The relict hominid enquirey

steddyeddy

Jeff meldrum who is an expert in foot morphology and the evolution of primate locomotion has set up a research division within Idaho state university dealing with the question of relict hominds. The question regarding wheter other hominds are still alive today is coming to the forefront after the discovery that flores man. Another man open to the idea of undisvered hominds survivng is the current editor of the journal nature who after the discovery of flores man commented:

In the light of the Flores skeleton, a recent initiative to scour central Sumatra for 'orang pendek' can be viewed in a more serious light. This small, hairy, manlike creature has hitherto been known only from Malay folklore, a debatable strand of hair and a footprint. Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold.

Henry Gee also stated that he wouldnt be at all surprised if another living homind was discovered.

Anyway Im glad that this research division has been set up. It has recieved some criticism from some quarters although amongst its editorial board it boasts George schaller and Ian redmond who are amongst the best field biologists in the world. George schaller wrote one of the most detailed descriptions of the mountain gorilla even before Dianne Fossey.

Anyway heres one of the papers Dr.Meldrum wrote dealing with the idea of relict hominds:

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Editorial_Bushy%20Trees.pdf.

Anybody have any thoughts on the subject?

Rubecula

Although new species are being discovered every year it seems, I am not sure a living hominid other than ourselves is alive and kicking somewhere in the world that is yet undiscovered. It is possible, but in my own mind it is not probable. I am usually wrong though. Interesting to see what comes of all this.

Adam Khor

I think I've already shared my opinion on this, don´t remember if it was in this forum or in Zoology... but whatever, this is what I think now; I think its very unlikely that any hominins other than humans are still alive, mostly because I believe we would have evidence of it by now- carcasses, photographic evidence, etc. I mean, lots of people carry digital cameras or cell phones nowadays, even in third world countries. Blurry, Nessie or Bigfoot-type photos don´t count.
I don´t think its impossible that one or more non-Homo sapiens hominins survived into modern times. I for one like to believe that the woodwoses, ogres and wild men of Medieval times are the same as Neanderthals, and then there's the hobbits... but I think that if that was the case, they are probably extinct by now, what with habitat fragmentation and what not. I also think that some of the reports may be misidentification of known species of monkeys or apes.

So basically my standpoint as of now is, I don´t think its impossible, but I doubt there are many, or even any, left today. Oral tradition could very well keep these creatures alive for centuries after their dissappearance...

Sindri

Sumatra is a large island and is not densely populated as well as having many regions that are mountainous and remote so it could be possible but it's more than likely just indigenous folklore or mistaken identity.

Orang pendek translates as short man. I think there'd be a bit more evidence if it existed. It is a cryptid.

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

I think I've already shared my opinion on this, don´t remember if it was in this forum or in Zoology... but whatever, this is what I think now; I think its very unlikely that any hominins other than humans are still alive, mostly because I believe we would have evidence of it by now- carcasses, photographic evidence, etc. I mean, lots of people carry digital cameras or cell phones nowadays, even in third world countries. Blurry, Nessie or Bigfoot-type photos don´t count.
I don´t think its impossible that one or more non-Homo sapiens hominins survived into modern times. I for one like to believe that the woodwoses, ogres and wild men of Medieval times are the same as Neanderthals, and then there's the hobbits... but I think that if that was the case, they are probably extinct by now, what with habitat fragmentation and what not. I also think that some of the reports may be misidentification of known species of monkeys or apes.

So basically my standpoint as of now is, I don´t think its impossible, but I doubt there are many, or even any, left today. Oral tradition could very well keep these creatures alive for centuries after their dissappearance...

Thanks for the reply. This hominid research thing makes me very happy and not simply because its dealing with the idea of other hominds existing. It is exposing the real attitude of a lot of prominent zoologists to the idea of unknown apes existing. In the biological sciences people have had their careers ruined by even researching the possibility of these things existing.

A lot of the general public think that the zoological community are totally against the idea that other apes exist and in part thats because a lot of people who hold these views are afraid to speak out about them.

Jane Goodal in her words is "sure sasquatch exists based on native american sightings". George Schaller is an advocate of sasquatch and yeti research. David attenborough is an advocate of the yeti's existence. George schaller again was talking to a peer of his who was setting traps for an australopithicine he saw :eek:.

Now just to clarify I dont support all the views of the above. In particular I find the idea of the yeti a bit unlikely for one but thats not the point. The point is that there should be an atmosphere where people are free to research the possiblity of these things existence.

steddyeddy

Sindri wrote: »

Sumatra is a large island and is not densely populated as well as having many regions that are mountainous and remote so it could be possible but it's more than likely just indigenous folklore or mistaken identity.

Orang pendek translates as short man. I think there'd be a bit more evidence if it existed. It is a cryptid.

Thats where Ill have to disagree. If indigenous people are reporting an animal with consistent morphological and behavioural aspects then It is highly unlikely that a tribe would get it wrong again and again.

Prior to the discovery of a lot of animals we only had sightings and footprints to go by. Called trace evidence by zoologists footprints and sightings are crucial in field zoology.

We have both sightings and footprints of orang pendek.

Adam Khor

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thats where Ill have to disagree. If indigenous people are reporting an animal with consistent morphological and behavioural aspects then It is highly unlikely that a tribe would get it wrong again and again.

Prior to the discovery of a lot of animals we only had sightings and footprints to go by. Called trace evidence by zoologists footprints and sightings are crucial in field zoology.

We have both sightings and footprints of orang pendek.

This is interesting. First thing I did upon seeing this was to look up a gibbon's footprint (you know my idea that these guys may be large gibbons), but the truth is, they look VERY different. I actually found this chart with several ape species footprints and the gibbon has very long toes whereas the supossed Orang Pendek has a long big toe but the other toes seem to be extremely short:



The shape is more similar to that of the Neanderthal, but the big toe is supossedly grasping-capable. It still doesn´t look like the foot of a tree-dwelling animal.
If this really is an Orang Pendek footprint, then that's a big blow to my gibbon idea

Do you know if any unidentified primates have been caught on camera traps? Seeing as these are more and more used each day and have captured some really rare animals, if there was an Orang Pendek out there I would expect it to take its own picture sooner or later...

Wibbs

Adam Khor wrote: »

I don´t think its impossible that one or more non-Homo sapiens hominins survived into modern times. I for one like to believe that the woodwoses, ogres and wild men of Medieval times are the same as Neanderthals, and then there's the hobbits

I'd be similar. I'd put a small bet down that Neandertals(and similar cousins from Asia) survived in remote areas up to at least 15,000 years ago. The lack of evidence in remains doesn't trouble me so much. After all we've less than 20 examples of Neandertal individuals and most of those are fragments. We don't have a full skeleton. One species type skeleton exists but it's a combination one. This is of a human that lived for over 200,000 years(at least). Over that time there would likely have been a million of them. Other evidence like stone tools? Some are a grey area. IE they look like transition technologies and as such are ascribed to us. It's possible they made them.

It's somewhat possible some may have survived up to historic times. There are enough reports of "wild men" out there. Surviving today? Bigfoot I'd have issues with, though the reports of vocalisations and behaviour consistent with some sort of large ape are intriguing. Well the ones before the advent of the interweb anyway. The Yeti, I'm not so sure about. The Russian Alma is an interesting one, with quite a lot of sightings and close encounters by non nutters like actual Russian scientists(inc one by a German soldier escaping a prison camp after WW2). The Orang pendek is a very interesting one, not least because it's alledged footprints aren't so human like, but do look bipedal. Not something an obvious faker would try.

Adam Khor

Wibbs wrote: »

Bigfoot I'd have issues with, though the reports of vocalisations and behaviour consistent with some sort of large ape are intriguing.

I think most Bigfoot vocalizations are nothing more than misidentified calls from more "normal" animals- many people say that it sounds like a "woman screaming" or variations of this, which fits with the- really frightening- mating calls of cougars and perhaps foxes and coyotes as well. When you are in the forest at night it is easy to turn the most common sounds into monster voices, let alone these scarier ones...

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

This is interesting. First thing I did upon seeing this was to look up a gibbon's footprint (you know my idea that these guys may be large gibbons), but the truth is, they look VERY different. I actually found this chart with several ape species footprints and the gibbon has very long toes whereas the supossed Orang Pendek has a long big toe but the other toes seem to be extremely short:



The shape is more similar to that of the Neanderthal, but the big toe is supossedly grasping-capable. It still doesn´t look like the foot of a tree-dwelling animal.
If this really is an Orang Pendek footprint, then that's a big blow to my gibbon idea

Do you know if any unidentified primates have been caught on camera traps? Seeing as these are more and more used each day and have captured some really rare animals, if there was an Orang Pendek out there I would expect it to take its own picture sooner or later...

Maybe it is a large gibbon adam. Witnesses do say it looks a lot like a gibbon in some ways. Debbie matyr says it looked like a gibbon on steroids. Another witness Jeremy holden who is a freelance photographer who has produced some of the first pictures of known animals described it as "very" bipedal. He stated that its not like the recronstructions you see of clumsy hunched bipeds. This thing walked like a supermodel with a human fluidity.

Jeremy holden is placing camera traps on various places on the island and hes installing new camera traps that dont have to have the battery checked for three months! His biggest failure in life is not getting a photo of this. National geographic were funding the search for this for a while to give you an idea of how serious this is taken.

Jeremy had many many wildlife firsts so if anyone can do it its him!

Here Jeremy discovers a new type of plant in the order nephantes (venus fly traps ect).



This is Jeremy's photo of the sumratan rabbit until he took this picture was thought to be extinct. It hadnt been seen since 1916.



This is Jeremy's photo of the clouded leopard. Which is one of the first to be taken.



This is the malay tapir which is another of Jeremy's favouraites. Jeremy has never seen this animal before in the wild.

As jeremy says he has seen the clouded leopard in the wild and photographed it, he photographed hundreds of pictures of tapirs but never managed to see one in the wild. The tapir is a fairly big creature, not largely intelligent so if that can remain hidden in my opinion so can a primate. Funnily enough he has seen Orang pendek twice but never managed to get a picture.

A lot of primates avoid using natural trails because predators often avail of trails to ambush prey. So if an animals rare, its not using trails then the chance of getting a picture become very slight.

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

I think most Bigfoot vocalizations are nothing more than misidentified calls from more "normal" animals- many people say that it sounds like a "woman screaming" or variations of this, which fits with the- really frightening- mating calls of cougars and perhaps foxes and coyotes as well. When you are in the forest at night it is easy to turn the most common sounds into monster voices, let alone these scarier ones...

I wouldnt put any stock into anyone claiming a new species based on vocalisations they dont recognise. I would think that aproach very unscientific.

Adam Khor

steddyeddy wrote: »

I wouldnt put any stock into anyone claiming a new species based on vocalisations they dont recognise. I would think that aproach very unscientific.

I agree but I'm sure you know how many Bigfoot fanboys think every growl, shriek or chattering they hear MUST come from a big ape-man...

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

I agree but I'm sure you know how many Bigfoot fanboys think every growl, shriek or chattering they hear MUST come from a big ape-man...

A hell of a lot. Which takes away from any effort to take the possibility seriously. If multiple witnesses see one and see and hear it chattering, which has been claimed then that would be interesting. Hearing noises without seeing their origin however is just wrong.

Adam Khor

steddyeddy wrote: »

A hell of a lot. Which takes away from any effort to take the possibility seriously. If multiple witnesses see one and see and hear it chattering, which has been claimed then that would be interesting. Hearing noises without seeing their origin however is just wrong.

So, in your opinion, is there any footage, reports, etc you would consider worth studying at least, that may represent any of the relict hominids? I mean as in, "ok, this is what we have thus far"?

Mickeroo

I really don't think there's a large Hominid roaming anywhere in North America. Lots of Canada is empty I suppose but it would not be difficult to find them if they were there imo.

steddyeddy

Mickeroo wrote: »

I really don't think there's a large Hominid roaming anywhere in North America. Lots of Canada is empty I suppose but it would not be difficult to find them if they were there imo.

Well the mountain gorilla went undiscovered in an area the size of munster until 1906-08 (Depending on who you give credit to). The recent discovery of the bili ape (not a true sub species of ape but a seperate tribe of very large chimp with their own culture and well on the way to full speciation imo). Then theres the hoan keim turtle which remained hidden in a 200 metre wide, 4 metre deep lake until 1998.

As george schaller puts it. The snow leopard is know to exist, yet people who study it might see it for only a few minutes at a time. A snow leopard will see you coming from a distance and hide before you come anywhere near it. Even if you do it can hide behind a boulder and you could pass within feet of it and not see it.

If following a chimp troop and they dont want to be found they wont be found and that could be a troop of up to 150 chimps. I wouldnt have a problem with a bipedal, far ranging, primate remaining undetected.

Mickeroo

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well the mountain gorilla went undiscovered in an area the size of munster until 1906-08 (Depending on who you give credit to). The recent discovery of the bili ape (not a true sub species of ape but a seperate tribe of very large chimp with their own culture and well on the way to full speciation imo). Then theres the hoan keim turtle which remained hidden in a 200 metre wide, 4 metre deep lake until 1998.

As george schaller puts it. The snow leopard is know to exist, yet people who study it might see it for only a few minutes at a time. A snow leopard will see you coming from a distance and hide before you come anywhere near it. Even if you do it can hide behind a boulder and you could pass within feet of it and not see it.

If following a chimp troop and they dont want to be found they wont be found and that could be a troop of up to 150 chimps. I wouldnt have a problem with a bipedal, far ranging, primate remaining undetected.

Seeing snow leopards et al. is rare yes but would I be wrong in saying that seeing solid evidence for their presence in an area is not?

Then again, I suppose if nobody is out looking for the evidence then it won't be found

Adam Khor

Mickeroo wrote: »

Seeing snow leopards et al. is rare yes but would I be wrong in saying that seeing solid evidence for their presence in an area is not?

At least for the shepherds who share their habitat, there is plenty of bloody evidence...

Galvasean

Mickeroo wrote: »

Then again, I suppose if nobody is out looking for the evidence then it won't be found

Plenty of people look for Bigfoot but, generally speaking, they lack the expertise to know what they should be looking for and how to find it.

steddyeddy

Mickeroo wrote: »

Seeing snow leopards et al. is rare yes but would I be wrong in saying that seeing solid evidence for their presence in an area is not?

Then again, I suppose if nobody is out looking for the evidence then it won't be found

Well put it this way until recently we had a total of four chimp teeth in the fossil record. Yes there is footprint evidence for the snow leopard but then again the same goes for a lot of the cryptid primates worldwide.

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

Plenty of people look for Bigfoot but, generally speaking, they lack the expertise to know what they should be looking for and how to find it.

I guess most expert primatologists are too busy trying to save known apes from extinction...

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

I guess most expert primatologists are too busy trying to save known apes from extinction...

Ian redmond primatologist was doing some field research into the bigfoot mystery and noted that many of the plant species that the mountain gorilla eats had relative plant species in areas where sasquatch was sighted.

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

So, in your opinion, is there any footage, reports, etc you would consider worth studying at least, that may represent any of the relict hominids? I mean as in, "ok, this is what we have thus far"?

Sorry for being rude Adam I will get to your question tomorrow. Its just late here and it will be a big post!

Mickeroo

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well the mountain gorilla went undiscovered in an area the size of munster until 1906-08 (Depending on who you give credit to). The recent discovery of the bili ape (not a true sub species of ape but a seperate tribe of very large chimp with their own culture and well on the way to full speciation imo). Then theres the hoan keim turtle which remained hidden in a 200 metre wide, 4 metre deep lake until 1998.

Well both the Mountain Gorilla and Bili Ape were found in relatively unexplored areas of Africa at the time, not a fair comparison to North America imo and I'd imagine it would be a lot easier for a turtle to go unnoticed than a large hominid species, also just looking at wiki there (yea, **** source I know ), is it not debatable that Hoan Kiem is not a seperate species from the Yangtze Soft Shell? Even if it is a seperate species, its similarity to the Yangtze Soft Shell would have added to it not being discovered for a long time I would have thought.

Don't get me wrong, I find the possibility of undiscovered hominids (or animals of any kind) fascinating, but when it comes to something like Sasquatch, i really just don't see how it could not have been conclusively discovered by now in a continent as populated and developed as North America. I guess its possible, but for now I'll have to remain an agnostic a-sasquatch-ist

I think it's great that they're seriously going researching relict hominids though and I really really hope they find them

Adam Khor

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think it's great that they're seriously going researching relict hominids though and I really really hope they find them

I think if they were asked their opinion, tho, they wouldn´t want to be found... being discovered hasn´t been good news for many animals in the past

Galvasean

Adam Khor wrote: »

I think if they were asked their opinion, tho, they wouldn´t want to be found... being discovered hasn´t been good news for many animals in the past

18:05 will tell you everything you need to know about Yeti.
http://fliiby.com/file/121103/ts7rwp01h6.html

Wibbs

Adam Khor wrote: »

I think most Bigfoot vocalizations are nothing more than misidentified calls from more "normal" animals- many people say that it sounds like a "woman screaming" or variations of this, which fits with the- really frightening- mating calls of cougars and perhaps foxes and coyotes as well. When you are in the forest at night it is easy to turn the most common sounds into monster voices, let alone these scarier ones...

True. I'd be more convinced by locals, especially hunters. A bunch of urban campers with a few beers not so much.

I actually know a guy who says he saw one in Canada. This guy was brought up in this remote area and is a man you wouldn't ever accuse of exaggeration. He has a strong scientific background and career with a very disciplined mind. He says he knows what he saw, but can't square this with the logical part of his head that says what he saw can't be there kinda thing. He was quite close too. 20-30 feet. I think I posted this before. Anyway he was fishing up this remote river moving upstream. He got to what looked like a good spot and something caught his eye. In retrospect his head said "tree stump", but also registered surprise that he was focusing on a tree stump, something not exactly lacking in a temperate rain forest. He moved up the river(he was wading) and when he got within 20-30 feet of this stump, it stood up. Laxative time. He instantly registered that's no bear(his family are big into huntin/fishin/shootin, so knew bear well, especially at that range)He described it as the same height as him. He's a big man of 6ft4/5, bulky, but not like a gorilla standing up. Basically the same proportions as human, but "stronger" looking. Dark in colour, shortish hair not shaggy like the movies with no whites to the eyes that he could see. It stared at him for what seemed like an age, but he reckoned was probably moments and then calm as you like walked off into the timber. No noise. He backed away and moved down stream. AFAIR He didn't think it was following or any of that. One aspect he thought interesting was he had tears on his face. He reckons from the shock of seeing something not human walk like a human. Now as he was in bear country he was packing a large calibre pistol, but never thought to use it. There are a fair few native Canadians in this area who he knows and he asked the older ones over the years since and many(but not all) weren't too surprised and said it was a territorial warning kind of thing. Interestingly he said the native legends are vague on the "creature"(they don't call it sasquatch IIRC). They seem to say the creature is as much a supernatural entity as an animal. Seeing one is good luck or spiritual warning apparently. His personal take is that it was an hallucination/race memory brought on my some stress in his life at the time. That it was probably a bear, but that it was a very real hallucination all the same and he knows what he thinks he saw, as it were.

My main issue with the Americas bigfoot is there's little* to no evidence that any ape but ourselves ever made it there. Erectus might have, after all they were damned good travelers who made Aussie backpackers look lazy. If it was a relict Erectus, it wouldn't be the huge animal reported. They were much shorter than us and more rangy. They might have evolved locally, but that still doesn't work for me. Erectus had culture and fire and a lithic technology. None of which show up in the US attached to them. I'd say the same of the Almas in Asia that are often thought to be relict Neandertals. Neandertals were actually little different to moderns at the time we co existed. More and more finds are closing that cultural gap(some even suggest they had more cultural stuff before us). If they were around today in the wild somewhere, they'd be that not far off other "primitive" hunter gatherers that still exist today. Certainly not naked hairy "wildmen". That said they would probably be more "stealth" in their presence in an area. They existed in Eurasia for 100's of 1000's of years yet didn't have the extinction impact on fauna that we do in significantly shorter timespans.







*some claim very early dates for some evidence that is suggestible of erectus, but I have my doubts.

Adam Khor

Wibbs wrote: »

Interestingly he said the native legends are vague on the "creature"(they don't call it sasquatch IIRC). They seem to say the creature is as much a supernatural entity as an animal. Seeing one is good luck or spiritual warning apparently.

That is actually a common theme in many "bigfoot"-type stories I've heard- some people don´t think they are simply apes but rather visitors from other dimensions (for real) or things like that. Others say they are kind of the elemental spirits, protectors of the forests yadda yadda yadda... I remember reading a story about a fisherman in South America (don´t remember if it was Brazil or Venezuela, one of those places), who claimed to have met a creature by the river- like a man, but much taller and completely covered in hair.
According to him the creature actually spoke to him, asking what he was doing. The guy replied that he was fishing for eels, and the creature told him that it was ok as long as he didn´t catch more than two. It fits the stories about hairy guardians of the forest in many South American places, taking revenge if humans fish or hunt more than what they need.
Alien enthusiasts will also tell you of several cases in which there seemed to be a conenction between UFOs and bigfoot sightings but I haven´t read much on these subjects so I'm afraid I can´t elaborate on that.

Not saying these stories are to be believed- just reporting what I've read, but the fact that they are repeated once and again in many parts of the world does make me think... and of course, if they were hallucinations or spiritual entities or whatever, it would explain why we never get carcasses Of course, that would also mean that science would probably never confirm their existence...:pac:

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

So, in your opinion, is there any footage, reports, etc you would consider worth studying at least, that may represent any of the relict hominids? I mean as in, "ok, this is what we have thus far"?

Hey Adam and all. I am very sorry for the delay in replying. This being a science forum I like to really think about my answers!
What do we have so far? Well I can say that originally I didn’t find the idea of another ape or hominid walking around credible in the slightest. Only once I learned more about zoology the paradigm I held changed.
What convinced me of the Sasquatch thing the studies done by John Napier (Primatologist) and John Green (Journalist) in tracking down people who reported sasquatches and examining their accounts to see If their description adds up to a real animal. The report that struck me is that one man saw a 6 foot "ape" sitting on a log. When he approached it walked away upright and turned back and grinned at him. It seemed an odd thing to make up and furthermore it’s an aspect straight from an ape’s repertoire. Chimpanzees grin to show an element of fear akin to our nervous smile. Another hunter saw one stand up and throw a stone at him. The final thing Ill mention about behaviour is that they have been seen wood knocking. That is hitting a tree hard with a branch to make a noise that will travel large distances. Often responses have been heard in return. All this behaviour is describing a great ape. What I will add as a post note is that oddly the creature is described as swimming which is odd for a great ape but it makes sense for a bipedal one Imho.
In regards to appearance we have the same thing. In some areas the creature is described as 6 foot tall in another area it could be eight foot tall. Not everyone is describing a 10 foot monster. The colours reported vary from brown to dark. The males are reported as being extremely straight backed, having wide shoulders tapering down to a narrower waist. The females are described as having a “goose walk” and “not being built for beauty or speed”. The females also are described as having a fine pair of breasts!
One of the clearest accounts of a female comes from William Roe.

Ever since I was a small boy back in the forest of Michigan, I have studied the lives and habits of wild animals. Later, when I supported my family in Northern Alberta by hunting and trapping, I spent many hours just observing the wild things. They fascinated me. But the most incredible experience I ever had with a wild creature occurred near a little town called Tete Jaune Cache, British Columbia, about eighty miles west of Jasper, Alberta.

I had been working on the highway near Tete Jaune Cache for about two years. In October, 1955, I decided to climb five miles up Mica Mountain to an old deserted mine, just for something to do. I came in sight of the mine about three o'clock in the afternoon after an easy climb. I had just come out of a patch of low brush into a clearing when I saw what I thought was a grizzly bear, in the bush on the other side. I had shot a grizzly near that spot the year before. This one was only about 75 yards away, but I didn't want to shoot it, for I had no way of getting it out. So I sat down on a small rock and watched, my rifle in my hands.

I could see part of the animal's head and the top of one shoulder. A moment later it raised up and stepped out into the opening. Then I saw it was not a bear.

This, to the best of my recollection, is what the creature looked like and how it acted as it came across the clearing directly toward me. My first impression was of a huge man, about six feet tall, almost three feet wide, and probably weighing somewhere near three hundred pounds. It was covered from head to foot with dark brown silver-tipped hair. But as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was female.
And yet, its torso was not curved like a female's. Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to hip. Its arms were much thicker than a man's arms, and longer, reaching almost to its knees. Its feet were broader proportionately than a man's, about five inches wide at the front and tapering to much thinner heels. When it walked it placed the heel of its foot down first, and I could see the grey-brown skin or hide on the soles of its feet.
It came to the edge of the bush I was hiding in, within twenty feet of me, and squatted down on its haunches. Reaching out its hands it pulled the branches of bushes toward it and stripped the leaves with its teeth. Its lips curled flexibly around the leaves as it ate. I was close enough to see that its teeth were white and even.
The shape of this creature's head somewhat resembled a Negro's. The head was higher at the back than at the front. The nose was broad and flat. The lips and chin protruded farther than its nose. But the hair that covered it, leaving bare only the parts of its face around the mouth, nose and ears, made it resemble an animal as much as a human. None of this hair, even on the back of its head, was longer than an inch, and that on its face was much shorter. Its ears were shaped like a human's ears. But its eyes were small and black like a bear's. And its neck also was unhuman. Thicker and shorter than any man's I had ever seen.
As I watched this creature, I wondered if some movie company was making a film at this place and that what I saw was an actor, made up to look partly human and partly animal. But as I observed it more, I decided it would be impossible to fake such a specimen. Anyway, I learned later there was no such company near that area. Nor, in fact, did anyone live up Mica Mountain, according to the people who lived in Tete Jaune Cache.
Finally the wild thing must have got my scent, for it looked directly at me through an opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face. It looked so comical at the moment I had to grin. Still in a crouched position, it backed up three or four short steps, then straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come. For a moment it watched me over its shoulder as it went, not exactly afraid, but as though it wanted no contact with anything strange.
The thought came to me that if I shot it, I would possibly have a specimen of great interest to scientists the world over. I had heard stories of the Sasquatch, the giant hairy Indians that live in the legends of British Columbia Indians, and also many claim, are still in fact alive today. Maybe this was a Sasquatch, I told myself.
I levelled my rifle. The creature was still walking rapidly away, again turning its head to look in my direction. I lowered the rifle. Although I have called the creature "it", I felt now that it was a human being and I knew I would never forgive myself if I killed it.
Just as it came to the other patch of brush it threw its head back and made a peculiar noise that seemed to be half laugh and half language, and which I can only describe as a kind of a whinny. Then it walked from the small brush into a stand of lodgepole pine.
I stepped out into the opening and looked across a small ridge just beyond the pine to see if I could see it again. It came out on the ridge a couple of hundred yards away from me, tipped its head back again, and again emitted the only sound I had heard it make, but what this half- laugh, half-language was meant to convey, I do not know. It disappeared then, and I never saw it again.
I wanted to find out if it lived on vegetation entirely or ate meat as well, so I went down and looked for signs. I found it in five different places, and although I examined it thoroughly, could find no hair or shells of bugs or insects. So I believe it was strictly a vegetarian.
I found one place where it had slept for a couple of nights under a tree. Now, the nights were cool up the mountain, at this time of year especially, and yet it had not used a fire. I found no sign that it possessed even the simplest of tools. Nor a single companion while in this place.Whether this was a Sasquatch I do not know. It will always remain a mystery to me, unless another one is found.I hereby declare the above statement to be in every part true, to the best of my powers of observation and recollection.

(Signed) William Roe

By the way any reports I am talking about come about pre internet and many come before international or even national coverage. These reports aren’t just random reports in local newspapers as is commonly thought. When someone reports this to the police, wildlife biologist or park ranger they were often followed up with primatologists. John green a journalist with one of the Canadian broadsheets was the one who catalogued these reports. He brought magistrates and primatologists to interview and cross examine those who made the reports. This is where the analysis of the content of the reports, the frequency of the reports and the nature and time of the reports didn’t indicate a collective hoax to the experts but descriptions of a real animal.

Again I apologise to everyone for the delay this is only post one so theres more to come!

Adam Khor

I really appreciate it that you take the time to elaborate at all Thanks a lot!

That's very interesting about the "grin". Yes, apes AND monkeys both do that when frightened. That's why any smart zookeeper will tell you NOT to grin at them as well as not staring into their eyes. :cool:

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

Dude I really appreciate it that you take the time to elaborate at all Thanks a lot!

That's very interesting about the "grin". Yes, apes AND monkeys both do that when frightened. That's why any smart zookeeper will tell you NOT to grin at them as well as not staring into their eyes. :cool:

You dont need to apreciate it man its me that ought to justify it! Theres more to come anyway and theres a ton of reports like that. I know some people view them as supernatural but thats the same as any culture's view of an animal. The celts thought the fox to be in posseson of special powers the same for many other animals various cultures have reported.

steddyeddy

Great article from the Yakama post.

This is the first of a six-week series on Sasquatch, a gigantic, reclusive beast that walks on two legs deep within our remote forests — or, depending on one’s beliefs, only deep within the recesses of gullible minds. This series is not intended to promote or dispel belief in Sasquatch, but will focus largely on the evidence, efforts and experiences of those who advocate acceptance of its possible existence. Why? Because as a whole, the worlds of science and “common knowledge” dismiss it as, as scholar and conservationist Ian McTaggart Cowan noted, “a charming story.”
Writing about what is commonly accepted isn’t a charming story, or even interesting.
The unacceptable being championed by anecdotal evidence and scientists willing to consider it, though, is intriguing.
“The public in general, and the scientific community more importantly, believe there can’t be any such thing,” says John Green, a retired British Columbia newspaper publisher who has researched Sasquatch for a half-century. “Some call themselves skeptics. How can you be a skeptic when you’re just trumpeting what everybody believes? They’re not skeptics.
“Skeptics are people like me who don’t accept what everybody believes.”
Consider this series, by that standard, a study in skepticism.

• • •

YAKIMA, Wash. — Do you believe somewhere within the deep, wooded slopes of the Cascades and other remote forests there exists an eight-foot-tall, hairy beast walking on two legs?
Thom Powell, left, talks about The London Trackway with Tom Rutledge during the Richland Bigfoot conference in Richland, Wash. Friday May 4, 2012. Powell was one of the people who examined and made casts from tracks found in a lake bed south of Eugene, Ore. (ANDY SAWYER/Yakima Herald-Republic)

Do you believe in Sasquatch? In Bigfoot?
It’s basically a yes-or-no question. People usually fall into one of two groups: those who are convinced Bigfoot exists, and those who believe people in the first group should not be allowed to operate heavy machinery.
Believers are fervent, sometimes even devout. It matters to them. It’s personal. In many cases, they — or someone they know — have seen, heard or sensed something that, in their minds, could only be explained by accepting the seemingly inconceivable.
Non-believers couldn’t care less. For them, the whole idea is a crock of hooey. Sasquatch? Yeah? How about the Tooth Fairy, you believe in that too?
No, say the believers. Just Sasquatch.
You might be surprised at how many people are OK with the concept of a race of giant, two-legged forest denizens.
According to a 2011 Northwest poll by PEMCO Insurance, 40 percent of Washington residents believe Sasquatch could be a reality. In that same poll, 13 percent say they’ve either seen one or know someone who has.
If that number seems high — 13 percent of nearly 7 million? seriously? — consider this: The number of reported Sasquatch sightings or other “close encounters” over the years is upwards of 40,000.
One Bigfoot researcher has followed up on nearly 400 reports in the Wenatchee area alone. In Yakima County, the closed area of the Yakama Reservation and the thickly forested hills around Bumping Lake have each been the site of literally dozens of reported sightings.
Many of those 40,000 reports involved multiple people who saw or heard the same thing.
Bigfoot sightings have been reported by police and military officers, by college professors and scientists, by loggers and backpackers, by construction contractors and car-campers, and by couch potatoes who think of the great outdoors as the place where the car lives.
Are they all crazy? Deluded? Drunk or drug-addled? Are they part of some loose-knit but far-reaching hoax?
Or are they simply the tip of a much larger iceberg? Are there thousands more out there who saw something they can’t explain, but are keeping quiet about it to avoid being ridiculed?
If the latter is true, their silence is understandable.
A Blewett Pass resident says he and his nephew encountered a “huge creature … eight, nine feet tall” killing chickens in the coop behind his cabin in the winter of 1976-’77. The creature escaped despite their shooting it at point-blank range with a shotgun, says the cabin owner, who notified the Chelan County sheriff and almost wishes he hadn’t because of the weeks that followed.
“The newspapers got hold of it,” he says, “and made fools of us.”
A forestry technician with the Yakama Nation says his willingness to look into Bigfoot reports has gotten him in hot water with his superiors.
“I got taken aside by one of my higher-ups,” the forester says. “He told me, ‘What are you doing, why are you investigating these and openly reporting this material? What you’re doing, if we know something’s there, you’re shutting this whole forest down! It’ll be like the spotted owl situation — protocol will have to be followed. Basically, you’re going to turn us into a reserve. There won’t be any logging allowed at all.’
“I thought that was a little extreme. Hey, you guys don’t believe me anyway, so what does it matter?”
A college professor and anthropologist specializing in the evolution of bipedalism (walking on two legs) saw his own career jeopardized when the promotion process turned to scrutiny of his research into alleged Sasquatch tracks.
Another renowned scientist was driven to the verge of tears when he realized he was beginning to accept what he had repeatedly and quite publicly denounced — that Sasquatch, cause celebre of the wacko set, might, in fact, exist.
Could it all be a hoax? Some reports have been proven so.
With others, it’s not as easy to discern the truth, such as the famous 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film. Nearly a half-century later, it remains the subject of heated debate — more than a decade after a Yakima man, Bob Heironimus, swore under oath that he, wearing a monkey suit, was the creature on that jittery, blurred footage.
But if it’s all a hoax, it’s unimaginably elaborate and expensive — as well as historic in scope, dating back hundreds of years.
Tribal lore of Native American peoples from California to Canada includes stories of giant, hairy humanoids variously referred to as Hairy Man, Giant of the Woods and Hairy Giant. They are depicted on centuries-old pictographs. Even the term Sasquatch is derived, and somewhat anglicized, from a Salish tribal term for such a creature.
Hoaxers would also have to go to remarkable lengths to perpetrate the ruse, because tracks have been found in places so remote it’s surprising they were even found.
On a December day in 1998 two foresters found three distinct track trails of bare footprints in the snow, measuring 22, 18 and 8 inches — a family unit? — on the Yakama Reservation’s closed portion, in thick woods unlikely to attract picnickers, hikers or even hunters.
And then there were the tracks found 21 years ago at a remote Canadian lake by two journalists, one of them a documentary filmmaker from Minnesota.
The lake is accessible only by float plane and inhabited only seasonally by the few dozen anglers who visit the lake’s lone fishing lodge. The two men, there to film a story about fishing for huge lake trout, were on an impromptu boat trip when they happened to stop at a sandy shoreline a good 10 miles from the lodge.
There they found and followed a long line of barefoot, 17-inch tracks with a 42-inch stride that continued, unbroken, off into the endless tundra.
“The whole thing didn’t make sense to me,” the filmmaker says. “There’s no way anybody would go to any lengths to hoax something up there. Nobody would ever find the tracks. Not a chance.”
And what can we make of the thousands of eyewitness reports?
If not Sasquatch, what are they all seeing and hearing? Bears?
Try telling that to the retired Army colonel who, as a 16-year-old elk hunter in the Blue Mountains, spotted a towering, hairy beast through his hunting rifle’s scope, magnified such that the animal looked to be barely 45 yards away. The creature appeared so “man-like” that the hunter felt guilty even watching it through his rifle scope.
But because he was too fascinated to look away, he kept watching it — for 45 minutes.
Ohio paralegal Melissa Hovey has never seen a Sasquatch — “so,” she says, “I can’t tell the world they’re out there” — but has interviewed hundreds of what she describes as credible witnesses before and since becoming president of the American Bigfoot Society.
“I’ve spoken with politicians, with oil magnates, police officers, people in the military, factory workers. Police officers or military people may be more believable or credible, but they’re telling the same thing. Why would all these people be telling the same story? They don’t want to be involved in something that sounds crazy,” she says, “but they come from all walks of society.
“You can’t watch and listen to what they’ve gone through and say they’re crazy — because if you don’t believe what they’re saying, that’s what you’re saying. And that’s not fair.
“Either it’s a misidentification with another animal or they’re really seeing what they say they’re seeing. It’s one or the other.”
Not surprisingly, many “Bigfooters” share a sort of gallows humor about how the world perceives them.
The skeptical wife of a Bureau of Indian Affairs timber appraiser hated hearing her husband talk about his and other forest workers’ Sasquatch sightings deep within the wooded Cascade foothills.
Then last February, while driving from White Swan to her job in Yakima in the pre-dawn darkness, she saw in her headlights what she later described as a large, hairy, two-legged animal cross Branch Road in front of her, step easily over a barbed-wire fence and disappear into the darkness.
“Now,” cracks one of her husband’s co-workers, “she’s in the crazy club with the rest of us.”

Mickeroo

Reads a bit biased to me, can't say I agree with their definition of a skeptic either

steddyeddy

Mickeroo wrote: »

Reads a bit biased to me, can't say I agree with their definition of a skeptic either

Which parts are biased though? Well John green rasies an interesting point about skepticism.

Mickeroo

steddyeddy wrote: »

Which parts are biased though? Well John green rasies an interesting point about skepticism.

The whole thing, I just found the language used to be quite biased towards the believers and none of the stories it puts forward are particularly convincing imho.

As for the skepticism thing, well in fairness a true skeptic isn't just someone who "doesn't accept what everyone believes", its someone who doesn't accept something which lacks adequate evidence or proof to back it up.

Don't get me wrong though, it's an interesting read.

steddyeddy

Mickeroo wrote: »

The whole thing, I just found the language used to be quite biased towards the believers and none of the stories it puts forward are particularly convincing imho.

As for the skepticism thing, well in fairness a true skeptic isn't just someone who "doesn't accept what everyone believes", its someone who doesn't accept something which lacks adequate evidence or proof to back it up.

Don't get me wrong though, it's an interesting read.

Well their either lying about seeing a creature or not. The credibility wont come from one or two sightings but over two thousand similar sightings. They could have included some a skeptics opinion on why it couldnt or doesnt exist in fairness. The term skeptic is an interesting on though and regardless of its meaning I would be more John green's kind of skeptic (John green is the guy mentioned in the article and my previous post who worked with promatologists to collect reports). I think a skeptic questions belief systems. In my view those who feel that the foot prints are all hoaxed and people are all lying about the same thing are holding a belief about that. They have no evidence to suggest that everything is hoaxed.

Mickeroo

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well their either lying about seeing a creature or not. The credibility wont come from one or two sightings but over two thousand similar sightings. They could have included some a skeptics opinion on why it couldnt or doesnt exist in fairness. The term skeptic is an interesting on though and regardless of its meaning I would be more John green's kind of skeptic (John green is the guy mentioned in the article and my previous post who worked with promatologists to collect reports). I think a skeptic questions belief systems. In my view those who feel that the foot prints are all hoaxed and people are all lying about the same thing are holding a belief about that. They have no evidence to suggest that everything is hoaxed.

You could literally use that line of thinking to justify a belief in anything.

steddyeddy

Mickeroo wrote: »

You could literally use that line of thinking to justify a belief in anything.

Im not justifying belief but pointing out that both sides of the argument contain belief. I cant go out now and prove bigfoot exists but the people holding up the hoax theory can go out and replicate the multitude of footprints found. I have seen one or two attempts but they havent replicated the tracks on every variable using only equitment found at the time.

Adam Khor

This whole sasquatch thing... well, I've already told you my take on the whole matter. Not that I have a solid posture, really... I'm usually open to all possibilities.
However, after reading some of the "encounter" accounts, I couldn´t help but to remember a personal experience of mine.

The first experience was when I was a kid, during the early 90s. I remember there was a comet passing close to Earth and because my father had a telescope, we decided to go out to a remote hill out of the city to take a good look at it.
Unfortunately, it got cloudy and we never saw the comet, but we did return home with a tale to tell. Just when we were giving up on the comet, we heard heavy footsteps and movement on the bushes near where we were. Because it was very dark, we never saw what it was- it may have been a feral cow or donkey or some other sort of domesticated animal (it sounded way too heavy to be a deer).
However, and although that was the logical explanation, absolutely none of us ever imagined such thing. See, at the time the headlines were often occupied by a mysterious predatory "monster" that had supossedly been killing cattle in the area. It was one of those "cryptids" no one ever has good evidence for, yet everyone had heard of it, and so it was that creature we all imagined when we heard the noises. No one said its name outloud- we all just imagined the thing was out to get us and ran for the safety of the van. It was only after we left the place that reason returned and we started to consider more mundane creatures.

I'm pretty sure a fright can create monsters in your imagination, especially when in a dark forested place where you can´t see what's around you- so u jump to the scariest/weirdest conclusion at the slightest sound or fleeting shadow.
I'm not saying all bigfoot sightings are like this, but probably many of them. I have another personal experience that shows even more how fear can twist reality in a person's mind, to the point of one actually seeing things that aren´t there, but it is somewhat embarrasing and besides, one shouldn´t talk about his phobias online So I'll leave it at that.

robp

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd be similar. I'd put a small bet down that Neandertals(and similar cousins from Asia) survived in remote areas up to at least 15,000 years ago. The lack of evidence in remains doesn't trouble me so much. After all we've less than 20 examples of Neandertal individuals and most of those are fragments. We don't have a full skeleton. One species type skeleton exists but it's a combination one. This is of a human that lived for over 200,000 years(at least). Over that time there would likely have been a million of them. Other evidence like stone tools? Some are a grey area. IE they look like transition technologies and as such are ascribed to us. It's possible they made them.

Just as a point of information regarding Neanderthals. There are substantially more than 20 individuals recovered at this stage. Its varies according to how you measure it but I know about at least 1500 teeth have been recovered. If you consider sites like Krapina, Vinjina, Shanidar, Spy you could quickly exceed 20 individuals on the basis of skulls etc. There is some population estimates using genetics and its remarkable how low the population estimates are. So each preserved specimen is a miracle in its self.

Galvasean

Adam Khor wrote: »

I'm pretty sure a fright can create monsters in your imagination, especially when in a dark forested place where you can´t see what's around you- so u jump to the scariest/weirdest conclusion at the slightest sound or fleeting shadow.

It's hard wired into our instincts after millions of years of diurnal living. Since our primary sense (eyesight) does not work well in the dark and our other senses are not as well developed we are at a massive disadvantage at night. To stop us getting into trouble our brains are conditioned to imagine the worse case scenario in such situations and fear takes over so that we will be more likely to flee than to investigate. It is one of those instances where our more basic instinctual urges outweigh the rational part of our brain.
I've been in situations myself (many times) where I'd be walking home at night, hear a noise and imagine a mugger or psycho killer creeping up nearby only for a cat to be the source of said disturbance. I would imagine many, perhaps most Bigfoot etc. 'encounters' are based in similar circumstances.

Mickeroo

Galvasean wrote: »

It's hard wired into our instincts after millions of years of diurnal living. Since our primary sense (eyesight) does not work well in the dark and our other senses are not as well developed we are at a massive disadvantage at night. To stop us getting into trouble our brains are conditioned to imagine the worse case scenario in such situations and fear takes over so that we will be more likely to flee than to investigate. It is one of those instances where our more basic instinctual urges outweigh the rational part of our brain.
I've been in situations myself (many times) where I'd be walking home at night, hear a noise and imagine a mugger or psycho killer creeping up nearby only for a cat to be the source of said disturbance. I would imagine many, perhaps most Bigfoot etc. 'encounters' are based in similar circumstances.

Sometimes fear isn't even the trigger, people often times will see things for no other reason than they really really want to.

Wibbs

robp wrote: »

Just as a point of information regarding Neanderthals. There are substantially more than 20 individuals recovered at this stage. Its varies according to how you measure it but I know about at least 1500 teeth have been recovered. If you consider sites like Krapina, Vinjina, Shanidar, Spy you could quickly exceed 20 individuals on the basis of skulls etc. There is some population estimates using genetics and its remarkable how low the population estimates are. So each preserved specimen is a miracle in its self.

Sorry R yea I should have narrowed it down to somewhat more complete specimens, rather than fragments etc. On the densities it's a hard one. The genetics shows small populations, but that might be explained by closer breeding. That said one indicator of low population might be that it appears no large animal extinctions can be pinned on them, quite unlike us when we show up. The amount of fragments/teeth etc isn't so amazing in one respect. They were around for a very very long time. Longer than we have been, so overall there would have been quite a lot of them.