SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

The Profound Awfulness of Discovery’s Russian Yeti: The Killer Lives

by Daniel Loxton, Jun 01 2014

Tonight sees the premiere of a two-hour Discovery Channel Monster Week “documentary,” Russian Yeti: The Killer Lives. With its horror movie trappings, it makes a sensationalist hash out of a genuine historical mystery—the tragic deaths of nine hikers in the Ural mountains in February of 1959. Known as the “Dyatlov Pass incident,” this unsolved cold case has unusual aspects that give it something of an air of the inexplicable, leading to the rise of conspiracy theories and paranormal speculations. Notably, though the bodies of the hikers were eventually recovered by a search party, they were found scattered over a large area in states of partial undress, as though they had fled their tents in the night in a panic. Perhaps, some speculate, they were running from someone—or something? Cue X-Files theme.

I shouldn’t snark. It’s ghoulish to make hay from the untimely deaths of other people—in this case, people who have surviving loved ones today. But mystery-mongering television programs have rarely found a tragedy they weren’t willing to exploit—and distort.

Russian Yeti: The Killer Lives caps a marathon of Discovery monster hoaxes (both of their infamous and profitable mermaids hoaxes and last year’s Megalodon hoax are playing again earlier today). In this program, hosts Mike Libecki and Maria Klenokova set out to solve the Dyatlov Pass incident—or rather, to pretend on air that it had something to do with the Yeti.

For a detailed critique of the program’s claims, see this useful analysis over at Doubtful News. Short version: we don’t know what happened to those poor people, but it’s easy to posit completely plausible explanations which fit the facts. The party may well, for example, have fled from what they believed was an imminent avalanche.

Tragic, plausible scenarios are in ready supply. They’re just not good television.

You know what is good TV? Monsters. Huge, terrifying, tongue-eating monsters. (Much is made of the assertion that one hiker was missing part or all of her tongue—plausibly bitten during a fall, skeptics suggest, though her body was also found with other presumably post-mortem soft-tissue damage—almost inevitable after weeks of exposure in the forest.) Never mind that we have no particular reason to suppose that the Dyatlov Pass case involves Yetis in any respect (nor, for that matter, aliens, vampires, or griffins). Never mind that Yetis are probably best thought of as a modern myth, as Don Prothero and I discuss in our book Abominable Science! When it comes to the paranormal, media producers are delighted to untether themselves from all responsibility. For all the investigative posturing of programs like Russian Yeti: The Killer Lives, the producers will sacrifice anything—facts, plausibility, dignity, a respected television brand—in the pursuit of a ratings monster.

How can you construct a two-hour special about Yetis around a case that has nothing to do with monsters at all? How can such vivid tapestries be woven from such insubstantial stuff? Tabloid television’s traditional filler techniques are the pregnant question, the bald declaration, and the provocative non sequitur. Russian Yeti: The Killer Lives makes generous use of all three.

“When I found out one of the students was missing a tongue immediately I knew this was not caused by an avalanche. Something ripped out the tongue of this woman,” Libecki flatly declares near the beginning of the program. Turning to a Soviet-era Yeti expedition, the narrator asks ominously, “why do so many files related to the expedition remain classified?” I don’t know, because the show neither explains it nor demonstrates that any such files are classified at all. Citing one man’s decades-old recollection of having seen a military-style boot cover (a gaiter) in the vicinity of the disaster, the show leaps to the claim that “Somehow the military reached the crime scene before the search party. Yet there is no official record of any military presence in the area when the hikers died—begging the question, was the yeti expedition actually ended?” Begging the question indeed.

This show about Russian history declines to interview any Russian historians. Instead we’re treated to interviews with cryptid proponents Jeff Meldrum and Igor Burtsev. But this sort of cable mystery-mongering does cryptozoology few favors. Burtsev complains that the production came to him with a preconceived agenda:

I was interviewed by [Russian Yeti: The Killer Lives director] Neil Rawles too. I understood that he was making a program to fit the solution of the puzzle under the ready answer. And he tried to get from me the same answer about fault of the yeti in group’s death. For this he was shooting me for many times asking only one question: could be yeti a reason of the death? But I couldn’t agree and rejected that…

Yeti image from Discovery.

Credit: Discovery Channel

The central showpiece of the program is a black and white still photograph showing a dark, unidentified figure standing in the trees. It is introduced with stark onscreen text: “The following image is one of the last photos taken by the hikers. It is being shown on television for the first time.” This picture is presented as evidence that a Yeti was stalking the doomed party through the woods—their inhuman killer caught on film. What are we to make of this “extraordinary photographic evidence”?

To begin with, it doesn’t look much like a Yeti. With its short, rather thin arms, it looks a lot like a person in a coat. Its very lameness as Yeti evidence may be the best sign of its possible authenticity—authenticity as a photograph taken during the expedition, that is. (Probably a photograph of a member of the party.)

But the faked footage and invented on-air “scientists” of previous Discovery / Animal Planet hoax “documentaries” leave us little choice but to consider other, more cynical possibilities when viewing programs of this type on Discovery’s networks. Could the photo have been created for the production? How much of this “documentary” was simply made up from whole cloth? Libecki appears to be an actual person, at least—unlike “Dr. Paul Robertson” of Mermaids: The Body Found and Mermaids: The New Evidence, who was a fictional character played by Canadian game designer Dave Evans. (For more, see my 2013 Junior Skeptic story on mermaids inside Skeptic Vol. 18, No. 3.)

“No doubt it’s one hundred percent real,” Libecki says of the haunting photograph, explaining that it was included within the original, uncut negatives. Yet such is Discovery’s tattered credibility on such topics that we can’t take even the simplest facts for granted.

The rough cut I saw ends with the disclaimer, “This program contains elements of dramatization.” Yes—but how many? Reading this and thinking of Mermaids: The Body Found’s vague, blink-and-you’ll-miss-it disclaimer that “certain events in this film are fictional,” I can only reflect on the damage Discovery’s phenomenally successful hoaxes have done to their once trusted nonfiction brand—at least for me. At this point, Discovery could announce that they’d made a sandwich during Monster Week and I’d wonder if that were true.

Fool me thrice, shame on you. Fool me four times….

Note to Commenters: I invite and encourage civil discussion, scholarly debate, and open exchanges of ideas on this thread. At the same time, I expect all commenters to keep these useful principles firmly in mind. As on my other posts, I will delete posts that seem to me to be abusive. It’s not that kind of blog.

Like Daniel Loxton’s work? Read more in the pages of Skeptic magazine. Subscribe today in print or digitally!

88 Responses to “The Profound Awfulness of Discovery’s Russian Yeti: The Killer Lives”

  1. Shannon says:

    I agree. I previously watched the Discovery Channel show about the Megladon shark and it stated “What you are about to see was actual footage filmed on such and such date..viewer discretion advised” …only to see such effects so fake my kindergartner could have done better. Do they really think they are fooling people?! As for the Russian group, I truly belive these poor people got caught up in an avalanche and the woman actually bit her own tongue off as she was being thrown about amidst it. Others gad limbs ripped off against brush and trees. Until there is one shred of evidence of anything remotely like a hairy man-like thing out there I will always be a realist…not even a skeptic…A realist. Imagine how many of those “things” have died over the years and not ONE skeleton? Not ONE hair?! We even know about dinosaurs people, and they’ve been dead for millions of years! C’mon man!

  2. Collin Iams says:

    I’ve got to agree with you on this. I wouldn’t call myself a skeptic per se, but my background (United States Marine Corps Military Police, deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan) precludes me from just taking “evidence” at face value. The photo of the “yeti” in question definitely looks like a person in a coat, with mittens on. There even seemed to be a slight difference in color from the trousers to the coat itself. And as you stated, it’s damn hard to believe anything the show claims, due to the nature of Discovery’s previous shows during Monster Week. Sure, it’s good all around fun, but that’s all it is.

  3. neyney says:

    I am sick and tired of Discovery once again trying to b s us with yet another Megolodon or Mermaid “special” passing itself off as truth. How is it that they can continue to perpetuate this kind of fraud? Who can we sue? Shame on Discovery Channel. At least when Sy Fy makes a movie Sharknado they don’t try to pass it off as truth.

  4. John Davila says:

    The discovery channel has played the boy who cried wolf in the past now I don’t know what is real with them anymore.

  5. Curtis says:

    You nailed it! Another BS Documentary. Thanks Discovery, your making your channel harder to watch with all the BS!! I guess your just banking on kids and people that just don’t know any better!! For TV rankings. The dramatization is a joke!! I do believe in Bigfoot, But cant stand watching fake crap shows like this, That just ruin the creditable and Facts about this creature. Message to Discovery (IF YOU CAN’T MAKE A REAL DOCUMENTRY, DONT PUT IT ON TV!! ITS A JOKE!!)

  6. Diane Merz says:

    I am really disgusted with the discover channel and it’s faux documentaries. They insult our intelligence. we are supposed to believe that these two , and i use the term loosely, investigators, go and sit in a cave hoping to do what exactly? Confront a creature they think had the capacity to kill nine hikers,ripping the tongue out of one, and gouging out another’s eyes? How utterly ridiculous! Add to that the “Blair Witch” level photography, and sensationalized re enactment of the hikers experiences,based on what? did they leave a journal, or note. If you were being stalked by a Yeti would you not leave a message or some form of documentation, like a in focus photo? Did anyone notice the info on the reputed 50 year old negatives of photos taken by the hikers was written in English, odd for 1959 Russia. This looks like a very transparent attempt by this network to set us up for a myriad of upcoming programming, such as Siberian Cut, and possibly a yeti hunting series….I have lost all respect for the validity,of anything on this network. So sorry i wasted two hours on such garbage!!

  7. Blah says:

    Not a bad critique, but not particularly good either.
    Ill admit, Discovery documentaries aren’t exactly enlightening. But neither was this.

  8. James says:

    I love the history of this incident but the show sucked. They played the same supposed yeti sound over and over until I was sick of it. The ‘ professional ‘ Hunter had never used a gun before. He was waving it around, pointing it at everyone. The dead dear they found art the end was totally fake, looking like it had been dead a few days and covered in a dusting of snow but with fresh blood next to it?! Discovery channel should add WWE wrestling to their programs. At least it would be more believable.

    • Ryan says:

      I couldnt agree more.. that “professional”hunter immediately caught my attention with his lack of overall firearm safety at times. Even if Im about to piss my pants in a scary situation or in a tense situation you immediately practice gun control/safety if youve been taught to do so. Ive been in a couple precarious situations and didnt swing my rifle or pistol around at the other individual(s) present. The dear looked fairly fake to me but I couldnt give a solid answer on that one.

      Interesting story/history indeed but poor coverage in regards to having a “legit” expedition and group of scientists. I was expecting some rediculous hootin and hollerin to bust out from Bobo or Bilbo, whatever the hell that guys nickname is on Finding Bigfoot.. and pop into a scene at any moment.

      Like its been said, cant trust this channel with any story like this anymore.

  9. DiscoveryorSyFy says:

    I was too curious not to watch this and yet again Discovery is appearing to be more like SyFy and has completely lost all credibility for me. I was amazed to see that the negatives from the hiking party had been stored separately in connected clear plastic sleeves for over 50 years in a locked safe! Heck I don’t recall having my photo negatives so carefully packaged in this manner before 1996. After trying to find either authentication or a fess up that the “stalking Yeti” image and only finding a few dozen links to blogs or news stories promoting this latest Fauxumentary, I say it’s fake, mixing it in with real photos from this horrible tragedy only makes Discovery look like a parasitic channel/studio who has no respect for anyone or anything but the almighty dollar.

  10. David says:

    I Completely agree with you on this. Its shameless and harmful to everyone who both wants to learn from television “documentary’s” and anyone who wants to investigate any real mystery’s. its also gone far beyond it being just Discovery, tho they may be the worst. At this point i would not believe in something like this even if hard facts were presented on the news.

  11. Dennis Z says:

    Why does the yeti sound like the Mermaid blurp…. did anyone else notice that lol

  12. Eric says:

    Another cold case monster story with very little evidence if any to stand on. Question– why didn’t they speak of maybe a pack of wolfs or could have been some military cover up. I guess the biggest question is they said nothing about the students having any weapons. I mean you telling me they went out in the total sticks–the mountain–with no guns. And if they did have some weapons why would they not have used them. To many easy questions not even talked about at all…sad.

    • Ann says:

      Wolves and other predatory animals were not discussed because of the nature and condition the bodies of the nine hikers were found in. Wolves are territorial animals so them stalking the hikers even after the first two were killed is plausible, but the extensive damage done to the bodies could not have been done by a wolf. A wolf’s teeth is designed to penetrate through skin and even bone, meaning that there would have been identions left in the bones of the recovered bodies. Remember, the bodies were found with a bashed in skull, broken ribs, and twisted spinal cords, but their was no sign of teeth or claws marks. The fact that the tongue and eyes were removed on only two of the bodies indicates that the hikers’ killer wasn’t an animal. Animals target the organs of their prey such as the heart and liver; they do not remove the eyes and tongue and leave behind a fully in tact body. Humans on the other hand have been known to do such things. This in turn indicates that the hikers’ killer could have been human and that the tongue and eyes were removed to act as a trophy or memento to the killer–or they could have been taken to emphasize that the killer held dominance over their prey even in death. There is a lot of evidence that was presented within this case and a lot of leads that we’re not investigated. Like you said, the hikers would not have ventured out into the wilderness without a weapon of some sort. Being that they were heading to a mountain, they would have had to have mountain gear (harnesses, a pick axe, clips, etc…). As to why the hikers did not use their weapons…that is also something left for debate. In cases where a person is ruled by fear, it is highly likely that available weapons were abandoned in favor of simply fleeing. The human brain revolves around a fight or flight mode and no matter how many weapons you have, if you are in flight mode, you are going to run before thinking about the consequences of doing so. They are many questions that this case stimulates and unfortunately their answers are elusive. However, the evidence does not lie; the hikers were killed by something that was no wolf, tiger, or bear. They were killed by something else entirely. Perhaps the Russian military soldiers distorted the evidence of the crime scene when they arrived or perhaps the eye witnesses themselves were forced into giving fabricated information regarding the case, but either it way it does not change the brutality exhibited in the deaths of the nine hikers.

      • Dantes says:

        Actually the fact that the eyes and tongue….even lips too, were missing point more directly towards animals. Carrion birds go mainly for those parts in colder weather due to softness and ease of access. As well, why would you need weapons when what’s killing you isn’t even living. Being a category III zone gives the possibility of avalanches and nasty falls. The damages to the bodies coincide with just that. I find the avalanche and why not to run in the dark on a mountain to be the most fitting theory. The military’s seedy involvement can be readily explained too, when you’re dumping nuclear waste in the hills you’d probably want to be there when people start poking around. Even the placement of the bodies would suggest that some of them fell and others were buried by snow (deeply) in a dry season. You’re sitting in a tent, a wall of snow comes crushing down on you. You’re now buried in your tent and have to cut your way out. You help the others out, some of which are critically injured at this point, you get the fudge out of there before it happens again. You head to the woods(the only source of cover). It does happen again. The critically injured are now dead, whats left of the group is now scattered, injured and in various states of over exposure to wicked coldness. They are now fumbling through the dark, your fumbling through the dark and you can’t call for help. Some fall, some freeze, some are done by their injuries. Birds come along and pick at those exposed and eat the softer tissues of the face while the dry cold climate does it’s best to mummify the remains.
        No where in the hackumentary is there any reference to that, or really anything that ever mentions this incident. But what can you expect from a knowledgeable channel that capitalizes on naked people with dysentery. I’m disappointed in you Discovery.

      • ragged-gothic says:

        As Dante points out, but as this “documentary” wilfully obscures, the body missing the tongue was significantly damaged when discovered, due to decomposition and, almost certainly, scavenging. The bodies of the Dyatlov expedition were not all found in the immediate search; in fact, three were not discovered for months after, allowing considerable time for degradation by natural processes. As to whether the expedition had guns, I’m afraid that you are reading your American values onto another culture and another time. In most places in the world people would not necessarily take guns on such an outing unless they predicted a serious chance of encountering dangerous animals. Even then, they might not have legal access to firearms. Remember this was the Soviet Union under Khrushchev, only three years after the “secret speech” and only six years after the death of Stalin. I stand to be corrected, of course, but I expect that legal access to firearms for regular Soviet citizens at that time was virtually nil. From my reading of the event in several sources, it appears that only three bodies showed significant perimortem trauma, so the notion that the tent was struck directly by an avalanche is rather unlikely. The three injured hikers may have been struck by a subsequent slide or perhaps tumbled roughly over an escarpment or crevice after they abandoned the tent in the darkness. As to their state of undress, it has been noted in more than one source that the process of hypothermia can induce the sensation in the brain that the body is overheating, while it is, in fact, experiencing the opposite. If the expedition was suffering from hypothermia, this could explain the undress state of some of the bodies. It is not the only explanation, but I thought I should note it here. As to the Discovery Channel, while it once had some interesting and high quality programming, it has long since devolved into abysmal “reality” programming, tabloid t.v., and outright hoaxes. Like the networks that appeared around the same time and followed a similar downward trajectory — Arts & Entertainment and The Learning Channel — it has long since jumped the megalodon.

  13. Priscilla says:

    You took the words right out of my mouth Mr. Loxton!

  14. DigiShaman says:

    I found this so-called documentary unwatchable for another reason – the producers did a ridiculous job on the audio. It was vastly over-produced with far too many obnoxious sound effects. And even worse, the audio levels of the music and sound effects tracks were entirely too high, and the vocal tracks were entirely too low (at least 50% of the time) – meaning that much of the vocal audio was inaudible or barely coherent. Sometimes less is more. Discovery is going down hill. I’m turning the station to the Science Channel.

  15. Jason says:

    I can’t agree more. Discovery channel used to be dedicated to facts, science and nature. Now it’s a joke and a half with “reality” shows and morons running away from fake monsters.

  16. Petah says:

    That was pure aweful-ness. It’s insulting to the viewer for Discovery to do something like this. Pass this joke as something real.

  17. Hunter bachelor of biology says:

    As a biologist the “evidence” provided by the mermaid on the DC had me believing the story but after the release of it’s actually tv category was revealed as a mockumentary so I lost all respect for the discovery channel. In the science community it is referred to as the “clueless” channel if such an animal did exist there would me more evidence other than crappy quity pictures/ videos such as trail cams, trapping and at least 1 hit by a car….. Plus this “documentary” seems to follow the mermaid theme. It’s not impossible but very rare and if they found hair and poop why didn’t they take those as samples DNA/genetics could solve this pretty quick. I mean there is so little proof and people do these hoaxes all the time for example crop circles . So u tell me believes so much “evidence” but no REAL scientific proof ….

    • John says:

      While waiting in the cave, I was expecting trail cams at the entrance and video. Also, since none of the camera crew stayed in the cave I was expecting both of them to have a weapon. Some sort of defense if a yeti or anything else made it way to them in the cave. I don’t recall them even mentioning they had the ability to protect themselves. My two bits.

  18. Hunter bachelor of biology says:

    Literally they are saying and using the same theme “evidence” as the mermaid …..

  19. Ted says:

    The 20 something’s staying overnight with no weapon and going after a midnight sound inside a Dark Cave seems odd since the point was a Yeti Killed and crushed 9 People.

    Guess the Yeti was having an off night…

    • Kilgore Trout says:

      I was willing to suspend my disbelief until they got to the “sleepover in the haunted house” scene. Obviously there was no danger. And so they found two yeti nests and made no search for hair? feces? Incredibly poor detective work.

  20. Christopher says:

    You so called “skeptics” are not science based skeptics at all, you are practicing “Pseudo-Skepticism”.

    Truzzi wrote,

    In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new “fact”. Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of “conventional science” as usual. But if a critic asserts there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear the burden of proof…evidence. Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like those found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom attainable. We can only do our best to approximate them.

    The Show was about an actual tragic true event. The show did not produce enough evidence to prove any claim it attempted to make. All the comparisons to mermaids, Megalodon, or other so called monsters are unnecessary…”Russian Yeti: The Killer Lives” proved nothing.

    Skeptics can save a ton of time, arguments, and hard feelings, by strictly going by science, evidence, and the burden of proof. What difference does any claim make, if it cannot be proved?

    Use science you Pseudo-Skeptics, it is all that matters. These shows are about entertainment, if you do not find entertainment, then maybe you are wasting your time watching, and our time reading your uneducated opinions.

    • markx says:

      What are you saying here, Christopher?

      That we are not allowed to note that a Yeti seems to be an unlikely culprit, especially noting the absolute lack of any proof whatsoever?

      That for some reason, discarding that explanation is regarded as pseudo-skepticism? So must we also accept the flying saucer theory as plausible?

      I’m pretty sure one can have an opinion on the plausibility of an explanation and still be regarded as skeptical.

      I think too many people tend to overthink the word “skeptical”.

    • Galloway says:

      “In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier the burden of proof demanded.”

      The claim is that yeti exists, and a yeti sample was responsible for this event. The claim was not supported by reliable, valid evidence, but rather by the same trickery and production techniques as other Discovery Channel mockumentaries.

      It is not “pseudo skepticism”, as you claim, to draw parallels between this entertainment production and similar productions on the same channel, and in recent years. In fact, it’s important to the thesis that this show was of the same order of hoax.

  21. dawa says:

    I notice that the “Yeti” sound EXACTLY like the little T-REX on the “jurassic Park II, the Lost World” movie !

  22. Dane says:

    Very interesting show but I thought it was strange that in the menu screen it showed up as magenta instead of blue which magenta means movie but what I was watching was a documentary, who the hell knows what happened but I like the idea that it was a yeti

  23. Marcus says:

    Watched it for about 20 minutes then switched off and read a book. Absolute dross but par for the course for the Discovery Channel these days.

  24. Patch says:

    Really? A gaiter on the ground is the only evidence they have of a “military presence”? Hikers and cross-country skiers around the world have worn military gaiters for generations. The reason: they work! I still wear them… even though they’re the more modern, civilian Gortex variety.

    • Nothinglikethesun says:

      The whole gaiter thing was hilarious. Holding it up like it was a loaded gun, whispering that these are only available to Russian military (or Sears for the past 90 years).

  25. FranJan says:

    What a waste of time, but I am still curious though as to what cause the final demise of the hikers. They died pretty horrific deaths. Discovery Channel has lost credibility on their bullarky documentaries.

  26. william says:

    Glad to see when i woke up this morning after watching this “stupid @$$ mockumentary” that i wasnt the only one who hates discovery channel now! These shows are getting carried away. Dont lie to us and tell us its real! I hate Discovery Channel, they brought this on themselves. I had to beg an plead with my sister that the mermaid doc.was a hoax!

  27. Bosco says:

    Wait, what? You mean this stuff isn’t real? I’m shocked! shocked!

  28. tmac57 says:

    The Discovery channel is now (and has been for a while) a
    ‘dead parrot’.

    Does anyone else think the photo above looks like a model or action figure posed to look bigger than it is?

  29. tony says:

    I loved the show all u guys saying its fake but i bet you watch the whole show

    • markx says:

      You thought it was real, Tony?

      *whisper* (Lemme tell ya about this bridge I got for sale).

  30. Mr_Blonde817 says:

    As much as this critique slams the Discovery Channel, it offers no real rebuttal to most of it’s claims besides the obvious over dramatization. I wouldn’t say the possibility of them being attacked by somebody or something should be completely ruled out. I doubt the avalanche theory would really hold up if this case was investigated more thoroughly. I mean it obviously wasn’t that bad if the tent was visible almost a month after they likely died. And why did they make little slits to look down into the forest and not to the top of the mountain and why was everyone barefoot, why did they all have to get out so fast and scatter in all directions? Look, i’m not saying that most of that program couldn’t of been classic Discovery Channel Mermaid BS, but if you do your own research into the incident the official story doesn’t exactly hold up.

  31. Crissy says:

    I read the recent dead mtn book and read up on this story on other sites. Not once has anyone ever mentioned this specific photo. How did the discovery channel get it? Or why wasnt the photo used as “evidence” when others suggested a yeti as the cause of the deaths? I suspect it was faked or doctored.

    • stan says:

      yeah it looks like they hired rick dyer and this is the “documentary” he came up with, no more t.v. for me

  32. Peter Von Berg says:

    Well yes, the photograph is definitely of a human with thin arms and legs and wearing what looks like a ski mask.On the other hand, avalanches don’t tear out your eyes and tongue.A serial killer ? But that’s ridiculous – serial killers don’t live alone on uninhabitable snow- covered mountains, they operate in the midst of society.Bears and wolves don’t do this . Everyone’s having fun tearing down the Yeti version, and the horror -film phony theatrics of the presentation. OK, fine, good. But so then what do we have here ?

  33. Jamie says:

    You had me until you poo pooed vampires. Vampires are behind everything bad, especially the Chicago Cubs. Remember there were no night games for decades. Free reign for vampires! Actually a very well written piece. It’s sad to see channels such as Discovery throw everything out the window strictly trying to rake in dough through ratings. It has piqued my interest and I will search out reputable information on what was found and possible explanations. Explanations using the facts not exploitation.

  34. 2thuggedout says:

    before you skeptics call this one a fake I just so happen to have caught a real russian yeti on tape…

  35. Beth says:

    Apparently Jason Voorheis lives in the Russian mountains.

  36. Michael says:

    I’m not a skeptic, I consider myself open minded. Maybe there’s something out there, probably not, but maybe. I enjoy these types of shows and was looking forward to watching this. I had plenty of problems with this one, most have already been addressed here…but the idea that these hikers would have undressed in 20 below weather, knowing they were being pursued by a monster is beyond ridiculous. Libecki was awful reading his lines too, jeez
    Like I said, I like these types of shows, I watch alot of them…I’m used to them ending with no real evidence, but they usually have a sense of passion for the unknown…I don’t think anybody connected to this production believed in it.

  37. Bill says:

    I am by no means a skeptic on the matter but I also am not a blithering idiot. This entire documentary I found odd.

    Starting with the two members of the search party giving their interview and the footprints. What is strange about this is they didn’t put it into the report, as a matter of fact no one even mentioned it at all. So we are left with a “fact” that can not be corroborated by others in the party, who are all dead, or by looking at the records from 1959. Odd indeed. What is even stranger is how, in the Ural mountains in winter, were a set of tracks preserved for over 2 weeks? It has been shown time and time again that footprints tracks in snow found days or weeks after they were made can become deformed and are thus unreliable. Not to mention the tracks were not found near the bodies. I would think if the beast did this it would have left tracks all around the bodies as well, wouldn’t it? After all it was an extremely violent encounter.

    Then we come to the condition of the bodies, I apologize in advance for being graphic. What about the one person’s tounge and eyes attracted the bigfoot? Why not the other eight hikers? Why and how did a creature murder these hikers in the fashion it did without leaving visible wounds on the skin? Why were the hikers found to be radioactive and why was this fact left out of the documentary? Then the photo presented of a figure in the distance, this is suppose to be bigfoot? Looks more like a member of the hiking party.

    We are left with a documentary based on flawed unverifiable testimony, wild speculation, questionable photos and facts found at the site left out of the documentary to support a conclusion that seems to have been predetermined. That all leads to good TV but a gross mischaracterisation of the facts, and is an embarrassment for the Discovery channel.

  38. Todd says:

    My favorite part is when the Russian lady who was BFF’s with the poor girl who got her tongue ripped out by the Yeti is speaking to them thru a translator, then forgets her stage directions and begins speaking in clear English.

    • Dan Schafer says:

      Todd – I suspect this elderly Russian lady had studied English but did not speak it well. She answered some questions in English out of politeness to the American investigator but delivered more comlpex thoughts in her native language. There’s really nothing unusual about that.

  39. Eric says:

    I tend to not believe anything I read and only half of what I see. I don’t believe in mermaids or Bigfoot. I watched both of these shows expecting to be entertained and not informed. My issue with this is the exploitation of those that died horrible and tragic deaths. They deserve better than that, someone with a forensic background should investigate this and not an outdoor enthusiast/adventurer.

  40. Perry says:

    I believe in bigfoot,Yeti could be all around the world. But I don’t believe in the Discovery channel anymore. If I want to see phony stuff I would watch the SYFY channel.

  41. Jacob Bohm says:

    Why don’t you do some reporting on the people and companies who produce this nonsense, instead of just watching television?

    I feel like your approach allows this to remain a cryptozoology story, rather than letting it be about about individuals cynically milking the dying corpse of a once-respected nonfiction brand.

    Someone is happily destroying the Discovery Channel for fun and profit. Isn’t that the story?

    • stan says:

      “Someone is happily destroying the Discovery Channel for fun and profit. Isn’t that the story?”


  42. markx says:

    Eyes and tongue?

    Sounds to me like the work of crows. They do that to dead cattle and sheep, I’m not sure they would treat a human any different.

  43. Dave T. says:

    This program was absurd in the extreme. The clown that said we were uneducated because we were critical without the benefit of science is an idiot. where was the scientific process in the investigator’s work? There was none, because it was all a mockumentary. One blurry 1959 photo of what looked like a guy in a parka is the best they have? Never heard of trail cams? maybe a dozen in the yeti home cave? this was as crass and fake as it gets. “Discovery” Channel should be ashamed of themselves. They should change their name to “Deception” channel.

    • stan says:

      I agree completely, I’m not watching discovery anymore, I’m done with it all actually, it’s all mtv now, it’s disgusting and immoral, insulting to anyone with a brain, right up there with animal planet mermaids, history channels ax men, and tlc’s toddlers in tiaras

  44. St Kos says:

    I would advise anyone interested in the Dyatlov Pass Incident to go to this page:

    There are four pages of great, factual information on this mystery. Very well documented and put together.

  45. Teresa Boswell says:

    i’m done with the discovery channel. the b.s. they have been putting on tv tells me that they would rather make stuff than do any real investigative work. this is as bad if not worse than that bigfoot crap with the 4 clowns talking with a bunch of town nit wits and then going to woods making stupid noises and getting responses back saying thats definitely a bigfoot. who says do they know bigfoot is he there friend does live close by or is it the big clown who kinda looks like he could be bigfoot. stop showing us crap and bring something we can enjoy for change.

  46. spaceycasey says:

    Why was the writing on the negatives in english? Wow, discovery…

  47. spaceycasey says:

    Oh yes and what about the eyewitness accounts of a bright red ball of light over the mountain as well as the other major traumas (they focused just on a tongue missing) found on the bodies of the victums?

  48. dave says:

    very interesting show. i believe in no other monsters or creatures besides bigfoots. i agree that though all of these years there should be clear video or hd trailcams witnessing this creature. however there is hair evidence of this creature thousands of sightings from people worldwide, and footprints as too. the hair has been tested and is classified as unknown primate,the dna is nothing seen before, most governments have Bigfoots listed as an actual creatures.I wouldn’t be surprised if governments worldwide actually monitor these creatures and remove their bodies once they pass to keep away from the public. I actually live in Atlanta and I have heard the same strange screeching yell when I was young playing paintball in the woods. All humans have the sense of if something is watching them and Ive had that feeling many times when in the woods but only during certain times when tree branches crackle, leaves rustle, and pine cones dropping out of trees. The Gov hides a lot of information from its people but def they know and they are def involved with these creatures. I do think these monster shows are bs though.

  49. ReverandB says:

    Just a thought. Far fetched, I grant you, but going with the missile and military cover-up theory. Could it have been remotely possible, that going with the purported cruelty of the Communist regime, that the one girl MIGHT have survived, and was given her life, but had her eyes gouged out, and tongue removed as a deterrent to her testimony, if she was rescued before she died from exposure? Not likely, but I think more plausible than the show itself.

  50. Yvonne says:

    Discovery doesn’t live up to their name anymore. They need to change it to Hoaxcovery. Don’t respect it anymore

  51. Robert says:

    I’m sick and tired of this crap. If they’re going to waste my time with phony shows at least state up front it’s a completely fake show that’s trying to deceive the viewer. One thing you used to be able to count on was that a “reality” show was real. With the dawn of the scripted Kardashians, Housewives*, American Chopper, etc., and the very suspicious editing in other shows such as Axe Men, Swamp Men, and Pawn Stars, you couldn’t count on that anymore, but at least you could count on regular Discovery, TLC, and ESPECIALLY “History” channel specials to be mostly factual and reliable. Now you can’t count on anything my friends, all is lost, head for the hills. This was one of the last outposts of normalcy in our society and now it’s been exploited by the idiots of today’s TV world. These are the same idiots that think it’s a good idea to take what would probably be more entertaining reality shows without their “magic touch” of fake lines. This has ruined many shows for me, shows that I really want to see REALITY. There is no more reality in TV folks, no more educational content you can count on without suspicion. Imagine your kid goes to a library and reads a book about how Yetis are on a global rampage and new evidence has came to light, and they tell you it’s a fact, the book was in the non-fiction section.

  52. Brian says:

    I went into this knowing right away it was phony, just like I went into Mermaids, Meglodon and Killer Lampreys knowing they were bunk. It’s crap entertainment and I love it. I don’t believe in monsters, aliens or anything else but I’ll be damned if I don’t love watching them. Why both picking this crap apart? I’m not smarter than anybody else, that’s for sure, but as a horror fan I see the phrase “BASED ON A TRUE STORY” all the damn time. No need to go on diatribes every time one says it and I know it isn’t. It’s sensationalism and entertainment, nothing more or less.

    Insist there should be a real effort to state beforehand that these kinds of mockumentaries are fictional and move on. TV owes us nothing, even with names like Discovery, The Learning Channel or History. That’s all cable shows these days, lies, faction and fantasy.

  53. Gonzo Shitcock says:

    I have seen reputable documentaries before where they actually talk about the facts and not rampant asinine speculation. Discovery never mentions that some of the bodies and there effects had high levels of radiation. The fact that military files are still sealed is true, as well as the missile testing information. There are also some reports of shrapnel found at the sight. The sight is also, a know testing area at the time and is relatively near a cosmodrome. I imagine the military did something fucked up that they do not want the public to now about whether that be by accident or deliberately. This is the USSR days, I don’t think they we’re know for their human rights accomplishments. Hell, in the US our military branches have done fucked up shit to our people (still do, see unwarranted data collection by NSA) they gave un aware men syphilis, Tuskegee experiments, MK Ultra mind control, there’s plenty more messed up shit I can’t recall them all at the moment. So I would definitely not put it past the Soviets to be covering something up.

  54. Michael says:

    It might as well been titled the Blair Yeti project. Just as phony and the same poor cinematography.

  55. Michael says:

    Hey, it’s time for “Not Finding Bigfoot”. Thank you Discovery Channel!

  56. akfreespirit says:

    Thanks again Discovery for yet another horribly disappointing documentary. Amazing how you can take an interesting story, turn it upside down, inject made up information and call if a show. And by the way, I live in Alaska – I am tired and ashamed of every single show Discovery has ever made depicting Alaska and the people that live here. Please stop making a mockery of our state.

  57. Dave van s. says:

    This show is just plain dreadful! It’s almost over and I write this whilst it’s playing in the background. If the content isn’t bad enough the production work is!

    The stupid pan and zoom shots, the dumb blurry cut aways with quick profile shots of the two hosts. It’s just plain awful. Shame on the Discovery channel and double shame on the production team!!!!

  58. Bev Taylor says:

    I agree completely with you. I haven’t read all the comments and do not know if this was mentioned but why did the negatives for the “last picture” have English writing on the envelope that they were stored in? I thought this all happened in Russia.

  59. David Carruthers says:

    Look people who like to try and suck the fun out things in life. This Mocumentary was created as entertainment. It was made for those who know that this is not real, at least in the sense that is was a movie and not a real documentary piece. We live in a world now were ratings are more important that actual content and quality of programming. That is what Discovery and Animal Planet, and all those other stations are doing now. Heck look at TLC, they were once The Learning Channel. Now they show some of the worst crap on TV. But that is how it goes.

    Now as far as people not liking the Discovery mocumentary stuff. Hey thats fine, dont like it. I, as a fan could care less what you like. But I do enjoy these for what they are. Mermaids entertained me, and I loved Megaladon. This one was not too bad itself. I just wish you people would stop trying to ruin the fun of those out there do like this stuff. If your not a fan of this style of entertainment I have a wonderful idea… turn the channel.

    As for the writer of this little article I have a question that maybe you can answer. Why do so many of you critics look down your nose at every little thing? I mean I see with books, music, and film. You have these standards that are so high that only foreign films, classic books, and hard core science documentaries seem to live up to. Then when something comes along that does not meet your standards, you jump on it like a fat kid after a piece of cake (dont worry I can say that since I am fat). Then you throw your opinion out there like its the word of some high and mighty god.

    Eh, but thats just how I see it.

  60. agrilz says:

    I think I was most disappointed when I found the whole thing had been debunked years ago…and written up in a article.

  61. John P. says:

    Yeah, this one may have some real events at the base of it, but the ‘truth booth’ bs and reinactments of finding ‘evidence,’ make me think that lubeki isn’t even a real person. The journalist is obviously just as bad as the ‘scientists’ on the mermaid why should anyone think that he’s real? Everyone on this is an actor except for the exploited folks in the Russian countryside.

  62. Mia says:

    I watched this program, and didn’t know what to think because it combined verifiable facts of a real event with some of the hokiest narration I’ve ever seen. Yes, it immediately called to mind that horrible mermaid mockumentary. I wasn’t even sure if the elderly Russians they were interviewing weren’t just actors. I do take exception here, though, with the author’s assertion that what’s in the photo “doesn’t look like a yeti.” Well, how the heck would you know what a real Russian yeti looks like in the first place? All I’ll say about the photo is that, while it could definitely just be a hiker in a hooded coat, the right arm appears very oddly jointed and proportioned, and also looks much too slender for even a female adult if it’s in a coat. This is by no means evidence, but it is interesting. That’s assuming it’s not completely concocted, which it very well may be. But as I was watching the program I had to wonder if it had that ‘horror movie’ air to it precisely because it wasn’t meant to be taken very seriously in the first place.

  63. Sue Ellen says:

    They said there were cuts/slashes in the tents but were cut
    from the inside of the tents. Someone wanted to make it look
    like critter slashes but did it on the wrong side of the tents.
    That being so, most likely they were killed by humans who tried
    to make it look like a yeti.
    That theory being true, the hikers stumbled across something
    they shouldn’t have. Poachers? Military? Aliens?
    Yes, yes and no .

  64. maggie bailey says:

    I agree with all of u guys this is a joke i guess the.gave up on Bigfoot. Here in America so they decided to try in Russia. Also has anyone ever noticed how every picture. Is blurry with this, and bigfoot never a clear picture alway out of focus just something. To think about shame on discovery channel i like some shows on that channel bt not many

  65. naneki says:

    What a show to pass the time away. Take look at the suppose yeti…. why is the entire body not even in color. It appear to go from black, to gray, black leggings, and then from the ankles that looks like thick socks with the pant leg tucked in. I was unaware that this so called yeti wore symbols located on the upper left side. A closer look at the face only made it appear that it was a full face mask. The arms are slim instead of thick muscular hairy arms. Are the looking for a creature like a yeti or a serial killer yet to be caught- Andrei Chekitilo rising from the dead?

  66. ArchaeologyMan says:

    There is some serious misgivings about the way certain things are presented on television for the sake of entertainment. First off Northern Siberia is known for massive amounts of snowfall every year but very few avalanches occurred that year in that specific region. The first body was found near a river, there would be a definite presence of avalanches in river basins. Avalanches don’t bury bodies only 7-10 inches deep in the snow. Most avalanche victims are never found; let alone found in the first couple of days of the avalanche. It is possible to have 7-10 inches of snowfall over night and even more so over a couple of days. Especially in a arctic tundra that is Siberia. In response to the tongue evidence if the tongue was “bitten off” by the victim herself during an avalanche that evidence does not support occurred. The tent was found mostly upright with only relatively small amounts of snow on top which is definitely not the amount an avalanche would produce. The last of the bodies were found at a maximum distance of a 1/3 of a mile away from the tent. If an avalanches had killed them then they would have been swept away up to 1 mile away and the bodies would not have been found in prone positions as they were found. They were laying in relatively straight lines only a few inches deep in the snow. If they were swept away in a avalanche then there would be no foot prints to find them, even animal or “yeti” footprints. The injuries are also inconsistent with victims of avalanches. There are a surprisingly lack of broken bones, pulmonary edema, cerebral hemorrhaging etc… All of these could have been detected as a cause of death 1959. None of these except for maybe a broken bone or two were even mentioned in the autopsy reports. The post-examiner did mention that there was a couple of broken bones from various victims but none that would be considered deadly by themselves. except for the Fractured skulls of two victims and a couple of broken ribs. The fractured skulls were probably the immediate cause of death for two victims but the broken ribs may or may not have lead to those particular victims. They did however have wounds on their bodies inconsistent with an avalanche but more consistent with that of an animal attack that really quickly. Which animal attacked them I do not know. I would like to say that it was a Yeti but I do not have sufficient evidence to support that. Television does things that I do not like for the sake of dramatization. Discovery Channel was not the one to originally broadcast the Mermaids show, that was Animal Planet. That show was broadcast-ed on a channel before it was subsumed by Discovery Networks then rebroadcast-ed onto other networks in the corporation that have similar subject matter. Don’t blame Discovery solely for what some corporate executives decided to put on a given station. Back to the injuries sustained by the victims Vultures and Condors do not exist in Siberia, there are very few opportunistic scavengers that live in that area that would only eat the tongue and the eyes and not try to eat more of them before they were buried by the snowfall. The tongue was ripped out according to the coroner’s report because there was very little remaining soft pallet tissues left in the mouth period. Suggesting that it was ripped out. If she had only bit it off during a “supposed” avalanche there would be some left in her mouth as humans can only project their tongue out so far to where they could create enough outside bite pressure to bite through all that tissue. The amount left would have been enough for someone to know she had bitten it off as there would be bite marks which none were found. As for the nose injuries that could have been created by frostbite as the bodies froze, it also could have been created by whatever animal might have attacked them. The Tissue of the nose tip is only cartilage and is very susceptible to frostbite. The photos however suggest that they were bitten off or torn off as the injuries to the nose were different from victim to victim. Let’s address the victims defensive wounds on their palms of their hands and legs. The injuries on their legs are consistent with some victims apparently trying to climb the trees. Some of the victims were found at the base of trees in a fallen position as if they fell out of the try or were pulled out of the tree by something. There were broken branches upwards of 8 to 12 feet up the tree. This is either caused by the victims attempts to climb the tree to get away from whatever they were afraid of or possibly the animal that attacked them broke the branches to get to them. The injuries on the palms of their hands suggests that their palms were facing outward from their face as if they were protecting their faces/bodies from attack. This also could explain the damage to the soft tissue of the nose. Last time I checked most people caught in avalanches don’t try to climb trees to get away from it as they run uphill towards the tree line on the south face of the slope. It took over two months to find the victims when they did find them some were buried up four meters deep and others only a few inches into the ground, but enough to be buried. When they found them their clothes were stripped off of a couple of the bodies that suggested that they were ripped off or taken off. Some of the bodies that were found further away had parts of others peoples clothes on their bodies. Zolotaryov was wearing Dubinina’s faux fur coat and hat, while Dubinina’s foot was wrapped in a piece of Krivonishenko’s wool pants. These four were better dressed than the others, and there were signs that those who had died first had apparently relinquished their clothes to the others. This could suggest that the “Yeti attacked them enmasse but since they scattered the “Yeti” could not catch them all. The others might have returned back to the campsite to see if there were survivors found that only a few had survived the onslaught and then surrendered their clothes to the others that were probably injured from the attack but still able to get away but then died of exposure later. Of course I have to admit that i am piecing together as much data as I can find and I do not wish to spend any more time on it today to do it but I am sure that if the original records could be published to the public, we as a group could shed more light on this then just being too overly skeptic about it because some people refuse to believe what is right in front of them. As for the pictures in the film, it could be said that Lubecki was confirming that the photo was “100% real” in the context that they had the original negatives to the photo. Not 100% real as to what the picture was of. I don’t know if you guys/gals are aware of a little facet in cameras but in 1959 the analog SLR cameras were pretty compact even in 1959 where someone with enough money could afford it. They lacked auto-focus hence the blurry photos with lack of resolution you HD nuts are so sold on, given our current technological level. It is a black and white photo done at range without the assistance of auto-focus and digital cleanup software to refine resolution to 100% clarity. I do not see how some of the other commentators can say that they see color variation other than shades of gray in between the spectrum’s of black and white. As for the shades of color variation could be from the snow that is being kicked up by the wind, it walking in the snow, it hiding behind the tree and rubbing up against the tree that may have had snow on it. We have found bones if you follow the theory that Bigfoot/Yeti could be a distant relative of Gigantopithecus whom skulls we have recovered many of them. It has only been at least 100k years since scientists have considered them extinct. That means that the youngest skull found was carbon dated to only 100k years ago. Well into the period of very early and early periods of Homo sapiens, that puts them going extinct around the time of early man. The same is also believed with the Neanderthals and Homo floresensis. Both of these sub-species of early human co-existed with early man. Has anyone considered the reason we do not find modern bones of them is that they might bury their dead or eat the remains? Has enough time for Gigantopithecus to evolve from just a mere large ape to something more like a human with lesser intelligence if you consider what it means to be intelligent. Most consider our ability to recognize patterns as a superior form of intellect that separates man from beast. But the definition could be much broader. To be a good scientist you have to be open to the possibility that something previously unknown could very well exist. There are many places on this Earth that very few humans have ever been to, let alone explored them to there fullest. Most maps that you see out there are created by GPS mapping satellites that do this automatically and give the impression that humans had to have been there to obtain that kind of detail, which is simply untrue. People who sit at home making armchair decisions with out doing any real research should not be counted as a valid opinion. Back to the evidence; I know people automatically assume that Wikipedia is a terrible place to do research as it can be altered by anybody. But it can be used as a jumping off point in which you can source information by checking people’s “so-called” sources for validity. I have checked many of the associated links attached to and followed them up to check the credentials of the people who wrote them. It would be wise to cross reference your assumptions with that of actual sources to avoid appearing as an un-researched bias commentator. The idea that there might have been nuclear missile tests with small nuclear test loads could explain the high levels of radiation on the clothes of a few of the victims. Which is probably why the Russian government is trying to keep it quiet as it nuked its own people to test a nuke for the Cold-War conflict that lead to a nuclear stand-off between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. This test could have scared them into running out of the tent into the freezing night. But why would experienced mountaineers run from their tent in the dead of night because they heard an explosion. Why would they cut holes into their tent from the inside to look outward? They knew that this was their only means of survival till morning yet they run away from it. The Mansi people were the first suspects because of records of them attacking outsiders that entered their lands. But the autopsy records state that the injuries were too severe to be caused by other humans. There are many other possibilities as to how they sustained the injuries. There has also been hundreds of sightings by the Mansi people that call the “Yeti” the Menk, they don’t use modern technology very much only things they trade with from the outside are things that they cannot produce themselves and they are very selective as to whom they will deal with to get those supplies. Upon further research I found that the video clip that shows a “Menk” by the river in the same region was filmed by an Anthropologist from the University of Moscow who was there to try to study the life and culture of the Mansi. Who happened to catch the “Menk” on film while the Mansi people were showing him around their lands. They were the one’s who called out the word “Menk” in identification of it when it was spotted by the camera that the anthropologist was using to document his studies. The big question is why any one from the Mansi would want to fake the sighting as they have absolutely nothing to gain from a fake video. In fact they would prefer it if people would stay out of their lands altogether. As for all the other evidence out there, the many 1000’s of footprints gathered that have been determined to be genuine footprints of some unidentified Hominid like animal that is probably bipedal. That have all the same exact characteristics (with some variations depending on where it was found) similar to that of other partially bipedal hominids. Bear prints are round and make a very distinct print with very close toes that are very round and tightly together. “Yeti”, “Sasquatch” foot prints are very different and they can be confused with muddled human foot prints if someone other than an expert tries to make snap decisions about what the print could be. There has been hundreds of hundreds of submitted DNA samples admitted from all over the world that have no known animal profile that exists on record. The only thing that they are similar to in humans and other hominids. Some people might conclude that they are just contaminated human samples. but none of the samples that tested as unknown came back as contaminated because they have none of the humans markers that we look for in modern humans. Less than one or two common alleles, with that of humans compared to the samples recovered. The recorded audio of the “supposed Yeti/Sasquatch” etc.. caught on audio have been complied and de-complied by thousands of other people outside of Discovery channel that have confirmed that the sounds made are far too complex to be any known animal out there and are definitely not human because Human vocal cords are not equipped to make some of the sound variations recorded in suspected “Yeti/Sasquatch” yells that have been recorded. There have been hair samples that have been submitted as well in the several hundred that are definitely hair and not fur of any known animal who’s DNA profile has been recorded to date. The hair samples do match to some degree with the unknown samples of DNA gathered and submitted. Again Discovery is not to blame for the content of the “documentary” the credibility for the theory is on the Shoulders of Lubecki and his Russian Reporter Cohort. Dr. Meldrum from the University of Idaho is a well respected doctor in his field he has received many accolades in his work and his research has been above reproach. It is hard to think that he would throw his credibility away on what he believed to be a well thought out theory, just because some of you people out there don’t think the theory holds water. No one is saying that this theory is true it was put out there for people like us to evaluate. It had a little extra spin on it but other than that you can only take away from it that it is a possible theory as to why the hikers died. Also there people’s who’s oral traditions speak of sightings that date back over thousand years ago the describe it exactly as it is described today. There are many written accounts of sighting dating back just as far if not farther that have changed little since. The question here is whether or not anything can be gained from making such wild claims. T.V. is for entertainment, yes. Can it be used for learning, yes. Are TV networks losing money if you don’t watch something they put out, probably. It is an amount that they care about, probably not. Do they care what you think about their programming, probably not. All you can do is research it for yourselves and try to come to your own conclusions. Just don’t assume that they are out their to just feed you BS. Because it simply it not true in every case. Mermaids is based on a very loose pieces of evidence obviously presented in a very poor manner. But that does not dismiss that they have some very interesting pieces of evidence that can’t be easily explained. The spear points and some of the pictures are really hard to explain away with just a brush of the hand unless you can personally verify that they are fakes then you can’t prove they are fakes or that they are not fakes. It is also very naive to think that your own government can’t keep a secret from its own people it just insane line of thought. They can do whatever they want and there is pretty much nothing you can do about it if they really wanted to stop you from saying something they could. Also about the search links that have been put out there always are the top 5-10 searches are always “This is fake”, “horrible” etc… etc… Has anyone ever giving any thought that these links that come up are probably put their in that particular order because certain people want to spread a certain level of misinformation to keep us questioning the validity of anything that we see on the internet. I tend to prevail to the side that most humans want to know the true and are trying to make sense of what they can before it becomes so muddled that no one can tell truth from fiction. If there was a Governmental conspiracy to cover up the existence of the Bigfoot/Yeti/ etc… the secret itself thrives on the very basis of skepticism. SO if there is going to be any truth in this world then we need to stop calling BS on everything TV puts out there and do some actual research yourself and contribute to the greater scientific knowledge base that makes humans great. I could go on forever like this but after five pages my fingers just hurt. Thanks for letting me type this and I hope that you all take my words into consideration.

  67. Derek says:

    Hey guys regardless if it’s a fake show or not, is Jeremy Piven the narrator? Sounds just like him. Thanks ya’ll.