics and brain surgery, for instance! :D EB used to call me all kinds of worse things, such as "a stupid old woman who is desperate for attention", and I replied, "Does that mean you're not coming to Texas to take me to the Dairy Queen any time soon? Older women make better dinner partners, dearie. Oh, woe is me!" :D :D
Maybe ole Pete had a bad day when he wrote that nasty letter or blog, who knows? Before that, I thought he was a wonderful Bigfoot researcher too and still do, but IMO, his personality sux wind, to do a thing like that. Even if I didn't like Loren and thought his research was no good, I would still feel he didn't deserve that kind of shabby treatment from Peter. I don't agree with all of Loren's crypto theories, but that's beside the point. If somebody accused me publicly of pilfering something, I'd just say, "That's right, you ignorant fool, and you gonna have to pay me big bucks to get it back. Go ahead and sue me, sucker! So wipe it." |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Haha! I don't need to leap to brain surgery to show off my ignorance! :) But an apology was definitely owed to you on my part.
I wasn't aware that Peter Byrne attacked Loren Coleman. I have to admit I've been out of the crypto-loop for a couple months. It's so interesting about the bad blood between some of the researchers (I remember watching one video of Rene Dahinden getting up in the middle of a lecture by Grover Krantz and telling him he was full of shit...lol). |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
Ella
|
posted
Wed, Nov 4 2009, 1:24pm
|
|
Great balls of fire! I didn't know about Grover and Rene having a feud either. I think they've both gone to that big research center in the sky now, and they can continue their feud up there. But they now have all the answers and we're still down here asking the questions. :D |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
The13Bats
|
posted
Mon, Oct 26 2009, 1:33pm
|
Thanks for the good and well thought out replies,
Allow me to try to make my replies to yours,
John Green...I highly respect him, I have read in full the article where he calls PB a fraud,
JG gets so passionate about his personal opinions and theories that he lets angry get in the way of rationale to the point that he gets down right nasty at times,
What he goes on to say is the reason for calling PB a fraud is that Byrne feels that the bipedal creatures in question are sub humans and JG sees them as animals, sort of a play on words, we are after all ALL animals,
Shooting and killing a monkey people say poor monkey shoot and kill a human and you will go to prison and perhaps death row.
JG is a big advocate for shooting a creature to prove it's real, PB is the polar opposite of that and because of this the two have always been heavy on odds,
Because PB believes one theory and JG a different theory far from makes PB a fraud,
So if PB got some poor monk drunk and tampered with his Yeti hand and stole a finger that doesn't make PB a liar but does make him a rat.
However, I know the other side to that would say, on the contrary if PB is a thief by definition we cannot trust a word he says.
George Agogino,
Among many others were allowed to exam the finger or thumb PB "acquired" during the Slick expedition,
During the filming of the Unsolved Mysteries episode Agogino presented a piece of tissue he claimed to have saved from his original exam,
It was tested and came back as "likely human" you know, the good old inconclusive that both camps can fit into their respected theories about in this case the Yeti.
Of course the original finger/thumb is long missing,
The rest of the hand was reported stolen in the 1980's, one categorical problem with Yeti artifacts and the Pangboche monasteries is when one is lost or stolen a replacement seems to always pop up,
Many times they are admitted as "replicas" for ceremonies by the Pangboche monks and only hailed as the "real deal" after the Yeti researcher returns to the states. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
The13Bats
|
posted
Wed, Oct 28 2009, 9:35am
|
I didn't see my post as trashing Peter Byrne just asking for others open opinions on why he told two different versions of the story,
I sure didn't start this thread for people to bash Byrne much less slam someone else who replies just because you don't like their opinion or viewpoint,
I welcome ALL opinions equal.
None of us are children here but some act more childish than others and with that said,
I have read all the back and forth about PB accusing LC of swiping his slides/pictures, in mine and many others opinion LC did swipe the slides/pictures,
I would never pay for something I didn't do the fact LC did speaks volumes to me,
Two wrongs do not make a right and PB taking it public is no worse than your public bash of him,
Lets keep it real, And I might add that while I find LC a very kind hearted gentle person who is in all likely hood a wonderful fellow to sit and talk to I also believe he is in this only to turn a buck,
Unlike PB and others LC is not out there in the Himalayas for years or even his own backyard doing research, no, he is riding on the coat tails of the people who are out in the field,
But he is ready to be paid to speak or to be the guest of any and every even remotely crypto show that comes on the tube.
At the risk of sounding pompous I can match LC on knowledge on the subject any day and what more many others on this forum car too.
So now that we are past the bash PB bash LC part of this thread can we get back to some productive talk?
The simple fact as I see it and what is bothering me is both stories can't be true,
If the monk just "gave" him a scared object from the monastery then so be it, perhaps the monk didn't get extra pudding with his dinner but PB did nothing wrong,
On the other hand, ( no pun intended ) if PB did get a monk drunk and stole a religious artifact, smuggled it out of the country perhaps he now fears repercussions in our sue happy world, or as he gets up in years feels badly he rear ended the Monk.
I also find it beyond odd that the finger/thumb was lost. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
Crypto-Joe
|
posted
Tue, Oct 27 2009, 12:30am
|
Having read a bunch of different accounts of this over the years it's really hard to determine who is actually telling the truth anymore. I really have a hard time believing that a monk would actually just give him one of their most sacred artifacts or piece of it without hesitation.
Having said that I do believe the scotch story is the best reasonable explanation on how he was able obtain the finger/thumb. It stands to reason, that a monk who was probably not familiar with scotch and its effects could have had too much to drink and passed out. Thereby giving him the time and opportunity to make the switch without being caught.
I really abhor liars and thieves, and believe that he has done both. This also makes his credibility IMHO highly suspect on this particular issue. I also believe that if he has done it once then he is not above doing it again. Just my opinion for whatever its worth.
Joe |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
H_Hominid
|
posted
Tue, Oct 27 2009, 4:39pm
|
|
I have a few stories that when told to unfamiliar people I use "talked into" for a few actions that I don't want to speak of. So they both could be true, just told differently for personal reasons. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: MQ Peter Byrne contradicts himself... |
| From: | |
raditz
|
posted
Wed, Oct 28 2009, 1:52pm
|
|
That's not a contradiction, both stories have the same results. If he really stole the finger, than perhaps he didn't want to admit theft on television anymore. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
