This is still big for a Humboldt’s Woolly Monkey (I see figures of a height around 2 feet and an overall length between 4 and 5 feet), but within the realm of believability. It is hard to estimate the standing height of something as it is hopping across the road on all fours (as it was when the chief saw it).

I think part of the problem is that the Portsmouth Herald and other media outlets simplified this description. The Herald reported that the chief had seen “an eight-foot-tall Humboldt’s woolly monkey.”

When you see what the chief described rampaging downtown, you call Animal Control. When you see what the Herald reported, you call the National Guard!

What makes this situation and that of, say, the yeti and the sasquatch, different, is that what we are talking about here is a very short period of time, in a very small area, for an event that got a considerable amount of media coverage.

In a situation like this it can be very hard to separate the feces from the facts. Anything that passes three sets of ears gets on the news. Anything that seems able to amp ratings gets reported, facts aside. When one person’s monkey is another’s ape, things can get really out of control. And Bigfoot gets tossed into the media cauldron whenever a primate is the subject.

All this kinda stuff happens with our other abovementioned cryptids, as well. What stands out, however, is the consistency of what’s being reported, over huge spans of distance and time, in those cases, long after the droppings have been normalized out of the database.

All that having been said. I would have a hard time believing that any eyewitness would be so gone on such hard hallucinogens that a monkey sighting could later lead to an account with the words “eight feet” being used to describe anything about the animal.

The brain isn’t a camera. (And cameras, as we have seen many many times here, aren’t so reliable themselves.) And people aren’t perfect.

But, generally, people do see what they say they saw. The trick is in not exaggerating what they said they saw. Which in this case was apparently an unmanageable trick.

To those who wish to challenge thoughts on eyewitness testimony, 20 years experience in recon; setting up scenarios and debriefing witnesses later can be very telling.

Being a trained observer does count in favor of the witness. Training helps one stay calm and report only what they know for certain in a fast moving situation, but there are still other factors that throw off the eye.

And having a college education doesn’t simply make someone a better observer.

One common mistake that witnesses can make is to over estimate the size of an object or animal. Adreneline response from being startled can cause things to look bigger. Estimating range accurately requires training,experience and practice to maintain.

So having a monkey go running by in Danneville NH for 5 seconds might cause your brain to race and even fill in details for you that you didn’t see because the brain is not nessicarily a camera.

Just the facts, so save the hail of denials. (grins)

Like the song says—

“Isn’t it ironic—don’t ya think?”

Eyewitnesses are often unreliable? NO WAY!!! Get ready for an avalanche of denials, people telling you how you’re wrong, and that eyewitnesses are actually very reliable, especially police and anyone with a college degree!

The description given matched close to the typical monkey, down to the hootin-and-a-hollerin as well as the tail itself.

Still a fascinating part of New Hampshire history in connection to exotic or mystery animals. Even some comedic parts, who could forget the radio station DJ dressed as a gorilla trying to catch the monkey, or the baited traps with marshmallow fluff.

Craig Heinselman
Peterborough, NH

“Just the facts ma’am just the facts”

It is a indeed however a very good example of how unreliable eyewitnesses can be when examining a situation.