Comments on: Johor Bigfoot: Reverse Evolved Homo erectus?

By: seanang

seanang — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:39:05 +0000

Hi All,

I noticed there is alot of interpretation for the little information that we have.

At my personal level, I am still compiling a list of questions to be asked regarding the Johor Hominid.

There reason I am involved (currently using my own time and resources) is that I have seen some of the photographs. Unless someone can point to me a world class con-men who can produce a photo like that, which is crystal clear (I mean that of National Geographic standard), then we wish to put forward the photos as a tentative “evidence”, so that someone else can falsify them (remember Karl Popper).

I have compared with pictures from Planets of the Apes and winners of the 3D artists, none could come so close.

When something is SO new, we try to come out with as many possible explanations as possible, micro-evolution, mutation, genetic drift and of course reverse evolution. These are meant to provoke dicussions..

Sean Ang
co-Founder,
johorhominid.org
sean4ng@gmail.com

By: Ranatemporaria

Ranatemporaria — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:53:14 +0000

Titio, a colleague of mine recently returned from Malaysia; he was visiting island around Johor researching the potential for sustainable/ecological development of the area before it is “spoilt”. His conclusion was that many there desire the wealth and affluence that comes from developing/industry/tourism, and for that they cannot be blamed.

By: tcsee

tcsee — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 01:32:53 +0000

Ang clarified what he meant by the reverse revolution:
“Corrections from the Press
Written by seanang on 2006-06-30 12:08:24
——————————————————————————–
It appears to me there is some errors in this press release. First of all, I am currently working in Mimos as an IT specialist. The press might have mistaken my statement that I have done research in National Science Museum of Tokyo. The “reverse evolution” is not a theory, but just a many statements that I have made.

We are still looking for evidences on “Bigfoot” intelligence. Unless such evidences appears, nothing much can be inferred on their intelligence level.”

By: Mr Tito

Mr Tito — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 13:39:02 +0000

Personally, I’m beginning to wonder if all this “Johor-amania” isn’t one big publicity stunt. Let’s face it, aside from a few prints, which could easily be from something in the orangutan line, they have nothing. Photos…I’ll believe it when I see it! A dramatic increase in tourism would be great for a floundering economy, don’t you think?

By: twblack

twblack — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 02:03:58 +0000

I am sorry Loren but this whole thing would be put to bed in under 10 minutes if we could see the pics. Yes I know patience but you yourself I bet would have to admit you and the rest of us are dying to see the pics.

By: jjames2

jjames2 — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:39:35 +0000

You’re right, Jeremy. Not sure how I missed that upon my first read of the article!

By: Jeremy_Wells

Jeremy_Wells — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:35:41 +0000

I think the reference to seeing photos was to photos of the footprints from the context, i.e. “Ang was invited by Chow to discuss evidence that the latter had compiled, including CLEAR PHOTOGRAPHS OF FOOTPRINTS.” (my emphasis)
So it would seem that the supposed photos of the Mawas/Bigfoot themselves haven’t been shared.

By: jjames1

jjames1 — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:06:44 +0000

So presumably this scientific paper co-written by Ang and Chow would see publication before the book that Chow is supposedly writing?

Also, the article implies at one point that Ang was shown the photos by Chow, but then later Ang says, “There is also no clear photograph or evidence to guide researchers.” Are we to assume that, in this instance, Ang is referring to researchers other than himself, i.e., he’s saying that because the photos haven’t been released to the public yet, no other researchers have been able to study the photos?

By: Ranatemporaria

Ranatemporaria — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:30:52 +0000

“One of the problems that people have with evolution is that it is not an excellence-seeking process”

Ah ha the Panglosian paradigm!

Remember though that natural selection does in fact move only towards increased “ecological fitness” or efficiency. Yes, this could result in the loss of structures or traits but it will still be a move for the better. That is why evolution can only be uni-directional. This direction, as said above however won’t be towards a human form but whatever form that is best suited towards a given niche/ecology. Either way I’m sure the people in Malaysia were not trying to re-write natural history, instead it’s the case some science is hard enough understand and explain in your first language let alone interpret!

By: One Eyed Cat

One Eyed Cat — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:28:32 +0000

I have had a problem with the terminology use this entire case. It has always seemed to me that terms used in one area North America, specifically, are being taken and applied without full understanding of what the term means where it originated.