On one hand, we may be persuaded that they would be unlikely to err in localised observations that may have been taking place over very long and extended periods of time, over terrain they are very familiar with.

On the other hand, we might argue that indiginous peoples quite naturally tend to interpret and stylize their experiences in relation to their own religious, artistic and cultural practices; in ways that make sense to their culture, but which tend to confuse the outsider. And they generally find the westernized viewpoint equally confusing.

Probably variations in interpretation are about ‘ontology’, which means the unique way in which an individual or a culture sees and interprets the world.

As individuals, we all have an ontological point of view or bias. Collectively, most cultures see things in their own specific ways as well. Some cultural observations are interpreted in more naturalistic ways than others; some are more stylized or mythologized, etc., than others.

Not very many cultures (if any), and not many individuals, no matter where they are from, will produce identical or even similar, interpretations of the same event. The ontological dilemma presents a problem for cryptozoologists all around the world.

Now that I think of it, it seems that the average North American bigfoot observation tends to be every bit as confused and confusing as those of the Orang Dalam because, understandably, most folks spend most of their brief encounter/sighting in a state of stunned shock and awe (no political inference intended).

The “imagery of possibly real hominids” truly is all over the map, in terms of detail and characteristics, no matter what part of the world we are thinking of, and no matter which peoples may be involved. And I suppose we have to be very careful in our interpretation of the viewer’s original interperetation as well.

It is unfortunate we cannot project the recorded memories of our actual sightings, stored in our brains, onto a screen for others to see. Failing that, possibly the most valuable technology capable of resolving some of these issues is the camera.

These drawings fit the parameters of our Western bigfoot, so am guessing Orang Dalam would be a cousin, so to speak. The first picture makes me think the person who gave the details really had the $%^&@#! scared out of them and added details to relay that. Can’t say as I would blame them.

ADDITIONAL INFO

I read another book “The Lost World of the East – An Adventurous Quest in the Malayan Hinterland” by Stewart Wavell, The Adventurers Club London, 1958.

The author in his 17 pages chapter on “In Search of Ape-Man” decribed the local folks encounters with these ape-men in Perak. The author interviewed three eyewitnesses (this was in the 1950′s)

Some of the descriptions of the ape-men are:
Arms thickly covered with black hair
Hairy face
Two long fang-like teeth protruded from the woman’s(ape-woman) mouth
Her body gave a strong animal smell
The witness also saw another two powerfully-built hairy men, also with the jutting canine teeth.
The ape-women made noises like a bird croaking.
The ape-men had long moustaches down to their waists.

These are not tales. A lot of the elderlies witnessed and came face to face with these creatures.

Can someone explain to me how it can be true that giants couldn’t be healthy, given not only the historical accounts, but folklore, Bible descriptions, and skeletons and fossils found all over the world? I’m not a professional scientist or medical expert so I’m not arguing with the statement, just have always wondered what the evidence was for it’s validity.

Sorry, but the chances of a hominoid critter of that size existing without severe health problems are: slim and none.