+- +-


Total Members: 13
Latest: Orbit
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 47
Total Topics: 26
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 42
(October 27, 2018, 06:41:45 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Bigfoot, yeti, and other hominids  (Read 72 times)


  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Bigfoot, yeti, and other hominids
« on: September 09, 2018, 03:03:34 pm »
A thread to place any news and info on the mythical apemen that have captured the imagination of the world.

An official link to the BFRO(Bigfoot Field Researchers' Organization) website:

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+


  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Bigfoot, yeti, and other hominids
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2018, 03:05:16 pm »
De Loys’ Ape and what to do with it

"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:https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/de-loys-8217-ape-and-what-to-do-with-it/


  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Bigfoot, yeti, and other hominids
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2018, 03:06:59 pm »
Quote from:  Carnoferox
Why Bigfoot is NOT Gigantopithecus


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Bigfoot, yeti, and other hominids
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2018, 03:10:36 pm »
Quote from: 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.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4375801


  • Newbie
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Location: UT, MN
    • View Profile
Re: Bigfoot, yeti, and other hominids
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2018, 02:34:36 pm »
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."
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CsYeZw7nuo&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0UwC7HGYzBuDIpTcVs4odSfH_Qpyt3J_Aqie7g84izaR1yozBAjewLFSc

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?
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb9YcIlkl_c


+-Recent Topics

Bigfoot, yeti, and other hominids by zergthe
November 01, 2018, 02:34:36 pm

Fitness by zergthe
November 01, 2018, 02:15:01 pm

False Monitor vs Cooper's Hawk by SquamataOrthoptera
October 28, 2018, 10:45:14 am

Lizard predation by SquamataOrthoptera
October 22, 2018, 07:01:32 pm

Dynasties: First Look Trailer by Dragon Maw
October 20, 2018, 05:52:13 am

Allidrake vs Wraith by Kiryu2012
October 16, 2018, 07:25:07 pm

Canidae pictoral by SquamataOrthoptera
October 07, 2018, 12:54:09 pm

Animal feats by SquamataOrthoptera
October 02, 2018, 12:27:07 pm

Tiger Quoll vs Wildcat by SquamataOrthoptera
September 29, 2018, 11:47:10 am

Reptile Size by SquamataOrthoptera
September 25, 2018, 04:46:05 pm