Comments on: Retiring “Johor Hominid”

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:50:42 +0000

The retiring of the Chow-Ang “coined” name was directly related to it being tied to and invented to describe the “beings” in the photos, which turned out to be hoaxes.

There is no reason to make this more complex than it is.

It had nothing to do with the reality or non-reality of whether or not the actual reports noted “hominoids,” “hominids,” or “anthropoids.” It had everything to do with the hoax pictures promoters using the words “Johor Hominids” to talk about them.

Hoax discovered, name discontinued.

By: daledrinnon

daledrinnon — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:39:35 +0000

This becomes a question of labels. Is there evidence of an unknown ape-or-prehuman in reports of the area? The answer is a resounding “Yes”. This has been known since Sanderson’s book came out to the reading public–what is less widely known is that “Monkey-men” have been rumored in the Malay peninsula since the Europeans first arrived.

Is there possiobly a Hominid in the Johor region? That too is possible. The mere fact that a hoax was perpetuated using that name does not invalidate the possibility. Personally, I have seen various accounts that lead me to belive that there are several hairy unknowns in the area, and probably in different categories that are unrelated to one another. I am personally more involved in the most apelike variety, but the more humansized-humanlike and even giant forms are supported by local reports.

We just have got to be careful when using such terms as “Johor hominid” or even “Malayan bigfoot” because they are made up by journalists to cover concepts that are overly simplified representations for complex and highly ambiguous local situations. Cryptozoology is full of such situations and such journalistic labels used to represent them.

By: DWA

DWA — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:16:05 +0000

The only way a real scientist could react to all this (and still be one in my opinion):

A hoax is a hoax, and says nothing about the reality of what’s out there.

If you think a hoax means no one’s seen anything worth looking into, well, go have a seat over there with the Pyramid Power people and talk some science.

When I read yet another scientist saying that the existence of Bigfoot is unlikely, I have three questions:

1. Does (s)he know how much evidence there is?

2. Does (s)he REALLY believe that ALL of it is either hoax or misperception?

3. ALL of it? Over all this time, in all those places? (Heh heh, OK, four questions.)

Careful how you answer; your credentials are on the line. Scientists without open minds are, IMHO, not.

By: crypto_randz

crypto_randz — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:30:00 +0000

SASQUATCH AND VOODOCHILD YOU AND THE REST HERE HAVE GOOD COMMENTS . I appeciate your view points. At least we only just don’t have bigfoot here at the website. River Dinos and Dinosaurs living in the lakes i agree are out there. To all the hunters that are out there they need to come up with a plan on trying to capture or i hate to say this but maybe shoot one because the only way to solve this is to get a body of the specimens. The videos dont show any proof they are all to dark or not clear.

By: twblack

twblack — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:06:55 +0000

Well it is over the damage is done but we will go on.

By: shill

shill — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:08:55 +0000

While I admire that the hoax was quickly outed to us interested observers at this web site, it was slightly uncomfortable to me that there was perhaps more hopeful optimism that might have been warranted as the story played out. While it might not be very “crypto-patriotic” to be skeptical about these things, those who assumed it was probably false are less disappointed today. I know that it may sound cynical but I’d gladly concede misguided skepticism if a big story like this turned out to be true. I agree with JRC - this can’t be good, but it might be a lesson to other hoaxers to show that they will be outed (after their 15 minutes of fame).

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:16:21 +0000

Gosh, “oldbutnotstupid” is kidding, hopefullly. This is not your grandfather’s Cryptozoology or Bigfoot website. We don’t run lists, or name names via any permanent archival lists on this site. We are here to inform, transmit news and information, and share commentary.

The legal issues for anyone on any kind of website doing what is suggested regarding alleged “con artists” and other people involved in fakery or hoaxing would be a major headache.

We can editorialize on this site about various people’s alleged activities, but you won’t find Cryptomundo publishing a list like that one. Ever. Besides, it would change tomorrow.

Cryptomundo wants to be there tomorrow, not yesterday!

By: oldbutnotstupid

oldbutnotstupid — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:08:26 +0000

How about publishing a special area of cryptomundo that lists the names of known con artists fakers and not publishing anything that comes out of their organizations.

Sooner or later we will have only the real researchers putting up web sites etc. and the trash will be in the bin where it belongs.

By: voodoochild

voodoochild — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 11:20:36 +0000

I say, let’s put this behind us and move on….Pine Ridge?

By: bambookid

bambookid — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 11:15:21 +0000

People… we were all sucked in once, please don’t let it happen again. Vincent didn’t release the photos because he knew. The “guardians” were just another layer of an elaborate (or so they thought) hoax.

I too am saddend by this turn of events. Chow has done some pretty significant damage to research in general. Let’s not make excuses for him.