Are Other Hominins (Hominoids) Alive Today?

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Context? Here's some context for you Mulder: I live in a county from which there are multiple accounts of bigfoots in the BFRO database. In other words, I do field work all the time (like weekly) in places that are within bigfoot's range and in habitats from which bigfoots are reported. There are bigfoots reported from where Krantz lived and worked, from where Meldrum lives and works - probably from where you live and work. But none of us - you, me, Krantz, Meldrum - spend a lot of time in sea floor caves of the Indian Ocean where we might bump into a Coelacanth.

Context isn't a problem for science - it's extremely important in these discussions. Seventy-four years ago scientists had the surprise of their lives when they discovered something living that had only been known from fossils. They discovered that thing because technology had allowed us to finally access some theretofore inaccessible places. Meantime, we still haven't collected a bigfoot - although the technology to do so has existed since the invention of shovels and blunderbusses - and the danged things are supposed to be out there, with me, when I do field work. Yep, it's about context, Mulder.

Saskeptic, you are very astute in your observations and I appreciate your objectivity. However, in the case of the Coelacanth you may be mistaken to a degree.

In the first paragraph above, you state that people spending time in an area around creatures purported to exist should be able to encounter the creature in question, and I agree. Yet this statement is not inclusive of people (other than scientists) reporting to have seen bigfoot, nor do I think you were addressing that aspect of the argument (context was the subject, after all). It's almost as if you're saying that scientific evidence is lacking because the scientific community isn't, or wasn't, able to make an observation of bigfoot, regardless of the numerous possible sightings and encounters by the general population.

Your second paragraph states that it was the eventual advance in our technology that allowed us to re-discover the Coelacanth. However, this isn't exactly the truth when you consider the following:

The Coelacanths were actually already well known among the Comoro fishermen, and they even had a name for the fish – Gombessa. Hunt did however not know about this, and he himself had never encountered a Gombessa.

http://www.aquaticco...coelacanths.php

It appears that there were many common laypeople that had prior observations of this fish prior to it's scientific discovery in that region. I have to wonder if the re-discovery of the Coelacanth would have happened sooner if the scientific community hadn't been so staunch concerning the consensus belief that it had died out so long ago and was long extinct.

It seems to me that this may be the case concerning bigfoot. Science tends to discount the accounts of the general public until scientists themselves can make the observations, not taking seriously - or bothering to interview - the population that claims to have knowledge of the creature. I'm not accusing you of this, mind you. Just in general.

It appears to me that both the general population and scientists are needed to demonstrate the existence of an undiscovered creature. As was the case here, it took an alliance between a museum curator and a fisherman to re-discover the Coelacanth.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Yes, it reminds me of the old adage that a layman's sighting is an "anecdote" while a scientist's sighting is an "observation". Enough weight needs to be given "anecdotes" to at least motivate scientists to take the topic seriously enough to make "observations" of their own. Just because an animal is difficult to observe doesn't invalidate its existence, it is simply rare and difficult to observe. How many pictures of the rare Java rhino's have been taken? This animal has been known by the locals for generations, but only recently was photographic evidence captured by trail cam.

[Guest Strick]

If I was going to bet on a chance of there being any other species of hominin still living on Planet Earth today, it would be a very outside chance, but the best bet would be with these guys...

Kit,

Could you imagine Floresiensis still existing in the form of Orang Pendek in Sumatra, or other obscure part of the Indonesian peninsula or New Guinea?

I have actually been lucky enough to visit Flores and, despite being a very pretty island, there is very little suitable habitat for such a creature to remain alive there today.

[Guest Particle Noun]

I look forward to the fascinating discussions, post Ketchum paper, about how those pesky bigfoots DID in fact manage to elude officially approved and stamped scientific observation.

Don't get me wrong, not knocking science. I'm not that far on the proponent side (I have a tremendous respect for the scientific process).

But if, as I suspect, we do get, finally, some good evidence for the beast, it will be interesting to see the back-peddling.

For the record, I don't expect any of that from you Sas, you seem to have a great deal of integrity.

[kitakaze]

Kit,

Could you imagine Floresiensis still existing in the form of Orang Pendek in Sumatra, or other obscure part of the Indonesian peninsula or New Guinea?

I have actually been lucky enough to visit Flores and, despite being a very pretty island, there is very little suitable habitat for such a creature to remain alive there today.

I think on the very tiny possibility that the Hobbits remained alive today, they would be found not on Flores, but in some isolated corner of some other island in the region and that it would have some connection to ebu gogo/orang pendek.

[Guest]

I look forward to the fascinating discussions, post Ketchum paper, about how those pesky bigfoots DID in fact manage to elude officially approved and stamped scientific observationâ„¢. . . . it will be interesting to see the back-peddling.

I really don't have any concerns about back-pedaling if bigfoot is ever proven to exist. The reason is that good faith efforts to find one have occurred many times and produced nothing of substance. Scientists have explored, surveyed, and inventoried North America, and nothing from that work suggests that a large mammal has been overlooked. In some ways the most pervasive myth in bigfootery is that science has not attempted to find bigfoot. At the very least such assertions are slaps in the face of people like Krantz, Meldrum, and Ketchum - the heroes of bigfootery are scientists who've tried to discover bigfoot!

So if there really is a bigfoot, it's ability to elude the things scientists do that led to the description of every other species is truly unprecedented. How can scientists be faulted for doing things that have worked for all those other species they've been able to describe if there's ONE species for which they don't work?

[Guest]

This is not directed at the "knowers" or their personal experiences, but I find the notion that skeptics will need to back-peddle or eat crow a little confusing. Me, not having seen one and their existance not proven, am perfectly at ease with walking around saying BF does not exist. That doesn't mean it cannot exist, just that it has yet to be proven.

If they are proven to exist, I will be perfectly at ease walking around saying, BF's exist. Why would I need to back-peddle or eat crow?

[Guest]

Well, OK, BlurryMonster, I'll accept some of that..........

........but there certainly have been pre-historic skeletons discovered with spear, axe and arrow wounds.

Now you'll ask me for the evidence, and other than a deteriorating memory I'm not sure where to start.

Mike

I would start with the book "Them and Us".

Context? Here's some context for you Mulder: I live in a county from which there are multiple accounts of bigfoots in the BFRO database. In other words, I do field work all the time (like weekly) in places that are within bigfoot's range and in habitats from which bigfoots are reported. There are bigfoots reported from where Krantz lived and worked, from where Meldrum lives and works - probably from where you live and work. But none of us - you, me, Krantz, Meldrum - spend a lot of time in sea floor caves of the Indian Ocean where we might bump into a Coelacanth.

All right, you want to go more "prosaic"? I live in a part of MO where there are rattlesnakes, cottonmouth snakes and copperheads. Despite having spent quite a bit of time in the woods when I was a kid (Boy Scout activities, church fishing trips, etc), I never encountered ANY of them in the wild. Yet it is well known that they are there in abundance. Why did I not see any?.

Well, a number of reasons. 1) They were there and I just didn't see them or come close enough to them for them to make their presence known. 2) They were there but left when the perceived me before I them. 3) They simply weren't there at that time for me to perceive.

Same thing with chipmunks, moles (though I HAVE seen mole tunnels), etc.

For that matter, as a boy I used to go trout fishing once a summer w/my great grandfather at a state "trout park" where the waters were heavily stocked with them. Never caught a one, despite the people on either side of me pulling them out like clockwork.

That is why jerry (and your) "B has never seen it so A could not have seen it" argument is a non-starter. It's not an argument; it's a logical fallacy dressed up as an argument.

Context isn't a problem for science - it's extremely important in these discussions. Seventy-four years ago scientists had the surprise of their lives when they discovered something living that had only been known from fossils. They discovered that thing because technology had allowed us to finally access some theretofore inaccessible places. Meantime, we still haven't collected a bigfoot - although the technology to do so has existed since the invention of shovels and blunderbusses - and the danged things are supposed to be out there, with me, when I do field work. Yep, it's about context, Mulder.

Nope, it's about you still clinging to a non-argument.

This isn't one of those arguments where you say that there have been no observations because you are throwing out all the observations noted in the BFRO database, Green's database, etc. etc. is it?

I guess that would definitely qualify as the stingy (parsimonious) argument.

Bingo! Plussed.

It appears that there were many common laypeople that had prior observations of this fish prior to it's scientific discovery in that region. I have to wonder if the re-discovery of the Coelacanth would have happened sooner if the scientific community hadn't been so staunch concerning the consensus belief that it had died out so long ago and was long extinct.

It seems to me that this may be the case concerning bigfoot. Science tends to discount the accounts of the general public until scientists themselves can make the observations, not taking seriously - or bothering to interview - the population that claims to have knowledge of the creature.

This.

Yes, it reminds me of the old adage that a layman's sighting is an "anecdote" while a scientist's sighting is an "observation". Enough weight needs to be given "anecdotes" to at least motivate scientists to take the topic seriously enough to make "observations" of their own. Just because an animal is difficult to observe doesn't invalidate its existence, it is simply rare and difficult to observe. How many pictures of the rare Java rhino's have been taken? This animal has been known by the locals for generations, but only recently was photographic evidence captured by trail cam.

This also.

I really don't have any concerns about back-pedaling if bigfoot is ever proven to exist.

"Being Skeptical means never having to say you're sorry..."

Scientists have explored, surveyed, and inventoried North America, and nothing from that work suggests that a large mammal has been overlooked. In some ways the most pervasive myth in bigfootery is that science has not attempted to find bigfoot. At the very least such assertions are slaps in the face of people like Krantz, Meldrum, and Ketchum - the heroes of bigfootery are scientists who've tried to discover bigfoot!

The N American continent is not like the back-room of a grocery store with everything there in confined, fixed in place (until moved by the employees) and known down to the last can of beans.

You know this, but continue to perpetuate the myth of Scientific Omniscience.

So if there really is a bigfoot, it's ability to elude the things scientists do that led to the description of every other species is truly unprecedented. How can scientists be faulted for doing things that have worked for all those other species they've been able to describe if there's ONE species for which they don't work?

Decades to find the giant squid in the wild. Nearly as long to find the cloud leopard. Or to (re)discover the Ivory-Bill woodpecker.

Low population density vs large habitat area.

This has been explained to you time and again.

[Guest]

Sorry folks but this will have to be brief. I've prepared two responses already but I'm having some Internet problems and earlier responses were lost.

Saskeptic, . . . in the case of the Coelacanth you may be mistaken to a degree.

Indeed. Thanks for pointing out my error and I want to apologize to the thread for overemphasizing the role that technology played in Coelacanth discovery. Clearly the Comoros fishermen don't use advanced technology to catch them, so trawling wasn't the issue. It was more just an example of people caring being in the right place and the right time.

From your link:

"The first living Coelacanth was discovered by a museum curator named Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer. She began her work as a curator of the new East London Museum in East London, South Africa in 1930. Her work was focused on the natural history of the Eastern Cape. The museum already had a small collection of bird specimens when she was appointed curator, but Courtenay-Latimer decided that she wanted to include marine life in the exhibitions as well, since fishing was an important industry in the region. Courtenay-Latimer encouraged fishing clubs and fishing trawlers to donate marine specimens to the museum and the collection grew rapidly. In 1936, she befriended Hendrik Goosen, the captain of a trawler named Nerine. Goosen began to save interesting marine specimens and bring them back to East London, where Courtenay-Latimer could include them in the museum's collection.

On December 22, 1938, the trawler Nerine reached the East London harbor carrying several unusual fishes."

(Emphases mine, of course.) So at most, once a person was stationed in the part of the world and given the task of cataloging and describing the species there, it took 8 years for Coelacanth discovery. In other words, it wasn't that hard to do once people were in place and started looking. (It would've taken even less time if she had been stationed in the Comoros.)

How does that compare to bigfoot? Well, natural history exploration in North America began well before 1930. At the very least, but the middle of the 18th Century, there were multiple scientists living and working (and that work consisting of collecting anything and everything) in bigfoot country. So that's 8 years to find a Coelacanth versus at least 250 years of not finding a bigfoot.

There's a lot more I want to write (and had written!) but in the interests of brevity I'll leave it there.

[Guest BFSleuth]

How can scientists be faulted for doing things that have worked for all those other species they've been able to describe if there's ONE species for which they don't work?

It may very well be that this particular "animal" is of a higher order of intelligence than any other animal, with a pretty good understanding of humans and our tendencies. Think trying to find a team of special forces in the woods, except much more capable of evasion, stronger and faster, and with perceptual capabilities well beyond human range.

[Guest]

^Sure, that stuff can be considered, but then it's not at all congruent with certain things that bigfoots are reported doing, like casually sauntering across a creekbed in broad daylight, raiding the grease trap at the Lucky Star Casino, thrashing about in the woods banging on trees and howling at the moon, whatever they seem do be doing du jour at Sasfooty's house, etc. If the brilliant, evasive wood ninja stuff is right, then every habituation story is wrong, bigfoots aren't riding trains, Ostman was never picked up, Ape Canyon never happened, etc.

We can find individual people who are very smart, helped by others, and don't want to be caught. It's another thing entirely for a population to evade detection like that. So I find that the "but bigfoots are super-smart" argument doesn't really resonate.

[Guest Particle Noun]

What I am referring to is not those good faith efforts, which I completely acknowledge. I'm refering to those, who aren't necessarily represented here, who say "We've looked everywhere for a long time, found nothing, so there is nothing to find!" So, if something is found, that will clearly be wrong.

That's different than someone saying "It's very unlikely that we would find anything, because we've done so much searching already." That is a fine distinction, but an important one. The first is spoken with certainty, and that person would certainly have to eat metaphorical crow, although I suspect most of them would be just as excited about a discovery as anyone. The latter have left the door open, even if just a tiny smidgen.

I don't mean to come off as anti-science. Arguing from the proponent side of the river bank, I often look to my left and right and see people who deny climate change and other bedrocks of scientific thinking, and want to jump in the river and swim to the other side. Lot's of grey area here....

To tie in a few ideas above, the Celeocanth example isn't the best, because as far as I know, Celeocanths wouldn't be actively hiding from anyone looking for them, while if Bigfoot exists, it's likely they would be actively hiding, and probably pretty good at it. I don't think that takes any special power. A bipeadal creature, especially if it turns out to be a hominid, would surely be a master of Hide and Seek, without the need for special powers beyond superior survival skills.

And in any population, there might be juveniles who are more adventurous, who don't listen to mom and dad's advice to avoid the hairless pink ones. Or maybe suffering from some mental condition....who knows. It's all speculation. All good stuff to keep in mind though, to help us explain why we've had such a hard time finding them even though we've apparently poured over every acre of land in our country.

[Guest BFSleuth]

There is behavioral variation in all animals and humans. My point is that the overall behavior displayed by BF shows a tendency toward stealth and observation of humans. The context in which they either reveal themselves or approach human habitation should be considered as case sensitive. For example if they go dumpster diving or raiding a chicken coop then it would be reasonable to say they are hungry to the point that they will take a risk of being seen (or even shot at). Another example would be encroachment by humans on their territory, in which they might reveal their presence with vocalization, rock throwing, bluff charging or other similar behaviors. These examples don't then negate the fact that most observations are fleeting with BF exiting "stage right" when they know they are observed.

They live within an environment that is physically dominated by humankind and our infrastructure. It would follow that they would need to negotiate that environment (as many other animals do) to get from place to place, and will take advantage of human activity such as readily available food sources.

[Guest Jodie]

Ten thousand years ago would be the last evidence of remains found. What cataclysmic thing happened back that far, give or take a thousand years? Here is an account of something that might have happened approximately 12,000 years ago:

Plato describes a destruction that occurred in a day and a night, and the ****** recounts the story of torrential rains and an immense flood in which most of the life on earth perished. There is also a rich body of Native American literature about a worldwide cataclysm of fires, followed by floods and death raining down from the skies. As many as fifty different cultures around the globe record versions of this story, and physicist Firestone, along with his geologist co-authors, have put together a book, based on hard scientific evidence, describing a cosmic chain of events that they believe culminated in the global catastrophe of 12,000 years ago. They believe that the Event was triggered by a nearby supernova that occurred 41,000 years ago.

http://www.amazon.com/Cycle-Cosmic-Catastrophes-History-Civilization/dp/1591430615/ref=sr_1_1/104-2799965-0313551?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174301220&sr=8-1

Author's link

http://ie.lbl.gov/rbfcv.html

We probably weren't the only ones left. Those that were genetically compatible that survived probably blended into us. If "wild men" survived, then they would more than likely be something else besides HSS.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Even if there was evidence of a cataclysm 10,000 years ago, why would the entire homo genus be wiped out worldwide except for a single species? Most of the potential "relic hominoids" are said to live in mountainous environments, which would preclude demise by flooding. If there were some meteor impact with fire raining from the heavens, then that wouldn't be a worldwide phenomenon and there isn't any evidence that I know of that would support that kind of claim.

If there was interspecies mating, then we should be able to determine that from DNA research, which is still ongoing. However, it still wouldn't make sense for an entire species to be absorbed by another species. It does raise a question that would need further investigation, but I can't think of anyone proposing that such an event has happened with any other species.