Cryptozoology forums > Blogs > Scott Marlowe's blog > view thread
Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 11:11pm
somehow I just accidently deleted 5 paragraphs of text....

Anyway, you will have to deal with a more condensed summary of what I wrote.

First off, I don't claim to have an expertise in fossil primates, so I can't guarantee everything is up to the minute accurate. Also, I don't think the film was digitally faked. It shows a legitimate hominid, but I would say the footage is too dark and poor in quality to make out whether it's a normal human (accidently observed or hoaxing) or some mystery ape

That said, comparisons to european fossil primates seem so speculative as too be almost silly. The blown up face of the critter on video is so pixelated that you really can't determine anything for sure. Really, it just looks like a swath of pixels with a vague pattern.

2nd, these animals are not very good canidates. While Dryopithecus and kin were widespread in the Old World during the Miocene, there is no evidence they made it to North America. We have some really good Miocene and Pliocene fossil beds...had they survived in North America we should at least find a few teeth. 2nd, Oreopithecus was I believed confined to Italy, and also, while bipedal, possessed a very weird pigeon toed gate. Again, nothing suggests that this ape was anything more then a interesting dead end in primate evolution.

Finally...If De Loye's Ape is a real cryptid, it almost certainly is a new species of giant spider monkey. I don't think we need to make up ghost lineages and undocumented dispersals when we have good local canidates.
319 views
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Wed, Jul 11 2007, 7:16am
Comparisons to european fossil primates seem so speculative as too be almost silly.

I understand what you are saying, but you're mis-intrepreting my point. Dryopithecus and thus Oreopithecus have the same family roots which extend back 65,000,000 in primate evolution. At that time, Europe and North America were conjoined (although "Europe" consisted largely of islands in a shallow sea). Adding Procounsel to the mix (some paleontologists believe that Procounsel was at least partially terrestrial and that it is actually a subgroup of the Dryopithecus. I assume you already know that Dryopithecus is related to the Sivapithecus -- formerly the ramapithecus of Asia).

What I'm suggesting is that a North American variety of this family of early apes also developed. However as the creature was partially aquatic in the sense that it was low-land swamp dwelling, the combination of rising and lowering sea levels and North American glaciation obliterated much, if not all, of the evidence of the animal.

There are ample examples of early primates exising in North America -- Smilodectes and Notharctus for example -- so it would seem odd the radial adaptation would not take the same paths here as it did in Africa, Europe, Asia and Australia giving rise to similar species until climatic changes, habatat distruction or human interference intervened.

Oreopithecus was I believed confined to Italy, and also, while bipedal, possessed a very weird pigeon toed gate. Again, nothing suggests that this ape was anything more then a interesting dead end in primate evolution.

Oreopithecus wasn't confined to Italy -- it's remains have been found all around the Mediterranean according to my European colleagues.

Apes evolved from monkeys early in the Miocene Epoch. Fossil monkey and prosimian remains are comparatively rare during most of the Miocene, but apes, like the Proconsul, were fairly common. Thus, it would seem that apes of the Miocene occupied many of the same ecological niches that would later be occupied by monkeys.

Moreover, the Pithecine apes were not a dead end. The Miocene primates aparently included the ancestors of all modern ape and human species. They just evolved into new forms.

If De Loye's Ape is a real cryptid, it almost certainly is a new species of giant spider monkey.

Not likely. The Deloy's animal is an ape -- I.E. has no tail as well as other ape characteristics such as the number of teeth according to Deloy's journal. Therefore it cannot be a monkey of any kind by definition.

My speculation is therefore that the Deloys represents an American coastal wetlands variation of the Dryopithecine model.

That is the hypothesis I am hoping to test should the Biscardi situation offer that opportunity.
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Wed, Jul 11 2007, 11:01am
While there were primates in North America during the Eocene (and possibly a few rare Oligocene hold overs), these are all "prosimians" Most would have been nocturnal, and probably looked more like lemurs and tarsiers then apes. There is no evidence that any ape made it to the new world, and I think the odds of convergent evolution, especially with 0 fossil record, are not that great. a very early branch of anthropoids did make it to South America (ancestors of new world monkeys and marmosets), but again no evidence of dispersal.

As far as saying fluctuations of sea level prevented fossils from being preserved, We do have Pliocene and Miocene coastal fossil records, from Florida at the very least (and the Carolinas I think). Not to mention if Dryopithecines dispersed, it would probably have been through Alaska spreading west...through alot of great areas of preservation.

Also too me at least, DeLoy's ape pretty much looks identical to a spider monkey. Loss of the tail, as well as a difference in set of teeth, to me are not good enough pieces of evidence to eliminate a spider monkey, especially as we have no photos of the teeth.
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Wed, Jul 11 2007, 11:37am
May I also point out that the fossil evidence, paricularly in coastal areas of the Eastern United States were corrupted by the impact of an asteroid that broke up entering Earth's atmosphere about 35,000,000 years ago? The impacts of the fragments in North America occured at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, in North Carolina and in Florida (which is why the Eocene formation layers are missing there).

Then there is the comet that apparently exploded over the continent 13,000 years ago that many earth scientists are now saying wiped out the Clovis Culture.

The lack of evidence of dispursal is explanable with tetonic and celestial events. So, the lack of evidence in support of my concept isn't also evidence that it didn't happen.

Moreover, there is a parallel that occured on the Australian continent where an ape species apparently evolved independent of the heliocentric Out of Africa theory. "Mungo Man" does not have genetic links (according to the DNA research) to the genetic Eve from whom modern humans eminated.

So, I can't throw out the possibility of convergency either.

It's far too soon to conclude that there aren't more revealing fossil finds to be made in North America, nor that a living specimen will be discovered that would bear out my thoughts on this subject.

Of course, the information is meger, consequently the "hypothesis" is very much subject to change as new information is obtained and verified. But, to be valid AND reliable, any hypothesis must explain ALL apparent deviations from the predictions derived from it.

So, it's easier to presume that the Swamp Ape doesn't exist to make the problem go away. However, if that's true, what is it that intelligent and credible people are actually seeing in their encounters over a considerable time span.

You may recall in your reading that this same problem existed with the Mountain Gorilla and the so-called Bili Ape. Both were later confirmed as being real. Dr. Goodall bases her belief that there is something to the Bigfoot legends largely due to this history. I have to agree with her and while the ideas I've expressed may not be the mechanism by which they developed, it is at least a possibility which takes into account the evident material -- including neolithic images of what appear to be Bipedal Hairy Ape creatures in Native American lore and petrographic art in North America.
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Wed, Jul 11 2007, 10:50pm
Neither of these impacts should affect the Miocene and Pliocene fossil record (which is again, pretty good in Florida) The first one is two old (Apes didn't exist as far as we know in the Eocene, though very basal anthropoids probably did). And I have no idea how the 13000 year old comet would affect fossil preservation. This to me seems to be handwaving. A comet or asteroid strike should really only affect the areas of immediate impact (unless your suggesting it was big enough to affect global climate, leading to greater degrees of erosion, but I don't think that is supported in either case. Again, this is a poor explanation for why we are not finding Miocene and Pliocene Dropithecines, especially when we have pretty good material from the old world.

Also, you appear to be confused on the Mungo Man issue. He is not an example of convergent evolution, and no researcher has said that he isn't homo (and few have suggested he is not sapiens. The controversy over his DNA is that he may provide evidence for a multi-regional model of human evolution, instead of the out of africa hypothesis. He certainly didn't come from non hominid stock.

At this point, I think any attempts at looking at what species a NAPE is are foolhardy. Prove it's a real animal first, then worry about it's taxonomic identity
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Thu, Jul 12 2007, 1:18am
As far as the celestial events are concerned, I'm pointing out disruption of the fossil layer. While your observation would otherwise be correct, you are not accounting for the difference in coastline due to advancing and receding sea levels at the times of impact.

During the Eocene much of Florida as inundated except for "the ridge" up to the area around Gainesville about 150 feet above today's sea level. During the Pleistocene the shoreline extended into the Gulf and Atlantic a considerable distance from today's coastline to about 300 feet below todays sea level.

This factor was also extended up the Atlantic Coast and around the Gulf of Mexico.

The earliest protoprimates trace back to about 65,000,000 years ago and survived the K-T extinction here and elsewhere.

So, my point is that the fossils you're suggesting should be among those known are not likely to come from current terrestrial fossil beds -- since we're looking for semi-aquatic ape species that had habitat in coastal marshlands of the then exposed terra.

I suspect that oil drilling activities in the Gulf today are likely to provide some evidence of primate activity eventually during the subject time period.

Granted, I may be putting the "cart before the horse" taxonomically but extrapolating some POSSIBLE form and behavior of the animal from paleontological research MAY give us some idea where and how to find the living creature and what to expect should cryptozoology be able to locate a living specimen. In the arena of physical evidence in this age of DNA, these speculations may also give us some clues and benchmarks.

With Mungo Man, the Multi-Regional model is appreciated -- I am aware of the confusion in existing physical anthropology regarding H. erectus and H. ergaster.

Clearly, Mungo would likely have some roots in earlier species that migrated globally much earlier than originally thought -- which speaks exactly to my point.
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Thu, Jul 12 2007, 1:22am
May I suggest that you take a look at a book written by one of my Pangea Colleagues "Centozoic Seas" (Dr. Ed Petuch) 2006/2007? His illustrations regarding the sea levels, coastline, and celestial events are quite good regarding this issue.

Ed is both an expert in geology and marine paleontology as well as several other related subjects holding a number of degrees in Earth Science fields.
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Thu, Jul 12 2007, 7:03am
I am home at the moment, so I don't have access too all the school's journal searches, but a quick google search gave me this


Pleistocene Swamp Deposits

It's not exactly recent (1909) but does that that Pleistocene deposits are common on the southeastern coastal plain, though the paper seems more concerned with botany then vertebrate paleontology. I can also think of several other reasons to doubt that the lack of apes is a preservational bias. First off, you would have to assume that the apes quickly dispersed there and remained endemic to that small narrow region alone. This seems odd, as a variety of marsh or wetland critters did pretty well for themselves during Pleistocene, animals like Capybaras, which we have a pretty good record of in North America

Again, I don't understand why you bring up a point of mentioning Paleocene and Eocene primates in North America. There has never been any evidence to suggest the existence or origins of higher primates in North America. Even if your Dryopithecines dispersed here, they almost certainly don't represent a continuation of the NA primates.

on a side tangent, it looks like primates DIDN'T survive the KT event, as the newest study indicates that not only is the putative Late Cretaceous primate Purgatorius not a primate, but it isn't even a placental. The paper is cited below

Wible, J.R., G.W. Rougier, M.J. Novacek & R.J. Asher. 2007. Cretaceous
eutherians and Laurasian origin for placental mammals near
the K/T boundary. Nature 447:1003-1006.
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Thu, Jul 12 2007, 7:16am
Interesting, looks like there's some contradiction between source material. Thanks for the citation. I'll look into this farther.

However, much has changed since 1909 and there have been recent fossil finds (albeit non-primate) eminating from recent drilling on the Gulf Shelf.

It may not impact the primate issue in so far as Dryopithecus and descendents are concerned (if they weren't here), but some current thinking is that the celestial event of 13,000 years ago greatly impacted the Clovis people and was responsible for the mega-fauna extinctions at that time in North America.
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
Stu
posted Thu, Jul 12 2007, 8:17pm
"some current thinking is that the celestial event of 13,000 years ago greatly impacted the Clovis people and was responsible for the mega-fauna extinctions at that time in North America"

Can you cite that 'current thinking', Scott? I'd be interested to see it. Thanks.

Stu (sorry to butt in but immensely enjoying the craic here)
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Thu, Jul 12 2007, 9:32pm
I'm not aware of any books on the subject yet, but try these:

linky

linky

linky

linky

These articles from credible sources are but a few on the subject. I became interested in these phenomena after talking with Dr. Petuch at length about the one he details in his book "Centozoic Seas".

As you know, mammoth extinctions were previously thought to be the result of human over-killing the animals. However, we discovered the partial fossil remains of a mammoth in Bradenton, Florida that was pulverized (I have the fossils in boxes here in my office and in our storage unit). The body could have been washed to the then coastline and damaged by wave action, but it may also have been reduced to pieces by more catastrophic after-effects of a celestial event. The jury is still out on that one (the fossils date to around 13,000 years ago -- it's a Columbian mammoth).
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Thu, Jul 12 2007, 9:38pm
And, I guess I better mention, for the nit-pickers benefit, the mammoth remains were found in a "bone yard" containing many other fossil specimens -- including teeth from an oreodont. Up until this oreodont find, the nearest fossil find of this animal to the area was about 250 miles farther to the north -- suggesting either a greater range than previously thought (but additional teeth/remains have not yet been discovered in the area) or being carried here by some unknown mechanism (a tsunami?).
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Thu, Jul 12 2007, 11:07pm
A 13000 year old oredont would be almost as exciting as Miocene North American Ape. Sure you don't have a reworking issue (Oreodont died out some time in the Pliocene).

I think Bruce MacFadden at U of Florida has described some Florida Oreodonts. Certainly, given how abundant they were, they would have pretty much occuppied all of North America
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Fri, Jul 13 2007, 3:32am
While I'm certain about the designation, I still have some doubts about the dating.

Russell McCarty at the U of F is who I went to about the find. He apparently used MacFadden's work to establish the range of the oreodont in North Florida -- suggesting that the find in Bradenton was much farther south than "previously known".

I still believe that more evidence of the animal needs to be found to bs sure about dating and the possibility of disturbed fossil bed remains being carried here by some other mechanism than death of the animal at the place of find.

So far, Bison, Cave Bear, Peccary, Mammoth, Manatee, Shark, Oreodont, Giant Beaver, and other remains have surfaced in this bone yard. The problem now is that the owner has closed off the property to further excavation in preparation to develop the land.
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Fri, Aug 31 2007, 4:01am
Huh?!? An end pleistocene oreodont?!?

I agree that it is certainly possible that fossil hominids in north america
may be underrepresented.We know that red pandas occupied north america during the middle pleistocene.The evidence, a single tooth out of Tennessee.A fossil dhole jaw has been recovered from a mexican bonebed 40,000 years old.
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Mon, Sep 24 2007, 12:17am
Scott, great thread going on here. Like Stu, I apologize for butting in, but I was wondering if BF is an actual animal, wouldn't it seem more likely that its ancestors travelled to the Americas rather than evolved here? Since fossil records of a large, I think bipedal orangutan-like animal have been discovered in Asia, there is a possible ancestral source for the animal we call Bigfoot. To me, that's always seemed to be the straightest line to finding where BF, or at least the legend of BF came from. Wouldn't it seem more likely that an animal could have crossed the Bering Straits at the same time that other animals made the crossing?
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Tue, Nov 13 2007, 2:14am
Finally...If De Loye's Ape is a real cryptid, it almost certainly is a new species of giant spider monkey. I don't think we need to make up ghost lineages and undocumented dispersals when we have good local canidates.

Deloyes ape is a proven hoax Scott. The proof was the plants in the background that don't match the location of the account he gave. As well as other witnesses that attested to fact that Deloyes was a prankster.
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Sun, Feb 10 2008, 7:47am
UPDATE:

I recently discussed new protoprimate finds with Dr. Jonathan Bloch of the University of Florida who just published and described new finds from formations just outside of Yellowstone Park.

He's named two new protoprimate discoveries and suggests that primate origins BEGAN here in North America and radiated to other areas of the world.

The new finds are dated proximate to the dinosaur extinction and he told me that colleagues now believe that primates branched off from other mammals about 90,000,000 years ago -- meaning that early protoprimates existed contemporary with dinosaurs of the Cretaceous period.
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Sun, Feb 10 2008, 7:57am
ADDITIONAL UPDATE:

In so far as the trap camera video that gave rise to this "adventure" is concerned:

Research by MK Davis suggests that the video footage in question is connected to other material of the same ilk once in the possession of Matt Knapp and displayed privately on the West Coast a couple of years ago. I have been unable to get in contact with Mr. Knapp to confirm of refute this.

The footage in question has been judged to have "considerable generational loss." This means that the video is a copy of a copy of a copy (and so on) which has lost clarity and contrast due to its history of reproduction.

While the animal pictured is still thought to be a real creature, it is now my opinion that it is a known primate -- most likely a chimpanzee -- as were the animals appearing in another of Tom's similar acquisitions which I discussed on his radio show last year.
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Tue, Feb 12 2008, 11:33pm
Thanks for the update
Re: Biscardi footage and comparisons with fossil apes
posted Tue, Feb 12 2008, 11:38pm
I am aware of these discoveries, but I don't think they lend any weight to the idea of bigfoot. All these protoprimates would have looked more like tree shrews, bushbabies, and lemurs, not bipedal ape like creatures. We still have no evidence of any of these lineages surviving past the Oligocene, and Anthropoids (Tarsiers, monkeys, and apes) are still believed to be an old world radiation.


Close Window