http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3734946.stm


CAPTION FOR PHOTO BELOW -

Always just out of reach.....

kinda like the porno mags on the top shelf........

If an orang pendek, or other overseas hominid, were Confirmed, what effect would that have on opinion about the believability of Bigfoot evidence? I guess most Believers would crow "I told you so" and most disbelievers would say "Don't be too hasty," and look to find differences in the situations that would make an OP's existence + non-discovery more plausible than BF's. Probably it would take at least three months for the dust to settle and positions to harden.

Would there finally be funding for U.S. BF research? (Camera traps, hair traps, Scat dog searches, scent-trail tracking, officialdom and citizenry encouraged to make reports, museums encouraged to search collections, etc.)

Would many closeted Believers in academia come forward?

Would scoftics start moderating their tone about BF (& rewriting entries about such critters on their sites)?

Would foreign gov'ts (China, Caucuses, Canada, etc.) fund searches etc."?

I urge someone with more feel for the issues involved and more experience than myself to post a poll or polls about the effect of an OP (or Yeti or Yeren or Almas) Discovery.

A second thread might be to glean the opinions of knowledgeable people here as to what actions and recommendations they'd suggest the gov't. and/or academia make.

I fear that 'science' will claim it is a close relative of the orang utan, and has nothing to do with the sasquatch, yeti, yeren, almasty, or yowie.

My ???? is what is in store for OP?
Will they be listed as an endangered species?
Will they be encroached on by hundreds of researchers?
Will they feel so threatened that in order to not be "Taken Alive" that they will kill
their own young?

What will the treatment of OP mean for the impending find of BF?
Will our Govt learn anything, or repeat others mistakes?

Paul--that's one option you should include when you create the poll. I'm hesitant to do so myself since I lack the expertise in this area to think of all the options, and to create the SET of polls that should be made. E.g. several options should be provided for each of the following:

Science's Reaction = ?
Disbelievers' Reaction = ?
Believers' Reaction = ?
Gov'ts' Reaction = ?
Media's Reaction = ?
Public's Reaction = ?
Paranormalists' Reaction = ? (mixed reaction likely, since physicality was involved)
Bigfoot's Reaction = ?
WWN's Reaction = ?

I'm thinking mostly of mental reactions and policy reactions, not in-the-field reactions. I don't want to the discussion to focus on the impossible-to-settle and highly emotional issue of whether the news would flood the countryside with billions of bloodthirsty Bambi-butchers. (Doubtful, at least for long, IMO.)

Since orangutans, gibbons, and siamangs are known from Indonesia, the orang pendek probably isn't as hard to believe for most scientists as the sasquatch.
North America hasn't had non-human primates since the Eocene (at least, according to the fossil record which is after all what we must base conclusions about past life on).
Discovery of the orang pendek probably wouldn't sway most primate researchers or anthropologists, zoologists, etc. into recognizing the existence of the sasquatch.
Still, it provides a cool glimpse into the possible existence of a bipedal, non-human primate somewhere in the world.

Excellent question.



And that's an excellent (and likely accurate) prediction on the general refusal of the American science community to address the possible existence of sasquatch.

I dont think it would change anything as far as Bigfoot goes. The OP's footprints are very apelike and to discover a primate in a place like that is not too unrealistic. They alreay have other primates so its really no big surprise if they find another.

Problem with believability in North America is, there are NO primates native to this land. If we had at least some type of primate naturally occuring in this continent, THEN the possibility of a another one is not to unrealistic. But since we have little in the way of fossil evidence and a lack of living primates, a large undiscovered primate is indeed quite a stretch of the imagination.


[edit] I just went back and read the threads and just saw what Desert Yeti wrote. So um yeah what he said too.

Finding a primate in an area where primates already naturally occur is really no big deal compared to our situation in North America.

The points above are good ones, and probably more could be said along the same lines that would minimize the impact of such a discovery. (I urge others to add to the list above.) But here is the other side of the case:

I’d say that discovery of an OP, as I’ll familiarly call it, would rhetorically strengthen the case for Bigfoot, as Believers could then make the following arguments:

• Here is a bipedal ape. If skeptics have said BF was impossible because a bipedal ape was impossible, that’s one argument they’re now deprived of.
  
• Here, probably, is a survival from the Miocene era. If skeptics have said BF was impossible because relicts from that era are impossible, that’s another argument they’re now deprived of.
  
• Here is a large, undiscovered mammal. If skeptics have said BF was impossible because all such have been discovered, that’s third argument they’re now deprived of.
  
• Here is a creature for which no fossil record exists, and for which virtually no physical evidence had been obtained prior to discovery. If skeptics have said BF was impossible because those things are lacking, that’s a fourth argument they’re now deprived of, or at least that now carries much less weight.
  
• Here is a validation of eyewitness testimony and anecdotal evidence. If skeptics have said BF was impossible because such evidence was worthless, that’s a fifth argument they’re now deprived of. (Or anyway that they’ll have to soft-pedal.)
  
• Here is a case where the experts really got it wrong (about the unlikelihood of an undiscovered hominid). This weakens their position that other undiscovered hominids are non-existent too. I.e., both their specific arguments and the impressiveness of their expertise in matters primatological will, and should, cut less ice.
  
• Here’s a case where a debunker’s finding (in the twenties I think) of error and bad faith by witnesses and reporters now stand revealed as erroneous and meanly motivated itself. That suggests a similar dynamic is probably at work in claimed debunkings of BF evidence. (Not that there hasn’t been much debunk-worthy BF evidence, to be sure.)
  
• Similarly, the eagerness of the scientists of the day to swallow such flimsy debunkings suggests that they were overly cautious, and that they may now be similarly over-cautious about BF.

The bipedal argument isnt the deal killer so to say. Also the OP prints look like regular ape prints. Bigfoot prints look like huge human prints. One foot is designed for tree climbing and part time ground dwelling, the other is a full time ground dwellers foot. OP may be said to be bipedal, but that may not be the case always, perhaps they are in the trees much more.



Havent really thought too much into that, will get on that one later.



Large 4 or 5 foot tall primate from an area that already has some differing primates is one thing. An estimated average 8 foot tall 500+lb fully erect ape is still quite a bit different. Especially being from a land mass with no primates.



Then again once an OP is brought in, it could very well be identified as something more mundane, perhaps a cousin to the Orang. New primates are discovered on occasion (course they are small little monkeys). It wont be shocking too much as we could have always used the argument above in times past about no fossils then -bam- a creature.



Pretty much agree there.



good point.








Hopefully they will catch one and we will see.

Hmmmm, and there's me thinking that footprints are not considered real evidence, or is that only when it comes to Bigfoot?? So, they found some more Orang Pendek footprints recently to go along with other footprints from a couple of years ago and some earlier hair samples. And.....?? So what??

Not as if it's groundbreaking or anything. Not as if it hasn't been already done before. This kind of stuff and serious reporting just niggles me.

Roger,

I think your info and the way you look at this is awesome. I am just thinking with my skepticals on. That and I am a borderline skeptic. aka recovering past scoftic.

Lyndon: I guess reporters think, and probably rightly, that only (some of) us first-worlders have the prankish inclination, the historical record of practical joking, and the spare time on our hands to go around planting fake footprints, etc.

(Not that (some) Indonesians aren't above a few "stretchers," as they demonstrated with their "fish story" about having captured the world's longest snake earlier this year.)

And probably the explorers who've found these footprints are seen, because of the effort they've put into their quest, as more sincere (and thus as less deserving of offhand mockery), than the mere average citizen who happens to stumble on a print. The latter is easier to brush off as an Elvis-sighter.

Also, I think these guys get a little extra credit for being British, and thereby not partaking as much as us USans of the Tall Tale Tradition. (Or at least the BBC may subconsciously think so--and they're right.)

Roger,

I hear what you are saying but all the same it just annoys me. I take your point about the average citizen stumbling across a print in North America but what about Bindernagel? Doesn't his report and track casting count? Don't the opinions of other scientists in the Bigfoot field (if we can call it that) count for something and shouldn't they get a bit more recognition??

I guess seeing as this story is a BBC one and the guys are British that would make sense. After all, there are hadly any Brits doing serious research in North America so I guess this is going to be more newsworthy. I'm wondering how much importance this story is getting in America or other places. Do you know?

Good point about that snake and the overexaggerations that went with it by the way. We shouldn't forget that.

I'll check with Adam when I see him in a couple of weeks, but I'm pretty sure that this story originated in the Manchester Evening News, and was then taken up by the BBC Online service.

Me, too. But this may help explain it:



and



First, this is the BBC reporting on British "explorers" in an area well accepted by the developed world as about as far in the boonies as one can get.

Secondly, they "plan to write a scientific paper on their discoveries". This indicates at least some scientific credentials.

I suspect if you have any such credentials, you will be more believable to a reporter.

The fact that one can drive a Cadillac from downtown Seattle to many spots where sasquatch sightings are reported in a few hours tend to make many believe that sasquatches just can't be so.

I'm afraid that include many of our "experts".

I know Adam personally - he is a civil servant, and has no 'scientific credentials'

You do not have to be a 'scientist' to write a scientific paper.

Lyndon: Well of course I share your indignation about the way the subject is treated, but I don't think the mass media are the most blamable players. (Although the AP's refusal to distribute the important Denver Post story on Believing Scientists by Theo Stein was disgraceful.) I've mentioned, in posts long ago, some of the obstacles they face, such as complaints by pressure groups of scoftics, and the possible loss of credibility by readers. So I don't blame them much for not going out on a limb.

Anyway, another constraint they are under is the fear of ridicule. People, and especially institutions that trade on having a good reputation, are deathly afraid of standing exposed to a mocking crowd as having fallen for a preposterous yarn--hence their over-caution or bias.

And, as SH was indicating above, Bigfoot IS a bigger pill to swallow than OP.

SH: Thanks for the kind words. And I'm glad you share my feeling that what we are doing here is shadow-boxing, or exploring or rehearsing the arguments that will be made if Discovery occurs, rather than whole-heartedly endorsing and clashing over them. That said:

Bipedalism--how important?: How high we can hang the disbelievers would depend on how incautious they have been in their pronouncements on this matter, which is something I haven't really researched. I guess we can put bipedalism in The Grey Basket for now. (Its impact would also depend on just how bipedal OP actually IS, as you said.)

A new species--how important?: My impression is that the new varieties of monkey that are being recognized in S. America are mostly close relatives of existing varieties, and that much of their recognition is due to the "splitters" being for now in the ascendancy among the guys who recognize new species. My impression is that OP is very distinct from an Oran Utan (sp?)--anyway, that is the position of Indonesians who have seen both. They say that OP is a borderline human, which OU is not. If an OP is captured (e.g., lured by fruit into a bamboo cage (if only a little money were offered as a reward for capture!)), this matter would be made much clearer. Anyway, IF a captured OP seems like a borderline human (a big IF at this point), then it would put a fairly serious dent in skepticism about BF on the grounds of it being too radically different from everything else out there.

A new large mammal--how important? You've formulated the skeptics' fallback position nicely. I.e., BF is so much bigger, and so much more out of place in N. Am. than OP is in Indonesia, that swallowing OP doesn't mean BF has to be swallowed as well. Still, my impression is that many scientists think or feel that all the big beasts (i.e., those over ten pounds or so) have been "rounded up" by now, and that all that remains is for them to refine our knowledge of the Critters that are Inside the Corral. The discovery of a large (60-pound or more) and important uncataloged animal Outside the Box would put a serious dent in that complacency, and open their minds considerably to the possibility of BF.

Perhaps so, but if you're not a scientist you're just wasting ink.

About the best such a paper could hope for is to lure someone with credentials into the hunt.

Good luck on that one.

Just how many papers have you had rejected by journals, Huntster?
Plenty of amateurs (ie people who are not professional scientists and/or don't have advanced degrees) publish in wildlife and zoological journals.
Just pick up some issues of The Auk or any similar journals and check out the author information.

None. But, then, I haven't submitted any, because I'm no scientist, and have nothing to contribute to such an esteemed group of knowledgable folks.



I wasn't aware of that. I have submitted several articles to various newspapers and magazines, and some have been published. None were written with the goal of advancing a scientific statement or proposal.

If I did so, however, and as a scientist, would you bother reading it?

Depends on whether or not it's something I care about.
But if you haven't tried to submit papers to a journal, how are you so sure you'd be rejected?
Think positive man!
You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like you!

Wow! You make me feel great!

But I still don't know my scientific rectum from a volcano in the ground.

Neither do most geologists!
Hey...wait...you've got a scientific rectum?!
Whut the--

I didn't have time to read everyone's post so maybe someone already noticed this but I only see 4 toes with an apposed thumb, more like a Monkey or an Orangutan. Is this what you see?

Cut4sign

Do I hear daily affirmations?

Who's that guy?

Stuart Smalley .DY probably knows.

Its a dorky character from Saturday night live. HE sits in front of a mirror as gives himself affirmations that people like him

Not like your anything like him. You are by me and most here I am sure. Its DY made me think of him when he did that "doggone it" thing.

http://www.dailywav.com/sa.html its the third one down. If ya want to hear him

What Zog want to know is:

Setting aside the fact that OP lives in a region with other primates and happens to have feet like his ape neighbors, and setting aside who reports the evidence as well as how the legendary nature of Sasquatch may affect what some people see in North America's wilderness, why should OP evidence be given more credence than Sas evidence? Comparing the two, Sas evidence is overwhelming in comparison. Where does "overcaution" end and double-standardism begin?

With all due respect, DesertYeti, this isn't accurate. What about the howler monkeys and spider monkeys of Mexico?

Isn't Mexico a part of North America?

According to the CIA factbook, Mexico is in 'middle America'

Note to self - must stop wasting ink on scientific papers in my field of expertise

Huh?



Nope. It's considered Central America.
No howlers or spider monkeys, and not even a capuchin or marmosette ever set foot in North America based on what we know of the fossil record.
Acutally, there's no howlers in Mexico anyway, they're in the Amazon Basin in South America. Spider monkeys are in the rain forests of Belize, Costa Rica, Panema, and Guatemala, but I'm not sure about Mexico.

According to the Laboratory of Primatology, Estación de Biología "Los Tuxtlas", Instituto de Biología Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico is home to three species of primates (excluding humans)

Howler monkeys (two distinct species) and spider monkeys.


The issue of 'where' Mexico is is partially academic.

Encyclopedia Britannica places it in North America - as do most encylopedias (or at least the 6 I checked today).

The CIA places it in 'middle' america - ie, not Central and not North.

Worldatlas.com defines North America as follows:




The US Census bureau reports that the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) was developed jointly by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to provide new comparability in statistics about business activity across North America.


I think it is safe to say that Mexico is part of North America and has non-human primates, although since they are only found in the south of Mexico, the region is probably much closer to Central America in habitat than North America.

Two species of howlers, huh?
Wow. Guess I have to stop using the references I have for primate distribution. I noticed a similar error in geographic ranges in an "Encyclopedia of North American Mammals" or something like that. There, it was claimed that there are no moose in southeastern Wyoming, although I have seen several on various occasions.
Different references...different data...makes it frustrating.
As for the distinction of North and Central America.
Most of the zoologists, anthropologists, and geographers I talk to consider Mexico to be part of Central America.
This ties in with the political vs. geographic consideration.
Politically (the CIA, etc.) and encyclopediacally (a word?), it might be part of N. America.
From most zoological and regional geographical points of views, it's not.
Potato-poh-tah-toe. :rolleyes:

Regardless, we can say at least that in "northern North America" (ie. everything North of southern Mexico, there's not been a non-human primate since the Eocene based on fossils).

Tropical rainforest exists in southern Mexico, or at least it used to. I saw a depressing amount of deforestation down there. Anyway, I saw and heard howler monkeys in Mexico.

Mexicans I've known and/or worked with considered themselves as living in North America.

One of Robert Anton Wilson's most famous sayings (although I don't have the wording exact) is that certainty is reserved to those who own only one encyclopedia.

EDIT: Hey, that's my 2000th post--but my computer didn't beep and flash at me!

Mexico in North America? I have one acronym for ya...

NAFTA


Now that I've replaced my keyboard and can post again, does it bother
anyone else when tracks don't have debris pushed down in them yet the
area immediately surrounding it is COVERED in leaves?

Secondly, I'd really, REALLY like to see pictures of the trackway, not just a single
indentation on the forest floor. Tracks don't come in onesies and twosies,
but that's another pet peeve...

Quoting Peregrine:



Some of my Mexican friends say the same thing.

For those who might be interested, here a site with some information on the 3 species of primates in Mexico.
Primate research in southern Mexico

Here’s another point I should have included in my list of Oct. 12, above:

• Here’s an anomaly that has, for centuries, refused to cooperate and resolve itself for us. (E.g., to walk into the lab and lie down on the dissecting table.) This implies that more such critters may be similarly uncooperative, and deprives scoftics of a favorite argument—that: “If such cryptids still survived in the hinterlands of North America and Asia, surely by now one would have turned up.” (Show-me-the-body Shermer, who has gifted us with that pearl, has of course opposed funding a search for them.)

And what might the skeptics say as each year passes that Orang Pendak is not found, about it and all over again about Bigfoot?



"Uh well, I woke up this morning and I got myself a beer. The future's uncertain and the end is always near. Let it roll baby, roll. Let it roll baby, roll. All night long!"

It's not to be expected that a body or picture would be obtained in a country where there is little traffic to run over one, few guns (I think not anyway) owned by farmers to shoot one, and few cameras to capture one on film. In those circumstances, native Indonesians can no more be expected to provide proof of OP than Native Americans could have been expected, in similar circumstances, to have provided proof of BF.

Only the empty-handedness of long-term, well-done searches would justify increasing skepticism over time.

I have run across reports of tiny . approx. 3 foot tall adult skeletons found in the vicinity of mounds in Ohio, & several other states in 19th century. Some of these are in Smithsonian publications that I will find again and post here. In addition there are references to "little people" being encountered in the folklore of Native Americans.The Cherokee - called them the Moon -Eyed people & said they lived in earthen burrows , much like the hobbits of cinema.