Welcome to the ASSAP paranormal blog! Though this blog is aimed at anyone interested in the paranormal, it will be of particular interest to the paranormal research community. Updated frequently, but not regularly (don't expect something new every day!), it covers any paranormal topic, as well as highlighting recent changes to the ASSAP website. You may not notice it but this site changes on an almost daily basis.
Previous blog pages ...
31 Dec 2007: Sinister or cuddly?
This morning I saw a flock of around two dozen crows descend on a single tree. They were highly agitated, flying around and calling loudly. I don't know what caused the excitement - maybe it was a portent for the New Year!
OK, I don't really think it was a portent but some people might, the ones who say 'hello' to Magpies. Take a look at the two photos of crows here. The top one, a close-up, belies the usual sinister, spooky image of the crow (whose collective noun is a 'murder of crows'). Here the crow looks intelligent (which it is), alert and even friendly and benign! It is, perhaps, the nearest we might get to a 'cuddly crow'! You could almost imagine someone turning the image into a soft toy.
Now look at the lower photo. Here two crows are seen in silhouette, their sharp beaks splitting the cold blue sky. Indeed, crows' colouration is so dark that they look completely black in many photos (which is why the 'cuddly' version above is a bit of a revelation). The all-black birds on the bare winter branch loom ominously over the scene, as if looking for a victim! This tends to be the negative view most people have of crows.
Crows also have rather negative folklore and superstitions associated with them. It is bad luck to meet a crow in a church yard, for instance, or (in Wales) to have one cross your path. It is even said by some that crows pay tribute to the Devil by offering up their black feathers when they moult.
The reality is that crows are neither sinister nor cuddly - they are simply crows and their negative reputation is undeserved. They occupy their niche in nature's web of habitats, doing whatever comes naturally and whatever is required to survive. In that respect, they are little different to us humans!
Some places also seem more sinister than others. It may be because they are cold, damp and dark or perhaps the scene of some awful historical atrocity. In reality, of course, the 'sinister' aspect is entirely in the mind of the witness to the scene. Another person might see the same place as charming, idyllic or just dreary.
What is true of crows is also true of other birds and animals in general. Some species appear attractive (to us), others less so. Some have habits we don't 'approve of' while others appear charming and 'harmless'. In reality, they are all simply trying to survive, like us. Their 'image' is purely within our own minds. There are no 'sinister' or even 'cuddly' crows. There are simply crows!
Happy New Year!
27 Dec 2007: The Great Orb Mystery of 2007
It is that time of year again! The time when journalists, short of news and keen to organise their New Year parties, raid the archives to recycle the year's news for 'review articles'. So what can be said about the paranormal research in 2007?
One recurring theme has been the ongoing mystery of orbs - not 'what are they', but 'why do so many people think they are paranormal'? It is a pity these things were called 'orbs' in the first place, since the name implies they are spherical, ie. three dimensional objects. In reality, orbs are circular, ie. two dimensional images. It, perhaps, goes a little way towards explaining the mystery but only a little.
To believe orbs are paranormal you need to ignore the following (among many other things):
- how easy it is to reproduce them by blowing dust in front of cameras while taking a flash photo
- that you can take pictures of perfectly sharp orbs in front of a background that is too close to be in focus
- that orbs near photo frame corners often show a characteristic vignetting or 'cat's eye effect'
- that orbs are so much more common with digital cameras than with film cameras
- that the number of orbs seen in a photo is affected by the depth of field of the camera lens
- that some cameras always produce the same odd-shaped orbs (such as a diamond shape)
Perhaps 2008 will finally see the orb widely seen for the photographic artifact that it is. Don't hold your breath!
Further reading: Frequently put objections to the natural theory of orbs
25 Dec 2007: Festive ghost stories
BBC's Radio 4 is running a series of M R James ghost stories this week for the festive season. It may have been Dickens who first popularly associated Christmas with ghosts in his Christmas Carol. Or it may go back much longer. Either way, there is no evidence that apparitions are seen any more frequently around this time of year, whatever the media might think.
M R James often used a motif for his stories where someone innocently disturbs a ghost which then takes a terrible revenge. The idea of a ghost with an agenda, usually a nasty one, continues nowadays in Hollywood and horror novels. Given this cultural backdrop, it is little wonder that when someone thinks they might have a ghost in their house, they are scared.
Though the xenonormal reality is rather different, the popular ideas of ghost rely more on 'story logic' than reality. In 'story logic' a ghost is an ex-person returning to the world of the living to complete unfinished business. It gives meaning to the haunting experience. Meaning is vital to 'story logic'. We follow stories because they appeal to our innate curiosity, sense of justice or search for meaning. By contrast, the real world runs more by an apparently cruel randomness which we find unappealing. The ongoing idea of 'ghost = spirit', as popular among many paranormal researchers as it is in the general population, is much more attractive, even if it is unsupported by much evidence.
23 Dec 2007: Ghost research going green
A few years ago there was a joke going round that you could measure how committed a ghost researcher was by the size of his (or her) torch! Some people were going round with a torch that, though hung from a belt, still dragged along the ground.
Of course, ASSAP doesn't advocate dark vigils so torches are not the all important item of equipment you might imagine. Having said that, most vigils still take place at night. Even if the lights in the haunted location are on, you may well need a torch in certain unlit areas, such as where you are unloading your car.
Now there is a change of technology going on that will make torches not only brighter but greener! The LED torch has now arrived! Because it consumes less power (despite being much brighter) than conventional torches, and lasts much longer, it is also greener. LED torches aren't cheap but think of the planet! A LED torch is much brighter than a conventional one of the same size. This means it should be possible to swap huge torches for small ones. Some people will find that a little sad!
21 Dec 2007: Are ghosts dying out?
Distinguished parapsychologist Dr Alan Gauld suggests, in an interview in the latest ASSAP News (121), that there has been a decline in the number of spontaneous cases of ghosts and poltergeists since the late 1980s. Spontaneous cases are those where phenomena appear without warning. Investigating such cases used to be the normal way that many paranormal researchers worked.
Nowadays, an 'investigation' is the commonly used name for a vigil only. Typically, a modern researcher will seek out a location which is said to be haunted and arrange a vigil there, often without interviewing witnesses. Unlike spontaneous cases, 'haunted houses' may not have any recent history of reports of paranormal activity from independent witnesses. Their reputation may rest largely on previous vigils held at the same location - vigils whose quality of vigils is hugely variable. Many of the 'phenomena' reported at later vigils may be largely the result of suggestion from reports of early 'investigations'. Ideally, investigators should know nothing of what is 'supposed to happen' at a location before they hold a vigil there. Unfortunately, with TV ghost hunting shows and vigil reports on the web, this is almost nowadays impossible.
This is why spontaneous cases are so important. With a brand new case, the effects of suggestion can be avoided. Also, recent independent witness reports can be used to establish whether something is really going on or not. It is quite possible that some supposedly haunted locations, where vigils are held, are not haunted at all. Their reputation may rest solely on a few poorly organised vigils.
Are spontaneous cases dying out? Maybe they are continuing to occur with the same frequency they always did but are simply not reaching people like Dr Gauld. With so many paranormal research groups out there, many spontaneous cases probably get no further than their local area. And with few groups publishing reports of research, cases may never reach public attention. Dr Gauld is right to be concerned about this sad state of affairs.
20 Dec 2007: Orbs ... an inconvenient truth!
There are still many people out there who think orbs are paranormal. Various alternative explanations are offered for their existence, like ghosts or spirits. One common feature of orb photos is, as far as I can see, never mentioned on websites promoting a paranormal explanation (even though they often contain photos demonstrating the effect). In some orb photos there are 'truncated orbs' around the edge of the photo frame.
The orbs are always 'truncated' on the edge away from the centre of the photo. Also, the truncation effect always occurs towards the edge of the photographic frame. If orbs were real objects, in space somewhere in front of the camera, there is no logical reason why the truncated variety should always happen to stick to the frame edges. Frames are purely associated with the camera and depend solely on which way the photographer happens to point the camera.
Such truncated orbs make perfect sense as circles of confusion affected by optical vignetting (or 'cat's eye effect') . Part of the circle of confusion is lost inside the lens of the camera. It is a feature of orbs that screams 'circle of confusion'! Perhaps that is why it is ignored by supporters of paranormal theories of orbs. They never mention the related subject of bokeh either!
Isn't this a slightly uncharitable point to be raising at the festive season, you may ask? If you'd just been stuck in a supermarket behind a queue of people buying enough food for a fortnight, for a two day holiday, you'd know the answer!
Incidentally, I should apologise to anyone trying to take insects rod photos using my instructions. I recently attempted to reproduce the result at the same location with the same equipment as those in the photo below. Unfortunately, it didn't work this time because the little blighters were flying lower than last time - maybe due to the cold! Anyway, you need to get the sun at such an angle that the insects glow from the light behind them. So you may need the insects to fly high or you'll have to get down low for your photos. Then you ought to be able to take 'flying rod' photos with a slow shutter. It will still require persistence, some experimentation and a little luck, however. Maybe a worthwhile experiment to try on a sunny day over the festive holiday when you're fed up with all that eating!
19 Dec 2007: Dreaming for Christmas
'I had a weird dream last night ... ' Is this the sort of start to a conversation that makes your heart sink? What is about to follow is an account of something that never actually happened. Nor is it likely to ever happen, given the poor predictive rate of dreams. Anyway here it is ...
I am alone in a large house at night. It is extremely quiet and I feel strangely anxious. Suddenly, there is the sound of a loud crash from another room. Shocked, the word 'poltergeist' jumps into my head from nowhere. With extreme trepidation I walk through the dark, silent house in dread to where the sound came from. The room is bathed in eerie light and there is a figure standing there! It is an old acquaintance, that I haven't seen for years, smiling apologetically. He explains that he knocked something over by accident. Oddly, I feel re-assured and decide to write up the experience, in a blog entry, as a lesson in not jumping to conclusions when it comes to paranormal phenomena. And so, here it is!
Such is the bizarre logic of dreams. Some paranormal researchers place a high importance on dreams, often keeping dream diaries. Apart from the alleged predictive power of dreams, some people think they allow various kinds of ESP as well as possible contact with discarnate entities! The evidence remains slim for such claims.
One interesting point to consider, though, is the parallel between dreams and the way psychics claim to obtain information. They sometimes say that they 'just know' things, in the same way that you 'just know' things in a dream. Whether there is any significance to this parallel is, perhaps, a field worthy of research.
19 Dec 2007: 'UFOs exist' according to Japanese official
Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura said that UFOs are 'definitely real'. This is hardly news to anomaly researchers. The important question is - what are they? And the big answer is - all sorts of things, from birds, through planes to planets. Whether any UFOs involve visits from extra-terrestrial life, the popular theory from fiction, is doubtful based on the evidence so far. If the Japanese government wants to replicate the effort of thousands of amateur researchers over decades, they are more than welcome. Let's hope they will share their results.
18 Dec 2007: The 'Giant Rat of Sumatra' finally found ...
OK, not Sumatra but the Giant Rat of New Guinea doesn't have the same resonance! That such large animals can still be discovered in the twenty-first century demonstrates the importance of cryptozoology. Having said that, the expedition that found the rat was not a cryptozoological one. Cryptozoologists tend to go looking for weirder creatures. Last month the Centre for Fortean Zoology ran an expedition to Guyana in search of Giant Anacondas (as if the 'standard' variety isn't big enough), Water Tigers and a humaniform animal called a Didi. See what they found here. PS: It seems several people have reported the new giant rat under a 'Sumatra' headline!! Given the way information tends to propagate, some people will start believing it really lives there.
17 Dec 2007: Hurray for armchair critics!
When someone challenges the published results of a paranormal investigation, they are sometimes branded 'armchair critics' and their views dismissed. It is implied that, as the critic was not present during the investigation and / or has not done identical research, they have less (or no) right to draw conclusions about research than those who actually did it. On the face of it this appears fair. But it isn't!
If a paranormal research group claims to use the scientific method, this sort of thing makes no sense. There is no such concept as an 'armchair critic' in science. On the contrary, the system of 'peer review', involving other scientists examining and criticising research papers prior to publication, is considered a vital part of the scientific process. Though these 'peers' will usually work in a similar field to the those they are reviewing, they will generally not be doing identical research.
Paranormal researchers who use the charge 'armchair critics' against those who disagree with them do themselves no favours. The fact that a critic can draw different conclusions to the 'official' ones points to weaknesses in the research or the report. Either the research method was not described in sufficient detail or the research itself did not eliminate alternatives to the 'official' conclusions. In any case, the researchers therefore have only themselves to blame. Indeed, they should thank 'armchair critics' for providing an informal peer review service for free instead of dismissing their comments out of hand.
So let's hear it for armchair critics - an under-appreciated group in paranormal research.
14 Dec 2007: Hearing voices in the street
What would you think if you heard voices in your head while walking down the street, when there was no one near you? You might think it was something paranormal, maybe even a ghost! Take a look around and you might see an advertising billboard - the voice could be a talking advert! Some billboards in the US are being equipped with technology that can put passers-by into an 'audio spotlight' so that they hear voices apparently in their head. The technology may become widespread in shops, museums and libraries. However, its use in the street, on people who have not been forewarned, could produce reports of paranormal phenomena. Yet another thing for investigators to check out! More info here.
12 Dec 2007: Flying rods ... real photos this time!
Hardly had I finished writing about the flying rods enigma than I got some photos of some (right)! The intention had been to make a start on the study the mystery of why insect orbs are often highly colourful. However, some of close-up photos of insects turned out to be rods! The same set of insects appeared as orbs, rods and tiny dots depending on different exposure parameters. For orbs, the insects were deliberately slightly out of focus. For rods the insects were photographed close up with a slow exposure (1/40s). They weren't as clear as some of the examples of rods elsewhere on the web but the photos were good enough to see the 'stick and branch' structure, recalling runes.
Knowing the exposure time it was possible to work out how fast the insects were beating their wings. It turned out to be between 240 and 320 wing beats a second! It may sound an incredible rate but some midges and mosquitoes beat their wings at over1000 wing beats a second. It's no wonder you can hear them buzzing (the sound of the wings beating)! House Flies, by comparison, beat their wings at about 200 times a second.
The wing beats are what causes the 'branches' on the rods (sometimes confusingly referred to as 'wings' by those who believe rods are some novel or alien form of life). Insect wings are largely transparent and only 'catch the sun' at a particular angle at certain times during each wing beat. Thus, by counting the branches you can deduce the number of wing beats during the exposure.
Rods are usually caught by video cameras. In low light, these capture images at 1/50 s or 1/60 s. This is slow enough to capture the movement blur of insects, even with their incredibly fast wings. It is more difficult to catch rods with a still camera but, as this photo shows, it is possible.
Further reading (new page): Flying rods
11 Dec 2007: What you can't prove can't be paranormal
'We know the door was locked when the vigil started so finding it open at the end is unexplained, possibly paranormal.'
'How do you know it was locked? Did someone check it before the vigil?'
'No, but the caretaker said it is always locked. He wanted to know how we'd opened it.'
It's the sort of conversation that can happen when data is being assessed after a vigil at a haunted location. In this imaginary case, a door found was found open at the end of a vigil that no one could remember being open at the start. But is it really good evidence? The door was not being monitored by instruments and no one checked it during the vigil. It only came to light when the caretaker phoned the investigator to ask how they'd opened the door. Of course, if the door really did open during the vigil when no one present had a key, it would be truly remarkable. But what if the caretaker had simply left it unlocked by mistake?
This sort of thing happens all the time in ghost investigations. Weird things sometimes occur in places where no one was actually present at the time and where no instrumental record was made. Even where instrumental records ARE available, there could be natural explanations for apparently paranormal events that the equipment was not designed to pick up.
The same kind of thing happens when spontaneous, unexpected paranormal events are reported by witnesses. Details that could show if an event actually had natural causes were not recorded or simply not noticed. It is not that surprising. When something unexpected and strange happens, most of us are so amazed we miss anything else that might be going on around the event.
We all want to experience something amazing (well, the readers of this blog do, anyway). So, sometimes our enthusiasm can lead us to try to rule out natural explanations when, in reality, we can't. If you're using statements that start as follows:
'I definitely would have noticed it if ...'
'We never get those here ...'
'We never saw any ...'
'I am convinced that it is impossible for that to have happened ...'
'That hasn't happened for years ...'
... then you may be falling into the trap. These are the sort of things people say when faced with a possible natural explanation that they realise they do not have the evidence to eliminate. The fact is, if you didn't record something that could have ruled out a particular natural explanation, then that explanation cannot be eliminated as a possibility. Therefore, sadly, the event can't be recorded as paranormal.
It is very sad when this sort of thing happens. Some people will continue to believe they have witnessed something paranormal and maybe they did. But they can never be certain. The best thing to do is to let it go and improve your protocol for covering all variables next time.
7 Dec 2007: Orbs really are ghosts!
Orbs really are paranormal, after all! They are frequently photographed floating around in haunted houses and graveyards. Certain people, often those thinking spiritual thoughts, get orbs all the time in their photos. Orbs sometimes appear in photos at the same time that there is an unusual EMF meter reading noted. They can't be dust, as is claimed, otherwise they would appear on all photographs, because dust is everywhere? All of this shows that orbs really must be paranormal, probably ghosts or maybe spirits, doesn't it?
Um, well actually, there is overwhelming evidence that orbs are, in fact, out of focus bits of dust or insects caught in the flash of a camera. There is no evidence that they occur more frequently in haunted locations. Nor, indeed, is there any evidence that graveyards are any more haunted than other locations. Some people may, indeed, get more photos of orbs than others, though it is usually due to the camera they are using and the conditions when they typically take photos. There is also no compelling evidence that orbs appear more frequently when people get higher readings on EMF meters. Though dust occurs everywhere, it takes particular conditions to produce orbs which is why they don't show up in every photo. So, no, there isn't any compelling evidence that orbs are paranormal after all.
If you've got this far, well done! Contrary to the impression given so far, this article isn't about orbs, as such. Did you feel your enthusiasm for reading this article wane as you read one or other of the two opening paragraphs above? Or did either paragraph make you feel annoyed or maybe just wonder how the author could get it so wrong?
Sadly, there is evidence that some people do not read articles about the paranormal unless they are written from similar viewpoint to their own. No doubt, after reading the first few sentences of an article like this one, some people will decide they don't need to read any further. They will feel that the author is on the wrong track so there is unlikely to be anything in the rest of the article worth reading. This breakdown in communication highlights the damage caused to our subject by the sharp believer / skeptic divide at its heart. Most paranormal researchers appear to belong to one 'side' or the other.
In science, researchers often disagree profoundly about their theories about the causes of a particular phenomenon. However, they will at least examine their rival's theories and, in the end, the matter is decided by the evidence, rather than argument. This does not happen very often in paranormal research. Instead of healthy debate and an exchange of information, the two 'sides' frequently simply ignore each other.
The crucial thing that ought to drive the subject forward is evidence. But, bizarrely, even the evidence appears to be split. Experiments done by 'believers' typically confirm paranormal phenomena while those done by 'skeptics' don't. Indeed, this 'experimenter effect' is one of the few phenomena on which most researchers agree (and is used to support both sides of the argument!). The results of any experiment are routinely challenged by one camp or the other, depending on what they show! The result is a subject in paralysis! The same questions that were asked by researchers a century ago are still unanswered.
Next time you start reading an article about the paranormal, try to read it to the end whatever you think about it. It may just contain some useful information!
Further reading: Paranormal belief
6 Dec 2007: Do you want to take a 'genuine' ghost photo?
OK, there isn't a genuine ghost involved, unless you're incredibly lucky! The photo will be 'genuine' in the sense that it will not require any manipulation in photo software or double exposures. Double exposures are, in any case, impossible with modern cameras. In modern film cameras, an interlock mechanism between the shutter and winding mechanism prevents them and there is no such thing as a double exposure in digital photography.
It is, of course, simple to produce a 'ghost photo' using photo software. They are often only too easy to spot as they look too good to be true. However, it is just as easy to produce a ghost photo with just a digital camera and it will look less obviously fake. It is one of the ironies of modern, automated cameras that the technology makes authentic-looking, but naturally caused, photographic anomalies that lot pretty convincing. In the days of manual photography it was difficult to convince anyone that you had a photo of the Loch Ness Monster if your photo was so out of focus and blurred that it could just as easily have been a rowing boat floating off Blackpool pier!
So here's what to do: take your modern, automated digital camera into a dim, but not completely dark, room and select a programme or mode which will not use the flash unit. Then arrange for your 'ghost', a person perhaps, to be well illuminated, perhaps by a spotlight or powerful torch. Put them in an area away from any furniture and walls that might also be illuminated, so that they appear brightly lit against a dark background. Now point your camera at a dim part of the room and take a photo. Being quite dark, the exposure should take a second or two. Now repeat the shot but, about half way through, move the camera quickly to point at your ghost and leave it pointing at them until the shutter closes. For both parts of the exposure, hold the camera as still as you can.
It will probably take a lot of fiddling around to get the lighting and times just right. What you should end up with is a reasonably well exposed and surprisingly sharp photo of a transparent 'ghost' in front of your chosen background. The photo, right, was taken with a similar 'moving camera' method. There was only one tape measure physically present but it was possible to produce its doppelganger by moving the camera once during the exposure. With a little practice, particularly in holding the camera steady - use a tripod if you own one - it should be possible to make a quite convincing 'ghost' photo.
Another method, which should produce a sharper background, is to use a time delay on the shutter and put the 'ghost' in the frame from the start of the exposure. Then, half way through the exposure, the 'ghost' steps smartly out of the frame. The 'ghost' may well look transparent (though not necessarily, as you can see in the photo right) which is OK if you like your apparitions to look like they are a movie special effect. By contrast, real ghost reports usually say that ghosts appear perfectly solid and normal.
It is probable that many of the 'classic' ghost photos you may have seen, particularly of transparent figures, were the result of long exposures. Long exposures have been around since the start of photography. Indeed, they were standard practice in the early days of very slow film. Many such long exposures looked painfully obvious. The automation in modern cameras means that almost anyone can produce a nice looking 'ghost' with little effort. And it happens by accident frequently.
Modern cameras take most of the decisions about exposures out of the hands of the photographer. This means you can get nice well-focused, well exposed photos most of the time. However, certain programmes or modes on automated cameras tend to produce photo anomalies. This can result in light trails, 'ghosts' or daylight orbs (where a flash goes off automatically in broad daylight without the photographer even noticing).
Automation ought to make photos of real anomalous phenomena better too, in theory. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case. Most 'anomalous photos' turn out to have natural causes on investigation. The remainder, that remain difficult to explain, are usually too far away from the anomalous object (often just a few pixels!) to tell what they are.
4 Dec 2007: All I want for Christmas is ... a thermal imager!
Thermal imagers are the hottest bits of gear currently sought by ghost researchers. Unfortunately, they are very expensive so few people or groups actually own one. So why would anyone want one?
The most obvious reason is that they hope that ghosts will show up in thermal imagers when they are not visible in normal light. Similarly, cold spots are an obvious target. Some ghost researchers speculate that ghosts manipulate energy to appear and that such anomalies may show up in thermal imagers.
Are these reasonable expectations? A cold spot can be a real area of lower temperature or just one that feels colder to people. Even if a cold spot really is physically colder, would a thermal imager reveal it? Probably not. Like IR laser thermometers, it picks up temperatures from objects rather than the air. So a cold pocket of air might not show up in a thermal imager. On the other hand, an imager might reveal cold surfaces that could be causing people to feel cold nearby.
What about ghosts? The idea that ghosts should show up in thermal imagers is more of a theory than something supported by evidence. Apparent figures and other anomalies have appeared in thermal imagers but there could be other reasons for these. This doesn't mean ghosts can't appear in thermal imagers, just that there is no compelling evidence yet that they do.
Thermal imagers use mid- and far-infrared to produce images. They use the wavelengths of this radiation to produce the temperatures of surfaces in view. However, like light, infrared radiation can be reflected, refracted, diffracted and absorbed. Surfaces like metals and glass readily reflect mid-far-IR and can produce apparent anomalies in imagers that some people might mistake for ghosts.
Like any other instrument, you need to know how it works, what it measures and what its limitations are. You should use the thermal imager in lots of ordinary situations, to see what to expect, before you take it to a haunted building.
Further reading (new page): Thermal imagers
3 Dec 2007: Yeti footprints in Nepal
Some footprints have been found in the Khumbu region of Nepal which may be those of a yeti. That's the claim of Josh Gates, a US TV presenter. One print is 33cm long with five toes spread over 25cm. Casts have been made of the prints discovered at an altitude of 2850m on the banks of the Manju River. There has not been any sighting of the creature that made the prints but they are believed to be only a day old when discovered.
The yeti remains a controversial cryptid. Eric Shipton took photos of prints in snow at 6000m on Everest in 1951. Don Whillans actually saw a creature that could have been a yeti on Annapurna in 1970. Studies of eye witness reports have generally concluded that the yeti is probably a misreported bear. However, many people continue to believe that a man-ape lives in the high Himalayas.
Previous blog pages ...
This blog does not contain ALL changes, just the major ones. Minor updates occur all the time.
© Maurice Townsend 2007