Bigfoot in Malaysia

[Huh-What?]

Big news in Malaysia

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051230/ap_on_fe_st/malaysia_bigfoot

According to the story they;

...photographed what appeared to be footprints measuring up to 17 inches, said Lim Teong Kheng, the chairman of the Malaysian Nature Society in Johor.

He said brown hair reeking of body odor was also reportedly retrieved nearby, and a broken tree branch at the site appeared to indicate the creatures were some 10 feet tall.

So from this evidence it was deduced that bigfoot exists. Apparently this wasn't the first sighting in Endau Rompin National Park, but what happened to the others?

Lim welcomed the investigation by the national park saying "Bigfoot" sightings have been reported for decades in the area but never taken seriously for lack of evidence.


So smelly hair, a broken branch high in a tree, and a large foot imprint isn't lack of evidence?

I am always surprised that these 400lb+ creatures don't leave large piles of excrement.

[Red Siegfried]

Well, I have no doubt in my mind that Bigfoot exists in Malaysia now. That's all the evidence you need, according to the bigfooties on this board. They got footprints, hair and a report. That's plenty of evidence, plenty. Hell, that's DEFINITIVE PROOF!

Now LAL can post and call us all ignorant for discarding this "evidence."

(Indignantly) "I have never called you ignorant! You're just closed minded simpletons who won't open your eyes to the proof that Bigfoot is real. And even though I won't go out on a limb and say it's real with 100% certainty, I'll spend 15 pages on a board defending it. Pardon me while I dig up some more quotes from "Bigfoot Specialists" to defend the fact that there is no proof, only some very poor evidence, and tell everyone over and over again how we will find Bigfoot any day now." (wanders off to watch Harry and The Hendersons. Again.)

[Ryokan]

Well, even Bigfoots need a vacation, and Malaysia is pretty nice this time of year.

[Huntster]

...Now LAL can post and call us all ignorant for discarding this "evidence."....

I'm quicker than Lu today.

Can I be the one to call you ignorant?

...That's all the evidence you need, according to the bigfooties on this board. They got footprints, hair and a report. That's plenty of evidence, plenty. Hell, that's DEFINITIVE PROOF!...

Are you willing to concede that you're exaggerating? There is no proof. There's evidence. Call it little, call it weak, call it unconfirmed, but it is evidence.

And you're clearly discarding it because you've pre-judged the phenomenon. That may not be because you're ignorant (although the root of the word is "ignore", which you seem to be doing), but it's damned sure prejudiced.

I wouldn't call that very smart.

...I'll spend 15 pages on a board defending it...

I'll see Lu's 15 pages, and raise her 100...............

[Red Siegfried]

I'm quicker than Lu today.

Can I be the one to call you ignorant?



Are you willing to concede that you're exaggerating? There is no proof. There's evidence. Call it little, call it weak, call it unconfirmed, but it is evidence.

And you're clearly discarding it because you've pre-judged the phenomenon. That may not be because you're ignorant (although the root of the word is "ignore", which you seem to be doing), but it's damned sure prejudiced.

I wouldn't call that very smart.



I'll see Lu's 15 pages, and raise her 100...............

I'm not going to debate with you because that's pointless. Enjoy your new thread.

[Huntster]

I'm not going to debate with you because that's pointless.....

Okay.

...Enjoy your new thread.

Thank you!

[Red Siegfried]

Okay.



Thank you!

I'm sorry. Let me restate that. It wouldn't be pointless to debate with you if you actually understood the basic premises of debate, scientific method and what evidence and proof are and how they work. Also not lying and frequently resorting to logical fallacies would be good.

Debates never establish what the truth is; they're simply the exercise of rhetoric. Only repeatable, verifiable evidence does that.

There is no good evidence for Bigfoot. End of story. Think otherwise if you like but don't try to tell me up is down.

As for working on getting some good evidence, go right ahead. I think you're wasting your time but if I'm wrong ... well, I'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

[Huntster]

...Also not lying and frequently resorting to logical fallacies would be good.....

Yes, that's always good.

Agreeing is good; no?

...Debates never establish what the truth is; they're simply the exercise of rhetoric...

Never?

In accordance with your understanding "basic premises of debate, scientific method and what evidence and proof are and how they work", do you have any evidence or proof that "debates never establish what the truth is; they're simply the exercise of rhetoric"?

...Only repeatable, verifiable evidence does that....

You mean like footprints repeatedly left by heavy creatures, in the shape of a human foot but much larger, that have been seen, photographed, casted, analyzed, and found to occasionally show dermal signatures in a different way than those found in human footprints, well recorded in North America for nearly two centuries, and verified by scientists?

...Think otherwise if you like but don't try to tell me up is down....


Ummm; you don't want to debate vertical direction?

Can I assume you also don't want to "exercise rhetoric" regarding sasquatchery, either?

...As for working on getting some good evidence, go right ahead. I think you're wasting your time but if I'm wrong ... well, I'll cross that bridge when we come to it...

I'm on the other side. Nice bridge.

You're not even in sight, Mr. Siegfried.

Give me a call when you see the bridge.

[Hitch]

I miss Erik Beckjord.

He was stupid and offensive, but at least he was entertaining.

[William Parcher]

Malaysia is just another location where humans can engage their tendency to mythologize the idea that big humanlike creatures are lurking. This idea has sympathizers and apologists that will go on to mention that these cratures are possible, regardless of any unliklihood.

The dichotomy of belief is the same in Malaysia as it is anywhere else. Bigfoot is justifiable anywhere that anyone says that it has been "documented". In all cases, the believer habitually shifts the burden of proof upon the skeptic. Traditionally, the burden of proof resides with the claimant of something extraordinary. An undiscovered gigantic bipedal ape ought to be tacitly extraordinary. But it is not explicitly so. Because the believers in such creatures firmly think that our collective abilities to detect such animals is inherently faulty. Since Victorian folks doubted the gorilla and then it was confirmed... we should all be sympathetic to the notion that doubts of Bigfoot in Malaysia will be followed by confirmation of Bigfoot in Malaysia.

What seems obvious to me, is that "believers" are required to give true credibility to any witness as well as to any kind of proposed evidence. IOW, the believer concludes (or simply believes) that at least some of the eyewitness accounts, footprints, hair and feces must be an indication that there really is a Bigfoot species in Malaysia. Even if only 1 out of 1000 bits of evidence is accurate for Bigfoot, then you have 1 bit of accurate evidence for an undescribed gigantic bipedal ape.

It is no accident that the scientific community cannot do very much after being presented with such a situation.

It is my opinion that Bigfooters prey upon the conventions of science itself to argue against science and scientifically-minded skeptics. They cannot produce a Bigfoot, but they will consume all hours of the day to point out that science cannot show that Bigfoot does not exist. The Bigfooters champion eyewitnesses from any walk-of-life and say that common human perception is not only revealing that the giant apes exist, but that science itself can only rely on the common human perceptions of scientists. This is a "he said" vs. "he said" issue. The Bigfooters seem to not pay much mind to the fact that many many decades have passed without any confirmation of a large bipedal ape inhabiting this planet other than Homo sapiens sapiens.

Instead of having a belief that is held strongly tentative to the production of real proof, these Bigfooters hinge their belief on the ability of science and skeptics to disprove the existence of such an animal. How do they think the world can react and show things, based upon the criteria that they offer to demonstrate that this creature is a myth or a mistake?

The skepticism of Bigfoot offers an inherent falsifiability. Produce a Bigfoot creature (or unrefutable evidence of such) and the negative hypothesis of Bigfoot is instantly refuted.

The belief of Bigfoot offers no inherent falsifiability. There is nothing that anyone can do or say to show that Bigfoot does not exist.... no matter how obvious it would seem to anyone. If only one person on earth claimed that they recently saw a giant wild ape in a Washington forest, nobody could really prove that they didn't really see such an animal.

[William Parcher]

I miss Erik Beckjord.

He was stupid and offensive, but at least he was entertaining.

He also has the best argumentative tactic of Bigfoot belief unfalsifiability. Claiming that Bigfoot is paranormal and has shape-shifting abilities allows Beckjord to give powerful counter-arguments to both Bigfoot skeptics and to Bigfoot believers who are skeptical that this ape is not straight out of science fiction.

Beckjord has recently suggested that Bigfoot uses wormholes in space to arrive in locations that it arrives in.

Why the hell not? Einsteinian relativity hands us wormholes on a platter. Earthly witnesses hand us Bigfoot encounters on a platter. Exobiology hands us the liklihood of extraterrestrial life on a platter. A simple connecting-of-the-dots puts a giant skywalking stinky monkey right there in a Pacific Northwest forest. He could show up in Manhatten, but he like the solitude, views and smells that only a near-coastal Western American forest offers. Besides, Bigfoot likes to wrench the livers right out of deer as a snack item. He would be frustrated trying to appease his deer liver fetish in Central Park.

Beckjord is the king of kings. He knows that Bigfooters and JREF skeptics are both wrong. It must be heady to think that you know something that the rest of earthly humanity doesn't know.

Imagine a Bigfoot zooming through space, on her way to the refreshing coolness of Bluff Creek. She has one of those high-tech navigation devices installed in her galaxy cruiser. "Turn left at Spacefold 3622." She knows that this is alerting her to the approaching wormhole that will lead her to that fresh pinetree smell, clean rushing water and the melodic honking of ravens. She hears the ravens but cannot see them clearly. She wonders if this is an undescribed species. Will she return to her Bigfoot planet and tell her fellow Bigfoots that she witnessed a cryptid. Will they begin to call her a Cryptozoobigfootologist? She loses sleep thinking about what this all means and what will be thought about her back home. The mind of this Bigfoot is spinning...spinning... spinning. Her dreams are dominated by her loving mother. Mama Bigfoot. She fondly remembers how her mother's stride always included the horizontal foot lift as part of the warm and fuzzy compliant gait. "Mama never failed to bring me warm deer livers when I was feeling down. She had a Groucho walk with her feet always level to the horizon during her stride... but it was that steamy deer liver in her outstretched hand that haunts my loving memories."

How terrible, unimaginative and irresponsible would it be to think that Bigfoot wouldn't want to visit Malaysia? To think otherwise just would show that skepticism is the Scrooge of the galaxy. Bah, humbug!

All weird creatures, ghosts, spirits, hairy hominoids, lake monsters, Big Bird, phantom kangaroos, the Dover Demon, the giant Kangamoto bat, Black Panthers, out of place cougars, Large Black Dogs in the UK, and shapeshifters of all kinds, come to and from this Universe/dimension via wormholes, from other parallel universes/dimensions, and different beings may come from different parallel universes/dimensions. (http://www.beckjord.com/wormholesinuse)

[Huntster]

...Since Victorian folks doubted the gorilla and then it was confirmed... we should all be sympathetic to the notion that doubts of Bigfoot in Malaysia will be followed by confirmation of Bigfoot in Malaysia....

Let's be accurate:

The first known record of a non-African regarding gorillas was from Hanno, a Carthaginian explorer, around 480 BC.

British scientists accepted the existence of gorillas when DuChaillu (not a scientist) delivered a carcass to them in 1861 (American skeptics still didn't accept it, and only after subsequent explorers, the Royal Geographic Society, and Harper and Brothers worked for years to show the idiots the obvious).

Now, let's see; 480 BC to 1861 is a scant 2,341 years.

And, frankly, if DuChaillu hadn't brought back that carcass, and reading what I read on this forum from lovers and worshippers of science, I have no doubt that today's skeptics would still be arguing that gorillas don't exist.

But behold what science has wrought since 1861 with regard to gorillas! They sure are smart now, aren't they? Intelligent mo-fos. They know it all.

But they don't know squat ***** about sasquatches, do they? Deny they exist, don't they? The lesson of 144 years ago has been long forgotten, hasn't it?

Some folks never learn. Even the ones who claim to be the smartest around.

It's funny, really.

[Hitch]

How many high-resolution digital cameras were there 2500 years ago? How many British Scientists visited Africa between 480 BC and 1861?

One Clear Photograph...

[Huh-What?]

Hitch is right. If bigfoot did exist then modern technology should be able to capture him on some type of medium at least once.

Frankly IMOP, Huntster, your arguments seem thin as if you are just playing devil's advocate. Arguing for arguing's sake.

[Huntster]

How many high-resolution digital cameras were there 2500 years ago?...

None.

...How many British Scientists visited Africa between 480 BC and 1861?...

None (like I noted above).

How many British scientists in the woods searching for sasquatches?

None.

How many British scientists have a negative opinion on sasquatches today?

All of them.

How many British scientists will be in on the circus after some "hick" brings them a carcass?

All of them.

...One Clear Photograph...

Bullspit. You've got way more than that now.

[Huntster]

...If bigfoot did exist then modern technology should be able to capture him on some type of medium at least once....QUOTE]

You call that a scientific statement?

And, I point out again, the PG film has been presented. It has not been proven a hoax. The radical skeptic simply rejects it, because their demands aren't for valid evidence; they want proof, and they want it delivered.

[QUOTE]...Frankly IMOP, Huntster, your arguments seem thin as if you are just playing devil's advocate. Arguing for arguing's sake.

I am arguing for the sake of a very unique creature that I believe is in danger of extinction (at least in some regions), and in frustration at an industry/ideology that should be proactive in discovery, but is actually a burden of discovery.

[gmanontario]

Let's be accurate:

The first known record of a non-African regarding gorillas was from Hanno, a Carthaginian explorer, around 480 BC.

British scientists accepted the existence of gorillas when DuChaillu (not a scientist) delivered a carcass to them in 1861 (American skeptics still didn't accept it, and only after subsequent explorers, the Royal Geographic Society, and Harper and Brothers worked for years to show the idiots the obvious).

Now, let's see; 480 BC to 1861 is a scant 2,341 years.

And, frankly, if DuChaillu hadn't brought back that carcass, and reading what I read on this forum from lovers and worshippers of science, I have no doubt that today's skeptics would still be arguing that gorillas don't exist.

But behold what science has wrought since 1861 with regard to gorillas! They sure are smart now, aren't they? Intelligent mo-fos. They know it all.

But they don't know squat ***** about sasquatches, do they? Deny they exist, don't they? The lesson of 144 years ago has been long forgotten, hasn't it?

Some folks never learn. Even the ones who claim to be the smartest around.

It's funny, really.

I for one thought that is the way science works. Be a skeptic until you and/or someone provides irrefutable evidence. IMHO, irrefutable evidence for bigfoot is still not there, so I canot believe it exists. When someone provides compelling evidence, I'll change my mind.

[Correa Neto]

Let's be accurate:

The first known record of a non-African regarding gorillas was from Hanno, a Carthaginian explorer, around 480 BC.

British scientists accepted the existence of gorillas when DuChaillu (not a scientist) delivered a carcass to them in 1861 (American skeptics still didn't accept it, and only after subsequent explorers, the Royal Geographic Society, and Harper and Brothers worked for years to show the idiots the obvious).

Now, let's see; 480 BC to 1861 is a scant 2,341 years.
...rant snipped...


Ah, the old common argument that "gorillas were not found"... Invalid argument, I´m afraid. A variation on the rants about mainstream science.

480 BC there was nothing that called science as we know it noways. The number of experts has increased a lot as well as the avaliable technology, methodology and knoweledge database. Not only in raw numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Now someone will say "there were no major improvments on tracking" or some variation. And it will be another erroneous argument, for thare have been (IR and low-light imaging, remote cameras, microphones, etc.).

Bigfeet researchers, defendents, etc. should stop wasting time with pesudonihilistic rants. What about a critical examination on the avaliable data, since reliable data is missing? But be warned that it will show how weak the avaliable data is.

[Hitch]

Bullspit. You've got way more than that now.

Where? The P/G film?

Erik Beckjord had better proof than that.

[Huntster]

I for one thought that is the way science works. Be a skeptic until you and/or someone provides irrefutable evidence....

And that is the precise problem. There are too many people thinking that same thing.

Analyzing evidence from a skeptical point of view is clearly proper.

Analyzing evidence from a prejudiced point of view, with the goal of denial rather than seeking the truth, is quite different.

Not analyzing the evidence at all, and parroting the opinions of others who are denying the validity of evidence purely to bolster the position they prematurely took at first, is classic human folly. This phenomenon has occurred in the past, is occurring today, and will continue.

...IMHO, irrefutable evidence for bigfoot is still not there, so I canot believe it exists....

Irrefutable evidence (also known as proof) is not currently available.

Compelling evidence is.

...When someone provides compelling evidence, I'll change my mind..

When someone provides proof you'll change your mind. You'll have no choice then, unless your human pride is so great as to deny the obvious.

The rest of science will join you at that time.

So who needs them now?

[Huntster]

Where? The P/G film?...

The PG film is the best photographic evidence currently available, and it has yet to be proven a hoax. Further, the more skeptics try to establish it as a hoax and fail, the stronger the validity of the film becomes.

And there is much other evidence:

*Footprints, some with dermal signature
*Hair and feces evidence
*Witness testimony
*Aboriginal cultural testimony

The compilation of the above composes enough evidence for further, deeper investigation.

...Erik Beckjord had better proof than that...

And that is?.........................

[Huntster]

Ah, the old common argument that "gorillas were not found"... Invalid argument, I´m afraid. A variation on the rants about mainstream science.

480 BC there was nothing that called science as we know it noways. The number of experts has increased a lot as well as the avaliable technology, methodology and knoweledge database. Not only in raw numbers, but also in terms of quality.....

Invalid according to you?

I'm impressed. That's real scientific.

Combine the long, long refusal to accept the human testimony, the refusal to accept the proof in the form of a carcass by so many like yourself, and the industrial behavior of science since the discovery of the gorilla, and we are left with a mirror image of what is happening now and what will happen after the discovery of sasquatches.

Science completely failed in the discovery of the gorilla; plain and simple. And there is absolutely no indication that prominent scientists of that day (DuChaillu emerged from Gaboon with his gorilla carcass two years after the publication of "Origins of Species") would have changed the situation anytime soon.

A hunter provided the proof that many in science (primarily here in the U.S.) denied, and even continued to deny after the carcass was delivered.

They, quite literally, had to have their noses rubbed in the carcass.

[Skeptical Greg]

WilliamParcher:The skepticism of Bigfoot offers an inherent falsifiability. Produce a Bigfoot creature (or unrefutable evidence of such) and the negative hypothesis of Bigfoot is instantly refuted.

The belief of Bigfoot offers no inherent falsifiability. There is nothing that anyone can do or say to show that Bigfoot does not exist.... no matter how obvious it would seem to anyone. If only one person on earth claimed that they recently saw a giant wild ape in a Washington forest, nobody could really prove that they didn't really see such an animal.

Just worth repeating IMO.. Sort of lost in the clutter..

[Hitch]

They, quite literally, had to have their noses rubbed in the carcass.

...still waiting to have their noses rubbed in dragon carcasses, or unicorn carcasses, or mermaid carcasses...



... or bigfoot carcasses.

[gmanontario]

And that is the precise problem. There are too many people thinking that same thing.

Analyzing evidence from a skeptical point of view is clearly proper.

Analyzing evidence from a prejudiced point of view, with the goal of denial rather than seeking the truth, is quite different.

Not analyzing the evidence at all, and parroting the opinions of others who are denying the validity of evidence purely to bolster the position they prematurely took at first, is classic human folly. This phenomenon has occurred in the past, is occurring today, and will continue.



Irrefutable evidence (also known as proof) is not currently available.

Compelling evidence is.



When someone provides proof you'll change your mind. You'll have no choice then, unless your human pride is so great as to deny the obvious.

The rest of science will join you at that time.

So who needs them now?

You are putting words in my mouth I've never said. I have never said BF doesn't exist, just that according to what I've read and watched, it doesn't seem likely. According to MY standards, bigfoot evidence isn't even the slightest bit compelling and certainly not any level of proof. The onus is to prove BF is real, not to disprove it. People take other peoples theories apart all the time to look for holes. Apparently thats not the way BF research is done from all I've read. Please don't assume what my human pride will do because you have no idea. I've said it before and I'll say it again. When someone provides even the least compelling evidence I will pay attention. Until then it's all theories and hypotheses.

PS why do you detest scientists so much? Because they won't agree with you?

PPS gorillas do exist I've seen one and I'm a skeptic.

[William Parcher]

Just worth repeating IMO.. Sort of lost in the clutter..

It seems to be much worse than even this. Much worse. It is obvious that Bigfoot is unfalsifiable. But the situation for a curious and evaluative skeptic is severly handicapped. Bigfootery creates this handicap. Skeptics do not have access to primary evidence and information that has not already been presented by Bigfootery. Skeptics are forced to evaluate things that are presented to them by Bigfooters. This allows Bigfoot advocates to modify, translate, disseminate, delete and generally alter the nature of primary evidence before the skeptic ever gets a chance to make an honest inquiry.

The glorious example is the PGF. We are all told that the original film is missing. We know that copies were made of this film even before the existence of video (these are referred to as 1st, 2nd generation, etc.). Yet we are also being deprived of seeing these early-generational copies, in spite of knowing that they exist and even having a good idea of who possesses this evidence. Bigfooters loudly proclaim that the Legend Meets Science (LMS) DVD is a buyable "documentary" that shows the best evaluatable footage from the PGF. But it is quite clear that the LMS was produced from a decent early-generation bit of film evidence. The LMS producers are only allowing the world to see what they want them to see, in spite of the tacit suggestion that you are seeing everything that you can possibly see. They are not showing us the raw primary evidence... they are showing us what they decided to show us. Is it any accident that Bigfoot and PGF skepticism is forced to operate with "one-hand-tied-behind-its-back"?

The LMS pretends to be an objective presentation of Bigfoot evidence. It is really a highly-controlled production created by Bigfoot advocates in an effort to hoodwink the world into thinking that this mythical animal is really justified. The LMS is a mockery of scientific inquiry and a bold affront to rationality, reason and skepticism.

Shame on the LMS producers. Shame on Bigfootery. This is what happens when able people try to advocate and perpetuate an American myth as fact. Shame shame shame!

[William Parcher]

The onus is to prove BF is real, not to disprove it.

The Bigfooter community is absolutely desperate (and succeeds within its own ranks) to reverse this burden of proof. Their minions and websites constantly are proclaiming and hinging their status on the inability of skepticism or any given skeptic to prove that Bigfoot does not exist or that the PGF is a hoax. Bigfootery is a disgusting offense to human rationality and reason. Lu and Huntster are the token defenders og Bigfoot here on JREF. They will fight to argue that this creature is not only reasonable, but that it is actual. There seems to be almost no limits to the abstract and desperate position that they argue from. Never forget that there has been no confirmation whatsoever that Bigfoot is a real creature. They are going to try to convince you that this is unimportant.

[gmanontario]

The Bigfooter community is absolutely desperate (and succeeds within its own ranks) to reverse this burden of proof. Their minions and websites constantly are proclaiming and hinging their status on the inability of skepticism or any given skeptic to prove that Bigfoot does not exist or that the PGF is a hoax. Bigfootery is a disgusting offense to human rationality and reason. Lu and Huntster are the token defenders og Bigfoot here on JREF. They will fight to argue that this creature is not only reasonable, but that it is actual. There seems to be almost no limits to the abstract and desperate position that they argue from. Never forget that there has been no confirmation whatsoever that Bigfoot is a real creature. They are going to try to convince you that this is unimportant.
Been a longtime lurker in the BF field and I realize that some people do this. The "prove a hoax" mantra is boring and totally predictable. The gorilla story is also totally predictable and I am doing my best to ignore it.

Anyways like I keep saying, only a carcass, a piece of flesh or a credible video will shut up the skeptics and make the science type people take notice. I hope it's real too but I'm not going to declare it real unless someone finds one and either shoots it with a camera or a high-powered rifle. Heck you don't even have to kill it, just take out a chunk of flesh. I know if I ever saw one in my sights I wouldn't hesitate for a second. Check that..I would wait because it may be someone filming a new Patty scene..lol..;)

[Hitch]

It seems to be much worse than even this. Much worse. It is obvious that Bigfoot is unfalsifiable. But the situation for a curious and evaluative skeptic is severly handicapped. Bigfootery creates this handicap. Skeptics do not have access to primary evidence and information that has not already been presented by Bigfootery. Skeptics are forced to evaluate things that are presented to them by Bigfooters. This allows Bigfoot advocates to modify, translate, disseminate, delete and generally alter the nature of primary evidence before the skeptic ever gets a chance to make an honest inquiry.

The glorious example is the PGF. We are all told that the original film is missing. We know that copies were made of this film even before the existence of video (these are referred to as 1st, 2nd generation, etc.). Yet we are also being deprived of seeing these early-generational copies, in spite of knowing that they exist and even having a good idea of who possesses this evidence. Bigfooters loudly proclaim that the Legend Meets Science (LMS) DVD is a buyable "documentary" that shows the best evaluatable footage from the PGF. But it is quite clear that the LMS was produced from a decent early-generation bit of film evidence. The LMS producers are only allowing the world to see what they want them to see, in spite of the tacit suggestion that you are seeing everything that you can possibly see. They are not showing us the raw primary evidence... they are showing us what they decided to show us. Is it any accident that Bigfoot and PGF skepticism is forced to operate with "one-hand-tied-behind-its-back"?

The LMS pretends to be an objective presentation of Bigfoot evidence. It is really a highly-controlled production created by Bigfoot advocates in an effort to hoodwink the world into thinking that this mythical animal is really justified. The LMS is a mockery of scientific inquiry and a bold affront to rationality, reason and skepticism.

Shame on the LMS producers. Shame on Bigfootery. This is what happens when able people try to advocate and perpetuate an American myth as fact. Shame shame shame!

To me, it's unfathomable that any "documentary" on bigfoot basing any portion of it's evidence on the P/G film would not make every effort to present the most complete, earliest generation, unretouched version of the film possible. But for some reason the bigfoot enthusiasts don't want anyone to look at the whole thing and see it for what it is. Much better to see doctored, blown up frames with "enhanced" details highlighted to support their claims. Why?

...I have my own theory. You make up your own mind.

[William Parcher]

To me, it's unfathomable that any "documentary" on bigfoot basing any portion of it's evidence on the P/G film would not make every effort to present the most complete, earliest generation, unretouched version of the film possible. But for some reason the bigfoot enthusiasts don't want anyone to look at the whole thing and see it for what it is. Much better to see doctored, blown up frames with "enhanced" details highlighted to support their claims. Why?

...I have my own theory. You make up your own mind.

Why? Because Bigfootery is a conspiracy against rationality, reason and the innocently curious human who is interested in the world that they were born into. :D

[LTC8K6]

The P/G film is not evidence of bigfoot unless it is actually bigfoot in the film....

This has not been established by anyone yet.

The dermal ridges are well in dispute.

The hair has come to naught as has the feces.

Jeff Meldrum still insists that a bear print belongs to bigfoot.....

[Huntster]

...PS why do you detest scientists so much? Because they won't agree with you?....

I don't detest scientists. I'm disgusted with the industry and ideology, especially regarding this phenomenon.

...PPS gorillas do exist I've seen one and I'm a skeptic...

Did gorillas exist in 1835, before you and western scientists saw one?

[Huntster]

It seems to be much worse than even this. Much worse. It is obvious that Bigfoot is unfalsifiable. But the situation for a curious and evaluative skeptic is severly handicapped. Bigfootery creates this handicap. Skeptics do not have access to primary evidence and information that has not already been presented by Bigfootery. Skeptics are forced to evaluate things that are presented to them by Bigfooters. This allows Bigfoot advocates to modify, translate, disseminate, delete and generally alter the nature of primary evidence before the skeptic ever gets a chance to make an honest inquiry....

And how is this different than, say, evolutionary archeology, or nuclear physics?

[Huntster]

The P/G film is not evidence of bigfoot unless it is actually bigfoot in the film.....

The subject in the film looks like what people have been calling sasquatches, the people who shot the footage said that it was not a hoax, many scientists and photography experts have analyzed the film (some say they believe it is a real creature, some say they don't know, and a few think it's a hoax, but can't prove it). There were also very good footprints at the site, these were photographed and casted by independent researchers and a timber industry employee who learned of the event.

This is all evidence that skeptics can't prove were hoaxed, despite trying very, very hard.

It is reasonable to judge that the subject in the film is a sasquatch.

...The dermal ridges are well in dispute...

By whom, and what is his/her/their evidence?

...The hair has come to naught as has the feces...

Some hair and fecal analysis has been ruled "inconclusive", because they matched no known species. That is not the same as "coming to naught".

...Jeff Meldrum still insists that a bear print belongs to bigfoot....

Which print do you refer to? Can you show us so that we, too, can intelligently rule on it as you have?

Indeed, I have much experience with bear prints. I'd love to see the evidence you have seen.

Please share it with us.

[gmanontario]

I don't detest scientists. I'm disgusted with the industry and ideology, especially regarding this phenomenon.

Then you are guilty of pre-judging also. That doesn't help your BF cause.

Did gorillas exist in 1835, before you and western scientists saw one?
Extremely stupid question unworthy of a serious reply.

I'm done I suppose if the level of discourse turns this low.

Edit: I see it again that you're asking for evidence of a hoax. Here's a free clue: There is none.
Now that's out of the way, please provide evidence it isn't a hoax. Saying something is real doesn't make it so.

See ya and say hello to BF for me.

[RayG]

Hunster, as much as I'd love for bigfoot to exist, in the 30+ years I've been following this mystery, I have yet to hear of any irrefutable evidence that proves it exists.

The subject in the film looks like what people have been calling sasquatches...

Which doesn't make it real.

...the people who shot the footage said that it was not a hoax

They may have been fooled, mistaken, or lying.

...many scientists and photography experts have analyzed the film (some say they believe it is a real creature [but can't prove it], some say they don't know, and a few think it's a hoax, but can't prove it).

Many times what people think or believe has little bearing on the truth.

There were also very good footprints at the site, these were photographed and casted by independent researchers and a timber industry employee who learned of the event.

Which doesn't eliminate the possibility of hoaxing.

This is all evidence that skeptics can't prove were hoaxed, despite trying very, very hard.

One can also argue that bigfoot proponents can't prove the evidence wasn't hoaxed, despite trying very, very hard.

It is reasonable to judge that the subject in the film is a sasquatch.

Why? Should UFO films also be judged valid because they can't be proven to be hoaxes? How about crop circles?

By whom, and what is his/her/their evidence?

Tube has already pointed out some problems with dermal ridges elsewhere on this board, as well as over on the BFF if I'm not mistaken.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=43206&highlight=dermal+ridge

Some hair and fecal analysis has been ruled "inconclusive", because they matched no known species. That is not the same as "coming to naught".

Most of the hair has been ruled 'inconclusive' because it can't be distinguished from human hair. This discussion has been conducted here at JREF as well as the BFF.

Here's a few quick links regarding hair analysis:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1130956&highlight=fahrenbach#post1130956
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1130433&highlight=fahrenbach#post1130433
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1108668&highlight=fahrenbach#post1108668
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1107372&highlight=fahrenbach#post1107372
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1106040&highlight=fahrenbach#post1106040

This link has a quote regarding the hair found in the Skookum cast as well:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1107947&highlight=fahrenbach#post1107947

Which print do you refer to? Can you show us so that we, too, can intelligently rule on it as you have?

Again, this was information presented here on the JREF in another thread. I'm not sure who originated the particular post in question, so I'm not even sure how to find it.

Indeed, I have much experience with bear prints. I'd love to see the evidence you have seen.

Suffice to say it was presented by Dr. Meldrum himself in the form of photographs which he claimed were of squatch prints. If you were to view them, I suspect even you would conclude they resemble bear prints far more than anything attributed to bigfoot.

Please share it with us.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1275467#post1275467
Originally from:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/18.1_meldrum.pdf
and
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/004.jpg

I have found over the years my skepticism steadily increasing with regards to bigfoot. Much of the debate about the available evidence seems to mirror the 'dragon in the garage' story Carl Sagan writes about in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (I have modified his text to reflect bigfoot instead):

"A sasquatch lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of sasquatches over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no sasquatch.

"Where's the sasquatch?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible sasquatch."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the sasquatch footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this sasquatch floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible sasquatch.

"Good idea, but the invisible sasquatch is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the sasquatch and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal sasquatch and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating, heatless sasquatch and no sasquatch at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my sasquatch exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a sasquatch in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a sasquatch in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The sasquatch is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a sagittal crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of sasquatches -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible sasquatch.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have sasquatches in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible sasquatches were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient Indian myths about sasquatches weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some sasquatch-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another sasquatch enthusiast shows up with an inconclusive hair sample and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the sasquatch. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other sources of inconclusive hair samples besides a sasquatch. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the sasquatch advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the sasquatch hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.


RayG

[Huntster]

Then you are guilty of pre-judging also. That doesn't help your BF cause.....

No pre-judging at all. I'm judging what I have been seeing and hearing for many years now.

]...Did gorillas exist in 1835, before you and western scientists saw one?
Extremely stupid question unworthy of a serious reply...

Is it?

Gorillas exist. They existed long before Hanno's reference in 480 BC, they existed in 1840, they existed in 1847 when the Reverend Thomas Savage (a Chistian missionary) delivered gorilla skulls to scientists, they existed in 1861 when DuChaillu delivered a carcass to science, they existed in 1870 when Americans were joking about DuChaillu's vivid imagination, and they still exist today.

Whether you see them or not, whether science sees them or not, and whether you or I like it or not.

I submit that other creatures may exist out there that science (always the last to know) doesn't accept.

...I see it again that you're asking for proof of a hoax. Here's a free clue: There is none....

Wrong again, scientist.

There are lots of sasquatch photos out there that have been proven to be a hoax.

There has been eyewitness testimony and footprints found in Malaysia.

Do you have any evidence that this Malaysian event is hoaxed or in error?

Got anything?

[RayG]

Do you have any evidence that this Malaysian event is hoaxed or in error?

Got anything?

There's nothing to indicate an outright hoax, but there sure is a lot of questionable wordage contained in the report.

They alerted their employer who photographed what appeared to be footprints measuring up to 17 inches, said Lim Teong Kheng, the chairman of the Malaysian Nature Society in Johor.

He said brown hair reeking of body odor was also reportedly retrieved nearby, and a broken tree branch at the site appeared to indicate the creatures were some 10 feet tall.

The New Straits Times newspaper on Thursday reprinted one of the photographs taken by the fish farmer, showing what appears to be a triangular depression in the undergrowth.

I don't see how anything in this report provides conclusive evidence for the existence of bigfoot in Malaysia.

RayG

[Huntster]

Ray, thanks for the links. Those are among the first links I've been offered on this forum.

I have to agree with many of the points you've made, but I must comment on this one:

It is reasonable to judge that the subject in the film is a sasquatch.

Why? Should UFO films also be judged valid because they can't be proven to be hoaxes?

When confronted with a UFO report that is seen by multiple witnesses, including combat pilots sent to intercept it after it was detected on radar, and teh eyewitness reports indicate activity that cannot be matched by currently known aircraft (again, corroborated by radar), one must consider the possibility that there was, indeed, an unidentified flying object there.

Whether or not it was a "flying saucer" is a whole other question, isn't it?

The sasquatch phenomenon is very similar. We don't know what it is. But the evidence that a bipedal ape exists in North America is strong enough for the science industry and community to look into it instead of working so hard to kill it.

And, like I've pointed out, this situation has played out before wit regard to the discovery of the gorilla, and it is being played out with remarkable similarities.

I'll be checking those links now.........................

[Huntster]

....Which print do you refer to? Can you show us so that we, too, can intelligently rule on it as you have?

Again, this was information presented here on the JREF in another thread. I'm not sure who originated the particular post in question, so I'm not even sure how to find it.


Indeed, I have much experience with bear prints. I'd love to see the evidence you have seen.


Suffice to say it was presented by Dr. Meldrum himself in the form of photographs which he claimed were of squatch prints. If you were to view them, I suspect even you would conclude they resemble bear prints far more than anything attributed to bigfoot.


You are correct. I looked at the photo of the print, also saw it in Meldrum's paper, and it certainly looks like a bear print. However, it is also a single print and without associated sign that might be found nearby which could give more of the story.

But we also have this, posted by tube:

Doe anyone, other than Lu, think the track is anything but that of a bear?

I do. I had the same perception that some of you folks do until I saw the cast that was made from this track. This is a good reason for caution in making interpretations from photos alone.
These tracks were not made by a bear......

tube has posted in a very balanced way here, describes himself as agnostic, and has been performing his own experiments on fake footprints. If he has held a cast of that footprint in his hand, and says it's not a bear, how can I or LTC8KC credibly debate otherwise?

This is one of my major points; prejudiced opinion isn't even rational, let alone science.

[Correa Neto]

Yes, prejudice is not a good thing to have.

Please note Tube considers himself a bigfoot agnostic. What means that based in the avaliable evidence, he is not convinced the creature exists or not. Thus, even if he is convinced the tracks in question were not made by a bear, he also thinks they are not evidence that the creature exists.

In other words, this particular piece of evidence is inconclusive.

[Huntster]

...he also thinks they are not evidence that the creature exists....

No, that is incorrect.

He stated that a bear did not make the prints.

He has not stated that a human did not make the prints.

We are left not knowing what made the prints.


...In other words, this particular piece of evidence is inconclusive....

Yup.

There is a whole lot of stuff out there like that.

[LTC8K6]

Huntster, nothing can change the fact that this print:
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/004.jpg
Used in this report and others by Jeff Meldrum:
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html
Is clearly that of a bear. Faint dermatoglyph claims and tarsal break claims be damned.

[LTC8K6]

If they can't recognize a bear print, and they are seeing dermatoglyphs in said print, and basing all sorts of sasquatch foot claims off of said print, then why should I bother with their opinions on sasquatch?

[Huntster]

Huntster, nothing can change the fact that this print:
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/004.jpg
Used in this report and others by Jeff Meldrum:
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html
Is clearly that of a bear. Faint dermatoglyph claims and tarsal break claims be damned.

Clearly?

You write with authority. Perhaps you should sign your name to it.

Peer review. That's what it's all about, right?

Why don't you write a paper, put it in Adobe, and publish it?

You feel strongly about your position, don't you?

Show me.

[RayG]

Clearly?

Show me.

I have no expertise whatsoever when it comes to bear tracks, but when that particular Meldrum track is compared to typical bear tracks there seem to be more similarities than if that Meldrum track is compared to typical squatch prints.

Typical bear:
http://www.jasperoriginals.com/images/Enns/BearTrack4_lg.jpg
http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/images/NDGBP_BearPrintLightMud.jpg
http://www.garytrinity.net/brtck03d.jpg
http://www.mountainnature.com/images/Animals/BlackBearTrack01-250%20px.jpg
http://www.ncsu.edu/ligon/sciblast/powell/bear_tracks.jpg
http://www.applelinks.com/grack/images_folder/b-b-b-bear_track.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/1407/jason_bear_track.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Zone/6205/beartrcs.jpg

Typical squatch:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-35-1135818346.jpg
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dtrapp/bfoot2.jpg
http://skepdic.com/graphics/bigfootprint.gif
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10003/normal_1960peterbyrne-bluff.jpg
http://www.henrycountyky.com/misc/bizarre/footcast_bigfoot.jpg
http://paranormalmike.tripod.com/big_foot/thumbnails/100x100/bigfoot_print.jpg
http://www.bigfootsurplus.com/images/products/03-0006s.jpg
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/images/bosscasts.jpg
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/022_1.jpg
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/023_1.jpg
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/034_1.jpg

RayG

[LTC8K6]

Be reasonable Huntster, even if you won't concede the term "clearly".

That print is far more likely to be a bear's front and rear print than it is to be a sasquatch print.

It is so much like a bear's print that it should never have been called anything but....

Instead, it is used to support all sorts of claims about sasquatch feet.

[LTC8K6]

I have to "show you" that a print that looks very much like a bear print actually belongs to a bear, yet I should just accept that it belongs to a sasquatch?

Show me that it belongs to a sasquatch.

Show me your confirmed sasquatch prints for comparison.

Oooops! You don't have any, do you?

[Correa Neto]

Please note Tube considers himself a bigfoot agnostic. What means that based in the avaliable evidence, he is not convinced the creature exists or not. Thus, even if he is convinced the tracks in question were not made by a bear, he also thinks they are not evidence that the creature exists.

No, that is incorrect.

He stated that a bear did not make the prints.

He has not stated that a human did not make the prints.

We are left not knowing what made the prints.

What is incorret in my original post?
Anyway, note that the fact that one does not know what made a set of tracks is by no means evidence that they were made by a bigfoot.

And that tracks are not as strong evidence as you think.


In other words, this particular piece of evidence is inconclusive.
Yup.

There is a whole lot of stuff out there like that.

Numbers X quality... Its better to back conclusions and analysis in 1 mega of good quality data than in 100 terabytes of crap. A specimen or sharp footage can do for bigfoot´s cause much more than a million plaster casts.

[DrRyanScarsella]

This is the first I've heard of this malaysian bigfoot. Why dont they do a dna test of the hair thats found and compare to know sample from primates around the world, or humans for that matter. I have a lab we could use. Did they find and skin samples in the ground where the footprint is, or any evidence left behind from the broken branches or on the branches. I think I saw a bigfoot episode on CSI.

[William Parcher]

The PG film is the best photographic evidence currently available, and it has yet to be proven a hoax. Further, the more skeptics try to establish it as a hoax and fail, the stronger the validity of the film becomes.

This is a very common sentiment and position within the Bigfooter subculture. It is a tactical attempt to distort the way that one perceives the world. The suggested thinking goes like this.... If the PGF was a hoax, it would have already irrefutably been demonstrated as such by very authoritative and professional individuals. The result of such effective debunking would have been that no sane person on earth would think that the film was real.

The truth is that hardly anyone has thought that the film was authentic from the moment that Roger Patterson presented it. It was rejected by very important entities right from the start because it looked like a hoax. Interestingly, the early viewers would have been seeing the best quality copies of the film; much better than we see now. We are now deprived of quality copies of the film that are very much like how it would have appeared as film rolling through a projector onto a screen. Even worse, a modern attempt by Bigfooters to present the footage (LMS DVD) in a "scientific" format voluntarily deprives us of experiencing it as if we really were watching the film. We are only able to analyze it in the way that the LMS producers wanted us to be able. Many of the tools that would be used to build an argument of a hoax are not given to us in the "toolbox".

Modern skeptics of the PGF are forced to laboriously sift through whatever they can get their hands on (ie. interviews with P&G, available still images, available clips of footage, various essays and books, etc.) in an attempt to create a comprehensive counter-argument to authenticity. The big problem is that nearly all of the evidence and information is in the hands of Bigfootery.

Virtually nobody is interested in making a grand and professional modern attempt at debunking the film. This is mostly because virtually nobody thinks the film is authentic in the first place. You might as well try to imagine the Smithsonian opening a brand new wing that is devoted to showing the world that the earth is not flat. Just how many people are going to be interested in visiting an exhibit that proves that the world isn't flat?

It is true that a number of individuals have set out to formally argue that the PGF is a hoax (Long, Daegling, etc.) But I would contend that these are not particulary professional, comprehensive, well-funded and organized efforts. It's not so much that they are ineffective, but rather that they could be much more effective than they are. Anyone attempting a high-quality skeptical inquiry is still going to have to deal with a partially-empty toolbox. The best primary evidence (the film itself) is supposidly missing and the next best evidences (very early generational copies of the film) are being withheld by those who are in possession of it.

Skeptics are handicapped because of these things. That situation is no accident. Bigfoot is a myth, the PGF is a hoax... and Bigfootery absolutely does not want the skeptical and curious world to get any fingernail-hold on any decent means to show it as being such.

It is easy to say that Bigfootery is just stupid. But it is more than that. It is an offensive insult to intellectual inquiry and anyone's general curiousity about the natural world. Bigfootery attempts to deprive humanity of its best assets.

[William Parcher]

Three news stories from the Malaysian media:

Ex-zoologist claims remains were destroyed (http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Friday/National/20060106080753/Article/index_html)

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Friday/National/20060106080753/Article/Current_News/NST/Friday/National/zoo.jpg

"One of them fired a shot from his shotgun. When it started to charge at them, they fired again. The creature fell to the ground with a great thud and the villagers took to their heels. Later, when they returned to check if it was dead, they found the body still lying there."


Closing in on Bigfoot, foreign media set to descend on Johor (http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Thursday/National/20060105081146/Article/index_html)

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Thursday/National/bigfoot.JPG

Johor Malaysian Nature Society adviser Vincent Chow said the State should cash in on the Bigfoot craze just as Scotland had on the Loch Ness monster — whose probable non-existence had never diminished its status as a tourist attraction.


Norwegian who hunted (Malay) Bigfoot for over 20 years (http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Friday/National/20060106080856/Article/index_html)

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Friday/National/20060106080856/Article/Current_News/NST/Friday/National/bf1.jpg

The reported sightings of "Bigfoot" in the jungles of Johor and the media publicity it generated have pushed up sales of masks resembling the black, hairy creature. Kenneth Lim, owner of a fancy costume outlet in a shopping complex in Johor Baru, said he sold 20 of the masks this week alone.

Interest in the "Bigfoot" phenomenon is not new to Felda settler Abdul Hamid Wahab, 57. He and a Norwegian scientist spent almost three decades searching for the elusive creature in several forested areas in Pahang and Johor from the early 1970s to the end of the 1990s.