The Creature

I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV

XIII

What was Kong? Was he subhuman or ape? Was he the missing link that anthropologists have sought since the times of Darwin? I do not know for certain but perhaps a brief discussion of primate characteristics should be included in this story.

Can it be said that primates are those animals which walk on two legs. Then we have difficulty in classifying chickens, lizards, and bears. It is probably better to leave the classifications to experts and simply discuss some of the common links between apes and humans. The class Primates includes not only fossil animals, humans, apes, and monkeys but the curious insect eating shrew. Most primate groups are associated with trees and living in trees. Kong did not live in trees but he had a fascination and knowledge of them. He could climb them readily and tear off limbs and uproot small trees without difficulty. He ate many parts of many different trees. If tree living is criteria then I am a primate and I don not live in trees.

The tree living adaptation of primates is suggested by the flexible hands and fingers and the moveable feet. It is an ability to climb by grasping and holding on with flexible digits and nails. All tree climbing creatures other than primates climb by digging in with claws or some other system such as sticky oozes. Humans are about the only order of primates that have given up the safety of the trees.

Most mammals have eyes set on the sides of their heads, these eyes in many cases separated by a long snout. As primates are classified from primitive to advanced the snout becomes smaller and the eyes move closer to the front of the head and forward vision is enhanced rather than side vision. The animals which have wide apart eyes do not have the ability to judge depth well, therefore, they are handicapped in moving through trees. The fact that primates have accurate depth perception allows them to dive from branch to branch and judge other jumping distances as well as to estimate the distance of food on the hoof.

As the snout decreases and depth perception increases the primate suffers from a decrease in the sense of smell. Experiments have shown that higher primates not only see in stereo but also can judge color. Kong would pick at red flecks in a certain knitted gray sweater that I wore. Hw was not able to get them since they were part of the fabric but he would move his fingers to my sweater and then to his mouth in an attempt to eat the red flecks. When I first wore the sweater he spent about twenty minutes doing this. As a test I wore a similar gray sweater with yellow flecks in it. He did not seem to notice these, at least he didn't pick at them.

Humans are not really much advanced over higher primates. We don't exactly react the way chimpanzees do but we have the same abilities of smell, sound, taste, and touch. So when I try to give Kong human characteristics I have to back off and remember films of chimps in clothes, riding bicycles, and in some cases displaying understandable speech. Kong was able to understand my directions but so does my cat when she has a mind to.

When moving in trees monkeys climb along the top of the branch while higher apes such as gorillas swing along the bottom of the branch. These same gorillas can walk along on their back legs but are usually found moving along with the aid of their hands and on their knuckles. Kong moved in a very human fashion with a slight forward lean. His hands were much like mine as were his feet. In this respect he certainly was more human than ape.

In the movement of his arms Kong was superior to me or to any ape I have seen in life or on film. He was able to reach directly behind him and take an apple from me at waist level. When I moved the apple up his back he was able to reach his neck moving his hand from his waist upward. If I had to do that I would have to reach up over my shoulder from the front. Scratching his own back was no problem to Kong. Scratching was something he did often, usually around his waist.

Kong was also able to move his wrists in a much wider circle than I can. When I bend my wrist backwards it makes an angle of about 90 degrees with my arm and that is putting pressure on it. By grasping one hand with the other I can force this angle to 100 degrees. I observed Kong in this motion to about 150 degrees. I have no idea how much further he could have gone had he grasped his own hand and forced it back. I tried forcing his hand back once and we engaged in a form of Indian arm wrestle for about five minutes and I was definitely losing the contest and was very happy to get my hand out of his before he crushed my fingers.

Somewhere I had read that the highest ape functioned at a much higher level than the lowest human. Kong, if he were an ape, could do many things with his body and mind that I could not do. If he were an ape then certainly humans are closely related to apes. Kong was definitely not to be classified as human although we must have had a common ancestor somewhere. Your grandfather and mine are not related however they descended from some similar ancestor. Millions of years ago there was probably a primate which produced the offspring leading to both higher apes and humans.

I could not understand Kong's fear of metallic objects and so I started to read voraciously in primate behavior. In one source by George Schaller, his experiences with gorillas were similar to mine with Kong. His books were published by the University of Chicago Press in 1963 and 1974. He states that until the gorillas were thoroughly used to him he never looked at them directly in the eye, nor did he point a pair of field glasses or a camera at them in case they might have interpreted the staring eye as a threat.

People who deal with gorillas usually take months of painstaking preparation in making contact and then they must proceed with caution. To even photograph gorillas takes a team of experts. I was handicapped in being alone with an especially sensitive being, nervous, with keen senses, and blinding speed of movement when necessary. Kong was not a gorilla nor was he human.

If Kong had others of his kind lurking nearby I was not aware of it. Except for the one related instance there was no evidence of others and even that one instance was a feeling of intuition rather than fact. Primates seem to be gregarious and the hermit primate is rare. The social behavior of baboons, chimps, and gorillas seem to be very much like that of humans. It would be safe to assume that Kong has such social relationships. However, the fact that he befriended me and the incident with the cow perhaps suggest a lack of social relationship with others of his kind.

In the class of higher primates there is dominance and submissiveness and an individual baboon or gorilla knows where he fits in the social order. When a particularly aggressive male cannot dominate the clan because of a superior male the second or third order male may migrate to a new clan with the intention of dominating it or at least moving up in the social order. Perhaps Kong was on his way to a new clan or was driven out of his old clan for some reason or other. Maybe the others of his kind could speak and he was mute. In the early years of our civilization mutes and other cripples were driven off or left uncared for as children. Was Kong a superior individual embarking on an expedition of exploration or was he an inferior individual driven from the tribe? Are there superior individuals of his kind lurking in the wilderness areas of North America? I believe there might be. Just as the cat catches only weak or crippled or deviant birds, humans are witnessing the slower less cunning primates that are migrating across the country.

In experiments and observations of gorillas it was found that they rarely fight. They will thump the ground with their hands, beat their chests, charge and stop, or throw things in the air but only on rare occasions actually attack the person of another gorilla. This lack of physical warfare is true of all the higher primates, except humans. Since Kong was a higher primate I was fortunate that he was passive and if others of his kind exist then humans that live in the wild areas are also fortunate. Assuming that his sensitivity is characteristic of his kind then they are shy, suspicious creatures afraid of humans and ready to retreat. To hunt such a creature with a gun would certainly be a high crime against nature. If an animal's main method of survival in warfare is to retreat then those best suited to retreat will survive. A pattern of survival behavior is established within groups of animals and those that are best adapted IO that behavior survive the longest. In the higher primates, except humans, retreat is the method of survival. If an attack is necessary then it is merely to delay an adversary until the clan or the individual can retreat safely. Kong's speed enabled him to survive by rapid retreat. Even though his huge size fitted him for attack there is danger in attack and so humans are spared hand-to-hand combat. We have nothing Kong or his kind wants and if these creatures exist in large numbers the greatest threat to them and to us would be the destruction of the wilderness areas especially those containing large tracts of tall timber.

I do not know if Kong could fashion tools or not. He used sticks to swat the ground. He used a switch to slap his legs but this may have been coincidental. He dug up grubs with his hands and didn't seem to need tools. 1 do not doubt that if there was a problem which called for the use of a rock or a club he would have risen to solving it. From what I observed of his way of life, tools were unnecessary. Perhaps in constructing his sleeping arrangements he used tools but what were these sleeping arrangements. Perhaps woodsmen are coming across these sleeping quarters and are not interpreting them correctly. I noted much trampled grass in openings around the Diggins but I am convinced Kong was a creature of the forest and the trampled grass was not of his doing. I note once again that he certainly didn't use fire.

The evidence for others of Kong's kind is simply in the fact that if he existed so must others like him. There is also the evidence of the young deer and smaller animals. Where did he go with the deer if it was not to share it with others. Perhaps he was trying to buy his way back into a clan from which he might have been ostracized. Sharing of a kill is typical of all primates. However, most primates except humans do not pursue game and the killing of such is more of a quirk of fate rather than a planned event. Primates, except humans, do not engage in hunting expeditions, they forage for vegetation.

In the realm of the arts I wished that I had had an opportunity to play music for Kong, say a flute or recorder if nothing else. My singing, which is very bad, had no apparent effect on him except when I got loud he backed off. He came to the Diggins clutching a piece of red dog one day. Red dog is a stone created when the clay shale from a coal mine refuse dump is hardened when the accompanying coal in the dump catches fire by spontaneous combustion. These dumps burn for years and the sandstone, shale, and bits of poor coal are turned red in the process. These dumps litter the landscape in the soft coal areas of southwestern Pennsylvania. The material is used for surfacing material on country and other secondary roads. Anyway he had this same stone on two different occasions. It was oval shaped about three inches long and appeared to be sandstone rather than shale. He wouldn't let me handle it but kept a firm grip on it. It could have been a tool but I believe it was a lucky stone such as a child would carry. I don't know why I said a child for I have many stones around my house which serve no purpose other than decoration. Perhaps this was an insight into the artistic tastes of Kong. He either lost the stone or hid it because I saw it on two different occasions and then no more.

In the social order of primates no individual ever leaves the group for any long span of time, no individual except with the human group that is. Kong also left his clan, if he had one, for a long period of time. In this respect he was more human than ape. When a baboon is ill or crippled It must keep up with its roving brethren or perish. When nomadic humans are ill they rest in camp while being nursed as the rest of the band moves on. If Kong was a member of a group why did he choose to hang around me. What happens to the rest of the creatures, if there are others and surely there must be, after they die.

After contemplating the higher primates one must come to the conclusions that out of all of these, humans alone live on the ground, they do not need the trees for food or protection. Humans think about the past, record it, and speculate on the future. Kong did need the trees for food as well as protection. He gave no evidence of thinking about the past or the future. Somehow in our association though there was evidence of anticipation in his actions. But is this a sign of thinking in the future or to some course of events. My cat asks to be let out of the house, runs to her food dish, and acts very excited when I enter the house. Was Kong's action any different than my cat's? I do not think so.

I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV