Sasquatch Coffee


Is New Yeti Evidence “Potentially Explosive”?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 2nd, 2008

hillary Yeti

polyanna

An article entitled “Yeti ‘photo-fit’ shows ‘potentially explosive’ evidence of elusive mountain beast” by Richard Holt, in London’s The Telegraph for 2 June 2008, has noted, with some excitement, that wildlife painter Polyanna Pickering has been shown what is believed to be “a 100-year-old Yeti scalp at a remote monastery in the Himalayas.”

Based upon Pickering’s viewing of the “scalp,” she has sketched (see example above) a drawing, which is being called “a ‘photo-fit’ of the Yeti based on ‘potentially explosive’ new evidence of the elusive creature’s existence.”

Pickering was collecting material for her planned new exhibition, while she was in the remote Bhutan region of the Himalayas. She made her chance discovery with a little help from David Beckham. The scalp was housed in a part of the monastery (she told the media was) closed to visitors, and since photography was banned too, Pickering, 65, made a rough sketch of the scalp. She produced a full drawing of the Yeti, there, based on scores of eyewitness accounts by local peoples.

I was told this was from a Migoi – their name for the Yeti. All I know is, it was bigger than any human or ape scalp I have ever seen. It had tufts of reddish-black fur coming out of it and was mounted on a pole and seen as a holy relic….The sole occupant was a caretaker monk who got very excited when he found out we were English and he was a huge David Beckham fan and then ushered us through to the back….I was amazed when they told me of regular sightings, close encounters and even tales of people being carried off by the Migoi. Their descriptions were so detailed, I ended up doing this ‘photo-fit’ with them all sitting round telling me to alter this or how that should look.Polyanna Pickering told the press

What occurred next is rather typical of the media. They asked someone for an opinion, took that opinion, and jumped to the conclusion that this was “the most important proof yet that the giant apelike beast is more than mere folklore.”

Even though the exact site of the scalp was not revealed, and in spite of the fact most monasteries tell visitors that the scalps are “off-limits” to visitors, we are left with speculations about this one that go beyond what is known. If no photographs were taken and Pickering was only allowed to make sketches, how do we know what she actually saw?

Yet, in an interview published in The Telegraph, Jon Downes, director of the Centre of Fortean Zoology, is quoted as stating this is a “unique” discovery “because the scalp still had a portion of bone attached to it.”

This fact is only sourced to Downes, not Pickering. {This has since been clarified; please see below.}

Specifically, Downes reportedly said: “If this is true it is the most important zoological discovery in 70 years. This is potentially explosive. If this scalp is authentic and has bone still attached, it will probably be the single most important zoological find since the discovery of the coelacanth. Other Yeti scalps have been found before but this is the only one with bone attached. The others turned out to be man-made. Quite a lot of the Buddhist monks dress up as Yetis as part of their religious ceremonies and explorers mistook religious costume as Yeti scalps.”

In all the scalps examined thusfar, no bone has ever been found attached and, indeed, the Sherpas, Tibetans, Nepalese, and Bhutanese have said the scalps were and are ritual objects. It has been mostly English travelers and mountain climbers who have too quickly assumed they were real “Yeti skullcaps.”

Late in 1960, Sir Edmund Hillary, sponsored by the World Booke Encyclopedia of Chicago, left on his infamous expedition to Nepal in pursuit of the “Abominable Snowman.”

Edmund Hillary’s 1960 Himalayan Scientific and Mountaineering Expedition (also called the World Book expedition) concluded that Yeti tracks were distortions of canid footprints melted by the snow, that Yeti sightings by Sherpas were unreliable because the mountain porters did not make a distinction between the supernatural and the real worlds, and that all the scalps were probably fakes or at least “creations,” more akin to “native art.” Never mind that Sherpas are not porters, that the foxes supposing leaving the footprints have never been seen, and more, Hillary’s debunking is what is mostly remembered from the 1960 Yeti expedition.

The Hillary hair samples (see “Hillary’s Assassination of the Yeti” in Tom Slick: True Life Encounters in Cryptozoology ) from 1960 were from only one of the Buddhist monasteries they visited, the Khumjung Lamasery. The famed supposed Yeti scalp from this Buddhist monastery was brought back to Paris and Chicago by Edmund Hillary and Marlin Perkins.

Bernard Heuvelmans and other mammalian experts examined the “scalp” along the way. Hillary and the publicity from his World Book expedition claimed the Buddhist monks said the Khumjung skullcap was “from a Yeti.” Heuvelmans was not fooled. He knew what the local peoples had said about the origins of these ritual objects.

Search For Yeti

The scalp cap at the Khumjung monastery, Nepal, examined by Hillary’s expedition was reported to be over 350 years old. This scalp was borrowed by Hillary in 1960 and examined by specialists at the Field Museum in Chicago, as well as authorities in Europe. It was easily discovered to have been made from the skin of a Himalayan goat-antelope, the serow (Naemorhedus sumatraensis). Of course, Hillary already knew this because he had a copy made for him before he left Nepal.

To many in the Yeti field, the findings were no surprise. The expedition photographs of the 1950s show, such as in this 1954 photograph (below), Dr. Biswamoy Biswas examining the Pangboche Yeti scalp during the Daily Mail Snowman Expedition of that year.

1954 Yeti

As members of the 1954 Daily Mail expedition (e.g. Charles Stonor and Ralph Izzard) had been writing for years, and also noted by Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan T. Sanderson, these scalps were made “in imitation of Yeti.” Therefore, it was not a surprise when it was discovered that the animal from which the skullcaps were made was the serow.

Now rare or extinct in some of its former habitat, the mainland or Asiatic serow (Nemorhaedus sumatraensis) ranges from the Himalayas of Nepal, north to Gansu and Anhui in China, and south to the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra. The serows are the most generalized representatives of the bovid subfamily of goat antelopes called Caprinae, and are the most primitive living Caprinae. Their fossils appear in the late Pliocene of 7 to 2 million years ago. Serows are, thus indeed, living fossils.

As to the hair samples obtained during the Slick-Johnson expeditions, the DNA results from the Pangboche hand analysis revealed that is was “near human, but not human.” The fecal material showed a parasite species that was unknown, and thus theorized to be found only from an unknown primate.

The problem with Yeti and Bigfoot hair samples’ results are that until we have a type-specimen for Yeti and/or Sasquatch/Bigfoot, we mostly will hear about negative results. Analysis coming back “inconclusive” will be misread by the media as “showing nothing.” But actually inconclusive results are what we would expect until we have a verified sample from an authentic Yeti or Bigfoot.

Great caution must be taken with these latest “explosive results” from the land of the Yeti, because all we have are reports, a drawing, and yet no photographs, no location, and no sample of this “scalp.” Pickering’s is really much less evidence than even Tom Slick, Edmund Hillary, and the Daily Mail expeditions in years gone by have brought out of the Himalaya.

Pickering said she will turn her gallery in the Derbyshire village of Oaker into a Himalayan temple for the opening of her Yeti-related exhibition, which begins on Monday, June 9, 2008. The release of this “explosive” news was an attempt to secure a bit of media attention for her gallery exhibition opening.

+++++++

hillary Yeti

Update:

I have very specifically ask Jon Downes some pointed questions regarding the background of his involvement with this report. Here’s some very interesting information from him:

The original letter from Ms Pickering’s agent read:

“She said the monastery was in an extremely remote area on the edge of the Sakteng reserve, very high up. It went by the strange name of `Demon Subjugation Monastery’ and had just one caretaker monk in charge. The scalp was on a pole and housed in a part not open to visitors. The monk decided to let them through when he found out they were English, as he’s a David Beckham fan! ”

…What I actually said [to the media was] that the Yeti `scalps` usually turn out to be man-made constructs used for religious ceremonies, but if there is indeed bone attached it means that potentially this is a highly important discovery, and if the bone turns out to be of a Yeti, it is the most important discovery zoologically since the coelacanth.

However I haven’t seen the scalp, or more than a sketch of it, and I certainly haven’t endorsed it.

The description is sketchy. I have a drawing but it doesn’t prove anything. I don’t know her, and she is not a member of the CFZ. I was contacted purely because of my reputation, and not for any other reason. I have no financial interest in the story…

The words ‘potentially explosive’ weren’t from me. What I said, was that if it was GENUINE it would be an important piece of evidence. At the moment the evidence is purely one not very good drawing.Email from Jon Downes to Loren Coleman, June 2, 2008

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


32 Responses to “Is New Yeti Evidence “Potentially Explosive”?”

  1. cryptidsrus responds:

    I agree caution must be taken.

    Still, it is great that there is evidence of something that could advance the quest for the Yeti by leaps and bounds.

    One can only hope…

  2. Sparky1959 responds:

    I don’t see any new evidence. This is an eye witness report of an object and a composite sketch made based on supposed eye witness accounts. We have plenty of old evidence of this type. The fact that the location of the artifact is unkown and kept secret is also not new. That tends to fit the bill for cryptid evidence.
    If some one produced the skull cap that would be “new” evidence.

  3. Rillo777 responds:

    Not holding out much hope for this–we still need a known specimen to compare anything allegedly from a yeti or sasquatch against. Sort of a circular ring of evidence; we must have a proven DNA sample to prove that an alleged DNA sample is the real thing. Frustrating, isn’t it?
    BTW, didn’t actor Jimmy Stewart sneak the Pangboche hand out of the country?

  4. jerrywayne responds:

    Whether or not this news proves to be “potentially explosive”, who knows at this point. But the sketch IS interesting, suggesting a very plausible cryptid.

  5. red_pill_junkie responds:

    I didn’t know the Yeti liked to pose as John Wayne ;-)

  6. Andrew Minnesota responds:

    Didn’t one of the early yeti expeditions acquire one of 2 scalps from a monastery which they promised to return and it “mysteriously disappeared” ? Hence the reason why they keep these scalps so well guarded and make attempts to keep them out of the public eye? I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure I’ve heard that a few times. Anyone know for sure?

  7. Loren Coleman responds:

    Please read the new update at the end of the blog.

  8. red_pill_junkie responds:

    `Demon Subjugation Monastery’ , that’s a title for a Jet Li movie!!

    And also, to think that the person Cryptozoology might have the greatest debt in the future… is David Beckham!! That’s something that will not let me have a good night’s sleep in months to come ;-)

  9. JonDownes responds:

    I don’t think that anyone would disagree with me that if there is a bone, which turns out to be from a yeti, that this would then be a potentially very important zoological discovery.

    One point that I would like to make is that the drawing to which I refer as “not being very good”, is a rough pencil sketch of the scalp which was drawn by Ms Pickering, and which I have in my posession and which has not been published, and indeed was from her own private notebook, and never intended for publicastion. This is not a comment on her identikit picture of the yeti, which I think shows very good draftsmanship, and like the other pictures on her website, shows that she is a fine artist.

    This is yet another example of someone (me in this instance) being quoted slightly out of context, and inferences being drawn that were certainly not implied in my original interview. I spoke to a journalist yesterday, who asked me how important it would be if someone discovered the yeti.

    I don’t think that anyone would disagree with me, that if there was indeed conclusive evidence for the yeti, it would be groundbreaking news.

    However, no-one is claiming that this latest story is that evidence. Ms Pickering is not claiming it, and neither am I. It is an interesting traveller’s tale, which could – just possibly – have enormous implications. Nothing more, and nothing less.

  10. Rillo777 responds:

    Mr. Downes
    Thank you for the update. I hope you were not offended here. No one is attacking you and we certainly understand your position in this. I quite agree–if it did turn out to be from a yeti it would be way beyond groundbreaking! The only problem I see is proving it is from a yeti. If tests came back inconclusive then that’s simply all they can be until someone brings in a creature that is indisputably a yeti to match them against. But then, of course, you already have a yeti so matching it is a moot point. As I said, its all circular evidence and we really need a full body, undeniably real specimen and not just inconclusive samples-of-something-we-don’t-know-what.

  11. MattBille responds:

    I’ve read this a couple of times and I’m still trying to figure out exactly who said there was a bone.

  12. Munnin responds:

    I think no one actually said there was a bone, but Mr. Downes was incorrectly quoted as having said so. Above, we see:

    “Yet, in an interview published in The Telegraph, Jon Downes, director of the Centre of Fortean Zoology, is quoted as stating this is a ‘unique’ discovery ‘because the scalp still had a portion of bone attached to it.”

    This fact is only sourced to Downes, not Pickering. {This has since been clarified; please see below.}”

    In his clarification, Mr. Downes points out:

    “…What I actually said [to the media was] that the Yeti `scalps` usually turn out to be man-made constructs used for religious ceremonies, but if there is indeed bone attached it means that potentially this is a highly important discovery, and if the bone turns out to be of a Yeti, it is the most important discovery zoologically since the coelacanth.”

  13. CamperGuy responds:

    Thanks for the report and the clarity of remarks made.

    What a welcome relief from some recent blogs.

    If it were possible to verify this were a Yeti scalp it would indeed be an amazing discovery.

  14. Lyndon responds:

    I’d be more impressed if the monk was a big Steven Gerrard fan rather than David Beckham. Oh well.

    On a serious note, it is an interesting observation but of course nothing likely to be taken further.

    I would suggest that the DNA sample from Bhutan analysed by Dr Bryan Sykes a few years ago must still be the ‘most potentially explosive piece of yeti evidence’ thus far……yet even that has been almost forgotten.

  15. tigwip responds:

    The Three Stooges in,

    “Nepal Fall Down!”

    Drawing shows Moe Howard, surely?

  16. shumway10973 responds:

    I say we jump on the next jet to that region and check it out for ourselves…yeah, right. Look, it shouldn’t matter right now either way. If it is real and we obtain samples, any DNA computers would just be confused. Let’s not lose hope, but let’s not go johor over this one.

  17. Loren Coleman responds:

    Ah, “jump on the next jet to that region.”

    This does point out, once again, the dismal state of funding in this field.

    PayPal me at lcoleman@maine.rr.com a few thousand dollars and I’ll get to the bottom of this mystery and few others.

    Sadly, there are no forthcoming Bill Gates Foundation or MacArthur grants for cryptozoologists!

    But we don’t whine. We just push on.

  18. MattBille responds:

    I hate to be persistent (or persnickety) on this, but:

    “…What I actually said [to the media was] that the Yeti `scalps` usually turn out to be man-made constructs used for religious ceremonies, but if there is indeed bone attached it means that potentially this is a highly important discovery, and if the bone turns out to be of a Yeti, it is the most important discovery zoologically since the coelacanth.”

    Jonathan, what led to you even mentioning the possibility of bone, if it’s not in the original letter from the source?

    Regards,
    Matt Bille

  19. DWA responds:

    OK, Q&A. (A would be nice.)

    1. Why don’t we hear about the significance of this scalp thing – including why and HOW they get the scalps? That seem fishy to anyone else? One would think this would be a pretty prominent ritual.

    2. Do they do anything like this for other animals? Usually aboriginals, whatever tall tales they attach to an animal, attach similar ones to other animals. As, for example, our natives do to the sasquatch.

    3. Why does crypto always trumpet BEFORE the proof is in? (I can guess; $$$$$$. And I suppose, funding being sort of necessary for study, and given “the dismal state of funding in this field,” that this might be a bit of a necessary evil. “Hey, fund us and we can follow up.” But I could see mainstream science wrinkling its nose a bit.)

    4. How does stuff from private notebooks, never intended for publication, get published, when so many people TRYING to get published don’t?

    5. Why do these things seem always to come down to this? “I’ve read this a couple of times and I’m still trying to figure out exactly who said there was a bone.” Or a hand. Or a scalp. Or a ponytail.

    Relics won’t get it done. Only field research will.

    (I know. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Sigh.)

  20. fmurphy1970 responds:

    Mmmm! Was quite excited by this story when I started to read it, but as I made my way down the page, my excitement was turning more to disappointment. Even if DNA tests are done, what is it going to prove. I don’t think we’ll move forward on this without a dead or live specimen of the creature, or even a good quality video would be something.

  21. joe levit responds:

    I personally think the more interesting part of this is that apparently wildlife painter Polyanna Pickering was told by locals that they have “regular sightings, close encounters, and even tales of people being carried off by the Migoi.”

    This seems quite promising, and totally different from all other recent reports I have read about information on the yeti coming out of that region, where you invariably hear something along the lines of: Oh, sure, they may have existed in such and such a mountain valley in my grandfather’s day, but they aren’t around anymore.

    Seems they are, and quite often.

  22. JonDownes responds:

    To answer DWA:

    Why don’t we hear about the significance of this scalp thing – including why and HOW they get the scalps? That seem fishy to anyone else? One would think this would be a pretty prominent ritual.

    I don’t know. It is one of the first things that I would have asked if I had been there, but Ms Pickering is an artist not a cryptozoologist, and yeti hunting was/is not her prime concern.

    Do they do anything like this for other animals? Usually aboriginals, whatever tall tales they attach to an animal, attach similar ones to other animals. As, for example, our natives do to the sasquatch.

    Basically the same answer as above; I don’t know.

    Why does crypto always trumpet BEFORE the proof is in? (I can guess; $$$$$$. And I suppose, funding being sort of necessary for study, and given “the dismal state of funding in this field,” that this might be a bit of a necessary evil. “Hey, fund us and we can follow up.” But I could see mainstream science wrinkling its nose a bit.

    Who is trumpeting? Both Loren and I have quite rightly said that this is an interesting story, but until further information is received we can’t speculate further. The original reporter from a northern press agency slightly `bigged up` what is said, which was that IF a yeti was found, it would be of major importance. Notice the IF.

    How does stuff from private notebooks, never intended for publication, get published, when so many people TRYING to get published don’t?

    It hasn’t been. Ms Pickering’s representative sent it to me, and I have commented upon it. It has not been published. The identikit picture is another matter; that is part of Ms Pickering’s art exhibition, and now’t to do with me.

    Why do these things seem always to come down to this? “I’ve read this a couple of times and I’m still trying to figure out exactly who said there was a bone.” Or a hand. Or a scalp. Or a ponytail.

    Ms Pickering, in a page from her diary/notebook noted the scalp. Her agent told me that it was attached to bone.

    Relics won’t get it done. Only field research will

    I agree entirely, which is why the CFZ have an ongoing programme of fieldwork and foreign expeditions (which BTW once again, does NOT include Ms Pickering’s Bhutan trip). The boys are off to southern Russia with Grigoriy Panchenko in a few weeks almas hunting. There is no substitute for fieldwork, but one should not ignore traveller’s tales, just because they do not come from someone in your own personal team…

  23. twoly responds:

    Has anyone thought about asking the Beckhams if they are interested in a mountain excursion for their next family holiday? Maybe they can arrange an exhibition match between the Galaxy and the monks, bet they would be more willing to offer some DNA evidence then… and if Posh was taken off by a Yeti they would have plenty of news reporters up there to get some video. I think we need to get celebrities involved, we have all seen how much funding they get just for the name recognition.

    I have been reading this site for a long time and been a big fan of Loren’s books for years but have always been in too much of a hurry to register. Thanks for always keeping this site entertaining as well as informative!

  24. FunkyBunky responds:

    I may have missed something but didn’t Josh Gates look at this year on Destination Truth? So what is really new here?

  25. eireman responds:

    “I was told this was from a Migoi – their name for the Yeti.”

    This is interesting since it closely matches the word, Mrigu, which I found in an old newspaper article from the 1950′s (at the height of Yeti Fever). The article stated the Mrigu was a Tibetan word for this snowman. However, I have been unable to find any other documentation on the term. Anyone else heard of it?

  26. DWA responds:

    JonDownes:

    OK, pretty much, except for this:

    “Who is trumpeting? Both Loren and I have quite rightly said that this is an interesting story, but until further information is received we can’t speculate further.”

    I point you both to what headed up this blog: Is New Yeti Evidence Potentially Explosive? Um, then one reads the blog. Not exactly. Then we can’t even pin down who said “explosive,” or if the word was even used.

    Using the word “explosive” in the above context is trumpeting, for attention. Sorry, that’s just the way it is.

    If one must even consider the above newsworthy, a proper heading would be: [Sigh] Yeti Again Around The Mulberry Bush…

  27. JonDownes responds:

    If you actually read what I said, the word “explosive” came from a regional press agency, so it is either they, or – perhaps – the Daily Telegraph who is trumpeting, not either Loren nor I.

    However, one thing that has become evident is that nobody has actually heard Ms Pickering’s side of the story. I have never even met her, so I knocked off a quick email earlier today, and have invited her to come down to Devon this summer when we have our annual convention.

    We will do a filmed Q+A, and I will be happy to accept questions from anyone on this blog site. The film will then be put up on google video/youtube in its entirety. Contact me via the CFZ.

  28. DWA responds:

    JonDownes:

    Oh, I read the blog.

    It’s just that – as *I* said – using the e-word in the header for something very not-e at the moment is the issue.

    Science tends to keep the brakes on until the proof is in; you don’t hear “explosive” until long after the coelacanth is on the boat. That’s all I’m saying.

  29. JonDownes responds:

    Yes. But it is not my issue, nor is it Loren’s. It is the issue of a bored sub-editor trying to sex-up a fairly routine story. It is the inference that somehow either Loren or I are trying an excercise in self-aggrandaisment that I resent…

  30. DWA responds:

    JonDownes:

    Not to keep this going. OK, to keep this going. But…

    No inference of self-aggrandizement was intended, or could reasonably be drawn from anything posted here. Once again:

    I am simply referring to the phrase “potentially explosive,” given a life it clearly did not merit.

    I didn’t make this rule: when people see a header like that, their expectations go up.

    Wherever the phrase came from, whoever used it, it doesn’t matter. The responsible thing to do, from a strictly scientific perspective, is to kill it where one finds it, if something unequivocally compelling isn’t there. And yeti scalps are nothing new. Even the identikit drawing sessions – which should at least raise zoological eyebrows – don’t bring home the prize money unless they are followed up upon.

    And it’s the identikit drawing sessions – NOT the scalp – that are the real item of interest here. They link many observations into what seems a consistent picture. This is something I – and people with serious zoological chops – keep harping on (yes, boring, I know) when it comes to the sasquatch. The footprint casts and hair and other relics – yes, even the Patterson-Gimlin film – could all disappear tomorrow. The sighting reports would remain. And they compel scientific attention. Not to mention telling researchers where they might expect to find more evidence.

    “Explosive” can only be used when the proof is in. Science says so. Which is one reason science takes the ten-foot-pole approach when it comes to crypto. And one reason why “potentially explosive” evidence like this – and the DNA analysis Lyndon mentions, and the P/G film, and the Peguis video, etc. etc. – rises, spends some time in the limelight, then quietly disappears, relatively untouched by scientific expertise.

    Resentment has no place in a scientific discussion. (The frequent violations of protocol by otherwise excellent scientists notwithstanding.) What does the evidence say? Cryptos will have to pardon the resentment, for want of a better word, of folks like me when that question is – and it almost always is – poorly addressed, if addressed at all.

  31. DWA responds:

    This just in in The Search For Truth. :-D

    Went to Wikipedia after citiing Lyndon’s mention of the Sykes DNA analysis and found the following:

    “One well publicized expedition to Bhutan reported that a hair sample had been obtained that, after DNA analysis by Prof. Bryan Sykes, could not be matched to any known animal. Analysis completed after the media release, however, clearly showed that the samples were from the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) and the Asiatic Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus).”

    For what that’s worth. Unless of course someone has something revising that take.

    Then of course there is this: DNA findings, without a type specimen to compare them to, are about as valuable as sighting reports – and about as likely to be misleading, unless sheer volume makes that unlikely.

  32. DWA responds:

    And not to keep posting forever. But.

    Being the one whose decision to go with “potentially explosive” in the head of this blog I am criticizing (hey, it brought me here, didn’t it?), it says much for Loren – and for Cryptomundo – that this discussion is here for you to read.

    So, kudos there. All sides heard from, and all that. On with the search.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

mmcm

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.