First Image of Malaysian Bigfoot ?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on January 5th, 2006
A new drawing of the Malaysian “Bigfoot” has been released in Friday, January 6th’s New Straits Times with their article “Closing in on Bigfoot, foreign media set to descend on Johor.”
The sketch appears to illustrate the more distinctive Malaysian unknown hairy hominid, which technically is a more humanlike cryptid, and very different that the classic, stocky Pacific Northwest USA’s Bigfoot or Sasquatch. I have previously discussed in my and Patrick Huyghe’s field guide, as has Mark A. Hall in his books, how the Malaysian unknown hairy hominoid reports divide into two quite separate types: those of the True Giant and the accounts of the more humanoid, Erectus Hominid variety.
This drawing, if it actually does originate from eyewitness sightings in Malaysia - and there’s no guarantee that this is the case - clearly shows one of the latter. If this is an image that we are to definitely now associate with the new wave of Malaysian encounters, it does reinforce the diversity of unknown hairy hominoids, and adds weight to calling this something other than “Bigfoot.”
Even employing the uncomfortable but descriptive name the “Stinking Ones” (used decades ago), or a native Malaysian name, would be much preferred to the American moniker being used for these reports.
Cryptozoology and hominology call for the confirmation of the exact descriptions and locations of these hominoids, sketches tied to eyewitnesses, and answers about which set of descriptions are tied to what footprints.
Are the details correct? The sketch appears to be attributed to an Orang Asli, that is a local native. But is this correct? And are the reports of the encounters with three meter tall (nine feet tall) hominoids go with this drawing?
In the meantime, Malaysia’s media mania for these Bigfoot reports has reinforced the notion that good things will come to their country because of the worldwide interest in these stories. Johor Tourist Guides Association chairman Jimmy Leong was reported to have said: “This is a boon for Johor. The news has put the State on the international tourism radar. We must maximise benefits from the publicity generated.”
The paper continued:
The sentiment was shared by Johor Tourism Action Council general manager Abdul Jabar Md Tahir, who said Bigfoot could give the tourism sector a boost. “This will be a major draw for Johor. We are excited about the impact this could have on tourism here.”
Johor Malaysian Nature Society adviser Vincent Chow said the State should cash in on the Bigfoot craze just as Scotland had on the Loch Ness monster — whose probable non-existence had never diminished its status as a tourist attraction.
Stay tuned.
I saw a creature quite similar to the Malaysian sighting, but in Chicago in the early 1990s. I have a picture of it on the website: http://www.proofreader.tvheaven.com
Linda
Also, I reported this to George Noory who read it on Coast to Coast AM (my email, he read) a few years ago, and also I reported it to Linda Moulton Howe in 2001 or 2002. I also reported to some other Bigfoot type of journal, and I can’t recall the name of it now.
I think what many of us who consider the possibility of undiscovered hominids want, from this field of research, is credibility. These kinds of sketches don’t convey credibility.
I think what the posts by Linda are trying to convey is the fact that anyone could make this drawing. Malaysia is not isolated from cultural memes, the people there are not cut off from western imagery of Bigfoot and the like, so this drawing is not valuable even as a sociological artifact.
It is not that it lacks credibility, it is that it does nothing to advance the research.
How is a statement such as “this drawing is not valuable even as a sociological artifact,” even defendable?
To not give credit to the importance of art, native sculptures, encounter sketches, folkloric imagery, and eyewitness drawings is to exclude - sociologically, zoologically, and psychologically - major pieces of the puzzle.
Only an open mind will allow all the various elements of evidence in, some of which may become critical later in solving the mystery.
It’s completely defendable, because this drawing doesn’t advance the hunt for a possible real creature. In any way.
Put quite simply, there’s no evidence this is not something drawn to please the reporter or researcher. Therefore, because it’s veracity is uncertain, it cannot be anything but a red herring.
If the people in the area have not been influenced by western media reports of bigfoot, the drawing becomes more valuable as a sociological artifact as well as evidence. But the people in the area aren’t untouched or uninfluenced by western culture; they have tvs, radio, DVDs, etc. I’ve been there!
It’s worthless. A scientist looks at this and laughs at it.
And Loren, *I accept the existance of undiscoverd hominids*. I’m no knee-jerk skeptic. But we can’t be buying into every crazy story that comes down the pike.
Eyewitness accounts are used as real, hard evidence in court cases, and law enforcement agencies hire sketch artists to draw pictures of suspected criminals. Are they “worthless” too!?
Additionally, the word “existence” is not spelled as you spelled it, “existance.”
Please make comments that add intellectually to the cryptozoological debate. Flames and personalized arguments will be deleted.
Eyewitness accounts, such as identification of suspects in a lineup, are in fact often incorrect; it’s just that until recent years, they have been the only evidence that could pin a crime on a particular individual. Videotape recordings by disinterested bystanders or security cameras and DNA evidence are much more reliable.
There’s nothing wrong with eyewitness accounts per se, but anyone can come up with a story of an unusual encounter and (as Chymo pointed out) anyone can draw a picture of a mythical beast, since the media have spread the Bigfoot story far and wide.
Such items shouldn’t motivate belief in anyone with an appropriately skeptical approach to new information. However, they might motivate further investigation, such as traveling to Malaysia, interviewing the person who reported having the encounter, and asking for other evidence.
I can certainly understand the frustration that I see being expressed on this board. As I pointed out on an earlier thread re: the 40th anniversary on the Patterson film, we have not had a piece of film since then which is as compelling-and this with the tremendous proliferation of camcorders coupled with a growing public awareness of the Big Fella! So I can see that the possible reaction to a sketch might be “Enough already! We’re already practically CHOKING on all the anecdotal evidence! Where is the new Patterson film already? Where are the skin samples, an actual PIECE of the Big Guy!!” I’m not justifying-or condemning- anyones reaction to said sketch. After all, so much of what we possess concerning these creatures is anecdotal, and my position has always been that where there’s enough smoke, theres most likely a fire. I’m just saying that I can understand the frustration an the part of some.