It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Could there be Yeti fossils in new Tibetan find?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 03:01 PM
I was just on a search for new and or interesting fossil finds.
The possibility of finding new Hominid fossils here is slight due to the age of the sediment, but could it be possible there will be some evidence of the Yeti to be found here? No fossil evidence has been found yet, but could this be the Holy Grail of fossil finds?
Any one have any ideas or other links to the fossils that have been found.

[edit on 6/14/2008 by BroonStone]

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by BroonStone

I read the article and I am wondering how you got a correlation between possible tectonic manipulation of the land and discovering Yeti fossils? There is no mention of such a find in the article.

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 04:23 PM
I copied the article into word and word searched Yeti, Bigfoot and other mythical beasts ........and nothing. Not once does it mention any Yeti.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Heavenly Orbit]

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 04:30 PM
I didn't say there was any evidence of such a find.
The recent quake uncovered layers of fossils, fish and such which were from an ancient lake. Where there is water there is all sorts of life in the water and on land. Hence my speculation. One never knows what will be found when sites such as this are uncovered.
For example the Gray, TN fossil site. Here's a link.
There have been some incredible fossil finds there and they have only scratched the surface of the site.

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:01 PM
I could swear your post has changed since you edited it

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:30 PM
reply to post by Heavenly Orbit

I am sorry for the confusion, being fairly new to ATS I am still learning how to post threads.
I am somewhat confused by your post, isn't the edit function used to EDIT ones posts, especially when information needs added or altered to further the disscusion or clarify the thread topic?
I was only speculating on the topic, and this is in a cryptids forum so is this not all speculation any way?
Again I am very sorry for any confusing post or topic heading I have made and I only took steps to correct the problem not to further confuse.

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:34 PM
Lol Im just messin, I understand what you mean Im new too ! I doubt they could distinguish the bones from human anyway.

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:53 PM
Early Hominid bones are very distinguishable from other more advanced bi-peds. Such as differing thigh bones, larger brow ridges, longer arms and so on.

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 06:47 PM
I think some Bigfoot specialists believe Bigfoot to be remainders of the great ape species, gigantpithicus, I think.... I forgot the spelling exactly. So, there may be fossils of great apes and all, however that does not prove, nor disprove the existance of bigfoot, after all, the fossils are faily old, and a good deal of change has come and gone since then.

new topics

top topics


log in