The larger point here is that some people need to do some reading.

The kouprey (1937)? well over a ton, bison-size or bigger, in a small country that has been civilized for thousands of years. Not a part of any well-established species; a completely new member of its genus.

The saola (1992)? About the size of an NFL linebacker or big running back, in a densely-populated region that we just got finished bombing back to the Stone Age, remember? Ethnoknown (like the kouprey, and also like the yeti and sasquatch) for a very long time. A completely new genus, never mind species.

The okapi (1901), the mountain gorilla (1902) and the giant forest hog (1904)? In between the above two in size. All new species.

Do not ATTEMPT to pull that 100-years technicality on me. Not unless you can show you know something.

No larger points are being missed. As happens every time Radford comes on here: target identified, precisely, and destroyed, utterly.

Am I the only one here who thinks this feels like Whack-A-Mole…?

Judging from that statement, you really truly have no idea about this continent and just how remote much of it still is.

Pity.

“I find it telling that Loren and other posters are so quick to pounce on an alleged mistake or generalization, while conveniently ignoring the larger, accurate points about how newly discovered terrestrial animals in the last century have been 1) relatively small; 2) in very remote places; and 3) part of well-established species. Bigfoot fits none of those.”

Thanks for the clarification. In re-reading the post and quotes above, I do not see there the distinction you make now between “terrestrial” animals and others, nor the point about “very remote places;” but it is helpful to know now that this was your intent. However, in rereading the two quotes in the post yet again, they don’t come across as generalizations, but rather very specific prounouncements. If these were misquotes, and you actually said something else, then I hope our confusion about your points is somewhat forgivable.

Also, at least some of us - including Mr. Coleman - did indeed suggest that you may have been misquoted, or that your statements were reported in a way that made them easily misconstrued.

I now understand better what you meant by “…fit the recognized taxonomy…” It was not at all clear to us in the quote on this post. But when you say here in your comment “..part of well established species,” I think I understand better what you mean. I must point out, however, that not only new species (albeit similar to existing ones) of terrestrial animals much larger than insects (yet still relatively small, perhaps) have been found, but in at least one case (probably others) a new genus has been established; that of the African monkey Rungwecebus; although it is only represented by one species so far. And an entire new family of Gecko, Phyllodactylidae, comprised of 8 genera and 103 species, was described just this year. So perhaps “part of well established species” still does not quite convey exactly what you mean to say.

“So go ahead, take your cheap, red herring potshots at my misquote while carefully refusing to address the larger points.”

I’m sorry you’ve gotten such a negative impression from the comments on this thread. I appreciate that you read and post here when it’s clear that many commenters do disagree with your assessment of the subjects at hand; and I hope that you will be good enough to continue to do so in the future. Thanks again for that, sincerely.

Ben and I will be doing the panel thing next Friday, in Kentucky, so hopefully, we’ll see some of you there.

As to his current rebuttal, I shall have to respectfully disagree with Ben even about his “larger point,” as I find the number of “large animals” discovered in the last century, indeed, uniquely surprising and enough to give hope for more interesting finds.

Loren, better than most people on Cryptomundo, knows just how unreliable media story quotes are, and I find it amazing that posters here seem to assume that what is quoted above is 100% accurate and in context.

I have a news flash for Cryptomundo posters: don’t believe everything you read.

Just a few weeks ago, I was quoted in a news media story as saying that I believe ghosts exist!. Actually, what I said what that it was POSSIBLE that ghosts exist, just as I have always said that it’s POSSIBLE that Bigfoot exist. Reporter translates that into saying I think ghosts are real. That’s how journalism often works, folks.

I am well aware of the examples of the vu quang ox, the lowland gorillas, giant pandas, etc. I talked to the reporter for 40 minutes, and she pulled a handful of quotes from that, few in context and some more accurate than others.

I find it telling that Loren and other posters are so quick to pounce on an alleged mistake or generalization, while conveniently ignoring the larger, accurate points about how newly discovered terrestrial animals in the last century have been 1) relatively small; 2) in very remote places; and 3) part of well-established species. Bigfoot fits none of those.

So go ahead, take your cheap, red herring potshots at my misquote while carefully refusing to address the larger points.

“Maybe what Radford meant by ‘recognized taxonomy’ was animals that are closely related to animals already known to exist rather than something completely new, like a new type of dolphin or monkey?”

Good point! The Bolivian fresh water dolphin, Inia boliviensis, was disovered quite recently; but it is in the same genus as Inia geoffrensis, which has been so classified for more than 100 years.

did anyone mention that yet? I ran out of time to read all the comments.

its a very cute bat, I know its not a large species, but again the locals knew about it for years, but a western scientist told the locals what they saw didnt exist until they caught one for him.

There are sightings of bigfoot like creatures all over the planet. If bigfoot was in one place, then yeah, might not be real, but on saying its faked on every continent? cant happen.

Whats the fun in thinking we know everything already? I personally like thinking “what if?”

“You also have the discovery of significant populations of very large terrestrial animals in the last few years, which are not new species but still add tremendous weight to the probability of large new species being found. The ones that come to mind are a huge population of elephants in the Sudan, the new gorillas, and the mainland population of the Javan rhino.”

This is just like, no, it is just like, finding a population of a thousand sasquatch in the Jersey Pine Barrens.

(No it IS, and if you don’t think so, you need to read up on the Pine Barrens. Not to mention the sasquatch.)

OK, fine, that is my opinion and not Matt’s or m_m’s. There.

As Matt and m_m note, it makes no difference that the animals themselves are known to exist elsewhere. When I think of the Sudan (not just elephants, but huge concentrations of other herbivores, specifically antelope, not previously known to science), I think of a barren desert full of starving people, living hopeless lives punctuated by continuous explosions covered by a helpless Western press.

Um, obviously not. But many people have similar misconceptions about many places, including our own US of A.

A lot of big dumber-than-sasquatch animals, in a place they were never expected to be, says to science: you are not paying attention. Not here, you weren’t, and odds are, not in a whole lot of other places either.