Cryptozoology.com

Cryptozoology forums > Cryptids > Hominids > view thread

Subject:		Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From:		scmarlowe	posted Fri, Dec 2 2005, 2:35pm

As Dr. Bloch's work is still in the laboratory stage, I can't ethically post a photo of his find before he publishes his work. So, I'm constrained to provide an illustration of photograph at this time. However, I do have a photo of the Homo Antecessor skull and it appears below.

I'll be posting additional photography of this hominin in the Pangea Institute photogallery in the physical anthropology album over the next few days for your review -- and that of other interested parties.

Subject:		Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From:		scmarlowe	posted Fri, Dec 2 2005, 2:46pm

Also, bear in mind that while be believe that H. sapiens is the only member of the genus still existing on planet Earth, this has NOT been the case in the past.

The diminuitive H. Erectus floresensis, recently discovered on the island of Flores in Indonesia survived until the last ice age (10,000 years ago). So it is possible that others of the Erectus clan (including H.E. meganthropus) also survived.

Some of my colleagues in Russia believe that H. neanderthalensis is also among the relect hominin species that represent "Bigfoot." They attribute the Almas, Yeren and Yeti to this hominin.

Subject:		Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From:		scmarlowe	posted Fri, Dec 2 2005, 3:00pm

Mngwa, I should also mention that a production company working on a show for the Discovery Channel has licensed some of our material for an upcoming episode on cable. I believe that it will air sometime in January or February.

If they do as they have indicated with the material we provided, it will be the first time in Bigfoot Programming (that I know of) when a suggestion that Bigfoot and other hairy bipeds may not have the same pedigree and actually are different species if not different genus.

I am also talking to two different producers now about a program specifically on the Swamp Ape as an independent creature from Bigfoot. They are both wanting to begin filming sometime in the spring. It remains to be seen which one will offer the best treatment of the subject and will acquire my assistance as a result.

I'm also in the final stages of preparing a manuscript for a book I've been working on that details the topic we're discussing. No publisher has yet been selected for the book and there will be considerable work required to license the supporting photograpy and illustrative materials from a wide variety of sources.

Hopefully, this video will happen and the book will make it to the shelf.

Subject:		Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From:		Lovecraft	posted Fri, Dec 2 2005, 3:25pm

Homo antecessor is not a direct ancestor of Neandertals; they did evolve into H. heidelbergensis which in turn gave rise to Neandertals.

Subject:		Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From:		scmarlowe	posted Sat, Dec 3 2005, 2:18am

There are a number of physical anthropologists that disagree.

Some also contest that heidelbergensis was a separate species of hominin. These folks suggest that heidelbergensis was merely a sub-species of erectus or ergaster.

At this point, human phylogeny (not to mention primates in general -- due to a number of new finds) is in a state of flux. I haven't read any revised material on how the recent finds impact the human pedigree that I consider completely reliable yet, so I'm still not sold on the more complex relationships and emergence.

Subject:		Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From:		Lovecraft	posted Sat, Dec 3 2005, 7:54am

I have heard that suggestion before, but the vast majority of opinions indicate that H. antecessor evolved into other populations in the large gap in time before H. sapiens and H. neandertalensis, and could probably be best called a common ancestor and not a direct one. Calling H. antecessor a direct ancestor of H. sapiens is even more problematic than it being the neandertals' ancestor, since it is rather indicative that our species came out of Africa. I should probably point out that H. cepranensis, H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, H. rhodesiensis could all be chronospecies, so classification as different species is probably just for convenience.

And on a somewhat different subject, I have actually never heard anyone classify Meganthropus as Homo erectus paleojavanicus. Most paleoanthropologists think it is somehow related to erectus, but opinions range from it being the males of erectus, to a different species that branched off. It could very well be a subspecies, but nobody to my knowlege has specified that.

Subject:		Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From:		scmarlowe	posted Sat, Dec 3 2005, 10:12am

Yes, and there is also some controversy regarding H. Floresensis as well. It too may be an erectus sub-species and some evidence supports this.

However, with scientists in a rush to make a name for themselves by coining a new species at the drop of a hat (or is it an lithic tool?) there is a great deal of confusion on exact pedigrees at this time.

That's why I choose to sit on the fence for a while and let all this sort itself out.

In any case, perhaps my choice of words in "direct" vs. "common" may have been misleading. Nevertheless, my point, regardless of species relationships, is that H. antecessor COULD have been the prototypes for the Swamp Ape -- assuming that it is, indeed a human relative.

Subject:		Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From:		ronarch13	posted Mon, Dec 5 2005, 3:47am

You guys need to be careful, different species? Come on, we don't have AN example of a BF much less one of a skunk ape to compare. Using physical/geographical differences to base your claim of different species is reckless. Perhaps they are just different races, like we have different races. If we use your ideas than we would have a bunch of different species of humans, and since BF is a homnid, they should be treated the same way we treat ourselves.
They are a race of people, smart people. Smarter than us and better than any of us. They respect nature and are capable of more than any other ape or monkey. I don't care to speculate but as long as we are throwing ideas out there, THE TRUTH IS they are people. What seperates people from animals? The ability to reason. THey have shown me over the years I have been interacting with them they understand, and can communicate in a form I can understand (sometimes speech). I cannot go into more detail as it isn't time for that right now. I have a movie in the works and a book to write.
Fact is they are a real thing, they do exisit and are very smart to remain hidden from us. The people that get close to them, don't care to prove to the rest of humans they exisit because it is too much fun watching people run around and create nonsense, and put ourselves on pedastals, and think how brilliant we are.
They are not a dumb ape, and need to be treated as such. They will ONLY be proven to exisit when we figure out why they are hiding, and to do so we must get close FIRST.
I can speculate as well to their origins, they are the hunter-gatherer version of us, they developed differently, and live differently. When we started agriculture, they may have stayed behind as the hunter gatherer. We can learn a good deal from them on how to co-exisit with nature.
And bodies aren't found because they bury their dead. they have feelings for each other and understand death and right and wrong (maybe not to our understanding, but sometimes with more respect for each other). I have found a grave and dug it up, it was a BIG MISTAKE. Don't ever do such a thing, trust me bad things will happen, I will never touch anything like that again.
Ronster

Subject:		Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From:		Gerry Bacon	posted Mon, Dec 5 2005, 8:51am

What did you find in the grave? How will keeping your knowledge help us to understand them? If we don't understand them, how can we ever be expected to treat them correctly? If you have this knowledge, how are you helping them by keeping it to yourself?

Gerry

Subject:		Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From:		ronarch13	posted Tue, Dec 6 2005, 2:46am

Gerry,
The grave was made, it was made of stone that was inter-locked. It was a 'built' structure. What was in the grave is still there, we had too many problems to take anything. The problems we were having is the BF were destroying our property, because we decicrated a grave. We fixed it and they stopped.
Treat them as you want to be treated, respect the Earth, and don't take things for granted. They are people, only something smart can remain hidden for as long as they have. I think the movie and book will be a good start to get the word out.
Ronster

Subject:		Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From:		Gerry Bacon	posted Wed, Dec 7 2005, 3:33pm

Where was the grave at? What type of habitat? Can you describe what you found in the grave? Can you describe the 'problems' you were having with the bigfoot after you found the grave? What did you do to 'fix it'? Can you give us a drawing or photo of the grave, how the rocks were interlocked? Can you sketch what you found in the grave?

Gerry

Subject:		Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From:		Brad	posted Wed, Dec 7 2005, 3:48pm

Subject:		Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From:		scmarlowe	posted Tue, Dec 13 2005, 8:43pm

Well, BF isn't exactly mainstream. So I guess I'm guilty.

But then, there are anthropologists in these parts that think Louis Leakey was off is rocker too. And, buy connection his protoges -- Dion Fossey and Jane Goodall.

The "mainstream" also considered the Earth to be flat at one time.

Close Window