Cryptozoology forums > Cryptids > Hominids > view thread
Subject: Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From: Mngwa posted Mon, Dec 5 2005, 4:14am 
Hi, Scott.

I think all of my questions can basically be answered with the clarification of three concepts, since most of the rest of my questions stem from these.

First, is your theory that the Platyrrhines evolved from an anthropoid that migrated to North America during the Eocene when Europe and North America were connected or is it that they began evolving independently on North America from an even earlier common, primitive ancestor? Initially I thought the former, but then I failed to see what bearing Dr. Bloch’s find (even though I don’t know what that is) of a primitive prosimian in Utah could have on the theory.

Second, is your theory on the presence of New World apes that they evolved from an early ancestral ape that migrated to North America in the Eocene (making them distant cousins of Old World apes) or is it that they evolved convergently and independently from Old World apes as an off-shoot of the Platyrrhines in the same way Old World apes are an off-shoot of the Catarrhines?

I looked at Matt Ellis’s illustrations of the skunk ape as described by the witness on the Pangaea Institute website. My first thought was that it looked like a Platyrrhinian and my second thought was of DeLoy’s ape (I've never been convinced that it's a spider monkey). I’m a little confused by the allusion and comparison to Homo habilis in the article, however. Was this done to offer a Homo sp. as a possible ancestor or to illustrate the possibility of close convergent evolution in New World apes? If the purpose is to propose a potential Homo ancestor for the swamp ape, isn’t that counter-argumentative to the proposal of a separate lineage and convergent evolution of apes in the New World, as it implies that hominids in North America arrived via a North American-Asian land bridge at a much later date than the European-North American land bridge that you propose?

Maybe I misunderstood your intent, and you're trying to throw out a number of alternatives that have merit, which I can agree with. I've spent the past several days throwing around all the possibilities in my mind and all of them have potential and make sense both within the known fossil record and paleogeography, if I'm understanding you correctly. Matt Ellis's picture is really what I was looking for when I posted the topic, but I'm finding the entire discussion of variant theories of primate evolution interesting.

Mngwa
Subject: Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From: scmarlowe posted Mon, Dec 5 2005, 9:53am 
Yes, I'm proposing a number of scenerios that could have resulted in the Swamp Ape as a separate and distinct creature from the hairy biped known collectively as "Bigfoot".

My personal perspective is that the Swamp Ape evolved from a European/North African progenitor that existed prior to the geological event that created the North American continent.

Alternatively, a creature that migrated here from South America (De Loys) along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. This would fit established migratory patterns of the Pleistocene which resulted in peccaries in Florida for example and my friend, the jaguarundi. The trek of coyote into the Florida fauna in contemporary times also tends to suggest this path.

However, I leave room for a totally separate evolutionary path originating on the North American continent (Dr. Bloch's primate).

In all these cases, fossil evidence is likely to be meager due to the ice age glaciation which wiped out much of the physical evidence science might have otherwise found on the North American continent and the changing sea levels that impacted the animal's swampland habitat. In other words, more fossil evidence that we could have in support of these ideas is now laying on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.

All of these possibilities seem like viable scenerios to me, however the fossil record is still too incomplete to call any one of them a "theory" at this time. They really form more of an informal hypothesis that requires more testing before being offered as a formal scientific conclusion.

Remember, my standing is that science is a group effort. I'm proposing a number of possibilities that my colleagues and I can ponder and use as a basis to gather and analyze evidence.

I might also add that the idea of Bigfoot representing more than one creature isn't new. I believe that Loren Coleman and others have so proposed in their past work. My purpose is to suggest a biological and anthropological rationale to form a basis for these concepts as possible -- if not very likely -- to explain the existance of this animal.
Subject: Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From: Redwolf posted Mon, Dec 5 2005, 5:09pm 
Hey, I'd love to talk about classification and human evolution but is that the problem at hand? Does H. antecessor, heidelbergensis, or florensis have any thing to do with BF, let alone Eocene primates?

The reason for a possible species difference between the Swamp Ape and BF seems to be in the tracks. Some Swamp Apes have three toes. I have seen some casts from Louisana and they look almost dinosaur. Of course, that is impossible but shouldn't we be considering possible three toed animals? The only one I know which would fit the bill is a sloth. Large ground sloths evolved in South America and came North. We have three large species at the Rancho La Brea tar pits and there were many more. These animals had really odd feet which might very well leave a three-toed mark in soft soil. Sloths love water and are still found in southern swamps. What do you think?
Subject: Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From: Mngwa posted Tue, Dec 6 2005, 3:53am 
Hey, I'd love to talk about classification and human evolution ...

Then relax and enjoy the discussion.

Does H. antecessor, heidelbergensis, or florensis have any thing to do with BF, let alone Eocene primates?

Though the thread has gone into far more detail then what I originally intended, all the above may or may not have a thing to do with BF. And yes, this would include ancestral Eocene primates. I fail to see how the ancestry of the swamp ape or BF could not be relevant to the creature.

The reason for a possible species difference between the Swamp Ape and BF seems to be in the tracks. Some Swamp Apes have three toes. I have seen some casts from Louisana and they look almost dinosaur. Of course, that is impossible but shouldn't we be considering possible three toed animals? The only one I know which would fit the bill is a sloth. Large ground sloths evolved in South America and came North. We have three large species at the Rancho La Brea tar pits and there were many more. These animals had really odd feet which might very well leave a three-toed mark in soft soil. Sloths love water and are still found in southern swamps. What do you think?

IMO, ground sloth tracks look more like an artiodactyl track, as can be seen in the Megatherium track half way down this page on the right. A much more logical explanation for three toed tracks would be the genetic disorder of syndactylism in a genetically isolated population of swamp apes.

Mngwa
Subject: Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From: Redwolf posted Fri, Dec 9 2005, 10:33am 
Earth calling Mngwa, please, let's return to planet earth. On earth, is there any evidence for any other species of Homo in the New World other than H. sapiens? If so, you do have a scoop for us but if not, that discussion is far-fetched speculation. Eocene primates, at their most advanced, would look like today's lemers, not anything remotely ape-like. I guess I didn't make the ground sloth point well but there were MANY species of sloth in the New World. That is where sloths evolved. Next time you see one on TV, count the digets, please. The last pathogenic argument made to explain primate remains was made by Vikrow and Boule concerning Neanderthals. You know how that went, right? Since that time and that mistake, we assume anything found is representative of the population under study. If we did otherwise, we would be classifying malformed-deformed-mutants all the way to Hollywood. I forget, did you make the assumption that inbreeding caused five toes to be reduced to three? If so, please show me something, somewhere in which diget reduction was caused by inbreeding. And then please briefly outline BF mating patterns so that we can all see this inbreeding. The fact is that we have no idea what BF mating patterns are. The is all simply very sophmoristic, make-believe, psudo-primatology.
Subject: Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From: Mngwa posted Sat, Dec 10 2005, 11:20am 
No need to be concerned, I’m grounded on Earth quite well, thank you.

Now, on your understanding of primate evolution, please pay attention. The Strepsirhines and Haplorhines were well differentiated by the mid-Eocene, and the lineages that led to the two modern infraorders of anthropoid primates, the Catarrhines and Platyrrhines (which belong to the Haplorhines and appeared in the early Oligocene), appear to have diverged from each other at latest somewhere in the late Eocene, but more likely earlier, in the mid Eocene. At least one anthropoid primate, Eosimias, is known from the Eocene. Now granted their physical appearance may not have been completely modern, but the bloodlines had been established. I’m not going to argue if you find data disagreeing somewhat with what I’ve written here. Primate evolution has never been my strong point and is constantly in a state of flux, I’ll admit, and I’m not up to date on all the latest discoveries, but by the end of the Eocene primates were no longer the simple, undifferentiated prosimians that you state. If you are going to presume to correct someone, please have at least a basic understanding of the material.

Please quote me from above where I stated there was any solid evidence of any other species of Homo, or any species of ape for that matter, in North America? I was simply asking Scott for some clarification on his ideas on the origin of New World primates.

As for my point on syndactyly, assuming that BF or the swamp ape exists, it isn’t a far stretch to surmise that genetically isolated populations would have enhanced occurrences of genetic disorders, syndactyly among them. I’m not claiming nor did I claim that all swamp apes or BF in a population would exhibit these traits, as you imply, thus your reference to Boule and his reconstruction of Neanderthals as bestial beings is irrelevant as he referred to an entire species. All in all, it’s far less of a stretch than the idea of the continued existence of an extant population of ground sloths in North America.

Now let's talk about that "far-fetched speculation".

There are sightings of BF and swamp apes. There are tracks that have been cast and photographed. There is hair that does not match known primates. Show me one example of a sighting of a ground sloth in the United States, and please don’t include the ridiculous sightings of tailless bipedal sloths unless you’re willing to provide a logical evolutionary mechanism to explain how a situationally bipedal edentate with a prominent tail became a tailless, fully bipedal primate-like creature in a mere 10,000 years. Show me one casting of a track that looks like a ground sloth track and not like a deformed human footprint, an alligator track or the track of a large wading bird. Show me one picture of an alleged ground sloth, no matter how blurry it is. You were quick to erroneously jump on my case about primate evolution, I suspect it was due to the precarious defensive position you have placed yourself in by proposing a ground sloth as the source of three toed tracks and no way to support that claim even with allegorical evidence. The fallacy of an extant ground sloth in North America makes any claims of hominids, even ones with syndactyly, tame in comparison. Talk about pseudo-zoology!

Oh, and by the way, I’m familiar with edentate evolution and the origin of ground sloths. No need for an explanation, especially if your understanding there is no better than your understanding of primate evolution.

For some reason you seem to have taken offense to a thread that was discussing possibilities. Nobody claimed that anything stated was intended to be other than hypothetical. You acted offended by the topic from the moment you first posted. If you didn’t like the topic, there was no need to rag on it, you could very well have ignored it and presented your sloth theory in a non-condescending manner or just moved along without comment.

Mngwa
Subject: Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From: Redwolf posted Thu, Dec 15 2005, 11:28am 
Mngwa,

1. You dug yourself a huge hole with the "Eocene" coment and you have not emerged yet. Citing Platyrrhine monkeys only dug you deeper. Small body size, 36 teeth, bilophodaunt dentition and a prehensile tail are not characteristics we are looking for here. You have no intermediary forms leading from these tiny primates to BF. What you are looking for happened in the Oligocene with the Dryopithicines but, if you check, these are Cat. not Plat. and, of course, all Old World animals.

2. Reduction of digets through inbreeding never happened in primates as you now know. That theory is just total bunk. There is a human mutation by which digets are added and it does appear in some families but it has nothing to do with inbreeding, in fact, instances have occurred in rather large populations.

3. So, we are left with your imaginary Eocene primate, somehow sheding his Platyrrhine character and becoming, not only Cat. but ape. Or we are left with a known type of creature, the sloth, which inhabited exactly this environment, had many, many species to choose from--among these giant forms, which were with us not 25 million years ago but 11,000 years ago. In fact sloths are still with us today and in the southern USA in I am not mistaken.

4. I don't remember saying anything about "tailess", maybe I am wrong.

5. There is evidence for this although I have no source. Years ago a TV program featured a forest ranger from Louisana who researched this topic all his working life. He made casts among other things. His casts were all three-toed and the toes looked claw-like. I don't know if these were front or rear legs but some where sliding as if for propulsion. This forest ranger, a state or federal employee, believed them to have been made by a sloth.

6. "Hostility"? How can I let you go on and on making unfounded statements as if you are some sort of authority? This "authority" disease seems to be endemic here. This is Cryptozoology.com and as a "science" it is my duty to challenge this sort of lack of rigor. Sorry, Mngwa, nothing personal I assure you.
Subject: Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From: Mngwa posted Thu, Dec 15 2005, 5:11pm 
1. You dug yourself a huge hole with the "Eocene" coment and you have not emerged yet. Citing Platyrrhine monkeys only dug you deeper. Small body size, 36 teeth, bilophodaunt dentition and a prehensile tail are not characteristics we are looking for here... What you are looking for happened in the Oligocene with the Dryopithicines but, if you check, these are Cat. not Plat. and, of course, all Old World animals

Not exactly. Here is one source, how many more would you like? Please note the timelines. Please note, I stated the lineages that led to these infraorders appear to have diverged in the late Eocene at the latest and everything I can find backs that up. I agree the first definite Platyrrhine (Branisella bolivianus, I believe) currently known from the fossil record shows up in the Oligocene. I readily admit that various sources will give timelines that vary to a degree. I readily admit the fossil record is incomplete. Do a Google search, there are any number of articles out there that put the time of the split between the Catarrhine and Platyrrrhine lineages at 35-45 MYA. The Oligocene started 35 MYA. In addition to Eosimias, other possible early anthropoids include Pondaungia and Amphipithecus from Burma (44-40 MYA) and Algeripithecus and Tabelia from Algeria (50 - 46 MYA). Even if they are not true anthropoids, as their actual classification is still debated, they are close enough to leave doubt of their classification and illustrate that by the end of the Eocene, primates were no longer limited to "simple" prosimians, and ultimately THAT was my counterpoint to your statement on Eocene primates.

You have no intermediary forms leading from these tiny primates to BF.

No one anywhere in this thread stated anything about any proof of any intermediary forms leading to BF. That portion of the thread was hypothetical discussion and NO ONE claimed otherwise. How many times do I have to explain that?

2. Reduction of digets through inbreeding never happened in primates as you now know. That theory is just total bunk. There is a human mutation by which digets are added and it does appear in some families but it has nothing to do with inbreeding, in fact, instances have occurred in rather large populations.

I DO NOT now know that. As a matter of fact, I work with a gentleman who has fused fingers, the index and middle fingers (though not necessarily via inbreeding), a.k.a. syndactyly. "Syndactyly is the term for joined fingers. This abnormality is one of the more common congenital deformities, occurring in approximately 1in 2000 births. It can occur in hands and/or feet. It is a little commoner in boys. In about one third of cases, there is another member of the family with the same condition. Most are 'simple' but some are part of more complex deformities of the hand." (Source of quote- http://www.pncl.co.uk/~belcher/syndacty.htm) So, why can’t syndactyly happen in primates? And why not in primates other than humans? Please quote a source, so I can tell Stuart that his fingers aren’t fused.

4. I don't remember saying anything about "tailess", maybe I am wrong.

5. There is evidence for this although I have no source. Years ago a TV program featured a forest ranger from Louisana who researched this topic all his working life. He made casts among other things. His casts were all three-toed and the toes looked claw-like. I don't know if these were front or rear legs but some where sliding as if for propulsion. This forest ranger, a state or federal employee, believed them to have been made by a sloth.

You remember correctly, you said nothing about tailless, but the only sloth "sighting" I’ve ever seen (maybe it was two, I only clearly remember one) was of a tailless, bipedal sloth. Anyways, again, provide sources, please, or your arguments hold absolutely no water and you are better off not weakening your position further by pushing that argument to the forefront.

6. "Hostility"? How can I let you go on and on making unfounded statements as if you are some sort of authority? This "authority" disease seems to be endemic here. This is Cryptozoology.com and as a "science" it is my duty to challenge this sort of lack of rigor.

Unfounded statements, not exactly. I may not be an authority and never claimed to be, but I'm not ignorant on the subject, either. Your duty? If you’re going to challenge, back yourself up with sources, and read the entire comment rather than taking bits out of context to support your own agenda.

Sorry, Mngwa, nothing personal I assure you.

No? Then why aren’t you taking any of this up with Scott Marlowe? It was his ideas and statements that I was asking for clarification of, including "...ape-like primates appeared at a time when the North American and European continents were conjoined..." (quoted from Scott from one of his posts above). Now, IIRC the last European-North American land bridge occurred in the Eocene, but as far as I can recall primitive apes didn’t appear to the Oligocene. I never claimed to be an authority, so I’ll take Scott’s word, until I know otherwise. He may very well have a better understanding of the whole thing than I do and is probably aware of information I’m not. However, since you are an authority, it is your self-appointed duty to call him on it, isn’t it? And if you’re not going to call Scott on anything yet continue to try to call me on various points (some of which I only posted in an attempt to clarify Scott’s posts, not as any original idea of my own), then perhaps its time we just let this thread die gracefully.

And as for the "authority" disease being endemic around here, there are a number of people around here who have a good background in the sciences. There are a number who are very good in their fields. There are a number of people with a good deal of intelligence and common sense without any credentials that you personally may feel are sufficient enough to qualify their views. Personally I enjoy the variety and the differing perspectives. If you don't like it here, no one is making you come back.

Mngwa
Subject: Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From: Redwolf posted Fri, Dec 16 2005, 10:31am 
Mngwa,

Since you have provided no intermeditary evidence between you "postulated" Eocene primate and BF, I think we have put that puppy to bed. It is just as you say speculation and such fantastic speculation that I am surprised you didn't inject space aliens as a source for BF.

Fused digets doesn't constitue diget loss, the topic at hand. Again, you lose.

You know, Mngwa, my point with you is that you have to pass a logic threshold before before rebutal can begin. Your "Eocene, inbreeding diget-loss" producing BF doesn't pass a logic test.

Thank you for suggesting I persue other individuals which you think show even less logic than yourself. I will consider this on a case by case basis if you don't mind.

Also, I do appreciate your invitation to leave as you can't handle a simple, basic challenge to your now unraveling ideas. Is that a debate tactic which is common here at crypto.com?

What I propose with the sloth hypothesis is speculation. But there is a world of difference between you "speculation" which has no basis in biology, anthropology, genetics, no basis in the distribution of primates, no basis at all, and my suggestion that the three-toes BF might be a sloth. This is an idea which you have not touched even though it is just that, an idea and a speculative idea. I am again disappointed.

If you chose to become personally insulted when someone challenges you, well, there is little I can do about that but that is your problem and I will let you work that one out by yourself.
Subject: Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From: Mngwa posted Fri, Dec 16 2005, 11:44pm 
You're right, this is over. You have continually taken comments out of context, misinterpreted what I've written either intentionally or through an inability to comprehend it, and jumped from topic to topic without rebutting my points or supporting your own with any kind of reliable source to support your position in either arguments or counterarguments. Misdirection is an ineffective way to prevail in a debate, redwolf. You have directed your "challenge" in a haphazard manner to me alone about topics that I clearly said were hypothetical and to which other members of the forum were party. You refuse to separate the hypothetical possibilities from the science that was used to derive them. Then you have the audacity to claim that my logic and knowledge are lacking while claiming your own hypothesis is solid from a scientific standpoint.

You begin your first reply calling me back to earth, and expect me not to be defensive? I'll take care of my own attitude, redwolf, you need to take care of yours.

Mngwa
Subject: Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From: Redwolf posted Sat, Dec 17 2005, 1:44pm 
Mngwa,

You are still not back to earth. Again, and for the last time, show me any sequence, in fossils, linking Eocene primates to BF. If not, have the decency to drop it. And again, if you have any genetic evidence linking diget reduction in any primate to inbreeding, present it or have the decency to drop it.

You came up with these ideas, not me. It is you who have to defend them. Nobody has ever linked Eocene primates to BF, this is your baby, completely. And the only time I have ever heard the inbreeding-diget reduction for BF was some guy from Texas who obviously didn't have any education in real science and who stated this idea on television. This guy should have been challenged by the biologist also on the program but wasn't. Now, you have picked up the torch and are spewing this dribble. If you don't think I am going to challenge this until utterly discredited, well, you are crazy.

If I have taken your words out of context, then restate your position, but this time explain it or document it so that it doesn't appear to be the rubbish that it is so far. And so far, it is so baseless and unfounded that any rebutal would be imprecise other than to attack your basic logic.

Look, Mngwa, if you even find enough Eocene primate fossil material to fill a shoe box, I would be very surprised. If you want to try to explain BF using this as evidence in any introductory anthro. course, even when the guy teaching believes in BF, you would be laughed right out of the classroom.

You can beleive anything you want, its a free country, but if you post such inaccuracies, expect a challenge from me now and each and every time you do so.
Subject: Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From: Mngwa posted Wed, Dec 21 2005, 10:44am 
show me any sequence, in fossils, linking Eocene primates to BF

No one ever claimed that any existed. Scott threw out some alternative hypothetical possibilities for the evolution of New World primates, I asked for clarification on those ideas and the next thing I know here we are. Obviously, all primates evolved from Eocene primates at some level, but I never (and I don't believe Scott did) claimed that anything about these possibilities was supported in the fossil records or that any of it was more than hypothetical. You're acting like someone claimed it was fact.

You came up with these ideas, not me. It is you who have to defend them. Nobody has ever linked Eocene primates to BF, this is your baby, completely.

No. You have continued to state that these ideas were mine, but I cannot accept credit for them. I merely asked Scott Marlowe for clarification, stating the ideas as I understood them, and you decided I authored them. For the fourth or fifth time, read the entire thread completely and maybe it will sink in. I will not entertain any more foolishness on this. I understand the premise for each of these ideas very well, but I’m not going to attempt to explain any of them as you continue to combine this theoretical discussion with the next issue you have, which you incited with inaccurate statements. If you have any further questions or comments on this issue, ask Scott Marlowe what he and the other scientists who have been researching primate evolution used as a basis for these ideas.

even find enough Eocene primate fossil material to fill a shoe box

This entire issue started with your statement that Eocene primates were nothing more than simple prosimians. There is a fair amount of primate fossil material from the Eocene, enough to estimate the appearance of post-orbital closure to app. 40 MYA. Enough to give a reasonable estimate on the timing of the appearance of anthropoids (Eosimias, possibly others from the mid-Eocene in Myanmar) and more than enough to give a picture of primate radiation. Enough to determine that Notharctids traveled between North America and Europe, with at least one genus (Smilodectes) possibly appearing on both continents. You stated I dug myself a hole from which I could not emerge when I stated that the Platyrrhine and Catarrhine lineages appeared to diverge in the mid to late Eocene, yet Goodman, et al. (1998) puts the last common ancestor of the two infraorders at 40 MYA. There is a lot more out there and it is recorded in the literature. Where do you think I got it? Do you really think that I’m that imaginative or that I’m going to discredit myself by posting nonsense when I know better? You may find something in which another theory is offered, at which point I will again willingly admit that there are other interpretations out there, although I have already conceded that is a possibility. To this point, you haven’t even bothered to provide a single conflicting source, yet you tell me that I’m spouting nonsense.

You have yet to counter any points on this issue with contradicting sources.

Those are my positions on Scott’s and my discussion of the hypothetical evolution of primates (again, of which I had asked clarification from Scott on his ideas rather than composing any of them on my own) on one hand, and on what is scientifically-supported on primate evolution on the other. This is what you continually take out of context; you combine my rebuttals on these two issues when you rebut my points, even though I have again and again clearly stated that there are two separate issues at hand, one purely hypothetical and one scientific.

And the only time I have ever heard the inbreeding-diget reduction for BF was some guy from Texas who obviously didn't have any education in real science and who stated this idea on television. This guy should have been challenged by the biologist also on the program but wasn't.

You have not offered a single source to support your claim that syndactyly cannot occur in primates outside of humans nor have you supported your ground sloth hypothesis with even one circumstantial piece of evidence. Once again, I cannot accept credit for proposing syndactyly as an explanation for three-toed footprints, as you seem to believe. I believe Chester Moore has proposed the syndactyly concept, though I’m not positive it originated with him. If you choose to call him a crackpot then that is your right. A two second web search led me to references to syndactylism occuring in gorillas, gibbons, rhesus monkeys and tamarins in addition to humans. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence available for BF and swamp apes and syndactyly does occur in multiple species of primates. I’ve offered a counter argument to your ground sloth proposal, it is up to you to rebut that and to support your proposal. An obscure TV documentary that you can’t recall the title of with a game warden whose name you can’t remember just doesn’t cut it. No matter how invalid you personally find the syndactyly argument, you haven’t shut it down. And I didn't even begin to address the visible impact that a population of large, relatively slow and not especially graceful herbivores requiring a large amount of foliage to sustain themselves would have on any environment.

Once again, thank you for your concern, but I’m grounded on Earth quite well. I would suggest the use of spell check and/or a dictionary prior to posting. I believe you mean "drivel" when you use "dribble" and "diget" is actually spelled "digit". I can handle criticism and challenge quite well when they are intelligently corresponded in a logical sequence. You’ve not proven that I’ve posted any inaccuracies, yet you claim it is your "duty" to point out unscientific blather and threaten "but if you post such inaccuracies, expect a challenge from me now and each and every time you do so." You have yet to effectively challenge anything I’ve posted with other than insults and mockery. I would suggest that you are careful that you don’t become one of those "endemic authorities" that you complained about here at CZ.com, because at this point that is how you appear, and not a very knowledgeable one at that. Honestly, I have come to the conclusion that you are either:

A. Totally unable and/or unwilling to comprehend and differentiate the conversations in this thread and are unwilling to try to learn something or help someone else learn something (if you truly do have conflicting information), i.e. that you are effectively hampered with your own "expertise", or:

B. Do have some knowledge of the topic and are looking for an irritating argument for entertainment purposes at someone else’s expense. If this is the case, I believe the applicable term is "trolling".

You want to insult me and question my integrity. Fine. I’m not wasting any more time. I’ve clarified the issues. I’ve given you more than enough to research and find counterpoints to on my points on primate evolution and you won’t provide conflicting sources. You won’t support your ground sloth theory with even circumstantial evidence that anyone else on the site or I can inspect and from which make our own determinations. You won’t provide a solid reason why a genetic disorder that occurs in humans, gorillas and other primates is less likely an explanation for three-toed tracks than a giant sloth, and you won’t provide a logical reason why that disorder could not possibly occur in another, unknown, higher primate. You refuse to ask Scott Marlowe for clarification of those hypothetical ideas on primate evolution. Take me to task anytime you see fit, redwolf, but you need to realize you haven’t effectively done so here.

You will have your last chance to rebut me with more insults and you will get the final word in this thread when you rebut this, as I will not be replying. I'm not wasting any more time on insults and unsupported accusations of my integrity while you avoid supporting your position by attacking my posts.

Take care and Merry Christmas, redwolf, and I do mean that sincerely.

Mngwa
Subject: Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From: scmarlowe posted Tue, Dec 13 2005, 8:47pm 
Many of the three-toed tracks I've seen from Florida are most likely composited imprints. In other words, a three-toed creature made the initial impression and then a human or other animal stepped in the track giving the impression of a single track.

Others are clearly faked.

It's possible, however improbable, that Chester Moore is right and credible three-toe tracks are from inbread animals where the genetic pool is getting shallow.
Subject: Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From: Mngwa posted Tue, Dec 6 2005, 4:17am 
...is still too incomplete to call any one of them a "theory" at this time...

LOL, you are correct, of course. In my defense, I don't always think clearly after graveyards, especially when I've had to be out in sub-zero weather. It was -4 the night before last and -18 with a -36 wind chill factor last night. I got off at 6 AM and I'm still shivering after a couple of cups of hot apple cider and a hot shower.

The possibilities are intriguing, thanks for the clarification, Scott.

Another question for you. I've read reports from Florida and other parts of the south that seem to differ from each other. Some describe a more traditional BF, as I've labeled them in this discussion, and others describe a creature with features similar to the Ellis illustration. Have you encountered this from reliable witnesses? Do you think there may be more than one species of unknown ape in the southeast?

Loren Coleman has proposed multiple species of unknown primates in North America, and maybe others have as well. I'm not opposed entirely to the concept of multiple species; I am opposed to the idea that there are dozens of unknown extant primate species native to North America. Based on similar physical descríptions by witnesses, I find the explanation of regional physical variations or at best subspecies of one to three species to be much more elegant in its logic and simplicity.

Mngwa
Subject: Re: Swamp Ape a Different Species than BF?
From: scmarlowe posted Tue, Dec 13 2005, 12:38pm 
No, I don't believe there are "dozens", but from the reliable eyewitness accounts, I suspect there are two species.

One seems to favor the gulf coast and the other (more BF like) appears to favor the eastern coast.

Most all of the detailed reports coming from the west coast support that the creature has features resembling Matt Ellis' illustration -- some as far away from us as Louisianna.

My own sighting in Orlando and others from the east coast appear more BF-like with a higher forehead -- but little or now saggital crest. That -- as you know -- could be related to diet. The saggital crest anchors strong chewing muscles which may not be necessary for the creature here as it would likely be in other areas of the US and Canada.


Close Window