Cryptozoology

[Kifaru Bwana]

Apart from the many hoaxes, grainy photos and videos, innumerable sightings of varying credibility, the Tasmanian Tiger has had a number of serious champions trying to prove its continued existence. Some of them, like Eric Guiler spent decades searching for evidence but still no-one has come up with any irrefutable proof- now nearly 80 years since the last one was seen in the wild. I cannot see how it could have survived so long with no tangible evidence it still exists, coming to light.

Hello Pertinax,

For me with Tassie tigers there is 2 major issues:
A) A powerful logging/mining industry seriously desinterested in any environmental issues or potential "threats" to its economic operations.
B) A govt. engrained embarrassment over its Tassie environmental record and active extermination campaign of Tassie tigers.

Both these have thoroughly precluded any serious attempts at following up all the recent and historical reports of Tassie tiger sightings.


Further I need remind our audience that even with high tech scientific research it has taken years of camera-trapping to record even a single camera shot of a Bornean bay cat or a Sunda clouded leopard and document its existence in well-studied protected areas.

Similarly, if it had not been for serious conservation champions we would not have been able to document the continued survival of Vietnam snub-nosed monkeys, Cao Vit gibbon, okapi, saola, eastern lowland gorillas (being far more numerous), Ader's duiker, Philippine deer, Andean bear

 

[Pertinax]

Both these have thoroughly precluded any serious attempts at following up all the recent and historical reports of Tassie tiger sightings.

Agreed that both the issues you mention do have some bearing on clouding the true position. My one real hope for the Thylacine is based on the fact that in Australia and New Zealand, several other species have been considered extinct, or nearly Extinct and have then been rediscovered/re-appeared many years later. But I remain dubious about its continued existence as more time goes by.

 

[redpanda]

But have you read the thousands of eyewitness accounts from virtually every background, from hunters to police officers? And what about the native peoples who's legends span numerous Native-American tribes, over several centuries; are we somehow categorizing them as ignorant and foolish? Didn't the same attitude persist towards the people of Africa, concerning the existence of Gorillas? And again I submit to you, Jane Goodall herself.

Not foolish, just mistaken. I can't imagine that you believe there is a thriving population of plesiosaurs in Loch Ness, yet there are thousands of "Nessie" sightings. As the average person does not know a bear from a racoon, you connot blame them for seeing a large mammal in the woods and putting two and two together to make five. Not only this, but to have a self-sustaining breeding population of the animal then there would be far more sightings then there currently are, and they would be more concentrated in one area as opposed to scattered across the country. This is not to mention all of the hoaxes. And native peoples from every continent except for Antarctica have stories of ape-men, so this is by no means proof for "Bigfoot's" existence. Not only this, but the stories differed greatly between tribes and even families, with arguments over diet, behaviour and even appearance. If it really did exist, this last detail at least should remain pretty much the same. Furthermore, a lot of the ape-man stories were little more than the Western bogey man, and tribe members would tell stories of people being taken by them to encourage good behaviour. This is not to say that they are ignorant and foolish, but there are several cases where native peoples have a belief and exaggerate facts to suit it. And I would hope that you realise there is a difference between dense, difficult to reach and sparsely populated rainforest that had not been greatly explored to the North American wilderness. Yes, we should not ignore what natives tell us but nor should we take it as proof when a great deal of evidence points to the contrary. And finally, "Jane Goodall herself" actually said in that fabled interview "Maybe they don't exist, but I want them to". If that's the best argument you can give me that there is an undiscovered ape-man roaming North America, then I remain powerfully unconvinced!

 

[DDcorvus]

Agreed that both the issues you mention do have some bearing on clouding the true position. My one real hope for the Thylacine is based on the fact that in Australia and New Zealand, several other species have been considered extinct, or nearly Extinct and have then been rediscovered/re-appeared many years later. But I remain dubious about its continued existence as more time goes by.

Pertinax have you read Paddle's The Last Tasmanian Tiger: The History and Extinction of the Thylacine. If not I can recommend it to you. Although I would like them to be hanging around he makes quite a strong case against their survival.

 

[Ituri]

Quick Geography lesson.....Seattle is not in the Rockies. The Rockies start down in eastern AZ and western NM, they travel up through Colorado, follow the border of ID and MT, and then continue on forming the border of Alberta and British Columbia. This is NOT prime "bigfoot" country. The "bigfoot" sightings are largely from coastal California, Oregon and Washington.

That being said, I'm not one to think there is much reason to think a large non-human hominid is roaming the Pacific Northwest.

 

[redpanda]

Quick Geography lesson.....Seattle is not in the Rockies. The Rockies start down in eastern AZ and western NM, they travel up through Colorado, follow the border of ID and MT, and then continue on forming the border of Alberta and British Columbia. This is NOT prime "bigfoot" country. The "bigfoot" sightings are largely from coastal California, Oregon and Washington.

That being said, I'm not one to think there is much reason to think a large non-human hominid is roaming the Pacific Northwest.

Thank you for the geography lesson, but I referred to Seattle in the context of the pacific northwest. Having visited myself, I am aware that it is not in the Rockies (nor did I see a sasquatch ).

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

Pertinax have you read Paddle's The Last Tasmanian Tiger: The History and Extinction of the Thylacine. If not I can recommend it to you. Although I would like them to be hanging around he makes quite a strong case against their survival.

I

I have read quite a bit and also familiar with this fascinating book and read.

I just for the reasons I described above and the very fact that where there are not much in bigger mammals the continued "sightings" by those not previously to even have cared about tigers describing it (and not concocting the story by media hype), I remain a sceptic optimist. The NE of Tasmania is really damn wild indeed and you be a better man to cross it unaided ...

 

[DDcorvus]

Let's hope so KB let's hope so. Till then I stay a hopefull pessimist . But do you have any other recommended reading material on the tigers.

 

[Blackduiker]

Redpanda, again I submit to you the recommended website. At least argue from fact, not presumption. You don't realize just how remote much of the Pacific Northwest is, let alone the Canadian wilderness of the world's second largest nation. Read just 10 eyewitness accounts for starters. Surely hunters and local residents know the difference between a bear and a large upright bipedal 9 foot primate.

Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization

 

[Chlidonias]

I just for the reasons I described above and the very fact that where there are not much in bigger mammals the continued "sightings" by those not previously to even have cared about tigers describing it (and not concocting the story by media hype), I remain a sceptic optimist. The NE of Tasmania is really damn wild indeed and you be a better man to cross it unaided ...

sorry I don't actually understand the quote above, but the NE of Tasmania is well-tamed with many roads and pastures. Perhaps you mean the NW?
As has Pertinax, I've also been to Tasmania and severely doubt the continued existance of thylacines there. It is not in fact a large place at all and even the wild parts are well-trammelled by trampers and park rangers. Thylacines were not small creatures, even a relict population would leave obvious evidence of its presence

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

Sorry C,

I did mean NW in fact OF COURSE.

Has any camera trapping EVER been done?

K.B.

 

[Sun Wukong]

As pointed out, the Rockies are not the best place to look for a Bigfoot; neither is Seattle-although you're more likely to meet some very hairy hominids there.

About the shooting: there are a lot of hunters who spent decades hunting and hardly ever see a larger mammal. As a stealthy primate, you can increase your chances of not being shot at by a) not wearing any orange/camouflage clothes, b) staying away from the booze and c) not bawling and singing loudly with your mates. And don't you know that it is illegal to hunt Sasquatch in several counties?
A handful of imaginary species are protected by real laws | Grist

I'm pretty sure a larger wild North American mammal species is going to be described in the near future-but once again, this will be from the safety of a laboratory, by splitting up previously single species into many "new" ones.

The nonexistence of North American ape fossils is as much a "worthy" argument contra the existence of the Sasquatch as the Gigantopithecus sp. fossils are pro the existence of the Yeti. Neither can serve as good evidence-unlike in the case of Homo floresiensis, where the combination of fossils and remarkable similar stories of the Ebu Gogo and Orang Pendek seemed to have made a big impression on Henry Gee of "Nature"...

Maybe the appearance of "wild hominids" in the folklore of pretty much all cultures worldwide is part of our common long forgotten memory-that there were once more than just one species of man around. Or it's just the modern version of fairies, giants and children-eating monsters our fantasy dwells on...

Don't jump to the same conclusions as the crypto nerds, @redpanda: the assumption that Nessie is a plesiosaur is an all too modern one-and most likely utterly nonsense.

BTW: Jane Goodall surely doesn't have exclusive rights on the ultimate truth. If this is her opinion-why not? Doesn't mean it has to be correct.

 

[Pertinax]

I did mean NW in fact OF COURSE.

Has any camera trapping EVER been done?

K.B.

A few facts for you;

1. Camera trapping (or attempts at) have been done by various individuals on many occassions over the last few decades. In some instances virtually ALL other native Tasmanian marsupials have been well documented on the results- with the exception of Thylacine.

Regarding habitat;

2. Thylacines were generally regarded as being at maximum abundance in 'light schlerophyll forest with rocky outcrops'- the habitat which supported the greatest abundance of prey for them. I think this is best described as a mosaic of open Eucalypt woodland with rocks, and light understorey interspersed with more open country, but certainly NOT dense impenetrable forest.

3. So the best habitat probably included areas such as the N.E. of Tasmania, and the Western Tiers on the Northern edge of the Central plateau. While the NW and SW of Tasmania do indeed still contain some very inhospitable habitat, its generally recognised that this sort of country did not support many, if any, Thylacines and is unlikely to do so nowadays either. On one of my three visits to Tasmania I visited Mawbanna, where the last (official) wild Thylacine was shot(1930) by Wilf Batty on his farmstead. Nowadays it is largely pastureland but was presumably already partly cleared by that date. You can see the remnants of open Eucalpypt woodland that probably covered the area previously.

4. The historical 'Bounty' returns of killed Thylacines show a distribution through all the settled parts of Tasmania and unsurprisingly, many of the modern sightings are from these same areas(because that's where most people and roads are) There was a large private estate at 'Woolnorth' on the NW tip which returned a very high number of 'Bounty' kills, but this is largely in an area of coastal dunes and cleared paddocks, also thought to be another preferred Tiger habitat.

 

[redpanda]

Redpanda, again I submit to you the recommended website. At least argue from fact, not presumption. You don't realize just how remote much of the Pacific Northwest is, let alone the Canadian wilderness of the world's second largest nation. Read just 10 eyewitness accounts for starters. Surely hunters and local residents know the difference between a bear and a large upright bipedal 9 foot primate.

Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization

I am aware of this website, but it does not convince me. Nor does the BFRO itself convince me when it labels itself a scientific organisation.

I would argue that a hairy "large upright bipedal 9 foot primate" looks very similar to a hairy large upright bipedal (were you aware that they both mean pretty much the same?) 9 foot ursid when seen from a distance. Again I present to you the example of Nessie, thousands have mistaken rocks, drain-pipes and even seagulls for a 45 feet long plesiosaur so a bear for a "Bigfoot" is not too much of a stretch. Furthermore, I would imagine you agree that at least the majority of sightings are either hoaxes, cases of misidentity or simply wishful thinking and, as such, have answered your own question on whether people can be wrong.

I am aware of how remote areas of the Pacific Northwest are thank you (as I said to Ituri, I have been there). But if you think about it, there are suprisingly few virtually uninhabited areas of pristine wilderness free of roads and hunters large enough to support a thriving population of "Bigfoot". Furthermore, sightings are scattered and not concentrated in these areas. Not only this, but I would argue that the Virungas are more "remote" and difficult to navigate, yet it took ethologists like Fossey and Schaller a lot less than 150 years to find the gorillas (and think of how many people are looking and have looked for "Bigfoot")!

And please don't ask me to talk from fact rather than presumption when you're arguing for the existence of an undiscovered hominid in one of the world's most developed nations with no more than a few blurred photographs (most of which have been uncovered as hoaxes) and the testimonies of ramblers who wouldn't know a bear from a coyote as proof. A case of practice what you preach methinks.

Finally, I will point out that you haven't actually addressed any of my points. Why do descriptions vary so widely? Why are sightings so spread out? Why has a body never been found? Why has there never been clear photographic evidence? Why has the creature not yet been discovered?

I welcome explanations, because right now I can only think of one good one.

 

[redpanda]

As pointed out, the Rockies are not the best place to look for a Bigfoot; neither is Seattle-although you're more likely to meet some very hairy hominids there.

Finally, we agree on something.

About the shooting: there are a lot of hunters who spent decades hunting and hardly ever see a larger mammal. As a stealthy primate, you can increase your chances of not being shot at by a) not wearing any orange/camouflage clothes, b) staying away from the booze and c) not bawling and singing loudly with your mates. And don't you know that it is illegal to hunt Sasquatch in several counties?
A handful of imaginary species are protected by real laws | Grist

And yet if a trigger-happy hunter came across a sasquatch in the woods, I doubt he'd take the time to consider the legality of shooting it.

Don't jump to the same conclusions as the crypto nerds, @redpanda: the assumption that Nessie is a plesiosaur is an all too modern one-and most likely utterly nonsense.

But is the assumption that Nessie exists at all not utter nonsense? As such, I don't think it really matters whether or not I call her a giant amphibian or a prehistoric sea creature. Plus, 45 foot long plesiosaur sounds better

BTW: Jane Goodall surely doesn't have exclusive rights on the ultimate truth. If this is her opinion-why not? Doesn't mean it has to be correct.

No, as far as I'm aware she has done no studies on the possibility of "Bigfoot's" existence but Blackduiker brought her up and I wanted to clarify an often misquoted interview.

 

[Sun Wukong]

Said hunter might experience the same doubts Van Herwaarden felt when trying to shoot an Orang Pendek in 1923.

There is something in the Loch Ness that is seen by various people again and again. It is most likely a conglomerate of misidentifications of large fish, otters, logs and even the occasional lost seal, and least likely some yet unknown creature. However, coining it a "plesiosaur" of no matter what length is just a repetition of the average popular image. Broken record, anyone?

All in all, the descriptions of wild hominids are pretty consistent in several aspects: hairy all over, human-like, bipedal, ape-like, brownish-blackish-greyish (age?) with occasional piebald or even white (albino/leucistic?) individuals, footprints differentiating from human ones, elusive, not very dog-& people-friendly and usually not quite odoriferous. A size range of 1m to over 2m is, if compared to modern humans and some other species like the Brown Bear (which I also think is the best candidate for many if not most "wild hominid" sightings) not too implausible and might be explainable due to individually good or bad abilities of the human watcher to estimate sizes (and mood), local variations (Bergmann's rule) and age (juveniles/adults).
Why no carcass? Ever seen any bear carcass in the woods while hiking?
Why spread-out sightings? Due to the requirement of large habitats and only random sightings?
Reg. clear photographs: Diy you never experience something extraoridinary and suddenly your camera (if you have one) quits on you? I did-for example when seeing my first free-ranging Californian condor...

About the stealth factor: I recall that several field primantologists remarked that some primates (f.e. some chimp groups) are incredibly shy and that they hardly ever saw a glimpse of their study subjects during their long-term observations.

There isn't much if any "pristine wilderness" left in the Himalayas, Indochina or Mongolia-yet still you will also get reports of "wild hominid" sightings from there.

Why was the Indonesian coelacanth not discovered by scientists pre-1997? Or the Laotian rock rat pre-2009? Sometimes, it takes the right person and the right timing to find an animal.

 

[redpanda]

Said hunter might experience the same doubts Van Herwaarden felt when trying to shoot an Orang Pendek in 1923.

Considering the number of hunters that have supposedly seen the animal, at least one would have seen it as a stupid monkey and a chance to get in the papers.

There is something in the Loch Ness that is seen by various people again and again. It is most likely a conglomerat of misidentifications of large fish, otters, logs and even the occasional lost seal, and least likely some yet unknown creature. However, coining it a "plesiosaur" of no matter what length is just a repetition of the popular image.

And yet people's most common claim is that they saw a plesiosaur, few go around saying that they've seen Nessie the floating log!

All in all, the descriptions of wild hominids are pretty consistent in several aspects: hairy all over, human-like, bipedal, ape-like, brownish-blackish-greyish (age?) with occasional piebald or even white (albino/leucistic?) individuals, footprints differentiating from human ones, elusive, not very dog-& people-friendly and usually not quite odoriferous. A size range of 1m to over 2m is, if compared to modern humans and some other species like the Brown Bear (which I also think is the best candidate for many if not most "wild hominid" sightings) not too implausible and might be explainable due to individually good or bad abilities of the human watcher to estimate sizes (and mood), local variations (Bergmann's rule) and age (juveniles/adults).

But if you see something which you assume to be "Bigfoot" because of that programme the other night, the sighting is going to be stereo-typically ape-like. Therefore, it will be hairy all over and look quite like a human. Furs are all different colours, that's not similar though does not proove anything of course (BLACK bear anyone). Footprint sizes tend to vary however, with some being typically very large and others being much smaller. Few wild animals are dog and people friendly, and bears certainly aren't. Plus, they often have different body shapes, different length legs and arms, different facial structures etc. This, in my mind, undermines the idea that there is an undiscovered species roaming around as every "Bigfoot" is different!

Why no carcass? Ever seen any bear carcass in the woods while hiking?

No, because I live in an area where bears have been extinct for several thousand years. Anyway, if there really was a sasquatch, one would have been found dead on the roads (which have now massively fragmented their supposed habitat) or been shot, or just found naturally dead. Perhaps not regularly, but someone would have come across them. Not only this, but the argument that they have not yet been proved to exist because they are good at avoiding humans is blown out of the water when you consider corpses as - unless "Bigfoot" has some very interesting adaptions - they can't move.

Why spread-out sightings? Due to the requirement of large habitats and only random sightings?

Very large habitat to cover the whole of the USA! And still they've never been proved to exist - amazing.

Reg. clear photographs: Diy you never experience something extraoridinary and suddenly your camera (if you have one) quits on you? I did-for example when seeing my first free-ranging Californian condor...

Hmm, funny the number of sasquatch seers who have had that problem, perhaps they've adapted a camera-destroying forcefield. Those pictures that have come out, meanwhile, have almost all been exposed as hoaxes or other species of wild animal (there are a few unexplained ones nonetheless).

About the stealth factor: I recall that several field primantologists remarked that some primates (f.e. some chimp groups) are incredibly shy and that they hardly ever saw a glimpse of their study subjects during their long-term observations.

The only things I've read about the study of wild chimps are "In the shadow of man" and "Through a window" by Jane Goodall so I wouldn't know. A point of thought, however, is that if the rainforest they inhabited was decimated they would probably be seen (or at least their remains found).

There isn't much if any "pristine wilderness" left in the Himalayas, Indochina or Mongolia-yet still you will also get reports of "wild hominid" sightings from there.

And do you believe them to be true?

Why was the Indonesian coelacanth not discovered by scientists pre-1997?

A combination of most people not knowing one fish from another, locals not realising that it was of any paricular interest and the fact that their habitat is relatively difficult to explore.

 

[Sun Wukong]

Obviously, none of the hunters did-or at least was a lousy shot.

Now adaysmost people think of (and imagine to see) a plesiosaur when they see something in Loch Ness. Before 1933 when this hypothesis was first brought up, probably nobody called it a plesiosaur (and some of its descriptions were remarkable different from a plesiosaur back then). Tell people what they are likely to see, and they will see it...same as your proposed prefactured "Bigfoot" mindset.

Most descriptions (may it be faces, legs or whatever) pretty much agree in general with one another-even if you consider the occasional oddball and the all-too frequent prankster. And if there are individual hominids, there should be individual differences.

Not all species make it into roadkill, and not all get shot. Remember the bear carcass example: even larger bodies decompose rather quickly if given the chance. Let's make a bet: find within a few days a bear carcass in a bear-rich country (like Rumania, Russia...), and you'll have a point (if you indeed consider this a point-scoring contest).

Interestingly, koupreys and several other elusive animals seem(ed) to have a similar "camera-destroying forcefield", as good pictures of living specimens in the wild are scarce if at all existing. (Take a look at arkive for the 1950s video).

Finding ape carcasses in the natural habitat can also be a hard task, even when the habitat is known to the observers. Several times you can read in Goodall's and other primatologists' reports the note that this and that (wounded/sick) animal disappeared and was never seen again. Maybe its carcass moved... or rather, was moved by scavangers.

What did I tell you about my opinion of the word "believe" in this context?

Regarding the Indonesian coelacanth: the local folks know exactly their fish from one another. They even have a special name for it: "rajalaut" (king of sea); a name that does indicate quite an interest in the animal. Indonesia is quite overly populated and has a long tradition of fishing. Why did nobody catch & determine the fish prior 1997? Why was no carcass of it found prior 1997? If the Erdmanns hadn't put the picture on the Internet and a specialist hadn't come across, it would have passed unnoticed. Just like ornithologist Masa Hachisuka discovering a new species of Philippine finches in a pet shop in San Francisco...
Same goes with the other zoological discoveries: all it takes is some luck, and afterwards you ask yourself why nobody else stumbled upon it before.

"there are a few unexplained ones nonetheless"-Indeed; and that's the reason why-despite all the mass of hoaxes, idiots and swizzle-one should not charge off some cryptids (especially the non-"superstars") all too hastily.

 

[redpanda]

Obviously, none of the hunters did-or at least was a lousy shot.

Or they don't exist, of course.

Most descriptions (may it be faces, legs or whatever) pretty much agree in general with one another-even if you consider the occasional oddball and the all-too frequent prankster. And if there are individual hominids, there should be individual differences.

But having individual animals within a different species, and having a completely different limb and facial structure is rather different. Not only this, but while some have been aggressive, others have retreated so there are also marked behavioural differences between sightings.

Not all species make it into roadkill, and not all get shot. Remember the bear carcass example: even larger bodies decompose rather quickly if given the chance. Let's make a bet: find within a few days a bear carcass in a bear-rich country (like Rumania, Russia...), and you'll have a point (if you indeed consider this a point-scoring contest).

But species which live in an area criss-crossed by roads and where there are a large number of hunters will inevitably be killed eventually. Bears get shot and run over (indeed the largest ever black bear specimen - the size of a grizzly - was run over if I remember correctly). And even if they do decompose rather quickly, the carcass of something as large as a Sasquatch would not go completely unnoticed and the number of animals needed for a self-sustaining population would be high enough that over the last hundred and fifty years, lots would have been involved in shootings or collisons. I fail to see how they would go continually unnoticed.

Interestingly, koupreys and several other elusive animals seem(ed) to have a similar "camera-destroying forcefield", as good pictures of living specimens in the wild are scarce if at all existing. (Take a look at arkive for the 1950s video).

And yet there are a number of pictures of "Bigfoot" but as I said before, virtually all can be proved to be another species or a hoax.

Finding ape carcasses in the natural habitat can also be a hard task, even when the habitat is known to the observers. Several times you can read in Goodall's and other primatologists' reports the note that this and that (wounded/sick) animal disappeared and was never seen again. Maybe its carcass moved... or rather, was moved by scavangers.

The same thing was described by Fossey as well. However, certainly not all the individuals did this so I see no reason to assume that all Sasquatch would do it as well. Not to mention more spontaneous deaths where the animal would not have a chance to go to a more private place to die.

What did I tell you about my opinion of the word "believe" in this context?

Well as thinking that the Sasquatch exists is a belief, I maintain my right to use this word when discussing it.

Just like ornithologist Masa Hachisuka discovering a new species of Philippine finches in a pet shop in San Francisco...

I saw a furry, long-eared species of lagamorph in my local pet shop today, should I check it out with the IUCN?

"there are a few unexplained ones nonetheless"-Indeed; and that's the reason why-despite all the mass of hoaxes, idiots and swizzle-one should not charge off some cryptids (especially the non-"superstars") all too hastily.

But what's to say there aren't explanations? Considering the number of people who claim to have seen Bigfoot, I would be surprised if there was not something I couldn't explain. Though you may believe (oops, sorry) otherwise, I do not think that I know everything. However, the evidence against "Bigfoot's" existence is, in my opinion, a great deal more compelling than the evidence for.

 

[Chlidonias]

Camera trapping (or attempts at) have been done by various individuals on many occasions over the last few decades. In some instances virtually ALL other native Tasmanian marsupials have been well documented on the results- with the exception of Thylacine.

probably the first camera trap set up to try and record a thylacine was by Guiler himself in 1967 I believe