Congratulations ? Orang Pendek

[southernyahoo]

Will this one do?

No, it won't. Microscopic analysis on some hair is not comparable to the extraction of DNA from a finger bone.

Ray, I was comparing articles on the basis that neither demonstrated support of their conclusions. Not that morphological exam was on the same level as DNA analysis. Though with proper documentation of hair evidence, The circumstances of the find, the morphology, and the DNA analysis are linked together in a chain which demands an explanation for it's entirety.

I'm just curious what part of the process described in this article would be considered pseudoscience or potentially not having supported conclusions?

Hans Brunner of Deakin University near Melbourne analysed

the hair samples we brought back from the 2001 expedition.

Bruner is a renowned zoologist and animal forensic expert

who published the world’s first book on hair identification.

His work was instrumental in analyzing the hair samples in

the famous Lindy Chamberlain dingo baby case of the 1980s.

For us, he spent months studying Sumatra’s native species and

conducting the hair analysis, and eventually came to the conclusion

that we are indeed dealing with an unknown primate.

We sent these samples to Lars Thomas who graduated from

the University of Copenhagen as a marine biologist specializing

in otoliths, the calcium crystals you find in the inner ears

of bony fishes. He was fascinated by the fact that you could

deduct an incredible amount of information about an animal

just from looking at otoliths. This rather forensic approach led

him to the study of hairs and similar small “bits and pieces,â€

and he is currently working as a freelance consultant for various

museums, scientific institutions and societies, and local

and national authorities.

In November 2010, Thomas drafted his conclusions,

which I quote here in part: “A small part of the hair sample

was subjected to a DNA-analysis, but due to the small amount

of DNA extracted and the rather poor condition of it, no firm

conclusion could be reached. The DNA did show some similarities

to primate DNA, possibly orangutan, but no definite

results could be obtained. Following this I subjected the remaing

hairs to a structural analysis to see if this could bring

any information to light that might reveal the identity of the

owner of the hairs. I checked all of the remaining 6 hairs and

they were all consistent with hairs from large primates or

humans. They all had the rather large medulla with a lot of

pigmentation typical of large primates, and the intermittent

holes in the centre of the hairs, making them look somewhat

like hollowed out tree trunks. I compared the hair samples

with reference samples of 3 different species of gibbon, orangutan,

chimpanzee and bonobo, gorilla and some 15 samples

of human hairs in various colours, mainly red or reddish. I

was never able to ascertain their identity with total certainty,

although I could eliminate some. The hairs were not modern

human, and they were not from siamangs or other gibbons.

They have a very deep rusty-red colour, very similar to the colour

of orangutan hairs, but varied in other structural details.

So based on these results alone I concluded that the hairs were

from something closely related to orangutans or from a form

of orangutan I had not seen before.â€

[Guest RayG]

I'm just curious what part of the process described in this article would be considered pseudoscience or potentially not having supported conclusions?

In the article itself as well as the quote bits you just provided, the parts where it says things like:

• >>"What I am fully aware of though is that no matter how interesting or suggestive the legends and eyewitness accounts may be, what really matters is evidence, specifically scientific evidence that can be independently verified and corroborated. This is what I have sought to achieve and have done so with some success."<<
  >>"A small part of the hair sample was subjected to a DNA-analysis, but due to the small amount of DNA extracted and the rather poor condition of it, no firm conclusion could be reached. The DNA did show some similarities to primate DNA, possibly orangutan, but no definite results could be obtained."<<
  >>"I was never able to ascertain their identity with total certainty, although I could eliminate some."<<
  >>"They have a very deep rusty-red colour, very similar to the colour of orangutan hairs, but varied in other structural details.
  So based on these results alone I concluded that the hairs were from something closely related to orangutans or from a form of orangutan I had not seen before."<<

So we've got no firm conclusion, unidentified hairs, and the color of the hair is similar to an orangutan, so we should conclude it came from some undiscovered orangutan? That's enough to identify and classify a new, undiscovered, uncatalogued species? Is it any surprise this is being published in a journal that deals with fringe topics, instead of regular scientific journals?. You can't slap together a veggie-burger and call it beef.

And none of this is really new either. We were told back in 2003 that Brunner and Chivers were "about to publish a paper on the subject."

Well, now we've got banana foot, except Dr. Meldrum says it might not even be a foot, but might be a hand instead --

• >>"Alternately, the cast might be that of a handprint, in which case the proximal position of the medial digit, the thumb, would be more appropriate." <<

Doesn't sound like Dr. Meldrum is able to come to any kind of definitive conclusion. What part of the article, or the quotes you provided should I accept as some sort of scientific breakthrough? When should I suspend my skepticism and just accept something because so-and-so said so?

RayG

[southernyahoo]

I wasn't calling it a breakthrough Ray, I did however ask about the process they are engaged in and whether it is somehow calling an obvious spoon a fork when you can see yourself it is admittedly inconclusive at the moment.

When should I suspend my skepticism and just accept something because so-and-so said so?

Thats entirely up to you Ray, but where the evidence requires the expertise of a scientist to interpret, rest assured you'll be taking someones word for it, or continuing with denial, however misplaced that might be.

[Guest RayG]

I wasn't calling it a breakthrough Ray, I did however ask about the process they are engaged in and whether it is somehow calling an obvious spoon a fork when you can see yourself it is admittedly inconclusive at the moment.

Yes, it's very much inconclusive, yet the April-June 2011 SSE issue has "A New Primate Species in Sumatra" in really big letters on the cover. The lack of a question mark makes it appear to be an established fact, not inconclusive.

Thats entirely up to you Ray, but where the evidence requires the expertise of a scientist to interpret, rest assured you'll be taking someones word for it, or continuing with denial, however misplaced that might be.

Will my doubt still be misplaced if I have followed the bigfoot mystery for 60 years and still no bigfoot?

RayG

[southernyahoo]

As we get the scientists involved who have the expertise in the study of bilogical evidence , this mystery will get solved. Most of us can accept what that technology can tell us, it hasn't been around that long and has made great srtides. We will know what bigfoot is before we have a body, thats my prediction. Ofcoarse if none of the people can actually find the evidence thats shows a primate then skepticism will rise even further.

Yes, it's very much inconclusive, yet the April-June 2011 SSE issue has "A New Primate Species in Sumatra" in really big letters on the cover. The lack of a question mark makes it appear to be an established fact, not inconclusive.

If you noticed the headline on that X-woman find I provided they said something similar, but in the article the researchers say they are backing off the claim of a new hominid until more conclusions can be made from the nuclear DNA, and probably more bone evidence to corroborate their position is found.

[Guest]

Anyone following the search for orang pendek in Sumatra? I believe that it is just a matter of time on this one. A few researchers and photographers have seen it apparently (but failed to get a photo due to shock and the brevity of the sighting). I wonder if they find it and prove its existence, since it is supposed to be a species of primate that is bipedal if people may give more thought to the possibility for the existence of the sasquatch?

[Guest]

I understand that this is just about the most predictable thing that could happen on this forum, but why does this thread have to IMMEDIATELY deteriorate into a tear-down session of the source, causing any potential discussion of the actual topic at hand to go swirling down the porcelain? Why can't it just be a good read that makes some cool and compelling points to ponder?

3 pages of arguing over the actual publication itself, unbelievable. Why do the believers even bother defending it, as though they are going to actually sway any opinions? This is cool stuff, why can't we just discuss it among ourselves? The killjoys will make it clear that this does not constitute "proof" (as if we could ever possibly forget what they require), and the sun will come up tomorrow.

So anyways, I have always thought Orang Pendek was pretty compelling, but is there any photographic evidence at all? Even a Blob-rang Pendek? (Orang Blob-dek?)

[Guest]

We are trying to save bandwidth by merging topics. It's a very old thread that was merged with msvick's new thread. Just start chatting and ignore the old stuff.

[Guest]

We are trying to save bandwidth by merging topics. It's a very old thread that was merged with msvick's new thread. Just start chatting and ignore the old stuff.

Whoopsies, I didn't see the dates! (I even noticed that it was an article I had read months ago) I feel rather stupid right now lol...

[Guest]

Its OK, if I leave it in here maybe it will remind people to hit the search button instead of starting new threads.

[Guest]

can't find link doodad to put this in html

[BobbyO]

Anyone following the search for orang pendek in Sumatra? I believe that it is just a matter of time on this one. A few researchers and photographers have seen it apparently (but failed to get a photo due to shock and the brevity of the sighting). I wonder if they find it and prove its existence, since it is supposed to be a species of primate that is bipedal if people may give more thought to the possibility for the existence of the sasquatch?

I doubt it, having something like that exist in the Jungles of Sumatra are a far cry from the average North American believe that bigger one's also exist & are living successfully 20 Miles outside of Seattle, WA for example..

[Guest para ape]

Quoted from the article:

"I once thought that if you were to strip away the mythology

surrounding the creature, what you would be left with is es-

sentially a bipedal orangutan, possibly a successful genetic mu-

tation that had survived and bred in isolation from others of its

kind. (There are no orangutans for hundreds of miles form the

area where the hair samples were found.) I have also consid-

ered the idea that the orang-pendek is a completely new species

of primate, distinct and unique."

Just a quick question to discuss: Orangutans and Orangpendek (if they exist) live on the same island. Why should some orangutans branch off and become bipedal in the same habitat? In the case of the Sasquatch it could make sense as an adaption to cold, mountainous terrain, but here...?

The indigenous people say that they know the difference between an orangutan and an orang-pendek.They say the two are completely different.

The orang pendek is very similar to bigfoot in many ways.There is no solid evidence for it's existence and they never see the creature on searches.I believe it is also paranormal in origin.There are reports of it having inverted feet and even muttering unintelligible words.

[Guest StankApe]

orang-pendek IMO, is a much more "likely" creature to one day be discovered exists than Bigfoot. It may be the most likely of all the cryptids out there due to the fact that it has an existing animal in it's same environment. If in the PNW there was already some species of Gorilla living there, the concept of Bigfoot would have a bit more strength behind it. It may turn out that orang-pendek is just a remnant of a prior type of orangutan who walked on the ground rather than being mainly tree dwelling and is losing out on the whole "survival of the fittest" thing. Maybe it will be a new species... Or maybe it will just be a form of Orangutan that has developed some bipedal locomotion due to nothing more complicated than a family trait. Maybe only this one family line teaches their offspring to do it... I'm no physiologist , so i have no clue if that's even possible (nor will i speculate either way about it)

But, it is an interesting possiblity the orang-pendek. it's also the only cryptid I have seen mentioned on non crptid based shows as I've seen primatologists on PBS and Nat-Geo discussing some sightings and stuff they've heard from the locals. They seemed to think there may be something to it. It has at least 1 thing that Squatchy doesn't have; genetically similar relatives nearby! That AT LEAST, makes it more probable than the big fella.

Edited October 20, 2011 by StankApe

[Guest LAL]

Since the common ancestor seems to have been a biped it makes sense to me a Great Ape line could have continued with that way of going rather than evolving fist and knuckle-walking ( as evidently happened three times independently in the Great Ape lines). Besides, the Orang Pendak is shorter and lives in a foreign country so it's much more acceptable than our giant North American ape.