DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Animaliaforum
HTML https://animaliaforum.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Cryptozoology
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3--------------------------------------------------
Bigfoot, yeti, and other hominids
By: Ceratodromeus Date: September 9, 2018, 5:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A thread to place any news and info on the mythical apemen that
have captured the imagination of the world.
[hr]
An official link to the BFRO(Bigfoot Field Researchers'
Organization) website:
HTML https://www.bfro.net/GDB/newadd.asp?Show=AB
#Post#: 4--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bigfoot, yeti, and other hominids
By: Ceratodromeus Date: September 9, 2018, 5:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
De Loys’ Ape and what to do with it
HTML https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/files/2014/07/Ameranthropoides-cropped-shot-300-px-tiny-July-2014-Tetrapod-Zoology.jpg
"Purely because the time feels about right, I thought I'd post
an excerpt from the cryptozoology-themed book that John Conway,
Memo Kosemen and myself published last year - Cryptozoologicon
Volume I (Conway et al. 2013). The book is still available for
purchase here; previously featured excerpts are linked to at the
bottom of this article, and note that Volume II is due to appear
imminently. Anyway, to business...
Arguably one of the most fascinating episodes in
cryptozoological history involves the alleged South American
primate species Ameranthropoides loysi, proposed as a new
species by anthropologist George Montandon in 1929. This large,
allegedly new primate species is represented only by a single
photograph, allegedly taken on the Colombian-Venezuelan border
by Swiss geologist François De Loys in 1920. De Loys claimed
that he and his party encountered two of these bipedal,
erect-walking primates, shot one of them dead, and propped its
body up on a wooden crate before taking the famous (and famously
creepy) photograph so familiar from books on monsters and
mysteries.
The creature was supposedly very large (De Loys said 1.5 m
tall), tailless, and with a human-like tooth count. Combined
with its erect form of habitual bipedality, it was – according
to De Loys – wholly different from all known South American
primates (or platyrrhines), and perhaps a convergently evolved
South American ‘ape’. The story has been discussed several times
in the cryptozoology literature, most usefully by Heuvelmans
(1995), Shuker (1991, 2008) and Urbani & Viloria (2009).
Montandon’s naming of A. loysi and De Loys’ alleged discovery of
it were both treated with immediate scepticism across Europe
(Keith 1929). The fact that no part of the specimen had been
retained was one problem. De Loys argued that the remains had
either been lost due to accident, or became destroyed due to
mistreatment (the skull, for example, supposedly corroded away
after being used as a salt container).
This all meant that none of the supposedly unique features of
the animal could be checked or confirmed. The unusual tooth
count could only be confirmed by a look at the skull (and this
was lost), the lack of a tail couldn’t be checked because the
animal had only been photographed from the front, and the
alleged large size of the animal was difficult to be confident
about because the photographs did not include a human for scale.
All in all, highly suspicious (there have even been claims that
the photograph could not have been taken where De Loys said it
had, due to discrepancies with the flora). And another problem
comes from the fact that the creature featured in that famous
photograph is not exactly enigmatic or truly unidentifiable: it
looks exactly like the creature many people said it is… a
White-fronted spider-monkey Ateles belzebuth [adjacent photo by
Ewa/Ewcik65].
More insidiously, it has been argued in recent years that
Montandon endorsed and required the creation of a large, vaguely
human-like South American primate because – as a supporter of
the then seriously regarded 'hologenesis' hypothesis – he needed
a primate that could serve as an ancestor of South American
humans. Hologenesis – widely regarded as racist today – was the
school of thought proposing that the different racial groups of
Homo sapiens did not share a single ancestry but descended
independently from different branches of the primate tree.
Montandon seemingly needed an ancestor for ‘red’ people (native
Americans), and Ameranthropoides was used as a ‘missing link’ in
their evolution.
This outrageous suggestion went mostly ignored until the 1990s
when Loren Coleman and Michel Raynal drew attention to the
possibility that Ameranthropoides had been specially ‘invented’
to fit this erroneous model of evolution (Coleman 1996, Coleman
& Raynal 1996). Montandon was killed by the French Resistance in
1944, well known as an outspoken racist with strong
‘ethno-racial’ views (Coleman & Raynal 1996). Possible support
for the idea that Ameranthropoides was an outright hoax comes
from a letter penned in 1962 by Enrique Tejera, a friend of De
Loys who, at one point, claimed to have seen a live
Ameranthropoides. In the letter, Tejera denounced the hoax,
saying that the animal photographed by De Loys was a deceased
pet spider monkey that had been adopted in the jungle (Shuker
2008, Urbani & Viloria 2009).
Today, several cryptozoologists hold out hope that De Loys
really did photograph something novel and special and they point
to local legends of big, bipedal primates from northern South
America, and to rumoured half-memories of additional photos of
the 1920 carcass, as evidence that supports this view (Shuker
1991, 2008). We are confident, however, that De Loys’ famous
photo shows a dead spider monkey sat on a crate, the only
remarkable aspect of this story being the audacity of those who
thought that they could use a dead monkey to cheat the
scientific world."
Included the important backround of this creature from the
article, the rest can be found
here:
HTML https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/de-loys-8217-ape-and-what-to-do-with-it/
#Post#: 5--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bigfoot, yeti, and other hominids
By: Ceratodromeus Date: September 9, 2018, 5:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote= Carnoferox]
Why Bigfoot is NOT Gigantopithecus
Overview
Gigantopithecus is a genus of large apes from
Miocene-Pleistocene of southern Asia. There are two species of
Gigantopithecus: G. blacki (von Koenigswald, 1935) and G.
giganteus (Pilgrim, 1915 [originally Dryopithecus]). A
commonly-listed third species, G. bilaspurensis (Simons and
Chopra, 1969), is actually a junior synonym of G. giganteus. G.
blacki is known from the Pleistocene (c. 1.9-0.1 Ma) of China,
Vietnam, and Thailand, while G. giganteus is known from the Late
Miocene (c. 9.2-8.1 Ma) of India and Pakistan. Gigantopithecus
is currently known from five fossil mandibles (four from G.
blacki, one from G. giganteus) and thousands of isolated teeth.
G. blacki has been estimated to have stood around 3 meters tall
(when standing up on its hind legs) and weighed between 270 and
500 kilograms, while G. giganteus was closer to half that size.
Some paleontologists consider G. giganteus to be the ancestor of
G. blacki, while others place it in its own genus, Indopithecus.
This article will be concerned with G. blacki, as it is the
species that prominently features in Bigfoot research.
Anthropologist and cryptozoologist Grover Krantz was one of the
first to propose that Bigfoot represented a surviving population
of Gigantopithecus. Krantz believed that Gigantopithecus blacki
had migrated across the Bering Land Bridge during the last Ice
Age and had adapted to the climate and habitat of the Pacific
Northwest. He even went so far as to designate casts of supposed
Bigfoot prints as the type specimens of Gigantopithecus
canadensis (a designation that was rejected by the ICZN). Since
then the "Bigfoot is Gigantopithecus" hypothesis has become
commonly accepted among the Bigfoot researching community.
However, this hypothesis has numerous major flaws and as a whole
can be easily refuted, as it is based on outdated and inaccurate
information.
Phylogeny
When describing the first known teeth of Gigantopithecus in
1935, German paleoanthropologist G.H.R. von Koenigswald
originally classified it as a non-hominin ape. However, his
colleague Franz Weidenreich later studied the teeth and instead
argued for a hominin identity for Gigantopithecus in his 1946
book Apes, Giants, and Man. Weidenrich was known for his
unconventional views on human evolution. He believed that the
evolution of humans was completely linear, with a continuity of
one form evolving directly into another. He also thought that
Gigantopithecus represented a giant stage in human evolution,
even suggesting to rename it Giganthropus (meaning "giant man").
Weidenreich was a large influence on Krantz, as he shared the
same view of a linear human evolution. Krantz held that
Gigantopithecus was a giant, bipedal hominin closely related to
humans, which he thought fit the description of Bigfoot closely.
Later researchers like David Frayer and Elwyn Simons would note
similarities between the dentitions of Gigantopithecus and
Australopithecus, which seemed to further support its placement
as a hominin.
However, others disagreed with this classification of
Gigantopithecus. In 1970, David Pilbeam first argued that
Gigantopithecus belonged to the Ponginae, rather than the
Homininae, forming a clade with the modern orangutan (genus
Pongo) and extinct genera like Sivapithecus and Ouranopithecus.
Pilbeam noted that the similarities between the teeth of
Gigantopithecus and hominins were convergently evolved because
of a similar diet, not actually indicating a close relationship.
Gigantopithecus has thick molar enamel (as do orangutans) and
small canines, once thought to be diagnostic traits of hominins.
However, dentition actually varies greatly among apes (according
to diet rather than phylogeny), and these traits are no longer
considered to be strictly hominin. Over time, as the result of
newer discoveries and more in-depth analyses, the classification
of Gigantopithecus as a member of the Ponginae has become widely
accepted amongst paleontologists. Krantz's idea of
Gigantopithecus as a bipedal hominin is obsolete; there are
significant differences between the understood morphology of
Gigantopithecus and that typically reported of Bigfoot.
Morphology
Although no postcranial remains are currently known for
Gigantopithecus, its overall morphology can be inferred from its
close relatives. Gigantopithecus would likely have been mostly
quadrupedal and would have walked on its fists like modern
orangutans. This is in contrast to the upright bipedality almost
always reported in Bigfoot sightings. Krantz argued for
bipedality in Gigantopithecus based on that he believed it to be
a hominin and that the jaw widened towards the rear. Krantz
reasoned that the neck would have connected to the head between
the sides of the lower jaw, sitting on top of the shoulders in
an upright position like a human. However, jaw width does not
always correspond with neck position, nor does it indicate
bipedality, as most vertebrates have jaws that widen
posteriorly. Like the orangutan, the neck of Gigantopithecus
would have actually been attached farther back on the skull.
Considering that Gigantopithecus would have had a greater mass
than any living ape, a quadrupedal stance would be better suited
for supporting its weight. As it was not a hominin,
Gigantopithecus would have had to evolve bipedality
independently, which is highly unlikely. Another problem is that
Gigantopithecus would have had a five-toed foot with a separate,
opposable big toe, a feature lacking from Bigfoot prints.
Bigfoot prints more closely resemble those of a human, with all
five (sometimes four) toes grouped together. Additionally,
Gigantopithecus feet would have had longer individual digits
than the typical Bigfoot print.
Something not commonly addressed is Krantz's erroneous
reconstruction of the skull of Gigantopithecus. Krantz's skull
has a flat, human-like face, a feature reported in some Bigfoot
encounters. It seems to be based on Paranthropus and other
australopithecines, in line with Krantz's view of
Gigantopithecus being a hominin. In reality, Gigantopithecus'
skull would have more closely resembled those of other pongines
like Sivapithecus and the orangutan. Krantz's lower jaw is too
robust, the skull too wide, and the overall form too hominin. It
should have a more sloping profile with a narrower width, akin
to other pongines. Unfortunately, this inaccurate skull
continues to be used in various reconstructions.
Diet
The diet of Gigantopithecus is known far better than its
postcranial morphology. Based on analyses of phytoliths
(fossilized plant particles) and carbon isotopes on the teeth of
Gigantopithecus, there is a relatively complete understanding of
its diet. Phytolith analyses revealed that it subsisted mainly
on grasses (especially bamboo), fruits, and seeds, similar to
the diet of the modern orangutan, albeit more specialized. Based
on isotopic analyses, Gigantopithecus consumed only plants that
utilized the C3 method of carbon fixation. C3 plants are more
commonly found in forests, such as bamboo forests of Southeast
Asia that Gigantopithecus inhabited, while C4 plants are more
commonly found in grasslands. This presents a problem with
crossing the Bering Land Bridge, as C4 grasses would have been
only plants growing on the tundras and steppes of Siberia and
Beringia. Gigantopithecus would not have been able to cross
thousands of miles without any sustenance, making a migration to
North America impossible. Gigantopithecus was a specialized
animal that went extinct because of its inability to adapt to
changing climactic conditions. Due to periodic die-offs of
bamboo and the reduction of its forest habitat, Gigantopithecus
went extinct in south China by 0.3 Ma, disappearing altogether
from Southeast Asia around 0.1 Ma. This is a far cry from
Krantz's idea that Gigantopithecus was able to migrate thousands
of miles and adapt to a completely foreign habitat.
Conclusion
The "Bigfoot is Gigantopithecus" theory is based on obsolete
ideas and inaccurate information, and can be thoroughly
debunked. There are significant discrepancies between the
morphology of Gigantopithecus and that reported of Bigfoot.
Gigantopithecus would have been mostly quadrupedal, walking on
its fists like an orangutan. It also would have had a five-toed
foot with long digits and an opposable toe. Its skull would have
been sloping with a prominent jaw. In contrast, Bigfoot is most
commonly reported to be bipedal, the footprints usually have
five shorter digits grouped together, and the face is said to be
flat and human-like. There are also the numerous problems with
Gigantopithecus crossing the Bering Land Bridge and establishing
a population in North America. Gigantopithecus had a highly
specialized diet and wouldn't have been able to adapt to the
vastly different conditions of the Pacific Northwest. The only
plants on the thousands of miles of steppe and tundra that would
have been crossed during this migration would have been C4
grasses, as opposed to the C3 plants that Gigantopithecus
consumed. Above all of this the complete lack of fossil
evidence. If Bigfoot were to exist, it would far more likely be
a unknown hominin than a surviving Gigantopithecus.
References
Bocherens, H., Schrenk, F., Chaimanee, Y., Kullmer, O., Mörike,
D., Pushkina, D. & Jaeger, J-J. (2015). Flexibility of diet and
habitat in Pleistocene South Asian mammals: Implications for the
fate of the giant fossil ape Gigantopithecus. Quaternary
International. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.059
Ciochon, R.L. (1991). The ape that was - Asian fossils reveal
humanity's giant cousin. Natural History 100, 54-62.
Ciochon, R.L., Piperno, D.R. & Thompson, R.G. (1990). Opal
phytoliths found on the teeth of extinct ape Gigantopithecus
blacki: Implications for paleodietary studies. Proceedings of
the National Academy of the Sciences of the United States of
America 87(20), 8120-8124.
Frayer, D.W. (1973). Gigantopithecus and its relationship to
Australopithecus. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
39(3), 413-426.
Koenigswald, G.H.R. von. (1952). Gigantopithecus blacki von
Koenigswald, a giant fossil hominoid from the Pleistocene of
southern China. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History 43(4), 295-325.
Miller, S.F., White, J.L. & Ciochon, R.L. (2008). Assessing
mandibular shape variation within Gigantopithecus using a
geometric morphometric approach. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 137, 201-212.
Patnaik, R. (2008). Revisiting Haritalyangar, the Late Miocene
ape locality of India. In J.G. Fleagle & C.C. Gilbert (Eds.),
Elwyn Simons: A Search for Origins (pp. 197-210). New York, NY:
Springer.
Regal, B. (2009). Entering dubious realms: Grover Krantz,
science, and Sasquatch. Annals of Science 66(1), 83-102.
Relethford, J.H. (2017). 50 Great Myths of Human Evolution:
Understanding Misconceptions About Our Origins. Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Shao, Q., Wang, Y., Voinchet, P., Zhu, M., Lin, M., Rink, W.J.,
Jin, C. & Bahain, J-J. (2015). U-series and ESR/U-series dating
of the Stegodon/Ailuropoda fauna at Black Cave, Guangxi,
southern China with implications for the timing of the
extinction of Gigantopithecus blacki. Quaternary International.
doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.016
Simons, E.L. & Chopra, S.R.K. (1969). Gigantopithecus (Pongidae,
Hominoidea) a new species from North India. Postilla 138, 1-18.
Zhang, Y., Jin, C., Kono, R.T., Harrison, T. & Wang, W. (2016).
A fourth mandible and associated dental remains of
Gigantopithecus blacki from the Early Pleistocene Yanliang Cave,
Fusui, Guanxi, South China. Historical Biology 28(1-2),
95-104.[/quote]
#Post#: 6--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bigfoot, yeti, and other hominids
By: Ceratodromeus Date: September 9, 2018, 5:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote=Saiya]I'm not sure what more to say about this... I'm on
the fence as to whether or not Big foot really exists.
HTML http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c
... -1.4375801[/quote]
#Post#: 48--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bigfoot, yeti, and other hominids
By: zergthe Date: November 1, 2018, 4:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]In 2015 Matt M. sent the following video to Bigfoot
Evidence.
Matt says..."I was canoeing some of the swamps around Lettuce
Lake Park and saw what I thought was a bear...I told a park
ranger about it and she said that bears don't generally get into
the swamp and that there were never many sightings in general. I
showed her the video and she said she didn't know what it was.
I never put much faith in the old skunk ape legends but when I
looked closer I noticed that it had long, swinging arms and
moved through very thick swamp with ease. Certainly can't
explain it myself. I didn't get very close but I hope that this
footage can be enlarged."
Matt agrees with Bigfoot Evidence that if it's a person, "they
are either a moron or completely insane". "They are walking,
swimming and diving in an area where there are hundreds of 12
foot gators and water moccasins everywhere. I was there watching
it for a while. Seemed to notice me and walked toward deeper
water. It went underwater and vanished. Paddled up there and it
was nowhere to be seen."[/quote]
Video:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CsYeZw7nuo&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0UwC7HGYzBuDIpTcVs4odSfH_Qpyt3J_Aqie7g84izaR1yozBAjewLFSc
[quote]Here is exactly what I seen, I'm not sure what it is but
can someone please tell me? Is there a person who can do video
analyses or something? I got scared and ran away, i wish i
stayed to keep taking the movie.
Date: october 24 - 2013
Where: about 9 miles west of Tunica, Mississippi on my hunting
property
Time: about 6pm
I was out hunting hogs, just sitting in a part of the swamp i
have heard em before...it is not too far from a road. I was
wearing hunting camo and just sitting dead still waiting for it
to get dark, cause thats when the hogs come out. I hear a noise
behind the tree i was sitting on, i thought it was the hogs,
when i got around i could not believe my own two eyes.
There was this huge black thing crouched by a dead cypress about
50 yards away, i thought it was a hog but saw these big
shoulders and a head upright with hands. It looked like it was
digging out the stump. My first instinct was to run, i did not
even think of shooting...then i know no one will believe me...it
was like everything slowed down...i was scared! I took out my
iphone and started videotaping it..i guess i pushed the record
button twice cause it stopped blinking red.. but i pushed it
again. I hear a truck driving down the road and the thing stood
up!! I was trying to be dead quiet...when it stood up i could
not control myself and ran. That stump was huge and i'd guess
the sucker was 7feet tall, i am a hunter and am pretty darn good
at guessing size.
that's no bear!
I don't know what to think.. if someone can tell me what it is
or if somone was trying to prank me i, I don't want to go back
on my land. this is the first movie i have ever put on
youtube..the video looks better on my phone and computer
I always heard stories of skunk ape and honey island swamp
monster from these parts but never thought about it being real
ever.
has anyone seen anything like this in mississippi?[/quote]
Video:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb9YcIlkl_c
*****************************************************