Sasquatch Coffee

Bulletin: Orang Pendek Handprint

Posted by: Loren Coleman on September 22nd, 2011

Richard Freeman reporting to Jon Downes from the Adam Davies-CFZ Sumatra Expedition sends this along:

Great news, we have a cast of the very first orang-pendek hand print ever recorded. Found by John Didmus, casted by Andy Sanderson. We all are getting copies. We also have hair found close by.

No photographs or other details have been shared yet.

Adam Davies with the 2001 Orang Pendek footprint. Or was it a handprint?

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


29 Responses to “Bulletin: Orang Pendek Handprint”

  1. Cryptoz responds:

    Yeah!

  2. Hapa responds:

    Mr Davies: Congratulations on your discovery. Having said that, prints, no matter what type, are a dime a dozen, and but circumstantial evidence. We need a body or a live specimen, or parts of a body. Its not that I am a skeptic: its just that the scientific powers that be are definitely skeptics, and without a type specimen Crypto-zoology will not be respected by them. The find of a century will not be a new print: it will be an animal, or a substantial one.

    Without it, the work fails.

    However, if the hairs turn out legit, then that is a success in that It could get major scientific attention. The hairs stir my curiosity more than the print. And if it is legit, you could also possibly clone using the hairs. That’s another way of proving Orang Pendek. Still, a body would be better than a hair or two.

  3. Jason P. responds:

    How do they know it’s a handprint from an orang pendek? Aren’t they making a large leap to definitively call it that?

  4. arewethereyeti responds:

    @ Hapa:

    While I agree that mainstream science will require definitive proof to accept the reality of the O-P, or any other cryptid for that matter, a hair sample won’t do it – not unless it’s still attached to a body!

    Here’s why: even if the hair sample contains recoverable DNA, without an existing type specimen to compare/match it to, there is no way to say, “This is Orang Pendek DNA.” You can say what it is similar to: human, orangutan, etc., or that it “doesn’t match any known animal,” which is another way of saying “inconclusive,” (and how often have we heard that?) but a fragment of DNA is all but useless when it comes to PROVING the existence of any cryptid.

    As far as cloning is concerned, that would require the COMPLETE genome of the creature in question; something unlikely, to say the least, to be recovered from a simple hair sample!

  5. Hapa responds:

    arewetheyeti:

    Hellow :)

    I didn’t convey my post right: Hairs will never be enough evidence to provide scientific proof. However, it could draw curious nods from scientists, so much so that perhaps they could give the cryptid more attention. That was what I was saying. You can never prove a new species unless you have a body, live specimen or a major part of a specimen (i.e. a fully fleshed hand, or even hand bones perhaps if in good enough condition). A lot of my earlier posts talk about this major requirement.

    It is, however, in these fella’s ball court to get the ultimate proof: will they do so, or simply make another crypto-zoological failure?

    BTW: Didn’t know that hairs didn’t provide enough DNA for cloning. I’m no geneticist or anything as such. Scratch that idea :(

  6. arewethereyeti responds:

    Like Hapa, I’m no expert either. But, as an interested layman, allow me to expound upon my statement that the “complete genome” would be required for cloning.

    Cloning an animal, an unknown cryptid, or a person for that matter, would require transferring the nucleus of a donated somatic, or “body,” cell (as opposed to germ, or “reproductive,” cell) to an egg cell of the same species from which the nucleus has been removed. Assuming the egg then began dividing normally, it would be implanted into the uterus of a surrogate mother of the same species.

    The donated nucleus contained the entire genetic make-up of the donor (i.e. the “complete genome”) and is the only way to create an “identical twin,” or “clone,” of the original. However, even under laboratory conditions, the process is by no means foolproof.

    Much more difficult would be working from cast-off samples like hair. Yes, hair is a “somatic” cell but aside from the danger of cross-contamination from unwanted/unrelated DNA, often times said DNA, contained only in the root of the hair, is degraded and only fragments are recoverable. Theoretically, while gaps might be filled, a la Jurassic Park, with genetic info from closely related species (and who’s to say what O-P’s closest relatives are, let alone finding a suitable egg cell and surrogate mother) the resulting organism would not, by definition, be an exact twin, or “clone,” of the original.

    So, while there is an infinitely small chance that you might succeed in stitching-together “something” from partial DNA fragments, lacking the complete genome, the result would NOT be a “clone” of the original.

  7. flame821 responds:

    While I do agree with the others that a casting of a print is of little use in cataloging an unknown animal I hesitate to call for hunting. Live traps, trail cams (good quality cameras, clear, Hi-res images) and tag & release would be my preferred way to go.

    We don’t know anything ‘really’ about these animals, rather than shooting one and dissecting it I think we could learn a great deal more by observing and tracking it. If it is a primate species, well, we as a group do tend to be social and live in troops so one tagged specimen could well lead us to others of the same species, maybe even to more undocumented animals and plants.

    Again, not to say that a body won’t eventually be needed, but with the current state of technology I don’t think we need to rely on a body to document and type a species in the way we did 20 years ago.

  8. Hapa responds:

    Flame821

    Trapping, tagging and releasing would perhaps be a good way to go, but I think it would be harder than simply shooting one. But it is a possibility some may try. If it is trapped, then most likely it won’t be tagged and released but taken first to a lab and then to a zoo. In between CNN and Fox would flood it with camera flashes. Though not a humane way to go in and of itself, it would possibly be a necessity in order to further research and knowledge of the animals.

    Trail cams: no matter how clear a pic they take, pics can be faked. You could have a professionally made costume on clear film and it would look real, yet not be. Film is dead here, only useful when combined with living, dead or part of a specimen. It would be better to trap, tag and release than to take a trail cam pic. I think it’s better to shoot to kill than both, but if someone’s good enough to pull off a trapping, then go for it.

  9. mastiff responds:

    A hair sample doesn’t mean jack! How many times have we heard there was a bigfoot etc hair sample and it has proven to be something else? Dozens! How many times have they found a hair sample that has belonged to an unknown primate? Numerous times! And footprints , who really cares, so many a fabricated these days just like fake bigfoot videos on youtube. No one cares, no scientist or general member of the public gives a damn until a body is on the table!!!!!!!

  10. Lorenzo Rossi responds:

    Mr Freem really must to learn how a real and serious researcher work: before the pubblications and THEN the words…

  11. norman-uk responds:

    I am very interested to hear that the Adam Davies expedition has a (potential) Orang Pendek hand print. A lot depends on the quality of the cast, which is presumably solo, not likely but not impossibly being part of a trail of prints, as can foot prints. The cast could maybe give a lot of imformation about the Orang Pendek. This would be a first and part of the wave of new discoveries being made on the subject of hominids both via cryptozoology and the more usual routes..
    Though I too was not impressed by parts of the Adams ‘Russian Bigfoot’ film, he did at least go there and has amply made up for for shortcomings since risking life and limb and getting results. His team have clearly advanced research in several cryptozoological matters, basically at his own expense. At present he is awaiting results on (potential) Mande Burung hair from the Indian version of bigfoot. I give Adam’s team an ‘A’ for entertainment , effort and results!
    What is probably now the most important thing the expedition can do is bring back good DNA samples, these with hair and any other physical materials plus good foot casts and context ought to be enough to enable a new species to be identified. It is worth bearing in mind that it is doubtfull if homo denesova (?) based on a tiny bit of bone sample, could have been given a formal identity without sophisticated DNA analysis. Also in fact, in some instances, mere drawings or sketches have been accepted as type specimens and are on file functioning in that respect!
    I will mention that the hair sheath provides a wonderful packaging for DNA. It provides great protection for DNA from damage, loss and contamination but may be naturally deficient in the more important nuclear DNA but better at providing mitichondrial DNA. Mention has been made above of cloning an Orang Pendek, this is something for the future if at all. I do not see why this should not be at some point possible bearing in mind that mammalian sperm can now be produced from skin cells.
    As for catching the interest of scientists I think this has already being done and there are signs of a blending of cryptozoological research with what is going on in anthropology. It is a time for cryptozoologists to be assertive about bigfoot and counter the often illogical sceptics one sided and unscientific arguments. Though I think they too see the writing is on the wall and have promised to be more scientific!

  12. chief responds:

    The whole field of “cryptozoology” is primarily based around secondary “evidence” like hairs and casts.
    Nothing else.
    If people have no interest in secondary “evidence” fine..the problem is..you should get another ‘interest” . :)
    And most people are aware of the bleeding obvious problems associated with secondary evidence but hey..its great to throw truisms around as if you really know your stuff.
    I dont see fans of bigfoot too worried about no body ..it has never effected their belief system has it., ?
    quote”in these fella’s ball court to get the ultimate proof: will they do so, or simply make another crypto-zoological failure?”
    A Joke perhaps..?
    Thats right..internet “experts” have elected mister Davies as the sole person who has to get proof ..your kidding right. :)
    And..most of the crypto failures keep on piling out of the the US..so its refreshing to see someone outside the US having a shot….
    People here overestimate their own “brilliance” re crypto research..sitting/hidding.. behind a keyboard as self declared “experts” repeating truisms and insults..amazing

  13. Hapa responds:

    Chief:

    Hello :)

    “a joke perhaps…?”

    No, just the obvious. If your looking for proof of a new species, you need to get proof, not simply another print and some more hairs. Though hairs are an interesting find, its not enough. I’m not the one with the money, resources and logstics to carry out such an adventure: the ones searching for Orang Pendek are. I certainly can’t go looking for Orang Pendek in Baltimore with chump change to fund the expedition, now can I?

    “It has never affected their belief system, has it”

    There’s a difference between believing something exists and thinking it might. But whether you go one way or another, evidence is evidence, an you need the proper evidence to convince a skeptical world that your intended prey exists. It doesn’t matter what one believes or thinks: what matters is what you can prove.

    “That’s right…internet “Experts” have elected Mr. Davies as the sole person who has to get proof. our kidding right :)

    We don’t expect the average income fellow to get the concrete evidence. Not the construction worker, truck driver or school teacher, people who cannot go searching for the proof, especially now in this economy. We have to rely on scientists, adventurers, and hunters (those capable of making the journey to Indonesia) who take an interest and decide to do so. Not everybody has the job security t make such a trek and get back after a few weeks time. It is up to those who are trying to prove something exists, i.e. those hunting for evidence, to get the proof the skeptical scientific world needs. Whether its one Crypto-zoologist or many, its up to them to get the evidence we as Crypto-enthusiasts dream of and ultimately desire.

    “And…most of the Crypto-failures keep on piling our of the US…so its refreshing to see someone outside the US having a shot”

    Crypto-zoology is not solely an American phenomena. Rex Gilroy of Australia has searched for both Yowie (Aussie Bigfoot) and giant lizards (Megalania) for who knows how long, and has likewise never provided a body or parts of a body. You have Chinese scientists hunting for their own Yeren Bigfoot (as of yet also haven’t found theirs, (if the Yeren does exist, and it proves to be either Gigantopithecus or a species of prehistoric mainland Orangutan, then they have already found type specimens, albeit in fossil form. Nevertheless, a fresh body or specimen is needed).

    “People here overestimate their own “brilliance” re crypto research…sitting/hiding…behind a keyboard as self declared “experts” repeating truisms and insults…amazing.”

    Insults? Where? We are not insulting each other, but simply comparing ideas as to this supposed hand print finding. And no one here has said they were self declared experts: we just like to study this stuff and add our two cents. We may not agree, but we don’t bash each other unless someone is trying to cause major discord here, and even then its quite civil compared to what occurs on other blogs (Creation/Evolution blogs can be quite Hellish. Any blog on abortion is sure to rile one’s feathers). I’m personally trying to convey these responses as nice as possible, as compared to some that might give you a far more provocative response. I sincerely believe you misunderstood us.

    Peace out

  14. chief responds:

    Hapa
    Hello :)

    Quote” No, just the obvious. If your looking for proof of a new species, you need to get proof, not simply another print and some more hairs.”

    For a start..the word “proof” is from mathematics.. :)
    I know its obvious..thats why I used the word truism..twice…and..your stating the obvious..again..
    Secondly..secondary “evidence” is a way of trying to prove your ideas/beliefs etc.
    Thats why it is collected.(truisms from me now)
    If anyone thinks that secondary evidence should not be collected when found..then okay..I cannot argue with that “logic”.
    Davies is trying to collect evidence that will lead to some interest from other people to help with funding/doing their own research etc to help try and prove the existence of this creature.
    The best way..without a body..is to collect secondary evidence…

    Quote”I’m not the one with the money, resources and logstics to carry out such an adventure: the ones searching for Orang Pendek are.”

    Another truism..? :)
    Yes..the ones on the expedition were the ones that bothered to do this..like anyone else who is really interested in trying to prove the existence of these type of animals..once again..my point is..if your waiting for a body..then you might as well get another interest other than cryptids..
    Or all you will be doing is posting ad nauseum why anything without a body is a virtual waste of time..and secondary evidence means little..

    Quote”I certainly can’t go looking for Orang Pendek in Baltimore with chump change to fund the expedition, now can I?”

    Not if you have no intention of doing anything but just “demand a body” no of course not.. :)
    But anyone..if they really want to can save money and do things like this..!!
    But its far easier to just ….
    Hint..you fill in the above line.. :)

    Quote”There’s a difference between believing something exists and thinking it might.”

    Err..not if english is your first language. :)
    Both without some forms of evidence mean nothing.

    Quote”But whether you go one way or another, evidence is evidence, an you need the proper evidence to convince a skeptical world that your intended prey exists. It doesn’t matter what one believes or thinks: what matters is what you can prove. ”

    Then you agree that the actions of Mr Davies,,who spends considerable sums of money and time in his pursuit of any form of secondary evidence is valid..excellent..we agree.

    Quote”Whether its one Crypto-zoologist or many, its up to them to get the evidence we as Crypto-enthusiasts dream of and ultimately desire.”

    Great.. the word evidence means secondary evidence and not just a body.
    Great…we agree.. :)

    Quote”Crypto-zoology is not solely an American phenomena. Rex Gilroy of Australia has searched for both Yowie (Aussie Bigfoot) and giant lizards (Megalania) for who knows how long, and has likewise never provided a body or parts of a body.”

    Thanks..but my post actually said “most of the crypto failures keep on piling out of the the US”.ie..most of the wild hoax claims keep coming from the US.I am sure other countries have their own fakers but..the majority of fakery/garbage comes from the US..

    quote”Insults? Where? We are not insulting each other, but simply comparing ideas as to this supposed hand print finding. And no one here has said they were self declared experts: we just like to study this stuff and add our two cents. ”

    Of course your not insulting each other..!!
    And no one refers to themselves as self declared experts..unless they were mocking themselves..
    The term “self declared experts” is a reference to the implied “wealth of experience/background/incredible insight” etc of some posters here…ya know what I mean.. :)
    And their background in these areas is exactly what??…..thats my point..
    I obviously meant Insults towards his work/person etc.
    example1 I can never take that guy seriously when he is on TV. Ever since he was drinking Jack Daniels while staking out a cave, I questioned why they would keep using him.
    example 2 A hair sample doesn’t mean jack!
    example 3 Mr Freem really must to learn how a real and serious researcher work: before the pubblications and THEN the words…
    example 4 It is, however, in these fella’s ball court to get the ultimate proof: will they do so, or simply make another crypto-zoological failure?

    Peace.. :)

  15. greatanarch responds:

    Looks like I need to repeat what I say every year: looking for cryptids is not the preserve of professional scientists or explorers. Although none of us on the Sumatra expedition were construction workers or teachers, most of us come from similar undramatic occupations. I have never yet been mistaken for Indiana Jones, Lara Croft or Professor Challenger (I can’t speak for the other team members of course). We are not subsidised by the Royal Society, MI6, the Bilderberg Group, Exxon or Majestic 12, though I will happily accept sponsorship from any of these organisations if they are offering it. All you need is a passport, the willingness to spend a little time and money, and the ability to live in uncomfortable conditions for short time.

    Chris Clark

  16. Hapa responds:

    Chief

    “the word proof is from mathematics”

    And is also used in Biology, Cosmology, and a host of other sciences as terms for strong hard evidence. In biology, “proof” of a new species comes in the form of a body, parts of a body, or a living specimen. Semantics gets you no where

    “secondary” evidence is a way of trying to prove your ideas/beliefs, etc. That’s why it is collected.”

    And yet secondary evidence does not do squat to prove a new species of animal exists. You need primary evidence, as a Body, parts of a body, or live specimen. You can collect secondary evidence for centuries, millenia, but it won’t budge the powers that be to recognize a new species.

    “if anyone thinks that secondary evidence should not be collected when found…”

    Didn’t say that. Only said that without a body, you have no proof. We’ve collected secondary evidence for years on Bigfoot, and its sill a laughing matter to academia. Without the primary evidence, one’s quest to prove something exists, despite all the secondary evidence you have collected, is at the least a missed opporitunity (though if the secondary evidence is compelling enough, it could raise eyebrows, but still not many. Jeff Meldrum’s work is a treasure trove of quite compelling secondary evidence, a powerful case for Sasquatch’s existence, yet we still have a scientific community that cares less. Go figure) and at the most, a failure. This isn’t said to down anyone: its said to challenege people to do better. And though Mr. Davies has not found a type specimen, he still has opporitunity to find one in the future. Never quit, never back down. But do better.

    “Yes…the ones ones on the expedition where the ones that bothered to do this…like anyone else who is really interested in trying to prove the existence of these types of animals.”

    So just because I cannot go on an expedition far across the planet in a remote jungle with the proper weapons, training, supplies, guides, other paid help and partners, etc, then I don’t care to find new species of animals (if so, then why are the vast majority of people who watch finding bigfoot, Monster quest reruns, In search of Cryptid episodes, Bigfoot movies (from Harry and the Hendersons to Abominable), Destination Truth, Beast hunter, Beast legends, etc, and the vast majority of people interested in Crypto-zoology and want cryptids to be proven to a skeptical world (usually the bulk of the people who watch the former documentary series listed and a large chunk of those who watched the movies I mentioned and similar flicks) have never been on one single Crypto-zoological expedition? Because not everybody can do so. We have jobs, mortgages, families to take care of, budgets, education, car notes, other dreams, and a host of other factors in life that we cannot shrug off all at a moment’s notice just to go hunt Orang Pendek. That’s how life works. Not everybody can do what people like Josh Gates and Adam Davies do. However, a whole lot more can do local hunts at affordable prices that don’t interfere with other priorities (I would love to go on a Bigfoot expedition. One day I plan to do just that, even if I have to go it alone). Remember, this is real life, not cable.

    “Once again my point is if you are waiting for a body then you might as well get another interest than cryptids”

    I can die a happy man now with the vast majority of Cryptids undiscovered. Many of them I enjoy reading about and yet recognize at the same time they might never get discovered. It would be neat to see evidence of Orang Gadang or 200 feet long Sea Serpents come out in the papers tommorrow or on Fox or CNN but I know t is not that likely to happen and I Don’t get upset over it. However, with any cryptid, the brden of proof is the same: Body, part of a body, or Living specimen. You can either be bitter over a lack of primary evidence or have no t a care in the world, but your point of view has no bearing on the fact that you need such evidence to prove a new species.

    When it comes to Bigfoot, yes I do get irritated that we haven’t found a body yet, but I don’t let it consume my life or get me all bitter and discouraged. I go on, and I read things about Bigfoot anyway despite the lack of progress.

  17. Hapa responds:

    “Not if you have no intention of doing anything but just “demanding a body” no of course not…:)

    Once again you fail to see that not everybody can go on an expedition to Indonesia to hunt an elusive Cryptid.

    “But anyone if they really want to can save money and do things like this!”

    Okay, crash course in what you need to mount an expedition to Indonesia to find a cryptid:

    Major amounts of free time to do research on the climate, known fauna, customs of the people, the cryptid itself (size, appearance, sightings, what it is said to eat, drink, what secondary evidence, if any, has been found, and does it hold itself well to scrutiny, local names for the same beast, what might predate on it (I.e. Tigers) and therefore how does one perhaps use the knowledge of such known predators to aid one in such a quest), diseases/medical care (do you need some vaccinations? are the hostpitals up to par to treat you if you get sick or injured? Do you need to take medication (either for native diseases and or for something you already have, i.e. bi-polar disorder, high cholesterol, etc) and if so will the country allow you to take certain medications into their country, etc), dangers (poachers, Tigers, Snakes (and hence one must research proper anti-venom and where, how, and if you can get it), both primate anatomy and paleontology (the former to better know your primate quarry, the latter to aid in identification should one find a Orang Pendek: it could be a prehistoric native to indonesdia long thought to be extinct. Of course, this research won’t take so much time if you have more than one person doing it, but will you all have the resources to dig good enough to learn everything you need to know? Do you have enough moolah to do it? Will you have to hire several people to help research? If you research alone, will it cost you money, and if so, how much?

    Also you will need some training (if you are to kill or tranq the beast, you need to know and master the firearms best suited for this hunt, and the dangers involved with mishandling of the weapons, and if you are allowed to use them where you are going, and if not, what can be a good replacement (bow and arrow?), proper equipment (Night vision goggles, heat vision goggles (I think they make goggles hat have both heat and night vision in them. Also machetes, knives, ropes, food supplies, snake bite kits, first aid kits, trap/trail cams, plastic bags for air samples, poo samples, bones, and the like), local aid (hunting guides, translators (unless you take the considerable time to learn the local language, which could take years and (surprise) still cost you money, the tools and supplies you will need once you are there to build sniper’s nests and or deer stands, computer laptops if you can get proper signals out in the boonies and kept safe from rain and other damaging effects (mud), proper clothing, perhaps a well trained hunting dog (which might be a mixed blessing, since sun bears ad tigers live in Orang Pendek country, and you don’t want to entice them to a fracas by having a yapping dog at you side. And don’t underestimate Sun bears because they are “small” (a 60-150 lbs bear is still going to do you some damage) however, a Bloodhound is bred to be a giant nostril, and such a tracking animal might b useful to an expedition like this (which once again goes back to research: would dogs be allowed in the wilderness whee Orang Pendek is said to exist?),

    And we haven’t gotten to the other gorilla in the room…time. Davies’ treks last a few weeks in the bush, and often he produces good secondary evidence as you call it, but imagine what one could find if they spend a year, or several years, in the bush. One of the reasons why Sasquatch has not been discovered yet is perhaps because the vast majority of expeditions going out to search for it end to quickly. How many average Americans, average people worldwide, have the ability and the nerve to make that kind of commitment? Would you? Don’t point out the speck in my eye when you have a plank in yours. If you are more passionate about finding cryptids than the vast majority of people who are interested in Crypto-zoology and would dream of having cryptids proven real, then you should be high-tailing it to some foreign country or a good distance away from where you live and go trek through the bush, and I don’t mean George W. Have you been on an expedition, and if so, can you prove it? This is an anonymous forum. Have you gone?

    And then, if you ever find such a beast in the crosshairs of your rifle, are you willing to shoot? Consider carefully, because you do not want to kill an Orangutan by accident (I thought it was Orang Pendek!). Endagered species have enough troubles with humans takng away their abitat and poaching them into extinction: they don’t need somebody shooting them by mistake. However, it is a risk that one must face if they are going to try to retrieve a body of Orang Pendek for the world to see, for Science to have a blow to its skeptical ego, and if you do make that mistake, then you better be either ready to face the consequences (both legal and moral) or be able to bury your crime (the easy way out). Tranquilizing by accident would seem a much safer choice, but it is harder to trank and find a beast than simply shooting one and locating the permanently non-moving corpse.

    Are you willng to face up to that responsibility? Is anybody? Are you willing to risk shooting an endangered species and an Indonesia prison cell? You better think about that before you start saying that everybody can do it if they simply save enough cash (which for one average person would take years, if not decades).

    Now Adam Davies obviously has enough resources to carry out his expeditions: supplies, money, help (local and non-local), perhaps guides, and he also has the experience of being in that part of Indonesia before hunting for these creatures. And though fellow of his wrote here andsaid that most of the expedition members were from similar undramatic occupations, the key phrase is “most”, i.e. not all. If anybody can do what Adam Davies does, then there should be some crypto-tourism that gets people to leave their mid-class incomes to trek in Bhutan, Somalia or wherever one wishes to go to find their very favorite cryptid, because as you put it, anybody can do it.

    Err…not if English is your first language
    Jeff Meldrum, “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science”, chapter 16, page 271

    “I am frequently asked, “Do you believe in Sasquatch?”. I Invariably and firml reply that a question of “Belief” is simply not an issue. Belief generally connotes te acceptance of something as true in the absence of objective evidence or conclusive proof. It is sually equated with a position of faith. Science is about subjecting hypotheses to evaluation by marshalling evidence that may either refute, or lend support to a premise. Therefore, from a scientific standpoint I can say that a respectable portion of the evidence I have examined suggests, in an independent yet highly correlated manner, the existence of an unrecognized ape, known as Sasqatch.”

    In other words, based on the evidence, he “thinks” it exists. Not believe, thinks. Thinking in this case is based on a vast amount of evidence (albeit secondary) that had led Meldrum to this conclusion. It is not a religious belief not based on scientific evidence. Hence what I was saying.

  18. Hapa responds:

    “And their backgrounds i this area is exactly what???…That’s my point.”

    That’s an unprovable argument when it comes to blogs. I can say I’m Mel Brooks or Sir Richard Dawkins or Angelina Jolie and you would have no way of knowing 100% sure if it was true. I can say that I have a degree in Zoology at Texas A&M and you would have no way of knowing unless I posted proof i.e. personal information, some of which I might not want on an internet blog. Teenaged girls are warned who they chat with online, because the supposed 13 year old boy they are flirting with might be a 40 year old, 500 lbs sex offender. Blogs are anonymous affairs. Heck I can post a pic of my neighbor on here and say its me, and you may never know i’m fibbing. That’s what you get when you come to forums, and yet to complain that you don’t know our backgrounds therefore conclude we don’t have anything good to add to this discussion is an odd argument indeed.

    and as for example 4: That was not an insult, but an observation. That’s like saying “that’s the boy’s father: the ball’s in his court to raise him properly. If he does not, he fails.” Is that an insult, or an obvious conclusion?

    Now maybe I could have worded it differently so as not to sound insulting, but it was not meant as an insult: it was meant as a challenge to get the primary evidence. Why is that insulting?

    “Great…the word evidence means secondary evidence and not just a body. Great…we agree

    My words:

    “It is up to those who are trying to prove something exists, i.e. hunting for evidence, to get the proof the skeptical scientific world needs. Whether its one crypto-zoologist or many, its up to them to get the evidence we as Crypto-enthusiasts dream of and ultimately desire.”

    Context makes a difference. Cryto-peeps like myself do not desire another track, another sighting, or even a butt print (though those are hilarious and thought provoking): we desire a real live animal, proven 100% to a skeptical world, the kind of evidence that walks in our National Geographic specials in the flesh, not in suits and laughs. The kind of evidence I was discussing is primary evidence. Indesputable results. If you don’t desire that, in at least a few cryptids, then you need a new interest, like bending spoons…

  19. Hapa responds:

    Greatanarch.

    Hello.
    I wanted to discuss this with you outside of the discussion I’ve been having with another blog member here: I don’t have the resources to go on a trek like the one you went on, and many more are like me. However, I believe that Davies went on Orang Pendek expeditions before and that he would have had to do a lot of researching, hiring (both local Indonesians and his fellow countrymen), and spending money on supplies and contacts, and that his research before his first expedition would be far greater in magnitude than the research he would have done prior to this one. Is this true?

    I also wanted to know if you were for shooting or tranquilizing the Orang Pendek, and if so, if the possibility of hitting an Orangutan was a major worry, and if you might have encountered tigers, Sun bears, and perhaps possible other Cryptids apart from Pendek while you were in the field. I remember an expedition to Sumatra that was not only targeted at Orang pendek but also at a sabertooth cat-like cryptid said to haunt the region. Was that you guys?

    Can’t wait for the expedition photos. Cheers.

  20. Hapa responds:

    BTW:

    The analogy of the Father raising his son: I would have to write a whole background story to show how what I wrote would not be considered an insult (setting , circumstances, etc) and would take too much time than I care to give. I’ve spent way more writing time that I thought I would. Plus its late (didn’t get a chance to respond to all of this till now). a better way to put it:

    “That lady is the one who says she’s discovered life on Mars. Its up to her to show her primary evidence at the Press Conference: if she doesn’t pay up, its a disaster.”

    Or maybe this:

    “That’s my dog Leroy. He’s looking for his lost toy. Its up to him to get it, because I have no clue as to where it went too and don’t have the time. If he doesn’t get it, he goes without.”

  21. chief responds:

    Thanks you hapa for your involved and well thought out posts..

    quote”The kind of evidence I was discussing is primary evidence. Indesputable results.”

    And as I keep repeating..that Is obvious..but this is the wrong field for your desire..and yes..you will die waiting for it.
    Thats just leaves secondary evidence..there is nothing else..

    quote”One of the reasons why Sasquatch has not been discovered yet is perhaps because the vast majority of expeditions going out to search for it end to quickly.”

    Yep..we will pretend that the millions upon millions of of hunter man hours in the last 100 hundred years in the US and Canada..with not one body..is just due to……….a lack of time.. :)
    Tell that to the scientists/sceptics..
    Uri geller is looking good..

    quote”That’s an unprovable argument when it comes to blogs.”

    Not really..if people want to pretend they are “experts” to judge the work of others..(who also use their real names)then they should not be afraid to use their real names and have something to back up their claims..
    People do post on sites using their real names..and how far do I have to seek for an example..why on this page..Chris Clarke posted under his own name..dig around and find him on the net..real person… :)
    Bingo..

    quote”The kind of evidence I was discussing is primary evidence. Indesputable results. If you don’t desire that, in at least a few cryptids, then you need a new interest, like bending spoons…”

    No..you keep misreading what I am repeatedly writing..there is no primary evidence!!!
    THERE IS NO PRIMARY EVIDENCE…and you will keep popping up..jack in the box like and tell us we need it.
    Like it aint obvious.. :)
    Everyone desires it..but it aint there..so I gather you should be bending cutlery soon.. :)
    Because this aint the field if you want primary evidence..you can misconstrue that comment..again if you like..i dont really care anymore..

    quote “And yet secondary evidence does not do squat to prove a new species of animal exists.You need primary evidence, as a Body, parts of a body, or live specimen. ”

    Your right..no one said it did..you are “arguing” with yourself…
    But keep telling yourself we need it.. :)
    Because NO ONE ever figured that out before you posted that here.. LOL
    And kept posting it..and kept posting it..

    quote”So just because I cannot go on an expedition far across the planet in a remote jungle with the proper weapons, training, supplies, guides, other paid help and partners, etc, then I don’t care to find new species of animals”

    Geez..read Chris Clarkes response..it aint as half involved as what you are laboriously trying to make it out it is..
    You can even do an “expedition” near you can home sometime..if you are really keen..
    Its just that some people..spend more time going over the work of others..with a fine tooth comb and a 3 response rote mantra(of the bleeding obvious)..than every get off their arses and actually ever doing anything…there is always hundreds of excuses..”but one day..I will do something”..yeah right..
    The bit about weapons was a little weird….more boys own adventure … :)

  22. Hapa responds:

    Chief

    “that just leaves secondary evidence…there is nothing else.”

    ?

    Crypt-zoology is not a field that produces no primary evidence. Indeed new species are discovered all the time by mainstream sientists, who are technically doing Crypto-zoology without mostly realizing it (Crypto-zoology=search for unknown animals=hence when one finds a new species, whether they are trying to or not, they are committing Crypto-zoological work).

    There has been a treasure trove of new species recently discovered, one of which, the Saola, weighs as much as a big Orangutan (200 lbs) and might be the inspiration for Asian Unicorn Myths. Then there is the Luzon Lizard, a 6 feet 6 inch giant tree lizard, which was known only in myth and legend until discovered by science. Loren Coleman wrote a lot about that breakthrough on Cryptomundo. And yet it was discovered not by secondary evidence, by by a specimen (I believe they caught the creature). Then there is the giant North American Crawfish (a peculiar find in its own right. As far as I know it was not even known to the Native Americans before its discovery), Giant Antarctic Starfish, Megamouth Shark, The Giant Muntjac, Minature Muntjac (24 lbs, 30 inches high) Irimote Wildcat, Bosavi Giant wooly rat (32 inches long, 3.5 lbs), Barbados Thread snake (only 4.1 inches long), and we haven’t mentioned the classics (Gian Squid, Giant Panda, Lesser or Red Panda, Gorillas, Kourpey, Mountain Nyala, etc)

    Then there are other crypto-discoveries that, though not of new species, are of instead previously thought extinct species, subspecies, or even deformities within species (King Cheetahs, Bondo or Bili Giant Chimps (about 300 lbs), Mountain Gorillas, New Zealand Moose (a oddity, in that DNA and hair samples were all that was needed to convince skeptics that the animal still lives in Southern New Zealand, Woodland Bison (Bison bison athabasca), Riwoche Horses (a minature breed, ponysized, that bears a striking resemblance to Cro-Magnon cave paintings of wild horses in Europe), Onza (turned out to be a population of Cougars with unusual physical characteristics, though the black ones might in and of themselves be a part of the Black Cat phenomena), Chupacabras (which were canines, some coydogs (part coyote part dogs) and other hybrids as well as pure wild or domestic species that had been rendered deformed by severe cases of mange, though these would not be the originators of the original Puerto Rican mythos)

    “Yes, we will pretend that the millions upon millions of the hunter man hours in the last 100 years in the US and Canada…without one body…Is just due to…a lack of time.”

    1, those hunters were not all hunting for Sasquatch (I’ve hunted on several occasions, not for Bigfoot but for deer, squirrels, birds, etc, and the Millions (the Rock looking around in silence) have likewise hunted more for known game than unknown. Even when they encountered them, most didn’t shoot because they flt it might be human, or they missed or didn’t get a kill shot. And then hunters are also hesitant to fire because it could be a man in a suit. Factor in that many who hunt for Bigfoot do not hunt to kill, capture or tranquilize, but merely to get another useless photograph or the like, and then you have a recipe for not getting what you are looking for.

    Despite 55 years of hunts launched by major institutions like Universities with the purpose of getting more Gorillas in Africa, and intensive European imperial, missionary, and worker presence in the region, not one westerner had ever brought one to the public until 1902. The creature was known in legend as a hairy mountain monster since the 1860′s, and yet was ridiculed (after all, over 50 years, millions and millions of hunter’s hours, and not one body…) until it was proven, not by photoraph or tracks, but by a corpse.Likewise, though the Giant Panda was discovered in the 1869, a new specimen was not collected until 1929, after 12 major expeditions went to the remote region where the large animal existed and had come up short (Giant Pandas can reach over 300 lbs and lived in a restricted range), and these people both knew what they were looking for and were committed to taking a body.

    Jeff Meldrum responds as well to this critique, by saying that not that many major Universities and other institutions have given any effort to find Sasquatch, and here I am being quite liberal in my calculations. Often his responses to this, that why have so man expeditions going after Sasquatch come up short, start off by saying “Whom?”, meaning that out of all these expeditions, only a scant few, if any had major backing from a University, or had major academics in the lead. Its the height of arrogance to think that something doesn’t exist because so many people have failed to find it, when you don’t know the circumstances surrounding them.

    “THERE IS NO PRIMARY EVIDENCE”

    see above

    “Everyone desires it, but it ain’t there, so I gather you should be bending cultery soon…”

    Once again, see above

    “Geez, read Chris Clarke’s Response. It ain’t as half involved as what you are laboriously trying to make it out it is…”

    Chris Clarke’s response is for people who either don’t have commitments (like jobs) or are on vacation time and can make the effort and have no priorities during vacations that would keep people from going (Like me and a host of other people) have the available time (many are busy balancing their checkbook), and those that tag along an already well researched and well supplied expedition, not those who have to start from scratch. Once again, real life can and does often get in the way.

    And yes, one can have a local expedition: they are far less interfered with by time and priorities (you can do them on weekends) and I have already written that I plan to do so in the future. And whether I do so in the future or not, what’s it to you? You obvious don’t believe in this kind of stuff, or at least some of it, and you have yet to answer whether yu have gone on an expedition yourself. If you are so high and mighty, then you should have gone on one yourself, overseas, without a problem. If you have not, then quit attacking your keyboard about it. Hypocrisy s not a virtue.

    “Not really.”

    I could say I’m Michael Moore, give you information on him, well researched info, and even his web address, and I could most likely convince hordes of people out there that I was him, when i was not. Email him to reply as to whether it is him or not, good luck: millions email him every day. People do lie about themselves online, often in very big ways.

    “Chris Clarke posted under his real name.”

    Did he? Would you stake your life on it that Chris Clarke is indeed the person who wrote that post? Stake someone else’s life? I bet Mr. Clarke would agree with me that someone, if good enough, could say they were a famous person while online and could most of the time get away with it. The reverse is also true: a famous person could write under a usual run of the muck name like Chief or Flame821or Hapa and interact with folk without them realizing who they were. Perhaps one reason why they would do so: so that their private views (politics, sexuality, religion, etc) are not plastered on major magazines worldwide, or that they won’t be heckled by others for believing in Bigfoot, UFOs or the like.

    As for Chris Clarke: I do not doubt that who I posted too on here is indeed Chris Clarke, just as much as I do not doubt that Loren Coleman really writes here under that very name: I’m only pointing out the obvious: You cannot be 100% sure who you are talking to online, even if they say they are a major celebrity or well known figure. A person wrote as the Scientist Robert Bakker on the EVC forum a few years back, but those people couldn’t say for sure it was him or not.

  23. Hapa responds:

    BTW:

    When I wrote about Gorillas not being discovered till 1902, I meant Mountain Gorillas, which were not proven to be anything more than mythical creatures until one was shot in 1902. Numerous expeditions to find more Gorillas had not met success for 55 years, and other westerners had been in the area for Missionary and other works without discovering a Mountain Gorilla, until that fateful day in 1902. A few years earlier, a man claimed to have shot one, but he couldn’t get the body out t show the world. Sounds similar to circumstances surrounding a peculiar North American Ape in myth and legend…

  24. chief responds:

    quote”Indeed new species are discovered all the time by mainstream sientists, who are technically doing Crypto-zoology without mostly
    realizing it”

    I was obviously talking about extreme fringe cryptids like hominids etc..(remember..we are on the page for orang pendak) as you would have been more than aware..
    But thanks for the lesson in well known discoveries..which no one finds contentious :)

    quote “those hunters were not all hunting for Sasquatch”

    100% irrelvant..as again you would be aware it was..or..playing the game..hunters with large calibre guns hunting for anything have not shot one..no slipping from that one is there..

    quote”Despite 55 years of hunts launched by major institutions like Universities with the purpose of getting more Gorillas in Africa, and
    intensive European imperial, missionary, and worker presence in the region, not one westerner had ever brought one to the public until 1902.”

    LOl
    This example should never be used !!!
    The animals were seen and dead within a couple of hours of being found..
    Please dont use this one again..most people who read anything about cryptids never use this.. :)
    Its just a no brainer to be shot down..

    quote”Once again, see above”

    Yep..dead in the water but nice try :)

    quote”Chris Clarke’s response is for people who either don’t have commitments (like jobs) or are on vacation time and can make the effort and have no priorities during vacations that would keep people from going ”

    Pure garbage..I did not notice Clarke mentioning he had no commitments..he is just a working joe like all of us.
    But excuses are easy ..
    Your projecting your own ideas/paranoia etc onto the lifestyles of others..

    quote”I have already written that I plan to do so in the future. And whether I do so in the future or not, what’s it to you?”

    It means nothing to me obviously..why would it.?
    It was just a suggestion.

    quote” You obvious don’t believe in this kind of stuff, or at least some of it,”

    You never asked me..so how would you know..in actual fact..I do believe in many aspects of it.

    quote”and you have yet to answer whether yu have gone on an expedition yourself.”

    yet?..you never asked before so how did an unasked question..become “yet to answer”…
    I have gone overseas..several times on expeditions..
    See more below..which will not make you happy.. :)

    quote”If you are so high and mighty, then you should have gone on one yourself, overseas, without a problem. If you have not, then quit attacking your keyboard about it. ”

    “attacking my keyboard”?…I have no idea what that mangled metaphor is meant to mean..:)
    “high and mighty”..once again..total confusion with what you are trying to say..
    Anyway…I Just came back from that Sumatra trip.:)
    My name is Mike Williams..look up the trip list of members..I am dead easy to find on the net..shoot me a polite email and I will respond..
    Or just keep pretending that no one is real and your too busy to find me..:)
    That should work here.. :)
    In future..so you dont end up looking so foolish again….just ask normal questions..dont make assumptions about others and try not to be rude…

    quote”hypocrisy is not a virtue”

    HUH..?.. :)

    Quote”Did he? Would you stake your life on it that Chris Clarke is indeed the person who wrote that post? Stake ”

    Yes..and please stop the mad little hole you are digging..it is just..ridiculous.. :)
    I just used my real name..so did clarke..sorry..

    quote”As for Chris Clarke: I do not doubt that who I posted too on here is indeed Chris Clarke,”

    Great..back to the real world and nullifies your previous post 100% .. :)
    Great chatting with ya

    Mike W

  25. flame821 responds:

    quote “those hunters were not all hunting for Sasquatch”

    100% irrelvant..as again you would be aware it was..or..playing the game..hunters with large calibre guns hunting for anything have not shot one..no slipping from that one is there..

    WHY do so many people assume that anyone with a large caliber gun is just going to shoot willy nilly at something they can’t identify? Any decent hunter has been trained to not pull the trigger if you don’t know what is in your sights. It could be a human. It could be an animal that is out of season (with accompanying fines), it could be someone’s pet. MOST hunters are courteous and safety conscious.

    Do people think that an animal that survives by hiding itself is suddenly going to walk, upright at full height, into a clearing when the scent of a human is around? How many Sasquatch sightings consist of, “I was just sitting there and this big hairy guy walked out in front of me, struck a pose, waved at me and walked off again.” Or do you just expect anyone who carries a gun to be some sort of trigger happy dufus who doesn’t give a fig about who or what he kills?

  26. greatanarch responds:

    Well, you are absolutely right to be sceptical about one thing: it is not Chris Clarke posting here. It’s Chris Clark, so watch the spelling please!

    I am going to try and make this point one more time: this expedition was the result of ordinary people making careful use of their own time and money. Many of us have wives/partners/children/mortgages. Because Adam sometimes joins expeditions organised by TV companies there is an impression that he is a professional explorer. In fact he has a perfectly conventional job quite unrelated to cryptozoology, as do all the rest of us with the single exception of Richard Freeman, who supports himself with talks, books and articles on various Fortean subjects including cryptozoology. There was no outside money or support whatsoever, except from Professor Bryan Sykes who contributed a collection kit for returning possible DNA samples. To the extent that our expeditions are well organised and researched it is because we organise and research them ourselves. When Richard, myself and one other person first went to Sumatra in 2003 (independently of Adam) our only asset was Debbie Martyr, who recommended a local guide to us (a good local contact is the most important preparation you can make). After that we learned as we went along.

    The only difference that I recognise between ourselves and the average US citizen is that we get more vacation time: I have 25 days per year, while I hear that some of you have to make do with 10.

    Hapa:
    - Yes, tigers and sun bears are a genuine problem. We find tiger pug marks in the area almost every expedition, and it can be slightly alarming leaving camp in the middle of the night!
    - I have no personal problem tranquilising an animal, but suitable equipment is not easy to obtain or transport, and we would surely need permission from the Indonesian authorities to do anything like this in a national park.
    -There is a large unknown local cat species called the cigau, that we heard about on our first expedition. It is quite different from the tiger, and seems to be associated with streams and rivers. There is an account of it carrying off a man who had violated one of the local taboos.

  27. Hapa responds:

    Chief

    “I was obviously talking about extreme fringe Cryptids, like Hominids.”

    Onzas include the black panther phenomena, which is on the extreme edge. So was Giant Squid before it was proven to exist, and both Lowland and Mountain Gorillas. Komodo Dragons were on the fringe until they were discovered (before then they were known from obscure tales of unnamed pilots who went there, one of which described them as “Dragons”. And if the Saola is indeed a partial inspiration for Asian Unicrons, then how fringe can you get?

    “100% irrevelant”

    See Flame821′s latest post here for a rebuttal.

    “LOl. This example should never be used! The animals were seen and dead within a couple of hours of being found”

    Um, hate to burst your bubble, but no: not only had natives lived with the creature for millennia without the western world’s knowledge, one was indeed seen and discovered by a westerner in 1898: in that discovery, bones were found (something that has yet to occur in Bigfoot research), but the man did not bring this evidence forwards due to circumstances. It was only later when the animals were discovered by being shot.

    “Yep. dead in the water but nice try.”

    Only in thy imagination. Read that post again and maybe I will get a more credible response.

    “Pure Garbage.”

    “Oh, boss? Hey, its Victor from the mail department. Yes, I came to say that, even though It is not time for my vacation and I have work here to do, I’m going to Indonesia to find a ape species you have never heard about and have myself an adventure. Is that okay?”

    Only in Fantasy land would somebody get off light doing this.

    “It means nothing to me obviously”

    Well it seems obvious to us that you are making a big hill of beans about people going off and doing their own Indonesian ape hunts, and saying we don’t have the right to judge your results because we don’t do it. If it “obviousl doesn’t mean nothing to you, quit having yourself a tizzy about it.

    “Yet? You never asked me before…”

    Um, reread my posts. I asked you twice.

    “Have you been on an expedition, and if so, can you prove it?”
    “Have you gone?”
    (these were on the post where I asked you the first time
    “And you have yet to answer whether you have gone on an expedition yourself” (take that as number 3 if you will, on the second post where I asked you. Sometimes when a sentence is put in that way, it denotes a question in and of itself, despite not having the symbol “?” at the end).

    “I have been on several expeditions.”

    Have you? Crypto-zoological expeditions? If so, then you have the same success rate with primary evidence that I have just sitting here trying to teach you something: nada. All that effort, and in the end you are just like me and all those millions whom you have stuck up your nose to who cannot make such a trek: you have zero primar evidence. Just a bunch of secondary evidence, which by the way there is far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far more of for Sasquatch than Orang Pendek. Whose the believer now?

    “Attacking my Keyboard?”

    Writing nasty counterattacks online, i.e. attacking your keyboard.
    “and try not to be rude.”

    Pot calling the Kettle black. You don’t want nothing, don’t start nothing. Nobody got riffled until you started making a big fuss over primary evidence and your expedition.

    “Back to the real world”

    LOL, I just can’t. Waaaay too easy.

    You know, Greatanarch/Chris Clark was very nice in his response to me, and I learned a heck of a lot more from him and his decent ways. Learn those ways

  28. Hapa responds:

    Greatanarch:

    Hello again. I didn’t know you had 25 days of vacation in Great Britain (?). That would be a Godsend here, along with some aspects of the free healthcare system. Ten days does sound correct, not counting weekends that fall within vacation time.

    At first it was hard for me to wrap my brain around how little funding the Orang Pendek Project had: I thought you had a larger number of individuals making the trek and that supplies like the paste used to fill in tracks, GPS (?), food, medicine, not to mention the pay of local guides, would be very expensive. Then again, come to think of it, supplies might come cheaper in Indonesia than the western world.

    Though I favor this discussion outside of what I’ve had with Chief, I have to ask you about something he keeps insisting on: Its as if he believes that anyone can up and leave their place of employment, without excuse of vacation time, for three weeks or so on, and not get fired or sacked for doing so. Forgive my ignorance, but in your country, is this allowed? I understand it is far, far harder to fire someone in France than in America, But I didn’t know about Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Is it the same in your country as it is in France? If so, then I can begin to understand what he was trying to convey. If one had the 25 days together in one part of the year, not counting weekends, then that too me sounds far more likely than someone simply leaving for such an endeavor despite not having Vacation time allowed at the time as a reason not to fear being sacked.

    Now, as also for this other discussion here: please do not take personal anything I jib jab back and forth with Chief. Sorry if anything I wrote was hurtful to Adam Davies and his team. I’m simply caught up in a locking horns mechanism for now and with rancid remarks back and forth it is hard to level responses without others getting burned in the crossfire. I will do better to be more civil in these discussions with him, but I feel as if he is debating just to debate, and not to discuss.

    Thank you for your civil responses

  29. greatanarch responds:

    Hapa:
    No, the UK is not France and we have to respect our employers wishes just like you. One of the team has to book his holidays six months in advance, just to be sure of getting the dates that he wants; this is why we have been planning this one since March. Others have responsible government jobs. Not everyone gets 25 days either (length of service helps), and 3 or 4 days has to be taken (wasted) over the Christmas/New Year shutdown. Three weeks at a time is about the limit, and on this one it was only two.

    Sumatra is not an expensive place to operate. After all, how much does it cost to sit in a home-made shelter on a mountainside, eating locally-bought rice and noodles every day? Local guides and porters do not cost much either, neither does transport or hotels. As for equipment, you can spend as much or as little as you want. Plaster of Paris for casting is cheap, third-generation night vision equipment is expensive, GPS and trail cameras somewhere in-between. The biggest cost is always the air fare.

    Hope all this helps.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Champ Camp Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.