Atlantis Online

Science Fiction & Fantasy => King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Mountain Gorilla => Topic started by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:45:04 am



Title: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:45:04 am
Stacy Dohm
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2189

Member Rated:
5    Icon 1 posted 09-04-2005 09:04 PM      Profile for Stacy Dohm     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Here's my somewhat belated entry into the Halloween celebration we're having here. I say "belated," but hey, Halloween's still two months away!

Here, we'll basically be looking at all the things I mentioned above, as well as Yeti, Sasquatch and man's evolution from the apes. It's a very ambitious thread! Hopefully, I'll be motivated enough to keep continuing it.

--------------------
"All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream." - Edgar Allen Poe
Posts: 341 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged |


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:46:51 am
(http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/bigape.jpg)

http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/bigape.htm

Gigantopithecus was the largest of the primates.
During the Pleistocene Era (1.8 million to 10,000 years ago) large mammals ruled the Earth. One of these mammals was the great ape Gigantopithecus.

Gigantopithecus is known to have lived in what is now China and Southeast Asia. (In fact he was discovered, by Professor Gustav von Koenigswald, when the professor bought a set of fossil teeth from a Chinese druggist selling what he claimed were "dragon's teeth" for medicinal purposes.)

Gigantopithecus was the largest primate that ever walked the Earth. He would have risen 9 to 10 feet high if he choose to stand up on only his hind legs, and probably weighed about 600 lbs (A few scientists suggest the largest of the males might have weighted almost 1,200 lbs.). In comparison, the largest gorilla stands only 6 feet tall and weighs about 300 to 400 lbs.

Both todays gorilla and Gigantopithecus probably used their arms and knuckles to move about in quadrupedal fashion. Though Gigantopithecus sounds like a terror he probably was a very gentle and retiring vegetarian, if we can use Mountain Gorilla behavior as a guide. Gorilla's, despite inaccurate stories about them, are fairly shy creatures that only put on aggressive displays of chestbeating and snarling when their territory is threatened.

Gigantopithecus actually arose before the start of the Pleistocene Era (perhaps 13 million years ago) and went extinct about halfway through (500,000 years ago) the ice age before the other giant mammals did. Exactly why he went extinct is unknown, but it probably was due to changes in the climate to which Gigantopithecus was not able to adapt.

Some suggest that Gigantopithecus is not extinct, but is hiding in remote areas of the Himalaya Mountains or the forests of North-West America. Could a Gigantopithecus, or his descendants, be the source of the Yeti or Bigfoot tales?


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:47:42 am
HOW GIGANTOPITHECUS WAS DISCOVERED

In 1935, German paleontologist Ralph von Koenigswald came across an unusually large molar while looking through fossil teeth in a Hong Kong pharmacy. He realized that the tooth belonged to a new primate species, which he named Gigantopithecus blacki. Over the next four years, Von Koenigswald searched many more pharmacies, finding just three more Giganto teeth. The pharmacists told him that the teeth had probably come from a region called Guangxi. Based on the dirt clinging to the teeth and the fact that their roots had apparently been gnawed away by porcupines, he inferred that they probably came from cave deposits. Since the Giganto teeth were mixed in with middle-Pleistocene elephant and panda fossils, von Koenigswald estimated their age at 125,000 to 700,000 years.


These days, scientists looking for Giganto dig in the caves and limestone towers of Southeast Asia.

Von Koenigswald's researches were interrupted when he was taken prisoner by the Japanese in World War II. His collection of Giganto teeth (at the time, the only existing evidence of the giant ape) were buried in a milk bottle in a friend's backyard for safekeeping until the war was over.

Chinese apothecaries have been using powdered fossils in medicine for thousands of years. They buy the fossils (which they call dragon bones) from farmers who find them in caves. Many potential fossil sites in China have already been picked clean by peasants looking for dragon bones; this is one of the reasons UI researcher Russ Ciochon chose to look for Giganto remains in nearby Vietnam instead of China.


FOSSIL SITES


THE GIGANTO DIET

Early in his Gigantopithecus investigations, Ciochon noticed similarities between the giant ape and the bamboo-eating giant panda. Both animals have thick mandibles, pitted teeth, and unusually high occurences of tooth decay. Ciochon knew that large herbivores tend to favor one type of plant, so he hypothesized that Giganto fed mainly on the plentiful bamboo of Southeast Asia.

There seemed to be no way to investigate Giganto's diet directly until Anthropology graduate student Robert Thompson mentioned phytoliths to Ciochon. Phytoliths are microscopic bits of silica formed by certain plants between their cells. Different kinds of plants form different phytolith shapes. Thompson knew that scanning electron microscopes had been used to check stone tools for phytoliths, and he suggested applying the technique to fossil Giganto teeth.




The SEM analysis revealed that some Giganto teeth do have phytoliths embedded in the enamel. Two types of phytoliths- needlelike grass phytoliths and hat-shaped fruit phytoliths- were found in the teeth. Several types of grass (including bamboo) have needlelike phytoliths, so the presence of these phytoliths is consistent with Ciochon's theory
SEM of fruit phytolith


THEORIES ABOUT THE GIANT APE'S EXTINCTION

Gigantopithecus appeared in the fossil record about 6.3 million years ago and thrived in Southeast Asia for five and half million years. Early humans, Homo erectus, spread into Giganto's territory about 800,000 years ago. Within half a million years of the arrival of these early humans, Giganto had gone extinct. Several factors probably contributed to Giganto's extinction:Bamboo forests are subject to mysterious die-offs every twenty to sixty years. Competition with giant pandas and the arrival of humans, who may also have eaten bamboo and used it to make tools, may have made it very difficult for Giganto to survive the die-offs.




CONSTRUCTION OF THE GIGANTO MODEL

The Giganto recreation was designed by University of Iowa paleoanthropologist Russell Ciochon and primate reconstructor Bill Munns. It is based on fossil jawbones and teeth collected from China and Vietnam.

Ciochon and Munns used their knowledge of the skull proportions of great apes to estimate the size and shape of Giganto's head. The body is patterned after two other huge terrestrial primates, the gorilla and the extinct baboon Theropithecus oswaldi. The orangutan was not used because they are arboreal, and Giganto is too large to be arboreal; the other two are ground-dwelling and therefore have an entirely different set of skeletal proportions. The golden fur color is borrowed from Giganto's close Asian relative, the orangutan.



The ten-foot size estimate is based on approximate head-to-skeleton ratios in primates. In humans that ratio is approximately 1:7; in Lucy, an early human, it was 1:8. Ciochon and Munns tried 1:7 and thought the result looked too small. They settled on 1:6.5. Though shocked by resulting huge size, the researchers believe their estimate is conservative.

Relative arm and leg size is based on the ratio of forelimbs to hindlimbs, also known as the intermembral index. In humans the ratio is approximatelty 70%; in orangs 134%. Munns split the difference between the gorilla and Theropithecus, yielding 108%.


http://www.uiowa.edu/~nathist/Site/giganto.html


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:49:01 am
Gigantopithecus
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

genus of large fossil ape, of which two species are known: Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis, which lived 6 to 9 million years ago in India, and Gigantopithecus blacki, which lived in China until at least 1 million years ago. These apes are known from teeth, lower jaw bones, and possibly a piece of distal humerus. They were large in size, perhaps larger than gorillas. They lived…

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9036789


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:49:48 am
Gigantopithecus was a genus of ape that existed from 9 to 5 million years ago in China and India. Gigantopithecus is the largest ape that ever lived. It was likely near ten feet tall and weighed from 700 to 1200 lbs — 2 to 3 times larger than gorillas. Some cryptozoologists have claimed that a race of very errant gigantopithecines are the legendary creature Bigfoot. An anthropology book notes that Gigantopithecus was alive as recently as 200,000 years before present era

Geologic Epoch: Miocene
Diet: herbivore
Locomotion: quadrupedal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:50:20 am
unknown
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2403

Member Rated:
4    Icon 1 posted 09-04-2005 09:38 PM      Profile for unknown     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  They might still be out there.

The Yeti...Big Foot...

--------------------
several species of small furry animals gathered together and grooving with a pict in a cave
Posts: 1756 | From: Pontiac, MI. Oakland | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged |


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:50:47 am
The Bigfoot-Giganto Hypothesis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
"Bigfoot research" is a term loosely used to describe any efforts to probe or explain the reports and physical evidence associated with bigfoots. Over the years several different theories have been offered. Some of the more common theories are: 1) fear manifestations, 2) misidentifications of bears, 3) paranormal / UFO-related, 4) the Collective-Memory hypothesis, 5) the Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis.

Bigfoot advocates as well as informed skeptics generally do not believe a hoax is responsible for this phenomenon, primarily because the observations extend so far back in time.

The patterns among eyewitnesses are not demographic, they are geographic -- they are not reported by certain types of people, rather by people who venture into certain areas. This simple pattern suggests an external cause.

No matter what that cause is, it is important to understand, and not just because of the potential behind the most likely explanation.

Bigfoot researchers generally lean toward one explanation: The Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis. The subject of Gigantopithecus has attracted an increasing amount of interest anthropologists and primatologitsts over the past few decades. The Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis suggests that bigfoots are surving relatives of the genus Gigantopithecus. Gigantopithecus (the Latin word for "Giant Ape") was a giant cousin of the orangutan. It was presumed to be extinct.

Click on the figure to the upper right to see a chart showing the place of Gigantos in primate evolution.

Bigfoot-Giganto theorists deal with a few issues that affect the potential linkage of modern bigfoot reports to ancient Gigantos. Probably the most crucial question concerns whether Gigantos walked upright. There is more than one school of thought among anthrolopogists regarding this issue. Some physical anthropologists interpret the scant fossilized remains to indicate an upright walking ape, measuring an impressive nine feet tall, and weighing more than 1000 pounds -- the general description of bigfoot type creatures reported for centuries in North America and Asia. Even if Giganto posture is uncertain, no one can reasonably dispute the conclusion that Gigantos were the largest primates that ever walked the earth.

Bigfoot-Giganto theorists believe that Gigantos' large brain size (perhaps the largest in the terrestrial animal kingdom) and upright-walking posture facilitated their dispersion across Asia and North America. Thousands of years of adaptation to temperate and mountainous climates, it is believed, would have given these large upright walking apes the ability to tolerate cold temperatures, climb through deep snow, and cross high mountain ranges with relative ease.

The figure to the left is a photo of a life-size Giganto reconstruction based on fossilized remains (click on the photo to see a larger version; the same reconstruction is pictured below with the sculptor showing its size relative to humans). The first photo is from the cover of a book about Gigantopithecus. The translation of the German title is "Why Did Giganto Have to Die?" (The original English version of the book is titled, "Other Origins".)

There is some physical evidence to indicate that Gigantos in Asia were hunted and eaten by Homo erectus (ancestors to humans that lived contemporaneously with Gigantos). The mainstream explanation for the apparent disappearance of Gigantos lays blame primarily on this predation by Homo erectus. Bigfoot-Giganto theorists do not accept the idea that a highly mobile genus like Gigantopithecus could have been completely wiped out by Homo erectus. Instead they look to consistencies in present day bigfoot reports and see the necessary behavioral adaptations which would have allowed the Giganto line to avoid extinction at the hands of man.

Bigfoots are typically sighted in or near remote wooded, mountainous, or swampy areas. They are rarely seen far from the cover of trees. If they encounter humans during daylight hours they tend to retreat and vanish into the forest. They seem to be most active when humans are least active -- late at night. Unlike mountain gorillas, bigfoots are never seen in large groups, and they don't stay in the same place for very long.

The ellusiveness of these modern mystery animals may stem from their bad experiences with pre-humans in Asia.

The Hypothesis
Over the past 500,000 years hominids gradually emerged from the thickest forests and began to organize into more stationary settlements. Gigantos remained semi-nomadic in the thick forests. Small family groups of Gigantos were widely dispersed in these forests. This dispersal provided more reliable foraging. It also made quick, quiet evasion much easier.

Small Giganto families of 2-4 wandered nomadically through vast forests. The territories were usally remote, but sometimes bordered human settled areas. After thousands of generations they developed some amazing evasion/defense mechanisms and behaviors, including night vision abilities. They also developed powerful vocal abilities, which allowed them to locate and interact with others of their kind. They made powerfully loud screams and howls that could be heard for miles in the dead of night. Late hours allowed them to avoid various undesirables: human dangers, overheating, water loss, and the worst insects. The night time vocalizations, and occassional tracks, were usually the only things noted by humans in the area.

The most commonly heard argument against the Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis is that "we should have found their bones in North America by now..." This argument is, in fact, weak when one considers that very few remains of Gigantos have ever been found in Asia, where they were much more abundant. Tens of thousands of years of Gigantos' accepted existence is Asia would have produced literally millions of Giganto skeletons, yet the volume of collected remains from Asia is so small that the entire collection could fit easily in one suitcase.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:51:54 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


One flavor of the Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis suggests that bigfoots might not be direct descendants of the genus Gigantopithecus, but rather some other offshoot of the giant Asian "wood ape" line, perhaps a line for which we have zero fossils remains at the present time. The Giganto line is an important reference point for this alternate explanation for two reasons: 1) the Giganto line illustrates the potential for primates to grow to such 'gigantic' proportions (twice as large as the largest 'known' living primate), and 2) the fact that so few remains of Gigantos have been unearthed and identified makes it more conceivable that there could have been other lines of giant Asian wood apes for which we have no fossil remains at the present time.

People often assume that bones of a wild animal are present and available long after the animal's death. Many people assume that wild animal bones always become fossilized. The fact is bones become fossilized or otherwise preserved only in the rarest of circumstances. Without fossilization or preservation, bones of wild animals will, in time, become completely reabsorbed into the biomass. We would literally be climbing over piles of animal bones if they were not naturally recycled. An animal carcass in a dense forest will be reabsorbed relatively quickly through weathering, decay and scavenging by other animals and insects. The odds are very very poor that bones of a rare, elusive, forest dwelling species will be found in some recognizable form by a hiker cruising along a trail.

No research group has ever made an attempt to look for Giganto bones in North America, so no one should be surprised that Giganto remains have never been identified in North America. Ironically, the most vocal skeptics and scientists who rhetorically ask why no bones have been located and identified on this continent are the last people who would ever make an effort to look for them. Some Bigfoot-Giganto theorists speculate that fragmentary remains of Gigantos have been unearthed in North America in the past but were simply disregarded or misidentified.

The second most common argument against the Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis asks " Why haven't hunters shot one in North America yet ? ..." The reasons are more obvious than most people might realize, and there's enough of them to make a separate article on that topic.

The third most common argument against the Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis asks " Why aren't there more photos of these modern Gigantos ? ..." This question is also addressed in a separate article.

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/whatrtha.asp


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:52:21 am
The Bigfoot-Giganto Theory

Background

"Bigfoot research" is a term loosely used to describe any efforts to probe or explain the reports and physical evidence associated with bigfoots. Over the years several different theories have been offered. Some of the more common theories are: 1) fear manifestations, 2) misidentifications of bears, 3) paranormal / UFO-related, 4) the Collective-Memory hypothesis, 5) the Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis.

Bigfoot advocates as well as informed skeptics generally do not believe a hoax is responsible for this phenomenon, primarily because the observations extend so far back in time.

The patterns among eyewitnesses are not demographic, they are geographic -- they are not reported by certain types of people, rather by people who venture into certain areas. This simple pattern suggests an external cause.

No matter what that cause is, it is important to understand, and not just because of the potential behind the most likely explanation.

Bigfoot researchers generally lean toward one explanation: The Bigfoot-Giganto Theory (hypothesis). The subject of Gigantopithecus has attracted an increasing amount of interest anthropologists and primatologitsts over the past few decades. The Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis suggests that bigfoots are surving relatives of the genus Gigantopithecus. Gigantopithecus (the Latin word for "Giant Ape") was a giant cousin of the orangutan. It was presumed to be extinct.

Click on the figure to the upper right to see a chart showing the place of Gigantos in primate evolution.

Bigfoot-Giganto theorists deal with a few issues that affect the potential linkage of modern bigfoot reports to ancient Gigantos. Probably the most crucial question concerns whether Gigantos walked upright. There is more than one school of thought among anthrolopogists regarding this issue. Some physical anthropologists interpret the scant fossilized remains to indicate an upright walking ape, measuring an impressive nine feet tall, and weighing more than 1000 pounds -- the general description of bigfoot type creatures reported for centuries in North America and Asia. Even if Giganto posture is uncertain, no one can reasonably dispute the conclusion that Gigantos were the largest primates that ever walked the earth.

Bigfoot-Giganto theorists believe that Gigantos' large brain size (perhaps the largest in the terrestrial animal kingdom) and upright-walking posture facilitated their dispersion across Asia and North America. Thousands of years of adaptation to temperate and mountainous climates, it is believed, would have given these large upright walking apes the ability to tolerate cold temperatures, climb through deep snow, and cross high mountain ranges with relative ease.

The figure to the left is a photo of a life-size Giganto reconstruction based on fossilized remains (click on the photo to see a larger version; the same reconstruction is pictured below with the sculptor showing its size relative to humans). The first photo is from the cover of a book about Gigantopithecus. The translation of the German title is "Why Did Giganto Have to Die?" (The original English version of the book is titled, "Other Origins".)

There is some physical evidence to indicate that Gigantos in Asia were hunted and eaten by Homo erectus (ancestors to humans that lived contemporaneously with Gigantos). The mainstream explanation for the apparent disappearance of Gigantos lays blame primarily on this predation by Homo erectus. Bigfoot-Giganto theorists do not accept the idea that a highly mobile genus like Gigantopithecus could have been completely wiped out by Homo erectus. Instead they look to consistencies in present day bigfoot reports and see the necessary behavioral adaptations which would have allowed the Giganto line to avoid extinction at the hands of man.

Bigfoots are typically sighted in or near remote wooded, mountainous, or swampy areas. They are rarely seen far from the cover of trees. If they encounter humans during daylight hours they tend to retreat and vanish into the forest. They seem to be most active when humans are least active -- late at night. Unlike mountain gorillas, bigfoots are never seen in large groups, and they don't stay in the same place for very long.

The ellusiveness of these modern mystery animals may stem from their bad experiences with pre-humans in Asia.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:52:39 am
(http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/giganto3-icon.jpg)


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:53:03 am
The Hypothesis

Over the past 500,000 years hominids gradually emerged from the thickest forests and began to organize into more stationary settlements. Gigantos remained semi-nomadic in the thick forests. Small family groups of Gigantos were widely dispersed in these forests. This dispersal provided more reliable foraging. It also made quick, quiet evasion much easier.

Small Giganto families of 2-4 wandered nomadically through vast forests. The territories were usally remote, but sometimes bordered human settled areas. After thousands of generations they developed some amazing evasion/defense mechanisms and behaviors, including night vision abilities. They also developed powerful vocal abilities, which allowed them to locate and interact with others of their kind. They made powerfully loud screams and howls that could be heard for miles in the dead of night. Late hours allowed them to avoid various undesirables: human dangers, overheating, water loss, and the worst insects. The night time vocalizations, and occassional tracks, were usually the only things noted by humans in the area.

The most commonly heard argument against the Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis is that "we should have found their bones in North America by now..." This argument is, in fact, weak when one considers that very few remains of Gigantos have ever been found in Asia, where they were much more abundant. Tens of thousands of years of Gigantos' accepted existence in Asia would have produced literally millions of Giganto skeletons, yet the volume of collected remains from Asia is so small that the entire collection could fit easily in one suitcase.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:53:16 am
(http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/munns.jpg)


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:53:44 am
 One flavor of the Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis suggests that bigfoots might not be direct descendants of the genus Gigantopithecus, but rather some other offshoot of the giant Asian "wood ape" line, perhaps a line for which we have zero fossils remains at the present time. The Giganto line is an important reference point for this alternate explanation for two reasons: 1) the Giganto line illustrates the potential for primates to grow to such 'gigantic' proportions (twice as large as the largest 'known' living primate), and 2) the fact that so few remains of Gigantos have been unearthed and identified makes it more conceivable that there could have been other lines of giant Asian wood apes for which we have no fossil remains at the present time.

People often assume that bones of a wild animal are present and available long after the animal's death. Many people assume that wild animal bones always become fossilized. The fact is bones become fossilized or otherwise preserved only in the rarest of circumstances. Without fossilization or preservation, bones of wild animals will, in time, become completely reabsorbed into the biomass. We would literally be climbing over piles of animal bones if they were not naturally recycled. An animal carcass in a dense forest will be reabsorbed relatively quickly through weathering, decay and scavenging by other animals and insects. The odds are very very poor that bones of a rare, elusive, forest dwelling species will be found in some recognizable form by a hiker cruising along a trail.

No research group has ever made an attempt to look for Giganto bones in North America, so no one should be surprised that Giganto remains have never been identified in North America. Ironically, the most vocal skeptics and scientists who rhetorically ask why no bones have been located and identified on this continent are the last people who would ever make an effort to look for them. Some Bigfoot-Giganto theorists speculate that fragmentary remains of Gigantos have been unearthed in North America in the past but were simply disregarded or misidentified.

The second most common argument against the Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis asks " Why haven't hunters shot one in North America yet ? ..." The reasons are more obvious than most people might realize, and there's enough of them to make a separate article on that topic.

The third most common argument against the Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis asks " Why aren't there more photos of these modern Gigantos ? ..." This question is also addressed in a separate article.

 
     Copyright © 2011 BFRO.net
 

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/whatrtha.asp


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:54:07 am
(http://www.bfro.net/images/lineupWeb_v4_1231_swatch.jpg)


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:54:41 am
unknown
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2403

Member Rated:
4    Icon 1 posted 09-04-2005 09:39 PM      Profile for unknown     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Stacy we posted at the same time.

--------------------
several species of small furry animals gathered together and grooving with a pict in a cave
Posts: 1756 | From: Pontiac, MI. Oakland | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:54:57 am
Stacy Dohm
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2189

Member Rated:
5    Icon 1 posted 09-04-2005 09:42 PM      Profile for Stacy Dohm     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  We must share a psychic connection, Unknown! Ask and ye shall receive!

--------------------
"All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream." - Edgar Allen Poe
Posts: 341 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:55:41 am
Asian fossils reveal humanity's giant cousin


by Russell L. Ciochon

        For thousands of years, Chinese pharmacists have used fossils - which they call dragon teeth and dragon bones - as ingredients in potions intended to cure ailments ranging from backache to sexual impotence. The fossil-rich caves of southern China have been, and still are, sedulously mined by farmers, who sell these medicinal treasures to apothecaries in the cities. In just such a pharmacy, in Hong Kong in 1935, the German paleoanthropologist Ralph von Koenigswald came across a large fossil primate molar that did not belong to any known species. Over the next four years he searched further in Hong Kong and Guangzhou (Canton) and found three more of the oversize teeth, thereby establishing the existence of an extinct ape, the largest primate ever to roam the earth. He named the genus Gigantopithecus, meaning "gigantic ape," and the species blacki, in honor of his late friend and colleague Davidson Black.
        At the time of the discovery, during the 1930s, von Koenigswald was working primarily in Java, unearthing fossils of human ancestors and their relatives. China's unique fossil shops had already played a major role in tracking down Homo erectus, which lived in Asia between about one million and 300,000 years ago. Homo erectus remains were first unearthed in Java in the 1890s, but pursuit of the source of dragon bones subsequently led to a system of fossil-filled crevices and caverns near the town of Zhoukoudian (Choukoutien), thirty miles from Beijing. There, in 1929, a team of Chinese and Western scientists discovered the first of a series of Homo erectus skulls that became world famous as "Peking man."
        The original fossils of Peking man disappeared during the confusion of World War II - fortunately, after they were described and cast by anatomist Franz Weidenreich. The war also caught up with von Koenigswald, who was taken prisoner by the Japanese in Java. His precious collection of Gigantopithecus teeth - at that point, the only known specimens of the fossil ape - spent the war years in a milk bottle buried in a friend's backyard on the island.

Photographed at the American Museum in the 1940's, German paleoanthropologists Ralph von Koenigswald, left, and Franz Weidenreich, right, pose with the skulls of apes, Homo erectus, and modern humans. The first scientist to discover teeth of Gigantopithecus, von Koenigswald correctly observed that they belonged to an ape, while Weidenreich argued for their humanlike characteristics.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:56:23 am
(http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/bwmen.jpg)

Photographed at the American Museum in the 1940's, German paleoanthropologists Ralph von Koenigswald, left, and Franz Weidenreich, right, pose with the skulls of apes, Homo erectus, and modern humans. The first scientist to discover teeth of Gigantopithecus, von Koenigswald correctly observed that they belonged to an ape, while Weidenreich argued for their humanlike characteristics.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:56:46 am
 Meanwhile, however, Weidenreich, who had retreated from Beijing to the American Museum of Natural History in New York, set about studying plaster casts of the four teeth. Because of the unusually large size of a few of the Homo erectus specimens from Java, Weidenreich came up with the notion that there had been a period of gigantism in human evolution, and that modern humans were the diminutive descendants of these giants. In Apes, Giants, and Man, published in 1946, he argued that the Gigantopithecus teeth were humanlike, and that von Koenigswald had been mistaken in considering the animal an ape rather than a member of the human family tree.
        During von Koenigswald's wartime internment, Weidenreich's views became widely accepted. To end the controversy that arose, more complete specimens of Gigantopithecus had to be found, a task only the Chinese could undertake, for the country was closed to Western scientists. In the 1950s, with the establishment in Beijing of what is now the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese paleontologists began to search for the source of the Gigantopithecus fossils. Two veterans of the Peking man expedition, Pei Wenzhong and Jia Lanpo, headed a team that visited the warehouses that supplied all the apothecary shops in China with dragon bones and dragon teeth. They found vast quantities of fossils in Nanning, the capital of Guangxi Province. From there, they divided into two teams: one, led by Pei, headed north; the other, led by Jia, went south.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:57:10 am
(http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/market.jpg)

At a Chinese pharmacy in Bangkok, the author (center) and archeologist John Olsen (right) search among the medicinal "dragon teeth" for interesting fossils.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:57:31 am
Jia's paleontological detective work took him to southernmost Guangxi, a karstic, or eroded limestone, region of great rock towers riddled with caves. In the town of Daxin, which the local people said was the source of all the fossils, they were directed to an old woman who had, in her house, a bamboo tray full of fossils. One of them was a Gigantopithecus tooth. She pointed out a very tall rock tower, described by Jia as "a hundred meters straight up - almost falling over, it was so steep." The mouth of a cave was clearly visible behind a screen of brush.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:57:59 am
(http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/mound.jpg)

A cave near the top of the rounded limestone tower at Liucheng, China has yielded three Gigantopithecus jawbones and nearly a thousand teeth.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:58:16 am
Although it was four in the afternoon and raining hard when they arrived, Jia says, "We were young, and couldn't be restrained. We climbed straight up to that cave." That very day, Jia himself found a Gigantopithecus tooth embedded in a hard, reddish matrix, the first time that a paleontologist had discovered a fossil of Gigantopithecus in a geological context.
        Meanwhile, Pei was making a more momentous discovery to the north. Word had reached the scientists of a giant jawbone discovered by an old farmer in 1956 at a cave site called Liucheng. When Pei saw the fossil, he was able to identify it at once as the jawbone of Gigantopithecus, because it had all but three of its teeth still attached. On a second visit, in 1957, Pei's team discovered the first Gigantopithecus jawbone in place, in a very hard deposit resembling red clay. Another was excavated in 1958. One of the jawbones was extraordinarily large; presumably, it belonged to an adult male, while the other two were thought to be from an adult female and a juvenile.
        In addition to the jawbones, Pei's group discovered nearly a thousand Gigantopithecus teeth and numerous other mammalian specimens, including some unusual dwarf varieties. Among them was a short-muzzled panda half the size of the living giant panda. Chinese scientists have recently suggested that this dwarf species was a direct ancestor of the modern one.
        The next development came in 1965 with the discovery of twelve Gigantopithecus teeth at Wuming, a few hours' drive north of Nanning. These teeth were significantly larger than their counterparts from Liucheng, and the other animal fossils found with them suggested that the site was considerably younger (current estimates are that Liucheng is one million years old and that Wuming is between 300,000 and 400,000 years old). This suggested, first, that Gigantopithecus was around as a species for a considerable period, and second, that it may have become larger as the species evolved. This is a trend seen in other large mammals that evolved during the Pleistocene epoch, 1.8 million to 12,000 years ago.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:58:40 am
A striking confirmation of both points was the discovery three years later that a smaller, earlier form of the giant ape had once inhabited northern India. In 1968, a farmer came forward with three pieces of a jawbone he had found twenty-four years before, when he was a boy of twelve working in his father's field. The specimen was identified by primatologist Elwyn Simons as belonging to a distinct species, Gigantopithecus giganteus, about half the size of Gigantopithecus blacki. The new species was not only smaller but also more ancient, coming from sediments that have been dated (by paleomagnetic reversals) to about 6.3 million years ago.
        The discovery of the jaws resolved, at least for most scientists, any doubts that the creature was apelike and not, as Weidenreich had argued, humanlike. Based on the fossils, Gigantopithecus is now placed among the Asian apes, a descendant, along with the orangutan, of the earlier ape ancestor Sivapithecus, best known from an 8-million-year-old skull discovered in Pakistan. Its size and ape affiliation suggest Gigantopithecus was a ground-dwelling, fist-walking creature.
        While more teeth of the extinct ape have been found, no other bones have turned up. Based only on the jaws and teeth, however, an attempt can be made to reconstruct both the animal and its way of life. The jaws are deep (top to bottom) and very thick. The molars are low-crowned and flat, with very thick enamel caps suitable for heavy grinding. The premolars are broad and flat and resemble molars. The canine teeth are not sharp and pointed but shaped more like what one would expect premolars to look like, while the incisors are small, peglike, and closely packed. The canines and incisors together form a specialized cutting tool, most similar to what is found in some present-day tree sloths and in the extinct giant ground sloth. The features of the teeth, combined with the massive, robust jaws, lead to the inevitable conclusion that the animal was adapted to the consumption of tough, fibrous foods by cutting, crushing, and grinding them.
        As a rule, large herbivores subsist on diets of coarse leaves and grasses, which are low in nutritional value but typically available in very large quantities. (Large animals succeed with this regime partly because their metabolic requirements are relatively low, in terms of energy required per unit of body mass.) One suggestion is that Gigantopithecus, or at least the larger species in China, was adapted, like the giant panda, to a diet of bamboo, the giant grass abundant in the region. The jaws of Gigantopithecus and the giant panda, if set side by side with the jawbones of, say, the gorilla and the grizzly bear, appear thicker, deeper, and more massive. These differences reflect the specialized diet of the panda (and, by inference, of Gigantopithecus) compared with the much more general diet of the gorilla and grizzly.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:59:01 am
  A further similarity between Gigantopithecus and the giant panda is a high incidence of tooth cavities. Wu Rukang, in an encyclopedic survey of the Gigantopithecus teeth in China, found cavities present in 11 percent of them - an unusually high rate for an ape, but more or less equivalent to the rate of dental cavities in the fossil remains of the giant panda. Another Chinese researcher, Zhang Yinyun, has reported a high incidence of hypoplasia - pitting in the tooth enamel that indicates periods of arrested development. These may be a result of disease or food shortage. While no certain conclusion may be drawn, we do know that bamboo is subject to periodic die-offs, which produce food shortages that threaten the survival of the giant panda.
        A more direct line of evidence that could be pursued regarding the diet of Gigantopithecus was pointed out to me by Bob Thompson, a graduate student in New World archeology, who attended one of my lectures about the extinct ape. He suggested we might look at the teeth for adhering phytoliths, microscopic pieces of silica found in many plants. The existence of phytoliths has been known since the early nineteenth century, and scientists had already successfully looked for them on stone tools, to which they apparently bond physically by the combined action of friction and moisture. But it was the first time, as far as I know, that anyone had suggested looking for them on fossil teeth.
        Four teeth were borrowed for study from the British Museum (Natural History) and the Senckenberg Natural History Museum in Frankfurt: an upper incisor, lower canine, lower premolar, and lower molar. After the teeth were cleaned to insure that what we found was definitely part of the fossils, they were examined under a scanning electron microscope at the University of Iowa by Smithsonian paleoecologist Dolores Piperno. At least thirty phytoliths were found on the teeth, most of them on the molar. We also detected tiny scratches apparently left by phytoliths, which are harder than tooth enamel. In one case, we found a phytolith sitting astride the end of the track it had plowed into the tooth - like a sled stopped in its path in the snow.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 02:59:34 am
(http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/phyt.jpg)

A photomicrograph shows a silica fragment bonded to a tooth of the fossil ape. Its shape indicates that it came from grass, possibly bamboo. Color enhancing isolated the silicified mass of plant cells and, within it, the impression of a single cell.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 03:00:03 am
  More than half of the phytoliths we observed were long and needlelike and could be attributed to the vegetative part of grasses, possibly bamboo. The rest were conical or hat shaped, attributable to the fruits and seeds of dicotyledons. Piperno tentatively identified them as fruits from a tree of the family Moraceae, quite possibly durian or jackfruit, both of which are common throughout tropical Southeast Asia. This proved that Gigantopithecus had a varied diet, although we still suspect that bamboo was its staple food.
        What other conclusions can be drawn about the extinct ape? An outstanding characteristic of giant herbivores is their extreme slowness. They have no particular need of speed: their size and thick skins protect them from predators, and of course their feeding habits require no more of them than that they move from place to place as they systematically denude the landscape of vegetation. Furthermore, they are usually stuffed full of bulky food to digest, which tends to produce inertia. Gigantopithecus probably followed this pattern.
        Finally, the adult males of the giant ape were much larger than the females. Australian anatomist Charles Oxnard statistically analyzed 735 teeth of Gigantopithecus that were complete enough to be measured accurately. He found that they divided neatly into two size groups of equal number, which he interpreted to represent the males and females in the population. The contrast was greater than that seen in any living primate species, including the gorilla and the orangutan, two species in which the male is substantially bigger than the female. In Gigantopithecus, the difference in tooth size between the sexes may represent strong competition among males for mates - a clue to the species' social behavior.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 03:00:32 am
(http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/jaw.jpg)


The largest of the jaws, along with some of the teeth, are compared at with modern human remains.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 03:00:47 am
To gain a more complete image of what the giant ape looked like, we sought the help of Bill Munns, who creates highly realistic, life-size models of existing endangered primates - gorillas, orangutans, and the Chinese golden monkey - for zoos and educational institutions. Based on the jaws and teeth, and using the proportions of the skulls of existing great apes, we estimated that the average male Gigantopithecus had a skull that measured eighteen inches from the bottom of the jaw to the highest point of the sagittal crest (a male gorilla, for comparison, has a skull ten inches high).
        The next step was to project a hypothetical skeleton from the hypothetical skull. For this purpose Munns used as references two of the largest terrestrial primates known: one modern, the gorilla, and one from the fossil record, the extinct giant baboon Theropithecus oswaldi. In determining the size of Gigantopithecus, we felt it necessary to scale the body back a bit, so as not to be influenced too much by the giant ape's extraordinarily deep and thickened mandible. Nevertheless, given that the average male silverback gorilla is about six feet tall (standing erect) and weighs in at 400 pounds, Munns calculated that the average Gigantopithecus male was more than ten feet tall and weighed as much as 1,200 pounds - comparable to a large male polar bear.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 03:01:16 am
(http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/comp.jpg)

Bill Munns stands next to his model of a Gigantopithecus male, a quadrupedal, fist-walking creature that also could have stood erect, as bears do.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 03:01:35 am
 One intriguing question is what contact our remote ancestor, Homo erectus, may have had with the giant ape. That the two coexisted for some time in the same region is supported by direct evidence. In 1965, Vietnamese paleontologists discovered the remains of both creatures at Tham Khuyen, a cave site in Lang Son Province, near the Chinese border. Chinese excavators followed suit, excavating Gigantopithecus and Homo erectus side by side in Hubei Province in 1970 and more recently, in 1987, in Sichuan Province.
        Gigantopithecus was native to southern Asia, while Homo originated in Africa about 1.6 million years ago and migrated eastward, finally arriving in what is now Southeast Asia about one million years ago. The opportunity to explore this nexus attracted archeologist John Olsen and me to Vietnam. One reason we did not choose to go to China was that all the promising sites had been reserved by Chinese paleoanthropologists, and we doubted we would find a new site in a region that had been so thoroughly mined. In contrast, Vietnam had no history of exploiting fossil-rich caves for dragon bones. And so in January 1989 we found ourselves probing four caves at the base of a karst tower near the hamlet of Lang Trang, about 100 miles southwest of Hanoi, as part of a joint American-Vietnamese expedition.
        The caves had seemed promising in our preliminary survey the previous May, and as we began work, even local children brought us fossil mammal teeth (although we tried to discourage them), which they retrieved from an underground stream by squeezing through a crevice in the cave we called Lang Trang I. Meanwhile, we began cutting out blocks of breccia, the sediment typical of caves, which is gradually formed by material washed or otherwise transported into a cave and cemented with limestone dissolved from the cave walls and ceiling.
        The fourth day of our dig, Friday the thirteenth, turned out to be a lucky one: within the main deposit I found a lens-shaped vein of dark, sandy sediment that was unusually rich in fossils. The material had probably washed into the cave from the nearby Ma River, which in ancient times meandered right alongside the karst tower. Perhaps a violent monsoon had caused the river to overflow its banks and flood the cave. After the waters receded, the slow process of breccia formation began again, sealing the sandy lens within Lang Trang I.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 03:01:51 am
We immediately set to work cutting out hunks of the sandy deposit, revealing a small chamber that we surmised was the source of all the fossils the children had been bringing us. Our finds included barking deer, a musk deer the size of a big dog; sambar, a large deer with three-pointed antlers; wild boar; and giant panda. A huge, ridged molar, weighing several pounds and belonging to Stegodon, an extinct relative of the elephant, assured us that we were dealing with a Pleistocene site that might also contain Homo erectus and Gigantopithecus. One softball-sized sample of this deposit was later analyzed at the University of Iowa, revealing that it also contained some small teeth and fragmentary limb bones of a diverse microfauna, including rodents, reptiles, fishes, and riverine sponges. These fossil fragments were about the same size as the coarse sand particles they were mixed with.
        Then, on January 18, 1989, Nguyen Van Hao made a key discovery: in the floor of the fourth cave he found a premolar of Homo. Since it was an isolated tooth, we found it difficult - impossible, really - to identify the species. Since then, four additional teeth of Homo have been recovered from caves I, II, and IV. Subsequently, a boar tooth from cave I has been dated (by a method called electron-spin resonance) to about 480,000 years ago. Given this preliminary date, the specimens should be assigned to Homo erectus. The discovery helps fill the gap between Zhoukoudian, in northern China, and Java, more than 3.000 miles to the south.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 03:02:25 am
(http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/gmapsm.jpg)



Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 03:02:46 am
We now have a fairly complete picture of the Pleistocene environment of Lang Trang. The jungle vegetation would have been more lush, but not startlingly different. The fauna, however, would have been striking, with huge beasts of all kinds dominating the landscape. Carnivores such as the tiger and leopard were much more common then and competed for food with species, such as the Asiatic black bear, that have entirely disappeared from Vietnam. And they all competed with the wolf and the Asiatic wild dog in preying on the dozens of bovid and cervid species (cowlike and deerlike mammals). Also present were the rhinoceros and elephant (both now rare) and the stegodon, as well as the orangutan and tapir, both now extinct in Vietnam. The giant panda, also now vanished, chomped its way through the bamboo stands. Taken in this context, Gigantopithecus was no freakish monstrosity, but simply the primate example of a Pleistocene phenomenon.
        Primates make up 13 percent of the total fauna in our collection. At least five genera are accounted for: two types of macaque monkey, orangutan, langur monkey, gibbon and Homo. So far we have been disappointed only by the absence of Gigantopithecus.
        Sometime near the end of the middle Pleistocene, perhaps 200,000 years ago, Gigantopithecus became extinct. The animal had flourished for at least six million years, quite a respectable figure, but it went the way of a great many genera of every shape and size. At about the same time, the giant panda disappeared from much of its original territory, notably insular southeast Asia, until it now survives only in the cold upland regions of Sichuan Province. The best guess as to what caused the panda's extinction in Southeast Asia is human hunting: even now the animal is hunted for food and for pelts, despite the best efforts of the Chinese government to discourage the practice. Similarly, human hunting may have led to the demise of Gigantopithecus.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 03:06:40 am
(http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/pandbig.jpg)


Munching on bamboo, a giant panda survives on a diet that may resemble that of Gigantopithecus.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 03:07:05 am
 Environmental change may also have been a contributing factor, just as the bamboo die-off in China in the 1970s nearly wiped out the remaining population of giant pandas, with fewer than a thousand estimated to have survived. Or by eating the tender bamboo shoots and exploiting the plant for other purposes, including toolmaking, humans may have outcompeted the giant ape for this critical resource. The competition from both humans and the giant panda may have been too much.
        Gigantopithecus is gone. Or is it? Following the publicity about our research in Vietnam, I have received several letters from veterans who say that they came face to face with huge, hairy apes in the Southeast Asian jungle when they were posted in Vietnam. And of all the theories advanced to provide a zoological identity for Bigfoot, the Abominable Snowman, and other elusive creatures, perhaps the most popular is that they are none other than Gigantopithecus, still alive in relict populations (relict populations of Neanderthal man run a close second). While these contemporary reports are probably false, we can contemplate the time when our remote ancestors did encounter the giant of all apes in the tropical rainforests of Southeast Asia.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 03:07:51 am
(http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/site.jpg)

Bamboo leaves frame the scientists excavating the cemented deposits in Lang Trang Cave IV.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 03:08:32 am
The Ape That Was

http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 03:09:55 am
Do enormous prehistoric ape-men share the Earth with humanity today?


If something along the lines of Gigantopithecus has survived however, it's had half a million years to evolve to its present niche. So it would not exactly be the same species for which we have found a handful of fossils so far.

It would be a mutated Gigantopithecus.

To explore what such a mutant ape-man might be like, let us consider its likely past challenges and other relevant matters.

We might use ourselves (a fellow primate) as a form of benchmark in some ways. For instance, how much behavioral change can occur in a primate species with modern human intellectual capacities in 500,000 years?

Well, in our own species, over the last 500,000 years we managed to go from a naked cave dwelling simple Stone Age tool maker/user (of rock chips) who could use fire but not ignite fires from scratch, and perhaps possessed a language of a few dozen words, to today's well dressed internet user, auto and computer builder, and common jet air traveler, who typically possesses a vocabulary of hundreds or thousands of words.

So given suitable capacities to begin with, lots of behavioral change can occur over 500,000 years.

But Gigantopithecus' ultimate fate also depends heavily on what talents and potential it possessed 500,000 years ago.

So let us make some assumptions about Gigantopithecus' starting point, in order to better speculate on where it might be today, in terms of intelligence and capabilities.

500,000 years ago Gigantopithecus was an enormous, super-strong ape-man, perhaps mostly vegetarian and non-aggressive (unless attacked or cornered).

But the climate was changing, or regional food sources were becoming scarce, or local competition for preferred food sources was intensifying between Gigantopithecus and giant pandas (bears). And suddenly Homo erectus (an ancestor of humanity) begins showing up in considerable numbers too, as yet another competitor for the same resources (bamboo and bamboo sprouts).

Homo erectus is at least a bit smarter than Gigantopithecus, and likely outnumbers him by a wide margin. Homo erectus hunts in packs, like wolves, pursuing, killing, and eating individual Gigantopithecus (or family groups), similar to how Polynesian settlers will do the gentle giant Moa of New Zealand millennia later.


-- Illustrated Transcript of The Future Eaters, Illustrated transcript of episode 2, Nomads of the Wind, Presented and Narrated by Dr Tim Flannery, Author of the Future Eaters, Australian Broadcasting Corporation. email: science@your.abc.net.au, http://www2.abc.net.au/, found on or about 9-12-99

Gigantopithecus clans are few and far between due to the required foraging ranges for each group. So there's not much chance of offering substantial organized resistance to the Homo erectus hunting packs. The huge size and fearsome appearance of Gigantopithecus, combined with their usually non-aggressive ways, makes them the perfect victim for generating bragging rights for male Homo erectus among the women and children of their tribes. The rarity and shyness of Gigantopithecus means women and children might never encounter one themselves, and so all they know is what the men tell them of the giants. A Gigantopithecus kill also brings in a considerable amount of meat, making the killers seem like powerful hunters and providers for the tribe. So hunting and killing Gigantopithecus might be a win-win situation for male Homo erectus at this time.

Unfortunately Gigantopithecus are somewhat rare and hard to find even in Homo erectus' time-- so the competition to find and kill one can be fierce.

Those Gigantopithecus clans which manage to evade and flee the packs survive-- those who don't, die. Thus, a propensity to retreat from the packs (and the skill to evade the hunters when they get too close) becomes embedded in the Gigantopithecus bloodline pretty quickly.

Something else gets added to the genetic line as well; an increased ability to adapt to changing circumstances in general. The hunting Homo erectus packs aren't the only threat to Gigantopithecus. The climate itself has already been changing for some time now, forcing changes in many habits. Now, as refugees from the hunting packs, the Gigantopithecus clans must also cope with increasingly different and often harsher foraging grounds and terrain. This change may be aided by the fact that the clans had throughout their history been forced to at least migrate on occasion due to depleted foraging areas. So the nomadic life they take on now may be more of an expansion or extension in age old habits, rather than a completely abrupt change.

The clans learn the hard way to use the night to their advantage, along with concealment during the day. If not already so, they now become nocturnal, as that's when the hunter packs are least active. Those clans who don't go nocturnal die out or are killed.

Hungry and cunning Homo erectus hunting packs were likely formidable foes. So those Gigantopithecus which survived such trials likely developed very sharp senses of smell, sight, and hearing, as well as some additional intelligence specialized towards eluding and possibly misleading their pursuers.

Gigantopithecus would have been encouraged by events to move into areas less hospitable to Homo erectus and its lineage. Places like rugged high mountains, dense forests and jungles, intractable swamps, etc.-- the very places most purported witness claims of later millennia will report them. Unfortunately, other large beasts (many of them predators) were also being forced into these same areas by the expanding human population. So Gigantopithecus had to find ways to cope with these new predators and competition too, even as it struggled to survive in lands foreign to its predecessors.

Gigantopithecus' primate intelligence advantage over the big cats, bears, crocodiles/alligators and other large animals helped much. Its large size and strength also were beneficial in direct conflicts with same. Wolf packs however would seem to have been a particularly thorny problem for Gigantopithecus-- especially in the harsher winters, when such packs may have become emboldened by hunger. Gigantopithecus' apparent tendency or necessity to travel as solitary individuals (according to most modern witness claims) would also beckon such packs, as canine pack instincts see solitude as a vulnerability. And since Gigantopithecus (by many accounts of modern 'Big Foot' encounters) suffers a uniquely strong odor, it would not be difficult for wolves or dogs to track them.

Gigantopithecus would not only have to be smart, but strong and fast too to successfully cope with the pack danger over millennia. And it seems to be all these things. Living at high altitudes will offer protection from the roving wolf packs of lower elevations. The presence of sheer cliffs nearby and the capacity to rapidly scale them also provides escape routes. Great running speed and long distance endurance (both of which Gigantopithecus may possess) could also help.

(There exist some reports of humans eating Big Foot kills in relatively modern times-- or trying to do so anyway, but put off by an exceedingly foul taste. One neat evolutionary trick for Gigantopithecus over the millennia might be the development of bad taste in its meat, to help discourage predation by both humans and other animals. This could help a lot in dealing with wolf packs too, except in the very harshest of winters. Over many generations sufficiently bad taste and odor, combined with enough bloody losses in contests with the man-apes, might even have caused wolf packs to avoid the giants completely unless they were starving.)

It may be that Gigantopithecus would have to regularly hunt down and kill at least a few wolves in the vicinity periodically to help maintain a healthy fear of its kind in the local population, thereby blunting the threat of the packs overall. Or perhaps during especially bad winters Gigantopithecus would either avoid traveling or try to do so in groups to minimize the danger.

Could Gigantopithecus possibly store food for the winter (or other contingencies) in a hideaway somewhere? It seems very likely, since much less intelligent animals (such as squirrels) do so.

Combined with Gigantopithecus' nomadic nature, this implies that any particular Gigantopithecus clan would possess at least several 'nests' or dens or caches, situated over a wide area, which they might move between in a seasonal fashion, or perhaps once every several years. Such dens would almost certainly involve caves or other natural shelters, since it appears unlikely that Gigantopithecus is capable of constructing much in the way of artificial homes. At most Gigantopithecus may be capable of burrowing into deep snow to create a shelter, or perhaps pile brush against a naturally existing rock overhang to close it in. Abandoned human housings would likely be avoided due to the risk of returning humans, and also because of their cramped size, where Gigantopithecus is concerned. Gigantopithecus' apparent lack of fire-starting skills would seem to make it prefer only the shallowest or widest mouthed of caves, for vision reasons if nothing else. But having evolved into a nocturnal animal over the millennia, Gigantopithecus may be able to delve deeper into tunnels than we might expect. And some witness claims include hints that, unlike most other animals, Gigantopithecus does not overtly fear fire, but at times may even welcome its warmth, when found. This observation would seem to make modern Gigantopithecus somewhat similar to humans of 500,000 years ago-- as the humans could exploit fire for heat and light where it was available-- they just couldn't make it.

If we can assume most of the encounter claim reports with possible Gigantopithecus mutants over past millennia and centuries are reasonable accurate, then we might also place Gigantopithecus into its appropriate category of equivalence with humanity's own ancestors, in terms of intelligence and general capacities.

Gigantopithecus seems to have went its own way on the evolutionary tree around 13 million years ago (during a mini-extinction event on Earth).


http://www.jmooneyham.com/bgft.html


http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000418#000000


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:01:39 pm
King Kong FAQ
From the King Kong Homepage
First Published July 18,1996
Updated March 1, 1999
Written by Boyd Campbell
Copyright 1999 All Rights Reserved
Images Copyright 1999 Turner Home Entertainment
E-mail: campbab@netdoor.com


Was there ever an animal like King Kong?
In 1933, when Cooper and O'Brien released King Kong no one knew very much about the gorillas of Africa. Few specimens survived outside their African habitat and stories about them were often prone to exaggeration, both in terms of their size and their desire for human females.

Having been to Africa himself, Cooper knew that the stories of giant gorillas were exaggerations, but he found the idea of giant gorillas who captured women fascinating and began to have an idea for a movie around it. He was also inspired by the story of W. Douglas Burden who in 1926 traveled to the remote island of Komodo and discovered there a giant breed of lizard now known as the komodo dragon and managed to bring two of the monsters back to New York alive.

Burden's "dragons" inspired Cooper to imagine a story where explorers went to a remote island like Komodo in a similar part of the world and discover not giant lizards but giant gorillas and bring one back to New York alive.

Unlike the komodo dragons no one had yet discovered a breed of gigantic gorillas living in some hidden part of the world. The largest African gorillas are six feet tall and weigh about four hundred pounds. Hardly King Kong material. But in 1935, just two years after the film was released, G.H.R. Von Koenigswald discovered some fossil teeth in a Hong Kong apothecary shop that could very well have belonged to a relative of King Kong. Later, scientists discovered more teeth as well as mandible fossils and they named the creature Gigantopithecus blacki.

Gigantopithecus blacki lived in south east Asia during the Pleistocene era, going extinct by the end of the era. Reconstructing the creature from its jawbone, scientists believe Gigantopithecus was a primate, similar to a gorilla but in the neighborhood of ten feet tall and could weigh upwards of a thousand pounds. That's much closer to King Kong's size. Whether Gigantopithecus lived behind a wall and had a taste for blondes and an aversion to airplanes and flashbulbs remains unknown.

http://www.aboyd.com/kong/kongfaqa14.html


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:02:58 pm
In The News
Bigfoot believers
By Theo Stein, Denver Post Environment Writer
Legitimate scientific study of legend gains backing of top primate experts
Sunday, January 05, 2003 — Edmonds, Wash. — After enduring decades of ridicule, Bigfoot researchers are enjoying support from some of the world's most respected scientists in their efforts to prove the hulking creatures of legend are no myth.

Richard Noll of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization photographs a site in the North Cascades, northeast of Seattle, last month. Noll and colleagues discovered an imprint near a mudhole where the Skookum Cast was recorded two years ago. The persistence of reported sightings of Bigfoot-type creatures in North America and elsewhere has convinced leading researchers on primates — including Jane Goodall, made famous by her studies of chimpanzees in Tanzania — to call for something never seriously considered before: a legitimate scientific study to determine whether the greatest apes that ever lived persist in the world's moist mountainous regions.

Skeptics, who include those in the scientific mainstream, scoff at such ideas. They say reported Bigfoot encounters, tracks and other evidence are either hoaxes or mistakes, and that people who believe such nonsense are soft-headed.

But dedicated amateurs and a smattering of professionals are trying to change that attitude. Using accepted scientific methods, they believe they can show at least some of the claimed evidence for Bigfoot — footprints, hair, voice recordings and a 400-pound block of plaster known as the Skookum Cast — are authentic traces of a rare giant primate.

Recently they have received support from a handful of the field's top experts.

Daris Swindler, for example, is not the typical Bigfoot believer.

When he retired in 1991 after more than 30 years at the University of Washington, Swindler was an acclaimed expert in the arcane study of fossilized primate teeth.

His book, An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy, went through several printings and was among the standard references in the field.

So it comes as a surprise to some of his peers that Swindler believes that the Skookum Cast, discovered by amateur Bigfoot researchers in 2000, is a genuine record of a hairy giant that sat down by a mudhole to eat some fruit.

"Daris said that?" asked Russell Ciochon, a prominent paleoanthropologist and professor at the University of Iowa. "He's an important figure. But I still don't think Bigfoot exists in any form."

Mythical giant apes lurk in the traditions of nearly every Native American linguistic group and in legends handed down through the ages from Europe and Asia. Each year, Bigfoot or similar creatures are reported by hundreds of hunters, hikers, motorists and others from central Asia to the central Rockies. But no one has provided the minimum proof required by science: a type specimen or remains that researchers can pick up, measure and argue over.

Nevertheless, Goodall is intrigued.

"People from very different backgrounds and different parts of the world have described very similar creatures behaving in similar ways and uttering some strikingly similar sounds," she said. "As far as I am concerned, the existence of hominids of this sort is a very real probability."

George Schaller, director of science at the Wildlife Conservation Society, has spent 40 years studying rare animals in remote places, including pioneering studies of Central Africa's mountain gorilla, which Western scientists first discovered in 1903.

Schaller remains troubled by the fact no Bigfoot remains have been produced, nor have any samples of feces whose DNA can be chemically poked and prodded to unlock the identity of their maker. And he is mindful of hoaxing.

But he, too, considers Bigfoot an open question.

"There have been so many sightings over the years," he said. "Even if you throw out 95 percent of them, there ought to be some explanation for the rest. The same goes for some of these tracks."

"I think a hard-eyed look is absolutely essential," he concludes.

The most common evidence allegedly left by these animals are the footprints: big prints in remote locations, some deeply pressed in sand or gravel firm enough for a grown man to pass without leaving a trace. Some footprints, like those Ray Wallace's family claim he left near Bluff Creek, Calif., in the late 1950s, are hoaxed. Many more are too vague to be conclusive. But a few are so detailed and anatomically accurate that they baffle the experts.

"Either the forgers are spending an awful lot of time on this, or there is reason to give this evidence another look," said primate researcher Esteban Sarmiento of the American Museum of Natural History. "I think a serious scientific inquiry is definitely warranted."

Skeptics argue that large mammals, particularly great apes, simply aren't discovered anymore. Not true, says Russell Mittermeier, vice president of Conservation International, who has co-authored scientific papers describing five new primates.

Since the 1990s there have been several spectacular finds, he said, including the antelope-like spindlehorn from Vietnam and a South American peccary thought to have gone extinct thousands of years ago.

"I'm not one to pooh-pooh the potential that these large apes may exist," Mittermeier said. "I guess you could say I'm mildly skeptical but guardedly optimistic. Whoever does find it will have the discovery of the century."

Words of encouragement like these are music to Bigfoot researchers' ears.

"My whole motivation has not been to convince anybody of the existence of the animal, but to convince them that there's a body of evidence begging for further consideration," said Idaho State University professor Jeff Meldrum, whose expertise in primate locomotion led him to become one of the few academics openly researching Bigfoot tracks.

"This is immense," said author John Green, who has tracked Bigfoot reports for almost half a century from British Columbia and investigated some of the most famous sightings and track finds. "The possibility that there could be a real animal behind it just didn't occur to scientists 20 years ago."

The flap over recent claims of Bigfoot hoaxing has not deterred Swindler. But the lack of a body plus the acknowledgment of at least some hoaxing adds up to too many questions for Ciochon.

Like that of Swindler, Ciochon's work focuses on fossilized primate teeth, but of a very special species: Gigantopithecus blacki, the giant Asian ape of the Miocene epoch, which lasted from about 24 million to 5 million years ago.

Most Bigfoot supporters advance Gigantopithecus, or Giganto for short, as the likely ancestor of Bigfoot, if not the hairy beast itself. It's a tantalizing but entirely unproven link that drives Ciochon to distraction.

Ciochon thinks his study subject, which co-existed with the human ancestor Homo erectus for hundreds of thousands of years, may well be the archetypal inspiration for the "boogeyman" and other nocturnal monsters that populate the traditions of aboriginal cultures from Nepal to North America.

But he vigorously rejects any suggestion that Giganto, which he thinks was a specialized, bamboo-eating vegetarian, could persist today.

And he worries that the hotly contested grants that fund his work overseas may go elsewhere if the stigma of the shambling sasquatch of Native American lore attaches to his study subject.

"My biggest problem is there's no evidence, other than conjectural hair and these footprints, some of which we know are faked," Ciochon said.

"If someone finds a skeleton, I'll be there in a nanosecond," he said. "But that's what it's going to take to get me to change my mind."

"There are so many problems," agrees Swindler, who six years ago told a USA Today reporter to count him among the skeptics.

But as he examines the Skookum Cast on a rainy December afternoon in this Seattle suburb, Swindler points out landmarks in the lumpy landscape: a hairy forearm the size of a small ham, an enormous hairy thigh, an outsized buttock, and a striking impression he feels confident was made by the Achilles tendon and heel of a creature that is not supposed to exist.

"Whatever made this was very well adapted to walking on two feet," he said. "It's not conclusive, but it's consistent with what you'd expect to see if a giant biped sat down in the mud."

Swindler hopes that his assessment of the Skookum Cast, and a Discovery Channel documentary set to air Thursday, will generate support for further research.

The key, Schaller said, will be finding dedicated amateurs willing to spend months or years in the field with cameras. "So far, no one has done that," he said.


It was a group of dedicated amateurs that discovered the Skookum Cast. A team of volunteers from the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization had spent two days in Washington state's Gifford Pinchot National Forest, putting out pheromone-basted plastic chips during the day and blasting sasquatch calls at night in an attempt to attract an animal.

On the second night, researchers heard a powerful reply to their broadcasts, said Richard Noll, an aerospace toolmaker who has spent 30 years researching the mystery. The next morning, Noll was stunned to realize that an unusual impression of a large animal on the edge of a mudhole near their camp could have been left by their elusive quarry.

"An elk will gather their feet under them when they get up," he said. "But there are no elk hoofprints in the center of the cast."

Meldrum and Swindler concur there are only two logical explanations for the cast: Bigfoot and elk. And they have also ruled out elk.

John Mionczynski, a wildlife researcher who has spent 30 summers studying bighorn herds in Wyoming's Wind River Mountains, has his own reasons for believing in Bigfoot.

On a moonlit summer night in 1972, he backhanded an animal he thought was a bear as it sniffed at a bacon stain in his tent, then watched as the silhouette of a giant, shaggy arm with a broad hand at the end swept toward his tent, collapsing it on him.

"That hand was three times as wide as mine and had an opposed thumb that stuck out as plain as day," Mionczynski said.

He spent the rest of the night huddled by the fire with a revolver in his hand as the creature lobbed pine cones at him from the dark woods behind his tent.

"That pretty much eliminated bears," Mionczynski said.

Mionczynski is working on a contraption of tiny hooks and barbed wire that he intends to place near seasonal foods he thinks sasquatch depend on. He hopes the snare will let him get a DNA sample.

North of Seattle, Noll is collaborating with Owen Caddy, a former Ugandan park ranger who studied chimpanzees in the mid-1990s.

For the last 18 months, they've scoured certain sandbars on a north Cascades river, documenting more than 30 suspected sasquatch footprints they believe were made by a mother and two young. They hope to identify the animals' food sources and travel corridors, then set out a picket line of infrared camera traps.

"I feel the animal is out there, and I don't hedge on that," Caddy said. "I've found physical evidence myself, and I'm confident in my analysis of it.

"Something is making these tracks, and it's not people."

The Scientists
Jane Goodall
A world-famous primate researcher and author, she revealed, in studies of chimpanzees in Tanzania's Gombe National Park, surprising behaviors in humanity's closest living relative. Goodall has won numerous international awards for her contributions to conservation, anthropology and animal welfare. Currently affiliated with Cornell University, she serves as the National Geographic Society's explorer-in-residence.

George Schaller
International science director for the Wildlife Conservation Society. His pioneering field studies of mountain gorillas set the research standard later adopted by Goodall and gorilla researcher Dian Fosse. Schaller's 1963 book, The Year of the Gorilla, debunked popular perceptions of the great ape and reintroduced "King Kong" as a shy, social vegetarian.

Schaller's studies of tigers, lions, snow leopards and pandas also advanced the knowledge of those endangered mammals.

In 1973, he won the National Book Award for The Serengeti Lion: A Study of Predator-Prey Relations, and in 1980 was awarded the World Wildlife Fund Gold Medal for his contributions to the understanding and conservation of endangered species. During the past decade, he has focused on the little-known wildlife of Mongolia, Laos and the Tibetan Plateau.

Russell Mittermeier
A trained primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist, he has discovered five new species of monkey, including two last year. Mittermeier has conducted fieldwork in more than 20 countries around the tropical world, with special emphasis on Brazil, Guyana and Madagascar.

Since 1989, Mittermeier has served as president of Conservation International, which has become one of the most aggressive and effective conservation organizations in the world during the last decade. His publications include 10 books and more than 300 scientific papers and popular articles.

Daris Swindler
Emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of Washington, Swindler is a leading expert on living and fossil primate teeth and one of the top primate anatomists in general. His book, An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy, has become a standard reference in the field. A forensic anthropologist, Swindler worked on the Ted Bundy and Green River murder cases along with hundreds of others.

Esteban Sarmiento
A functional anatomist affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History, Sarmiento focuses on the skeletons of hominids. In 2001, he participated with George Schaller in a search for Congo's Bili ape, a possible species super-chimp reported by natives but unknown to Western science. Sarmiento has also studied the Cross River gorilla, a critically endangered subspecies on the Nigeria-Cameroon border whose population is thought to be numbered in the hundreds. He has taught in the U.S., South Africa and Uganda.

From: The Denver Post, 5 January 2003.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/news/bfbelievers.html


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:03:39 pm
ParaNormalIAm
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2683

Member Rated:
4    Icon 1 posted 09-07-2005 11:59 PM      Profile for ParaNormalIAm     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html

http://www.mt.net/~watcher/

In 1998 there were two excellent movies on the subject of comets or asteroids striking the earth, "Deep Impact " and " Armageddon". In "Deep Impact", a comet is headed for the earth, and a spaceship is built to intercept it and blow it up, before an E. L. E. ( Extinction Level Event ) can occur, in other words, doomsday on earth from the huge blast of this impact. So, could a comet hit the earth? Or an asteroid or giant meteor strike planet earth? How realistic is this idea, is it possible or likely that a comet or asteroid could hit the earth in our lifetime, causing global destruction? The scientific answer is that it is possible that an asteroid or comet could belt earth, this explosive impact with our world causing global destruction, a nuclear worldwide firestorm, and later cutting off the sunlight similar to a nuclear winter, but the odds are so small that it is not worth worrying about. But there could be another factor, that I will discuss next: prophecies, in particular in Revelation and Nostradamus, that seem to describe an asteroid or comet hitting the earth, exploding against earth with tremendous destruction, resulting in worldwide floods and fire. And there have been close calls where earth was nearly hit by small asteroids, in recent years, where these asteroids could have struck earth with global effects.
On May 19,1996, a small Asteroid (between 100 and 300 meters wide) passed 280,000 miles from earth, which is a bit farther out than the moon. If it had hit the earth, it could have destroyed an entire state of the U.S., with an explosion larger than that of any hydogen bomb ever tested. And this asteroid was discovered only four days before it passed by earth. In January 2002, an asteroid about 1000 feet wide passed by earth missing it by less than 400,000 miles. In March 2002, asteroid 2002 EM7 came within 300,000 miles of earth, a bit farther out than the moon, and it was about 200 feet wide. This one really gave the astronomers a scare because it was detected 4 days after it passed by earth, because it had come from the sun's direction, and therefore was coming from a direction where they cannot be seen because of the sun's brightness. And in July 2002, it was announced that asteroid 2002 NT7, detected on July 9 in New Mexico, could strike earth on Feb. 1, 2019. Although once there is more data on its orbit, it could turn out that it will not hit earth. This asteroid has an orbital period around the sun of 837 days and 1.2 miles wide, giving it enough kinetic energy to be a doomsday asteroid. This asteroid is large enough do wipe out most of mankind. And a very dangerous asteroid about a half-mile wide (2002 NY40) passes by earth at 330,000 miles out on August 18, 2002. So it passes by earth at a bit farther out than the distance to the moon. If it did strike earth it would not be an ELE Extinction Level Event (ELE), but the impact and explosion could cause a major decrease in the human population and giant tidal waves that would swamp the coasts of the earth's continents.
And there are probably a lot of similar small asteroids that will pass close to earth, but they are unknown now and will likely only be noticed as they get close to earth. It could be that our solar system is now entering a region of space that is full of a lot of comets and meteors, so an earth collision soon could be more likely. What is needed is a major international effort to determine the orbits of small asteroids that could come close to earth, by using a network of telescopes around the earth. The more telescopes you use, and the larger they are, the faster this would be accomplished-- identifying and determining the orbits of these asteroids. The other thing that is needed is to develop a space intercept system, to intercept and deflect asteroids or comets headed for the earth, so they cannot impact and explode on earth. Unfortunately, there is no major effort to detect the asteroids, or to develop the interceptor system. However, NASA has developed the Deep Impact spacecraft, which arrived at and hit Comet Tempel 1 on July 4 2005; and when it hit it blasted a crater in it with explosive power equal to 4.5 tons of TNT. Deep Impact is a scientific mission to study comets, but it also developed and demonstrated some of the technology to blast off course a comet or asteroid headed for earth. But what should be done, is to fund NASA to develop a larger spacecraft on a faster schedule, to intercept and deflect a comet or asteroid headed for earth with a nuclear H-bomb blast. A spacecraft that moves really fast is need, to get there as soon as possible, to blast it off course before it gets near earth. The Deep Impact Mission was funded at about $300 million. So it seems that for a few billion $ NASA could develop an asteroid defense spacecraft with a nuclear weapon. You want to have several of the interceptor spacecraft, not just one, since the survival of earth is at stake. So I encourage everyone to contact their elected representatives on building an asteroid defense for earth; NASA could develop this spacecraft if they were funded to do it. What is also needed is a worldwide network of telescopes searching for and catalogueing the NEO (Near Earth Objects) asteroids and comets. Larger telescopes are needed than are presently used, and you need to have telescopes in the Southern Hemisphere as well as the Northern Hemisphere. NASA would also be the best organization to run this program. We need to detect, track, and predict the orbits of these NEO objects before they get near earth. A major worldwide effort is needed, with larger telescopes around the world, to find these large and small comets and asteroids. The present effort needs more funding, needs larger telescopes, and is mainly in the Northern Hemisphere.
Back at the ranch.........

http://www.kandervision.com/giganto.html

--------------------
http://myspace.com/oharry1


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:04:38 pm
ParaNormalIAm
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2683

Member Rated:
4    Icon 1 posted 09-11-2005 07:04 PM      Profile for ParaNormalIAm     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  You don't find the Book of Enoch in the Bible anymore, but it used to be there. Thanks to the efforts of Scottish explorer James Bruce, three copies of the Book of Enoch were secured, in Ethiopia, in 1773. Many centuries earlier, the Book of Enoch had fallen into disrepute because it dealt with the physicality of angels. "Once cherished by Jews and Christians alike, this book [Enoch] later fell into disfavor with powerful theologians -- precisely because of its controversial statements on the nature and deeds of the fallen angels." [2]


You may have been intrigued by the following sudden, incongruous, brief statements in the Bible: "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."; "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them..." (Genesis 6:2 and 6:4. No wonder God tells Eve, "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children"! Giving birth to giant offspring must have been especially difficult.) The distinctive and odd-seeming passages from Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 are all that remains of an entire book, the Book of Enoch, which was excised from the Bible. And what is more, this suppressed Book of Enoch, according to Catholic scholar J.T. Milik, is older than Genesis 6 and "Genesis 6 is in fact a direct summary of the earlier Enoch account." [2]


The ancient writings are tantalizing, yet obscure. The sense is, that there is some crucial, definite history glimmering therein. However what exactly is meant is hazy. In the now recovered Book of Enoch, elaboration of provocative hints in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 is furnished. What is to be made of the further elaboration is still debatable. The "Watchers" saw the daughters of men and mated with them. The Watchers disclosed "secret things" to their sons. (Enoch 10:7). Enoch has the giant offspring of the Watchers consuming "all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beast, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood." (Enoch 7: 3-5) Eventually, Enoch has a vision ("walks with God," see Genesis 5:22), and is told by the Lord that "now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men, and from the holy watchers is their beginning and primal origin; they shall be evil spirits upon the earth..." (Enoch 15: 8-9) There is "slaughter and destruction and death of the giants" but then from the souls of the giants' flesh the spirits go forth and apparently remain on earth as demons. (Enoch 16:1)


How, though, is this reconciled with the recurring presence of giant humans (detailed below)? Perhaps the "slaughter and destruction and death of the giants" was not total, and/or there was a further interbreeding and occasional atavistic throwbacks are still born.


In Those Days; And Also After That


"Most Christians and Jews are unaware of the biblical accounts that giants were found far and wide in the Promised Land." [1]


In Greek mythology, the Titans were "creatures created through the interbreeding of the Greek gods and human beings." Reportedly, the ancient historian Josephus mentions these "Titans" as "the forebears of the Celtae or Gallic giants in Europe." [1]



Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain is a controversial book. Yet by no means is it established that its contents are necessarily entirely fabulous. Richard Harvey, Cambridge classmate of Edmund Spenser, published a defense of Geoffrey of Monmouth's History. [3] Like the Bible, Geoffrey's History offers tantalizing glimpses of an underlying reality. We find therein that "Britain was called Albion. It was uninhabited except for a few giants." Pioneer leader Brutus and his followers "drove the giants whom they had discovered into the caves in the mountains." [4]


In his encyclopedic compendium on giants, Stephen Quayle offers much further evidence and photographs proving beyond reasonable doubt that not only were there giants in those days, but also after that, right on up to the present era. Photos of, the "Fossilized Irish Giant" (12 feet 2 inches tall); Machnof (9 feet 4 inches tall); Antoine Hugo (see photo at beginning of this report by Conspiracy Nation, 8 feet 4 inches tall); Johann Petursson (8 feet 8 inches tall). Other photos are currently viewable at Quayle's web site, http://www.stevequayle.com


Forbidden Legacy Of A Fallen Race

In From The Ashes Of Angels, author Andrew Collins echoes sentiments expressed by Conspiracy Nation above. Referring to the puzzling passage in Genesis 6:4, Collins writes, "In the hundreds of times I have read these isolated words out aloud I have wondered to myself: what could they possibly mean?" Collins develops a theory that the Watchers (a.k.a. the Grigori, the Nephilim) were an evolved human culture dwelling in the Caucasus mountains. They were known as the Watchers, suggests the author, not because they watched the humans below but because they watched and studied the heavens above. In Collins' theory, this advanced culture interbred with more primitive cultures. Not explained though is the continued presence of truly massive giants throughout history, not just tall but enormous.


In Zoroastrianism, two types of supernatural beings are recognized: the ahuras and the daevas. The daevas somehow adopted human form, in this belief system, and had "amatory dealings with earthly women." The alleged shape-shifting ability is also seen in the djinn who, according to Kurdish folklore, mated with 500 earthly virgins. [5] Collins


supplements material cited above, tending to show an interbreeding between a mysterious group of superhuman Watchers and human women which led to the birth of giants.

Beyond the fact that a race of giants once inhabited the earth, that they were prevalent as recently as 2000-or-so years ago, and that atavistic throwbacks of these giants still occasionally occur, little beyond informed speculation is possible. Author David Icke theorizes an ages-old group of shape-shifting reptilians who are the source of great evil on this planet. But Icke is stuck in a reptilian framework: the Djinn, the Daevas, offspring of the Watchers, who mated with the daughters of men and produced giant offspring who "shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling" (Enoch 15:8), are essentially spiritual, not material, and hence not "reptilian." The Djinn "can appear as snakes. They can appear as scorpions, and they can even appear as human beings." [5] So there is some foundation for the belief that members of the most powerful, elite groups are "shape shifters" and not human as they seem.


Because, for some reason, the scientific establishment is closing their eyes on the historical reality of giants, a speculation vacuum occurs into which rushes just about anyone. A group called the Sons of Jared reportedly vows "implacable war against the descendants of the Watchers" who "as notorious Pharoahs, Kings and Dictators, have throughout history dominated mankind." [5] More credible is Elizabeth Clare Prophet, who warns: There are indeed fallen angels, they have embodied on earth and corrupted the souls of her people and they will be judged by the Elect One in the day of the coming of his elect servants. These fallen angels are with us today in positions of power in church and state as prime movers in matters of war and finance, sitting in the banking houses and on policy-making councils that determine the actual fate of mankind by population control and genetic engineering, the control of energy and commodities, education and the media, and by ideological and psychopolitical strategies of divide and conquer on all fronts. [2]


------- Notes -------
[1] Quayle, Stephen. Genesis 6 Giants. ISBN: 0-9721347-0-0. See http://www.stevequayle.com/[2] Prophet, Elizabeth Clare. Fallen Angels and the Origins of Evil. Summit University Press, 2000. ISBN: 0-922729-43-3[3] Snyder, Christopher. The World Of King Arthur. London: Thames & Hudson, 2000. ISBN: 0-500-05104-6[4] Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. London: Penguin Books, 1966. ISBN: 0-14-044170-0[5] Collins, Andrew. From The Ashes Of Angels. Bear & Company, 2001. ISBN: 187918172-X-------Conspiracy Nationhttp://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html

--------------------
http://myspace.com/oharry1
Posts: 1396 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:05:20 pm
Stacy Dohm
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2189

Member Rated:
5    Icon 1 posted 09-11-2005 10:49 PM      Profile for Stacy Dohm     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Thank your for all the rich material, Harry! I saw Deep Impact, had a great ending where Tea Leoni got killed by a giant tsunami (I hate her ever since she dragged David Duchovny away from the X Files [Frown] ). In my opinion, "the Day After Tomorrow" was still better, though!

--------------------
"All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream." - Edgar Allen Poe
Posts: 341 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Nov 2004  |


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:05:58 pm
Jennifer O'Dell
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2239

Member Rated:
5    Icon 1 posted 09-12-2005 12:34 AM      Profile for Jennifer O'Dell     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  I saw that, too, I thought that could never happen until the tsunamis killed all those people in Asia and then this thing in New Orleans. Looks like life is imitating art. Posts: 946 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:08:16 pm
Jennifer O'Dell
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2239

Member Rated:
5    Icon 1 posted 10-31-2005 02:38 PM      Profile for Jennifer O'Dell     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Whoops! One more.
Happy Halloween everybody. Posts: 946 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged |


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:09:38 pm
Rebecca Brunner
Avatar Image
New Member
Member # 2752

Rate Member    Icon 1 posted 12-14-2005 11:50 PM      Profile for Rebecca Brunner     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  I REALLY want to see this movie:



Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:10:03 pm
Review: 'King Kong' a giant pleasure
By Paul Clinton
For CNN.com

Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Posted: 8:52 a.m. EST (13:52 GMT)

(CNN) -- What do you do after creating the multiple Academy Award winning "The Lord of the Rings," arguably the greatest film trilogy of all time? Well, if you're Peter Jackson you immediately jump behind the camera and direct "King Kong," a film that became a classic when it stunned audiences back in 1933.

Then you pack this iconic remake with heart-wrenching humanity, mind-blowing special effects and fill it full of indelible images, and do it all so well that it's destined to also become an instant classic.

In a word, Jackson's "King Kong," is spectacular, awesome, phenomenal and breathtaking. OK, so I can't boil it down to one word.

Jackson has been obsessed with this "beauty and the beast" story since he was a child and saw the original film flickering across his black and white TV at home in New Zealand.

He was so taken with the movie that the budding filmmaker tried to make his own version when he was just 12 years old using his mother's donated old fur stole for Kong. The top of the Empire State building was made out of cardboard and the New York City skyline was painted on a bed sheet (which was not donated). Unfortunately, this epic was never completed, but the desire to make a film about "King Kong" continued to burn in Jackson's heart.

After becoming a full-fledged filmmaker and making the critically acclaimed "Heavenly Creatures," he tried again to get "Kong" made in 1996, but Hollywood wouldn't bite.

After the huge success of the "Rings" trilogy, Hollywood would probably have let him make a movie about a phone book. He chose to return to his childhood dream and make "King Kong."

Along with co-screenwriters Fran Walsh (his longtime wife and business partner) and Phillippa Boyens, he created a script that keeps the 1930s Depression era time frame and adheres fairly closely to the original -- written by adventurers-turned-filmmakers Merian C. Cooper and co-director Ernest B. Schoedsack.

Setting the scene
The story unfolds in a standard three-act structure. The opening shots of New York City in 1933 are brilliant in their attention to detail. You truly feel yourself being swept back in time as you meet raconteur filmmaker Carl Denham (Jack Black), who has just stolen the only print of his most recent film after studio executives refused to give him the funds to finish his latest travelogue/action flick. He's only lacking some action sequences and an actress. The only requirement is that she be a size four, because the costumes have already been made.

Enter Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a down-on-her-luck (size four) actress who faces either starvation or becoming a stripper in a burlesque show. She meets Black as he's desperate to get his crew onboard a Singapore-bound tramp streamer, the dilapidated S.S. Venture. She's reluctant to sign on for such a strange venture until she hears that an up-and-coming playwright she admires, Jack Driscoll (Oscar winner Adrien Brody), wrote the script.

They arrive at the S.S. Venture just as Driscoll is about to depart -- he has no intentions of going anywhere on this rusty old tub. But with the police hot on their heels, Denham tricks Driscoll into staying on board and they leave the harbor just as the cops arrive.

Unbeknownst to any of the cast or crew, the ship is not going to Singapore.
Denham has bribed Captain Englehorn (German star Thomas Kretschmann) into taking them to the mysterious and uncharted Skull Island, untouched by civilization. Denham hopes to complete his action scenes on this island shrouded in legend and lore.

Also on board for this ill-advised voyage are Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler), a preening B-movie leading man cast opposite Ann; Jimmy (Jamie Bell from "Billy Elliot"), the youngest crew member and Preston (Colin Hanks, son of Tom), who is Denham's over-stressed, nerve-wracked assistant.

Kong captured
Act II begins with their arrival on Skull Island, inhabited by a tribe of natives who are set upon making the new arrivals their soup de jour. But the natives are the least of their problems. Strange creatures inhabit the island behind a huge wall and the natives capture Ann and offer her up as a sacrifice to these horrifying beasts.

It seems this primordial lost island is also home to a host of non-extinct dinosaurs -- and one lonely, gigantic ape that is the last of his kind in the world, King Kong.

The whizbang visual effects used to create Kong are designed by the multiple Oscar-winning Weta Digital Ltd. and the Weta Workshop Ltd., both based in New Zealand and created by Jackson. But the expressive face and soulful eyes are provided by Andy Serkis, who performed in the "Rings" trilogy as Gollum, a character who came to life with the help of computer-generated imagery.

Kong captures and is then captivated by the beautiful young Ann as he battles giant centipedes and T. rexes.
There are many scenes in this 67-minute second act that will knock you to the floor. A terrifying stampede of Brontosaurus, giant insects, man-eating creatures with tentacles in a bottomless swamp and other gruesome monsters you have to see to believe. All the while, Denham is cranking away on his camera, capturing as much action as he can while trying to save Ann from Kong.

As the rest of the cast battles away, a strange but touching relationship develops between Ann and Kong. He becomes her protector and she in turn gives him the emotional connection to another being that he so desperately seeks.

When Kong has to battle a swarm of giant bats, it gives Denham the opportunity to rescue Ann and eventually capture Kong.

Class of its own
We never actually see how Kong is seized and put on the ship, because Act III finds us back in New York, where Denham is declaring the 25-foot gorilla the Eighth Wonder of the World. Tickets for opening night are selling like hotcakes.

The action now speeds toward its eventual ending as Kong escapes from the theater after being terrified by the camera lights and flashbulbs. He stampedes through the streets of New York looking for Ann, and once he finds her, he makes that fateful climb up the Empire State building.

Those iconic shots of the biplanes shooting at Kong while he tries to protect Ann will tug at your heartstrings, even though everyone knows how the film will end.

Usually when I'm told that a film is three or more hours long, it already has two strikes against it. But my eyes never left the screen while the entire three hours and seven minutes flashed by.

Watts can scream with the best of them and still manages to look beautiful -- and never break a sweat -- while being dragged through the jungle by a huge ape. Black manages to keep the audience on his side despite some despicable behavior. Serkis, who also plays Lumpy the Cook on the S.S. Venture, has done it again, giving the computer geniuses plenty to work with by using his elastic features and expressive eyes.

If the "Rings" trilogy didn't convince you, everyone will now have to admit that Jackson is one of the most creative men to ever sit in a director's chair.

This film is in a class of its own. If anyone ever tries to do another remake of "King Kong," they should be put in a rubber room. Posts: 2 | From: the Midwest | Registered: Oct 2005


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:10:28 pm
Brooke
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2806

Member Rated:
5    Icon 1 posted 01-01-2006 10:27 PM      Profile for Brooke     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  I'm bringing Stacy's topic to the front cause I was reading it the other day and think it might be helpful in our studies of evolution. It's the "missing link" section I'm interested in with this, not the King Kong part of it.

--------------------
"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
Posts: 1102 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:11:39 pm
Zodiac
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2231

Member Rated:
5    Icon 1 posted 01-17-2006 01:40 PM      Profile for Zodiac     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Suit yourself, Brooke, I'm interested in the King Kong part of it!

Bigfoot sighted in village in 1900s
Monday, 9 January, 2006



(http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/images/newsitems/bigfoot2.jpg)

More documented information about the Bigfoot of Johor has come to light in the wake of renewed interest in the Malaysian equivalent of the abominable snowman. The annals of Kampung Mawai, compiled by generations of headmen at the village, talk of the existence of the creature.The Sejarah Mawai Lama Sebelum dan Selepas Perang Dunia Ke-2 relates how the pioneer settlers of the village named it "Mawai" after seeing hairy creatures which they referred to as "Mawas".Biodiversity researcher Vincent Chow said a group of explorers from Jambi in Indonesia had, in the early 1900s, encountered the hairy creatures where the village now stands.Their leader, Mohamad Jambi, related that the creature took refuge under a palm tree called daun payung when it rained. Mohamad Jambi, who was later made the penghulu of Mukim Ulu Sedili by Sultan Ibrahim, decided to build a village using the daun payung and named it Kampung Mawas.Over time, it became known as Kampung Mawai.According to the historical account, villagers who went to collect rattan along rivers deep in the jungle often sighted the creatures.The villagers had observed that the creature always dwelt near rivers or streams where it hunted mouse deer and jungle fowl.They also observed that the Mawas would bring food to water to wash off the blood.Meanwhile, Chow said he was contacted yesterday by the Korean Broadcasting Agency which expressed interest in doing a documentary on Bigfoot.

"I will be forwarding this message to State Tourism and Environment Committee chairman Freddie Long."Interest in Bigfoot was sparked when three workers building a fish pond in the village claimed they had seen a family of two adults and a child.A member of the Johor Malaysian Nature Society carrying out a fish survey nearby took photographs of the footprints measuring about 45cm long besides observing that the creature was about three metres tall.Earlier the Singapore media, British Broadcasting Corporation and Reuters had shown interest in the Bigfoot sightings and efforts to track the creature.In Muar last night, Health Minister Datuk Dr Chua Soi Lek urged the Johor Government to solve the mystery of the Bigfoot sightings.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=58985


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:13:05 pm
King Kong in Kerala?
T S SREENIVASA RAGHAVAN

[ Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:49:45 amTIMES

KARALMANNA (Palakkad): Peter Jackson's King Kong is set on a mysterious, uncharted island. He might as well have shot it in Kerala.

Or so it would seem, if — and that's literally a big if — claims by a team of amateur anthropologists are proved true.

The team claims to have discovered footprints of a "giant-man" who had a shoe size of 29 inches, lived in a shelter 50 metres high and weighed well over 400 kg.

Going by the footprint size, the creature may have been as tall as 17 feet, which would make it easily the "largest human form to roam the earth".

Announcing the 'discovery' on Monday, the team said the signs of the mammoth creature — found in a remote village some 60 km from Palakkad town in Kerala — "confirmed" the existence of 'Bigfoot'.

Ever since reports began in the mid-19th century of 'sightings' of the Yeti or Abominable Snowman in the Himalayas, there has been enormous fascination and speculation around the world about the fabled man-like being.

But most sightings reported in various countries, notably in the US, turned out to be either hoaxes or cases of overactive imaginations.

However, on December 30 last year, farmers in the forests of Malaysia claimed to have spotted a family of three.

Scientists who examined signs purportedly left by the beasts said Bigfoot cannot be ignored any more. In India, the amateur team insists it's on the right track.

"This is a site where many unknown geological, archaeological and anthropological facts lie buried," said S R Krishnaswamy, the man who led the team to Palakkad.

He had earlier discovered a stone-age site inside the deep forests of Coimbatore.

"It's a treasure-trove. Basically, the site where Bigfoot once roamed has a rock-shelter whose roof is 50 meters long, shaped into a circle. This would've been a deep jungle in the remote age."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1365170,curpg-3.cms


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:15:55 pm
Gigantic Apes Coexisted with Early Humans, Study Finds
By Bjorn Carey
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 07 November 2005
01:34 pm ET



A gigantic ape standing 10 feet tall and weighing up to 1,200 pounds lived alongside humans for over a million years, according to a new study.

Fortunately for the early humans, the huge primate's diet consisted mainly of bamboo.

Scientists have known about Gigantopithecus blackii since the accidental discovery of some of its teeth on sale in a Hong Kong pharmacy about 80 years ago. While the idea of a giant ape piqued the interest of scientists – and bigfoot hunters – around the world, it was unclear how long ago this beast went extinct.

Precise dating

Now Jack Rink, a geochronologist at McMaster University in Ontario, has used a high-precision absolute-dating method to determine that this ape – the largest primate ever – roamed Southeast Asia for nearly a million years before the species died out 100,000 years ago during the Pleistocene period. By this time, humans had existed for a million years.

"A missing piece of the puzzle has always focused on pin-pointing when Gigantopithecus existed," Rink said. "This is a primate that co-existed with humans at a time when humans were undergoing a major evolutionary change. Guangxhi province in southern China, where some of the Gigantopithecus fossils were found, is the same region where some believe the modern human race originated."

Since the original discovery, scientists have been able to piece together a description of Gigantopithecus using just a handful of teeth and a set of jawbones. It may not be much, but the unusually large size of these teeth indicates they belonged to one big ape.

"The size of these specimens – the crown of the molar, for instance, measures about an inch across – helped us understand the extraordinary size of the primate," Rink said.

What happened?

Humans may have helped destroy the ape.

Further studies of the teeth revealed that the ape was an herbivore, and bamboo was probably its favorite meal. Some scientists believe that an appetite focused on bamboo combined with increasing competition from more nimble humans eventually led to the extinction of Gigantopithecus.

While most scientists agree that Gigantopithecus died out long ago, some people – Bigfoot, Sasquatch, and Yeti enthusiasts in particular – believe that this ape is the source of tales of giant, hairy beasts roaming the woods. These claims are not considered credible by mainstream scientists. There have been cases in which creatures are first known first by their fossil remains and later found living, such as the coelacanth – a type of fish thought to have died out millions of years ago until it was discovered swimming off the coast of Africa in 1938.

Researchers do not have a full skeleton for Gigantopithecus. But they can fill in the gaps and estimate its size and shape by comparing it to other primates – those that came before it, coexisted with it, and also modern apes. Currently, scientists are debating over how Gigantopithecus got around – was it bipedal or did it use its arms to help it walk, like modern chimpanzees and orangutans? The only way to answer this is to collect more bones.

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/051107_giant_ape.html


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:16:42 pm
Voice of Reason: The Reality of Bigfoot
By Benjamin Radford
from the Skeptical Inquirer
posted: 28 July 2005
04:43 pm ET



Bigfoot's been a busy beastie recently, especially in Canada. In April a Manitoba ferry operator videotaped a large, dark, indistinct creature moving along a riverbank. Whatever it was -- Bigfoot, bear, bison, or otherwise -- it caused quite a stir and made international news.

Three months later, in nearby Yukon province, Teslin resident Trent Smarch found a tuft of coarse, dark hair in a forest where he and other locals heard a large, mysterious animal in the brush. They believe the creature was a Sasquatch, the Canadian version of the huge, hairy, humanoid mystery creature known as Bigfoot. The find was reported across North America and around the world, and many wondered if this hair find might finally prove Bigfoot's long-disputed existence. The hair sample was sent to University of Alberta wildlife geneticist David Coltman for analysis. Coltman was asked to extract any available DNA from the hair, sequence the mitochondrial genes, and compare them to a database of known regional creatures.

On July 28, after a week of testing, the results were announced. More on that later, but first some background on the search for Bigfoot evidence. Bigfoot burst into the public's mind in 1959, with the publication of a magazine article describing the discovery of large, mysterious footprints the year earlier in Bluff Creek, California. A half century later, the question of Bigfoot's existence remains open. Bigfoot is still sought, the pursuit kept alive by a steady stream of sightings, occasional photos or footprint finds, and sporadic media coverage. By far the majority of support for Bigfoot comes from eyewitness reports and anecdotes, yet this is the least reliable kind of evidence -- and virtually worthless from a scientific perspective. What science needs to validate the existence of Bigfoot is hard evidence: a live or dead specimen, bones, teeth, blood, or hair. Because hard evidence is lacking -- no bones or bodies have been found -- Coltman's analysis was much anticipated.

The Yukon sample is not the first Bigfoot hair to be analyzed. Over the past few decades, dozens of hair and blood samples have been recovered from alleged Bigfoot encounters. (One example: in 2000, a group of Bigfoot researchers found what they interpreted as a Bigfoot body print in mud near Mount Adams in Washington state. Despite five years of study and the promise of alleged hair, saliva, and dung samples, no conclusive evidence has yet emerged from the find.) When a definite conclusion has been reached, the samples have invariably turned out to have prosaic sources -- "Bigfoot hair" turns out to be elk or bear or cow hair, for example, or "Bigfoot blood" is revealed to be transmission fluid. In his book Big Footprints, noted researcher Grover Krantz discusses such evidence: "The usual fate of these items is that they either receive no scientific study, or else the documentation of that study is either lost or unobtainable. In most cases where competent analyses have been made, the material turned out to be bogus or else no determination could be made."

It is important to understand the science behind hair analyses: An outcome of "unknown" or "inconclusive" does not necessarily mean the sample came from a Bigfoot. All it means is that the sample did not match whichever other samples it was compared to. For that reason, a wig or carpet fiber or even hair from an animal foreign to the region (such as a kangaroo or camel) claimed to be from a Bigfoot will likely be reported as "unknown." It also highlights a basic methodological problem that plagues all Bigfoot research: The lack of a standard measure. We know what a bear track looks like; if we find a track that we suspect was left by a bear, we can compare it to one we know was left by a bear. But there are no undisputed Bigfoot specimens by which to compare new evidence.

This is why evidence such as the Yukon hair is so crucial to proving Bigfoot's existence. At a press conference, Coltman revealed the results of his DNA analysis. The Bigfoot hair matched that of a bison 100 percent. Bison are common in the region, and it seems likely that the locals' expectations and perceptions were influenced by the Manitoba sighting three months earlier.

The DNA result will not, of course, deter the Bigfoot believers and eyewitnesses. But it does provide an excellent example of what happens when hard evidence of a mystery is subjected to the rigors of science. This high-profile Bigfoot hair analysis by a reputable scientist also addresses a criticism often heard by monster enthusiasts: That mainstream scientists ignore Bigfoot evidence for fear of damaging their reputations in pursuit of what some would call a myth. Yet if Bigfoot or other mystery creatures do exist, they are certainly worthy of serious scientific scrutiny. At the same time, since all previous samples were found to be hoaxes, inconclusive, or from known animals, scientists' lack of enthusiasm for spending time and resources on yet more such evidence is understandable.

In the space of six months, one alleged Canadian Bigfoot was videotaped and another left its hair. Nothing new has been learned from the Manitoba video -- it's still an unidentified dark blob, possibly one of any number of large animals in the area -- and the Yukon hair has been identified as bison. The mystery remains, and the search goes on.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benjamin Radford wrote "Bigfoot at 50: Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot Evidence" for the March/April 2002 issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine. He is co-author of Hoaxes, Myths, and Manias: Why We Need Critical Thinking.

http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffiction/050728_bigfoot.html


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:18:42 pm
Johor's Bigfoot - Remnants Of Pre-Historic Apes?


By Mohd Haikal Mohd Isa

JOHOR BAHARU, Jan 4 (Bernama) -- Could Bigfoot, believed to have been spotted in the jungles of Johor, actually be a pre-historic animal which had gone extinct over hundreds of thousand years ago?

Based on the Bigfoot-Giganto theory, researchers claimed that Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, Yeti or Mawas was probably a pre-historic giant ape which lived during the Middle of Pleistocene age.

The animal is believed to be living in several parts of Asia including China and Southeast Asia, as well as North America during ancient times before facing extinction from the earth some 200,000 to 500,000 years ago.

The question of whether Bigfoot was a pre-historic animal had long been discussed by researchers across the world but until now, they have failed to reach any definite answer to it.

This raised questions whether the Bigfoot sightings by several individuals, including Orang Asli villagers at the 248 million year old Endau-Rompin National Park, may be the remnants of the Gigantopithecus Blacki (or 'Giant Ape' in Latin) species.

At the same time, there were similar physical traits between Gigantopithecus and Bigfoot, which according to the Orang Asli folks, the giant animal, which was said to be 10 feet tall, with brown hairy body, was sighted in several jungle spots in Johor.

Before this, several animal species believed to have gone extinct, were later found to still exist. For example, the Coelacanth fish, known to have existed about 360 million years ago and believed to have gone into extinction, was caught by fishermen in 1938.

According to the US-based Bigfoot Field Research Organisation (BFRO), researchers on the animal generally accepted the Bigfoot-Giganto theory.

The BFRO which claims itself as the most credible Bigfoot research organisation on its website, said the issue of Gigantopithecus had caught the interest of many anthropologists and primatologists.

Johor National Park Corporation (JNPC) Director Hashim Yusof when asked by Bernama on the link between Bigfoot and Gigantopithecus, said that the possibility is there, given the park's huge space and age.

"The Endau-Rompin National Park covers 48,906 hectares or 800 sq. km and aged 248 million years. We only have information on half of the flora and fauna inside it," he said. Recently JNPC organised a one-day expedition at Endau-Rompin to trek Bigfoot but failed to find any traces such as its footprints.

Hashim said, his party would organise another expedition to track down Bigfoot at the Endau Rompin National Park probably next month, where they will stay for a week inside the forest.

Meanwhile, another Johorian environmentalist Vincent Chow said the Bigfoot-Giganto theory that Bigfoot could be the remnants of the Gigantopithecus Blacki species might be the most accurate.

He said the theory had its grounds as it was based on experts' findings such as those in anthropology and other related fields.

Chow, an adviser of an environmental association in the state, said that the Endau-Rompin National Park's age matched that of the era of the giant ape Gigantopithecus which existed in the face of the earth.

At the same time, the virgin forest of the National Park makes it conducive for the giant animal's habitat.

"Bigfoot should be protected and regarded as the state's heritage," he said.

-- BERNAMA

http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/state_news/news.php?id=173907&cat=st


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:19:53 pm
Villagers’ close encounter with Bigfoot

STORY AND PIC BY FARIK ZOLKEPLI

KLUANG: It looks human but has fur the shades of dark red and black covering its face and body, stands about 4m tall and lets out a loud roar.

That is how the orang asli villagers from Batu 25, Kampung Punjat Sungai Nadik, in Kahang, about 190km from Johor Baru, described a creature known as siamang or better known as Bigfoot.

One of the villagers supposedly even had a 15-minute standoff with the creature and has stopped going into the jungle alone.


A 40cm to 50cm footprint of the Bigfoot discovered in Mawai, Kota Tinggi, recently. The print was found in mud after a group of workers tracked down the creature to a river.
Recalling his horrifying experience four months ago, Amir Md Ali said he was catching frogs in the Gunung Panti jungles to sell when he stumbled upon the creature.

“I was heading to my favourite spot when I suddenly saw this tall creature about 30m away.

“I was trembling with fear as the creature stared at me,” he said, adding that he did not move for about 15 minutes.

Amir, who initially thought the creature would leave, decided to run when the creature continued to stare at him.

“I did not look back and continued running until I reached my village,” he said, showing a clearing in the jungle where the standoff occurred to some 50 people who took part in an expedition to gather information on the Bigfoot sightings in the state.

The one-day expedition, led by Johor National Parks director Hashim Yusof, comprised park officials and press members.

Another villager, Herman Deraman, 21, or better known as Along, had a closer encounter with the creature in the woods.

“I was resting one night in a wooden hut on stilts after a long day of collecting bamboo strips.

“Suddenly, the hut started shaking violently,” he said, adding that soon after that, he heard a loud roar that sounded like that of a wild beast.

That incident kept him awake the whole night.

The next day, he encountered the creature again but this time at the place he usually gathered bamboo.

“I thought I saw a tree shaking but after a while, I realised there was a huge creature sitting down and rubbing itself against the tree.

“Luckily, the creature did not see me as its back was facing me,” he said.

Kampung Punjat Sungai Nadik is home to about 30 orang asli families who earn a living by gathering and selling produce collected from the jungle.

Hashim said the expedition was aimed at ascertaining the truth on the existence of the Bigfoot.

“We want to uncover the truth about this creature and also quash any rumour that can scare away visitors to the national park,” he said, adding that some 124,000 people visited the parks annually.

Hashim said they were also compiling a database on Bigfoot or orang mawas sightings at various spots.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/1/1/nation/13002732&sec=nation


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:23:06 pm
(http://thestar.com.my/archives/2006/1/1/nation/n_12bigfoot.jpg)

A 40cm to 50cm footprint of the Bigfoot discovered in Mawai, Kota Tinggi, recently. The print was found in mud after a group of workers tracked down the creature to a river.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:23:51 pm
Snowman of the Himalayas

12jan06
IN mid-1959 Argosy magazine flew Edmund Hillary and his wife, Louise, to New York, where Ed was presented with the magazine's Explorer of the Year award.

While they were in New York an invitation came to fly on to Chicago and make a short educational film with Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, the publishers of World Book Encyclopaedia. The filming went well.

John Dienhart, the company's public relations director, was charmed by Ed's personality and his enthusiastic account of his "dream expedition" – combining science with mountaineering and with a search for the yeti thrown in.

Dienhart thought Field Enterprises might be able to help, so asked Ed to send a detailed report about his plans.

Plans were concocted at the typewriter and posted off and, a week later, a cable arrived. He was invited to fly to Chicago and talk to the board of directors of Field Enterprises – at their expense.

The company contributed $US125,000 to the expedition, to be used at Ed's discretion, and, a year later, Dienhart found himself trekking out of Kathmandu at the end of a long stream of porters carrying tons of supplies for an eight-week yeti hunt in the Rolwaling Valley, west of Mt Everest.

For Ed, it was a year of frantic planning for, and organising, his biggest and most complex undertaking.

The expedition members, who would be in the Himalayas for a total of nine months, comprised 21 scientists, climbers and other specialists from New Zealand, Australia, India, Britain, the US and Nepal.

They would need several hundred local porters and scores of Sherpas to carry loads and work alongside the climbers at altitude.

This was the plan. During September 1960, one party would carry tons of expedition stores, equipment and building supplies to the Mingbo Valley above Tengboche and find sites for the two high-altitude huts. Norman Hardie led this group. Ed, meanwhile, would lead another party into Rolwaling Valley, west of the Khumbu, to search for evidence of the yeti.

In late October, Ed and his group would cross the Tesi Lapcha Pass into the Khumbu, meet up with the others, and assist with assembling huts.

Scientific director Dr Griffith Pugh and his team would arrive from the UK and America in late October, and spend the winter studying human acclimatisation while Ed returned to New Zealand for more supplies.

He would be back in March, bringing Louise with him for the walk in from Kathmandu – her first visit to Nepal.

The final part of the expedition was the attempt on a peak – probably Makalu – with the high-altitude team joined by Ed and two other climbers.

Ed was delighted and relieved when Hardie agreed to take on the leadership of the building group. He did outstanding work managing the straggling lines of 310 heavily laden porters through torrential monsoon rains to Tengboche, and, by the time the yeti-hunting "playboys" (Hardie's description) arrived in Khumjung on October 30, the "workers" had plenty to show for themselves.

The yeti hunters might have been "Hillary's playboys" when they set out, but after eight weeks trekking in high valleys and glaciers and crossing a snowy mountain pass as winter set in, they arrived in Khumjung a hardened crew, although yeti-less.

Several of them wrote accounts and one of the most entertaining was by Desmond Doig, the expedition's reporter, linguist and enthusiastic Orientalist who earned the respect of all his companions.

Doig described the last manic days of preparation before the two parts of the expedition left Kathmandu.

While Ed sorted through the 14 tons of expedition equipment and stores, which had to be made into 60lb porter loads, the novices were left to sort out their own requirements.

"Whether to sacrifice foot sprays and bath salts for cans of beer, and custom-built boots for the expedition clodhoppers . . . or take the lot and die under the load. Does one ever know what a load is like until one is under it? And has walked with it a mile, five miles, eight, 15?"

Ed left Kathmandu hours after the rest of the group and, having ensured that everyone got the right footwear, had managed to leave only a pair of size 10 sandshoes for himself. His feet are size 12. Slit in strategic places, the shoes saw him through nonetheless.

The yeti hunters found sets of footprints on the Ripimu Glacier at the head of the Rolwaling Valley, but hidden microphones and cameras enmeshed in trip wires failed to capture a yeti's likeness – or record its famous high-pitched whistle. The rifle with the tranquiliser darts was not required.

They concluded eventually that the footprints they had found were the tracks of a smaller animal which had melted out in the sun.

Michael Ward and Eric Shipton had photographed similar tracks near here on the 1951 Everest Reconnaissance, but those two climbers were far less conspicuous than this large party.

The final straw on the abortive yeti hunt seems to have been Peter Mulgrew's fishcakes, made from tinned Canadian salmon – a recipe Ed and Peter had enjoyed on Christmas Day 1957 in Antarctica.

Doig wrote: "It was never ascertained whether they or the altitude, or both, were responsible for Ed, George, Tom Nevison and Peter himself having a miserable night following the feast. Whatever it was, Ed was prompted by his immediate misery to pull out."

They headed to Khumjung, making the hazardous crossing of the 5755m (18,881ft) Tesi Lapcha Pass on October 28 with the help of 60 Sherpas who came to meet them. This was Ed's first time back in Sherpa country since 1954.

Doig recalled: "Ed Hillary sat at the top of the pass, his shaggy mane riding a near gale and icicles forming in his beard. For the rugged, unemotional character we considered him to be, he was suddenly unexpectedly nostalgic."

Ed had been in regular radio contact with Hardie but, for a few days, their frequency was jammed by recordings of Chinese opera. This led to an outbreak of jokes about the "Hillary International Spying Expedition", but was an indicator of the nervousness of the Chinese about their border with Nepal.

Hardie walked to meet Ed's group at the village of Thami and they reached Khumjung on October 30. Griffith Pugh had arrived with most of the scientific equipment two days before.

Doig, meanwhile, had been on the track of yeti relics. He had managed to purchase a yeti skin, and Urkien had told him that some monasteries and gompas, (Sherpa temples) had yeti scalps and skeletal hands. Doig alerted Ed, and after several false starts they began negotiations to borrow a yeti scalp from Khumjung Gompa and take it to America and Europe to be looked at by scientists.

Village elders were extremely reluctant to part with the precious relic which brought prestige to their village and good luck with weather and crops.

Ed brought to the negotiating table an offer to build a school at Khumjung and pay the salary of its first teacher.

A deal was reached, signed and sealed with appropriate ceremony. Ed would contribute 8000 Nepal rupees for gompa repairs and, in return, Ed and Doig were permitted to take the yeti scalp away for exactly six weeks.

Khunjo Chumbi, a village elder, would go with them and be with the scalp at all times.

Pugh and his team were less than enthusiastic about Ed's departure for six weeks, but keeping their sponsors happy is a leader's job and, without a live animal to show for the trip, this was the next best thing. (And the publicity Ed, Khunjo and the yeti relics engendered ensured Field Enterprise's continuing support for Sherpa aid projects for more than a decade).

Khunjo was a handsome, laughing man and a brilliant dancer, who wore his Tibetan clothes with great swagger and charm. All this, along with the fame of Sir Edmund Hillary and the mysterious yeti relics, contributed to a triumphant progress through New York, Chicago, Paris and London.

In the end, scientists pronounced the skin to be from a blue bear. The yeti "scalp" had been made from the hide of the serow antelope – probably intended as a ceremonial hat but gradually acquiring the status of an actual scalp.

The scalp might not have been the real thing, but as Mike Gill noted: "Khunjo Chumbi was declared genuine and as an exponent of Tibetan dancing was asked to perform wherever he went, from the Merchandise Mart in Chicago to the nightclubs of Paris."

Khunjo also gave a winning response to Professor J. Millot of the Musee d l'Homme in Paris when he suggested that yetis did not exist: "In Nepal we have neither giraffes nor kangaroos so we know nothing about them. In France, there are no yetis, so I sympathise with your ignorance."

Khunjo was anxious to spare Ed the embarrassment of having to concede that he could not produce scientific evidence of a yeti. He offered to find a real one for him on their return to the Khumbu but, in the end, Ed concluded the yeti's existence was cultural rather than physical.

Mike Gill summed up the view of the sahibs: "What is the yeti? In Sherpa mythology, it seems, the yeti is an evil spirit. To the Sherpas, spirits are as real as atoms, or angels, are to us – though to prove they are there is not easy.

The few of us who believe in angels must trust in hearsay or faith and, though we accept atoms without question, there are not many of us who can prove our belief.

"So, if a Sherpa finds unknown tracks in the snow, or catches a glimpse of a vague shape at dusk, or when, by himself on a lonely but stormy night, hears strange noises – why, then it is a yeti."

An edited extract from Sir Edmund Hillary: An Extraordinary Life by Alexa Johnston (Penguin/Viking, $59.95)

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17792390%255E954,00.html


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:25:11 pm
Authorities Hunt for 'Bigfoot' in Malaysia
Fri Dec 30, 6:26 AM


KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Authorities began searching the jungles of southern Malaysia on Friday for the mythical "Bigfoot" following a reported sighting of three giant human-like beasts, officials said.

Wildlife authorities may set up cameras in the 309 sq.mile Endau Rompin National Park in Johor state to see if the creatures do exist, they said.

Park director Hashim Yusof ventured into the jungle Friday to survey the site where three fish farm workers reportedly saw the beasts - two adults and a young one - last month, Hashim's secretary told The Associated Press. She did not want her name used and declined to give details.

The fish farm workers were in the jungle to clear an area for a fish pond. They alerted their employer who photographed what appeared to be footprints measuring up to 17 inches, said Lim Teong Kheng, the chairman of the Malaysian Nature Society in Johor.

He said brown hair reeking of body odor was also reportedly retrieved nearby, and a broken tree branch at the site appeared to indicate the creatures were some 10 feet tall.

The New Straits Times newspaper on Thursday reprinted one of the photographs taken by the fish farmer, showing what appears to be a triangular depression in the undergrowth.

Lim welcomed the investigation by the national park saying "Bigfoot" sightings have been reported for decades in the area but never taken seriously for lack of evidence.

"Nobody dared say anything in case people say they are out of their minds," Lim told the AP. "But sightings have been enumerated by many others before this at the Endau Rompin area."

"Bigfoot" is a popular name given in the United States to giant hairy creatures walking on two legs. Sightings of such beasts are reported in many parts of the world but never confirmed.


http://www.optonline.net/Article/Feeds?CID=channel%3D32%26article%3D16830862


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:26:29 pm
Michelle Sandberg
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2194

Member Rated:
5    Icon 1 posted 01-18-2006 10:42 PM      Profile for Michelle Sandberg     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Anyone see this yet? I just had to see King Kong! The original is one of my all-time favorites, and the new one is really good, too. The story keeps all the original scenes of the first one, but Peter Jackson makes everything more realistic. For instance, Kong moves on all fours, like a twenty-five ape really would and throws temper tantrums. Also, that native tribe at the beginning is really spooky! I've seen the original lots of times, and it's really cool how the whole remake compliments it, instead of trying to compete with it. Can't wait to see the extended cut of it! Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:26:49 pm
Jennifer O'Dell
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2239

Member Rated:
5    Icon 1 posted 01-19-2006 07:19 PM      Profile for Jennifer O'Dell     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  I saw King Kong, too, Michelle. Pretty cool movie. Posts: 946 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged |


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:27:07 pm
Brooke
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2806

Member Rated:
5    Icon 1 posted 01-22-2006 02:31 AM      Profile for Brooke     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  I saw it, too. Giganto is listed as a possible "king Kong," but the ape in the movie is twenty-five feet while he stood ten feet. Still mighty big and the ape did live side by side with humans! But scientists think that humans were the ones that hunted him to extinction, much like in the movie.

--------------------
"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
Posts: 1102 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:27:20 pm
oscar
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member    Icon 1 posted 01-24-2006 07:21 AM      Profile for oscar     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  When we find a skeleton is naïve to think we can really reconstruct their forms. In fact no hair, no color is known and the artist reconstruct what they already think must be the basis. If they think the entity was a simian or ape-men they will use their imagination as National Geographic artists (each one of them creating a different being out of the same fragments of fossils), hence I'm not convinced some of these entities were so simian as THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE specially watching human gigantic bones:

Many pages to read:
www.s8int.com/giants1.html
www.world-mysteries.com/sar_6.htm
www.starchildproject.com/analysis-01.html
www.starchildproject.com/analysis-02.html
www.starchildproject.com/lloyd-01.html
www.starchildproject.com/hybrid-ani.html
www.enigmas.org/aef/lib/archeo/askulls.shtml Posts: 3542 | From: china | Registered: Feb 2003 


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:27:43 pm
Jason
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2807

Member Rated:
5    Icon 1 posted 01-24-2006 09:55 PM      Profile for Jason     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Oscar, I'm not so sure that those skulls (from the enigmas page) are supposed to be simian so much as the native custom of "binding," a practice done while the child is an infant. I believe they were discovered by a German expedition to the area back in the 1930's. Posts: 318 | From: Dorm Room | Registered: Oct 200


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:29:14 pm
Analysis of Early Hominins


    The bones of more than 500 early hominins have been found.  From them, we have gained a broad understanding of these related species using an array of new technological aids.
    click this icon in order to see the following video  New Technology for Old Fossils--members of the Human Origins Program team of the Smithsonian
            Institution describe how they use cutting-edge technology in their scientific investigations.
            This link takes you to a video at an external website.  To return here, you must click the "back" button
            on your browser program.         (length = 2 mins, 23 secs)

    It is now understood that while there were considerable anatomical differences between the early hominins, they also shared a number of important traits.  By 3 million years ago, most of them probably were nearly as efficient at bipedal locomotion as humans.  Like people, but unlike apes, the bones of their pelvis, or hip region, were shortened from top to bottom and bowl-shaped (shown below).  This made the pelvis more stable for weight support when standing or moving bipedally.  The longer ape pelvis is adapted for quadrupedal locomotion.  Early hominin leg and foot bones were also much more similar to ours than to those of apes.  This is consistent with the likelihood of early hominin bipedalism.

   
Comparison of Pelvis and Foot Bones

(http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/pelvis_and_feet.gif)


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:29:40 pm
Bipedal locomotion may have been an adaptation to living in a mixed woodland and grassland environment.  It has been suggested that bipedalism was selected for because it made it easier to see long distances when moving over areas covered with tall grasses.  This would have been a useful advantage in scavenging for food and watching for big cats and other predators in open environments.  An upright posture also potentially helps to dissipate excess body heat and reduces the absorption of heat from the sun because less skin has a direct exposure to ultra violet radiation during the hottest times of the day.  There is evidence suggesting that bipedal animals usually can walk greater distances because less energy is expended with their longer strides.  This would be useful for scavenging for food throughout vast areas.  However, the legs of bipedal animals need to be sturdy enough to support at least 2.5 times their body weight while running.  Over many generations, early hominin legs became longer and much stronger than their arms.  Their feet developed arches for more efficient support of their bodies.  In addition, their hands became more adept at carrying and manipulating objects such as tools and food.  These adaptations to walking bipedally on the ground made it progressively more difficult to climb and travel through the canopies of trees.
click this icon in order to see the following video  Walking Tall--a comparison between human and chimpanzee skeletons
        This link takes you to a video at an external website.  To return here, you must
        click the "back" button on your browser program.         (length = 56 secs)
click this icon in order to see the following video   Baby Steps: Learning to Walk, The Hominid Way--the evolution of bipedalism
        among our hominid ancestors.  This link takes you to an audio file at an
        external website.  To return here, you must click the "back" button on your
        browser program.         (length = 7 mins, 46 secs)

While the late australopithecines were similar to humans anatomically below the neck, their heads were significantly different from ours in several key features.  Their adult brain size was about 1/3 that of people today.  As a result, the widest part of the skull of these early hominins was below the brain case.  For modern humans, it usually is in the temple region.  Early hominin faces were large relative to the size of their brain cases.  They had comparatively big teeth with thick enamel, large jaws, and powerful jaw muscles. The size and shape of these muscles is indicated by flaring zygomatic arches click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced and the presence of a sagittal crest click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced, which was a jaw muscle attachment area in the robust species.  In modern humans, the jaw muscles are much smaller and attach onto the skull in the temple region.  From the side view, early hominin faces were concave or dish-shaped and projecting forward at the bottom due to their large teeth and jaws.  In contrast, our jaws are relatively small and our faces are nearly vertical.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:30:16 pm
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/crania_comparisons.gif)

    Early hominin fossils have been found only in Africa.  The majority of them were discovered in East and South Africa.  However, some also were found recently in Chad, which is located in North Central Africa.  Current evidence indicates that there were as many as 12 species of early hominins between 6 and 1.5 million years ago, but they did not all live at the same time.  The following species are the most widely accepted ones:

        1.     Australopithecus anamensis
        2.    Australopithecus afarensis
        3.    Australopithecus africanus
        4.    Australopithecus aethiopicus (or Paranthropus aethiopicus)
        5.    Australopithecus boisei (or Paranthropus boisei)
        6.    Australopithecus robustus (or Paranthropus robustus)

    The fossil record of early hominins is being added to by new important discoveries almost every year.  As a result, it is not yet clear how many species of them actually existed nor is it certain what their evolutionary relationship was to each other.  However, the broad outlines of this complex evolutionary history are already known and are summarized here.  To see a more complete listing of proposed species of early hominins and their immediate ancestors, select the button below.  It would be helpful to have a printout of this table in order to understand the discussion of the early hominins that follows.
      Table of Early Hominins and Their Immediate Ancestors 


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:30:31 pm
Early Australopithecine Species

Australopithecus anamensis may have been the earliest australopithecine species.  They lived about 4.2-3.9 million years ago in East Africa.  Unfortunately, little is known about them due to the scarcity of their fossils and the fact that the ones that have been found are highly fragmentary.  This species apparently was descended from Ardipithecus ramidus, which lived around 4.4 million years ago, or an even earlier ape/hominin transitional species near the beginning of the Pliocene Epoch.  Anamensis was bipedal but may still have been an efficient tree climber.  The shapes of the arm and leg bones indicate that it was bipedal.  The canine teeth are relatively large compared to later australopithecines and humans.  The alignment of teeth in the jaw is somewhat rectangular, reminiscent of apes, rather than like the modern human parabolic dental arch (like the McDonald's golden arches sign).  Anamensis remains have been found in what had been woodlands around lakes.  Their diets were apparently mainly vegetarian with an emphasis on fruits and nuts.

Australopithecus afarensis lived about 3.7-3.0 million years ago in East Africa.  Skeletally, they were still somewhat transitional from earlier ape species.  This can be seen in their legs which were relatively shorter than those of the later australopithecines and humans.  Afarensis also had slender curved fingers reminiscent of chimpanzees.  Because of these anatomical characteristics, it has been suggested that they were less efficient bipeds and more efficient tree climbers than the later australopithecines.  Afarensis canine teeth were relatively large and pointed, reminiscent of apes.  They projected somewhat beyond their other teeth but not as much as in chimpanzees.  Some of the male afarensis had small sagittal crests.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:30:59 pm
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/A_afarensis_Lucy_skull.gif)

Australopithecus afarensis
(Lucy)


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:31:25 pm
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/Australopithecus_afarensis_appearance.JPG)

    

Australopithecus afarensis
(reconstructed appearance)


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:32:01 pm
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/Kenyanthropus_appearance.jpg)

Kenyanthropus platyops
(reconstructed appearance


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:32:16 pm


photo of a reconstruction of the head and upper torso of an Kenyanthropus platyops
   

Kenyanthropus platyops
(reconstructed appearance)
   

Tim White and some other paleoanthropologists believe that there was considerable physical variation within the species Australopithecus afarensis.  They suggest that the recently discovered fossils classified as Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5-3.2 million years ago) was a variant form of afarensis but with somewhat smaller teeth.  White discounts the flattened face of platyops as being due to the deformation of the bones by ground pressure after death.  Meave Leakey disagrees.  She believes that platyops was a separate species and that it was more likely to have been the progenitor of humans.  Additional hominin fossils from the crucial time period of 4-3 million years ago must be discovered to conclusively determine the place of platyops in our evolution.
 
photo of an Australopithecus africanus skull
Australopithecus africanus

Australopithecus africanus lived about 3.3-2.5 million years ago in South and possibly East Africa.  Skeletally, they were less ape-like than earlier species of australopithecines but were still usually small and light in frame like afarensis.  However, the teeth of africanus were in some ways more like humans than like afarensis.  Specifically, the front teeth of africanus were relatively large like ours and their canine teeth did not project beyond the others.  Microscopic wear patterns on africanus teeth suggest a diet consisting of relatively soft foods, which very likely included some meat along with plants.  This does not necessarily imply efficient hunting skills.  More likely, they obtained meat by scavenging what remained on the corpses of animals killed by lions and other predators.  It is possible that they also did some hunting of small animals in much the same inefficient manner of chimpanzees today.  They probably ate insects and eggs as well.

The classification of Australopithecus garhi is still very problematical.  This Ethiopian fossil has been dated to 2.5 million years ago, which makes it contemporaneous with late africanus.  Largely for that reason, some paleoanthropologists have suggested that garhi is a variant of africanus.  However, several features of the head of garhi look more like a holdover from the older afarensis species.  On the other hand, the relative lengths of the arms and legs of garhi are more reminiscent of the first humans.  The discovery of butchered animal bones with garhi suggests that their diet included at least some meat, as was the case with africanus.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:33:03 pm
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/A_africanus_skull_side.gif)

Australopithecus africanus


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:33:29 pm
Late Australopithecine Species

The early australopithecines have been referred to collectively as gracile click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced species (literally "gracefully slender").  Most of them were relatively small, slender, and delicate boned compared to the somewhat more muscular, robust species of australopithecines that mostly came later.  However, this is not always a reliable descriptive distinction because the range of variation in physical appearance of the two groups of species overlaps.  Subsequently, some individual graciles were bigger than some of the robust ones.  However, the robust species shared some characteristics of their heads that dramatically show that they had diverged from the evolutionary line that would become humans.  The late australopithecines, which were all robust species, had larger jaws accompanied by pronounced sagittal crests in the case of males.  They also had much larger back teeth (premolars and molars) and smaller front ones (incisors) compared to those of the early humans who were present at that time.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:34:02 pm
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/africanus_and_boisei_skulls.gif)

 gracile
Australopithecine


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:38:07 pm
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/africanus_and_boisei_skulls.gif)

 robust   australopithecine   


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:38:49 pm
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/robust_australopithecine_dentition.gif)


(http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/dentition--human.gif)

 robust australopithecine
       teeth (upper)     
   human teeth (lower)


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:39:11 pm
Little is known about Australopithecus aethiopicus  click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced (the "black skull") other than it apparently was one of the earliest robust species--it lived about 2.5 million years ago.  So far, this species has been found only in East Africa.  Since it had a smaller brain than the other robust species and it was early, aethiopicus is thought to be a transitional form from one of the gracile species that came before.  It had an unusually large sagittal crest (shown below).

Australopithecus robustus was a South African robust species that lived about 2.0-1.4 million years ago.  They had strong jaws and very large molar and premolar teeth with thick enamel.  Males also had pronounced sagittal crests, though not as large as the next species listed below.

Australopithecus boisei was a super-robust East African species that lived about 2.0-1.4 million years ago.  They tended to be more massive and beefy-looking even than Australopithecus robustus.  Male boisei were especially muscular.  Like their South African cousins, robustus, they had prominent sagittal crests and very large grinding teeth with thick enamel.  These teeth would have been capable of cracking hard nuts and dry seeds.  However, such food items may not have been important in their diet.  Recent microscopic analysis of dental wear patterns, done by Peter Ungar at the University of Arkansas, indicates that what boisei predominantly ate was soft foods such as fruit, leaves, roots, and possibly even meat.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:39:46 pm
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/A_ethiopicus_skull.gif)


 Australopithecus aethiopicus 
(the "black skull")


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:40:12 pm
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/aust.robustus.gif)

 Australopithecus robustus


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:40:43 pm
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/A_boisei_skull_right.gif)


 Australopithecus boisei
 (formerly known as Zinjanthropus)


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:40:58 pm
Early Hominin Body Size

The early hominins were significantly smaller on average than modern humans.  Adult male australopithecines were usually only about 4.3-4.9 feet tall and weighed around 88-108 pounds.  Apparently, females were much smaller and less muscular.  They were usually 3.4-4.1 feet tall and weighed only 64-75 pounds.  This is greater sexual dimorphism click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced than is found in human populations today.  In some australopithecine species, sexual dimorphism may have been nearly as great as among the great apes.  Female gorillas weigh about 61% that of males, while modern human females are about 83% the weight of males.
   AVERAGE WEIGHT    AVERAGE STATURE
      
SPECIES    males       females       females as
 % of males      males       females       females as
 % of males
                  
  Australopithecus afarensis     92 lbs
(42 kg)    64 lbs
(29 kg)    64%    4 ft 11 in
(151 cm)    3 ft 5 in
(105 cm)    70%
  Australopithecus africanus      90 lbs
(41 kg)    66 lbs
(30 kg)    73%    4 ft 6 in
(138 cm)    3 ft 9 in
(115 cm)    83%
  Australopithecus robustus    119 lbs
(54 kg)    88 lbs
(40 kg)    74%    3 ft 9 in
(114 cm)    3 ft 3 in
(99 cm)    87%
  Australopithecus boisei    108 lbs
(49 kg)    75 lbs
(34 kg)    69%    5 ft 4 in
(137 cm)    4 ft 1 in
(124 cm)    91%
  earliest humans
     (Homo habilis)     114 lbs
(52 kg)    70 lbs
(32 kg)    61%    5 ft 2 in
(157 cm)    4 ft 1 in
(125 cm)    79%
  modern humans 1
     (Homo sapiens)    144 lbs
(65 kg)    119 lbs
(54 kg)    83%    5 ft 9 in
(175 cm)    5 ft 3 in
(161 cm)    92%
1  The relatively low weight and height of modern humans shown here is a rough average of all people
    around the globe.  Some populations are significantly bigger (e.g., many Europeans and Africans).

(Source: H. M. McHenry, "How Big Were Early Hominids?", Evolutionary Anthropology 1 [1992] p. 18;
and "What Does It Mean To Be Human? Human Evolution Evidence" [2010}, Smithsonian National
Museum of Natural History)




Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:41:16 pm
Possible Evolutionary Links

There has been a gap in the fossil hominin record for the crucial period before 4.2 million years ago when Australopithecus anamensis appeared.  New discoveries are now beginning to fill in the missing picture of evolution leading to the australopithecines at that early time.  Beginning in 1992, Tim White and several of his Ethiopian colleagues found fossils of what may be the immediate ancestor of the australopithecines at the Aramis site in the Middle Awash region of Northern Ethiopia.  The teeth of these very early fossils seem to have been transitional between apes and Australopithecus anamensis.  Among the living apes, they were most similar to chimpanzees, however, they were not apes as we usually think of them today.  These Aramis fossils date to about 4.4 million years ago and may represent the first stage in the evolution of bipedalism.  Because of their primitiveness, White has given them a new genus and species designation (Ardipithecus ramidus click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced, nicknamed "Ardi") rather than include them with australopithecines.
click this icon in order to see the following video  The Analysis of Ardipithecus ramidus--one of the earliest known hominids
        This link takes you to a video at an external website.  To return here, you
        must click the "back" button on your browser program.
        (length = 10 mins)

Based on body shape and dentition similarities, it is reasonable to conclude that some of the early hominin species were ancestors of our genus Homo.  Most likely, some of the early australopithecines (shown as red in the diagram below)  were in our line of evolution, but the later robust ones (blue below) were not.  The first humans (Homo habilis click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced) were contemporaries of the late australopithecines.  As a result, they could not be our ancestors.  However, it is likely that Australopithecus afarensis and possibly even early Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, or Kenyanthropus platyops were in our evolutionary line.


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:41:34 pm
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/early_hominid_family_tree.gif)


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:41:58 pm
Beginning around 2.5 million years ago or a bit earlier, there was a major forking in the evolutionary path of hominins.  The australopithecines diverged into at least two very different evolutionary directions.  One led to the robust australopithecines and a genetic dead-end by about 1.4 million years ago.  The other led to the first humans.  It is likely that these diverging evolutionary paths were the result of exploiting different environmental opportunities.  Coinciding with this hominin divergence was a shift in the global climate to cooler conditions.  In East and South Africa, where most of the early hominins apparently lived, dry grasslands expanded at the expense of woodlands and forests.  It has been suggested that the adaptive radiation that led to humans and robust australopithecines is connected with this change in the environment.

 
click this icon in order to see the following video  Search for the First Human--Donald Johanson talks about the complex
        evolutionary picture of early hominins that is emerging from the fossil record.
        This link takes you to a video at an external website.  To return here, you must
        click the "back" button on your browser program.     (length = 2 mins, 10 secs)
           ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Note: the Orrorin referred to in the video is Orrorin tugenensis, a possible
        ancestor of the australopithecines that lived about 6 million years ago.

 

NOTE:  This is not the only possible model of early hominin evolutionary links that has been suggested in recent years.  Some paleoanthropologists have proposed that neither africanus nor afarensis were ancestral to the robust australopithecines.  In other words, the division between robust and gracile forms occurred earlier, perhaps at the time of anamensis or before.  It is also possible that humans descended from anamensis through a still unknown intermediate gracile species instead of afarensis.  On-going research will very likely sort out the relationships between the various hominin species in the near future.

NEWS:  John Novembre et.al. reported in the October 1, 2007 issue of Nature Genetics that human saliva has significantly more of the enzyme amylase compared to chimpanzees.  Amylase breaks down starches into glucose which can be readily used by the cells of the body.  With more amylase, humans get more useable calories from starchy vegetable foods such as tubers, corms, and bulbs.  The authors suggest that this would have been a distinct advantage for early humans because these foods are readily available.  They believe that natural selection favored additional copies of the gene responsible for amylase production (AMY1) in our early hominin ancestors but not in apes.


http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_2.htm


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:42:44 pm
While the late australopithecines were similar to humans anatomically below the neck, their heads were significantly different from ours in several key features. Their adult brain size was about 1/3 that of people today. As a result, the widest part of the skull of these early hominids was below the brain case. For modern humans, it usually is in the temple region. Early hominid faces were large relative to the size of their brain cases. They had comparatively big teeth with thick enamel, large jaws, and powerful jaw muscles. The size and shape of these muscles is indicated by flaring zygomatic arches and the presence of a sagittal crest , which was a jaw muscle attachment area in the robust species. In modern humans, the jaw muscles are much smaller and attach onto the skull in the temple region. From the side view, early hominid faces were concave or dish-shaped and projecting forward at the bottom due to their large teeth and jaws. In contrast, our jaws are relatively small and our faces are nearly vertical.



Australopithecus boisei Modern human

Early hominid fossils have been found only in Africa. The majority of them were discovered in East and South Africa. However, some also were found recently in Chad, which is located in North Central Africa. Current evidence indicates that there were at least 6 species of early hominids, though they did not all live at the same time.

1. Australopithecus anamensis
2. Australopithecus afarensis
3. Australopithecus africanus
4. Australopithecus aethiopicus (or Paranthropus aethiopicus)
5. Australopithecus boisei (or Paranthropus boisei)
6. Australopithecus robustus (or Paranthropus robustus)

The fossil record of early hominids is being added to by new important discoveries almost every year. As a result, it is not yet clear how many species of them actually existed nor is it certain what their evolutionary relationship was to each other. However, the broad outlines of this complex evolutionary history are already known and are summarized here. To see a more complete listing of proposed species of early hominids and their immediate ancestors, select the button below. It would be helpful to have a printout of this table in order to understand the discussion of the early hominids that follows.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_2.htm


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:43:04 pm
Brooke
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2806

Member Rated:
5    Icon 1 posted 01-25-2006 12:21 AM      Profile for Brooke     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  A super timeline of fossil hominids and their discoveries!

http://www.snowcrest.net/goehring/a2/primates/fossils.htm

--------------------
"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
Posts: 1102 | Registered: Oct 2005


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:43:42 pm
Brooke
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2806

Member Rated:
5    Icon 1 posted 01-25-2006 12:24 AM      Profile for Brooke     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Bone Clones Catalog of Fossil Hominids. Skulls, tools, you name it!

http://www.boneclones.com/catalog_fossil_hominids.htm

--------------------
"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
Posts: 1102 | Registered: Oct 2005 


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:44:18 pm
oscar
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member    Icon 1 posted 01-25-2006 08:59 AM      Profile for oscar     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Jason, if you read carefully you'll see the skulls don't belong to apes or hominds and there's more than just binding cloth and pieces of wood to re-shape the skulls, nor they are so old either.
As for the innumerous links and photographs, please observe the recreation made by sculptures is based upon what they know for animals living now, you can't reproduce a being you never saw and know for sure amount of hair, color, etc, no matter how competent you are sculpting or in forensic area or artist. That's why I said many times National Geographic admitted the "reconstruction" of a single of these species obtained as many different "versions" as artists hired to do the reconstruction. Observe also the reconstruction in many cases takes too much part of the skull and it doesn't matter how many times they call it 'hominid' it could be just another specie of simian creature. None of these is demonstration they were your ancestrals but their parts (wherever part found) was not becoming a "transformer". You can bet the gorillas living now with orangotangoes and so many species of simian creatures -you name it- will be called 'homind' for the paleonthologists of the future! Posts: 3542 | From: china | Registered: Feb 2003 


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:44:47 pm
oscar
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member    Icon 1 posted 01-25-2006 09:04 AM      Profile for oscar     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  By the way, there are human beings living now in Sahara desert (not hidden like the stories about Big Foot or Yeti) who do have similar features of the skulls shown and they are not hominds. Just as it happens with the books in paleonthology or evolution that didn't show you NOWEHERE the Peruvian skull oddities (present in Mexico and probably in Egypt too), they WON'T SHOW the living ape-men living now. Of course, many people can't discuss these things if they never knew and realized only now. Posts: 3542 | From: china | Registered: Feb 2003  |


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:45:12 pm
Brooke
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2806

Member Rated:
5    Icon 1 posted 01-26-2006 12:26 AM      Profile for Brooke     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Some evidence, please.

--------------------
"The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it can be comprehended." - Albert Einstein
Posts: 1102 | Registered: Oct 2005


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:45:25 pm
oscar
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member    Icon 1 posted 01-26-2006 04:21 AM      Profile for oscar     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Sorry, I'm not addresing any comments to you.

Jason, in case you wanna know send me a private e-mail and I would say to you where you can find information and photographs of living Neanderthal man, the name of the person, the name of the author of the book, help you to find photographs available by internet, location, etc. It's a fact evolution books never showed the Peruvian skulls, that's evidence available in museums that ignorant people don't know. That's evidence orthodox science LIED to you. In the same manner the rest of evidence remains occult to you. And, by the way, these people don't have their bodies filled with thick hair the same way chimps don't have eyebrows and no simian has long hair as human women can have. Posts: 3542 | From: china | Registered: Feb 200


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:46:07 pm
oscar
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member    Icon 1 posted 01-26-2006 04:56 AM      Profile for oscar     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  But before doing that, Jason, lemme say that I reckon in USA you can find excellent education in the sense that you can study speciality and yet, because of this, there's a huge hole lacking holo-perception of other things. So, a regular American maybe imagines all Brazilian do have feathers in their heads or speak Spanish and in many ocassions they ignore themselves in what part of the map of USA they live. Or confuse the land of Mayans with Incas and ignore what current coin do they use in Poland or what's the capital city of Sweden and Switzerland, things like that. A research indicate most Americans spend at least 9 years in front of the tv when they reach 60 years old. Too much hypnose! So, you have a dichotomy where you can find narrow-minded and general ignorance and excellence in the speciality of the things you're studying. More than this, since English has became an important language as it was French decades ago and Latin centuries ago, there are too many filters. For example, regarding the tread we're dealing here, you can find information in Spanish, Portuguese books, German and French links AND NONE IN ENGLISH, why would it be? There are powerful interests in keeping the population in ignorance. So my advice to you is, whenever you can, learn another language, let's say French, German, Russian, Spanish and perhaps, only perhaps, you would become less cyclope, with the omatidies eyes of a flie with 8000 little hexagonal eyes, perhaps you can watch the things with different angles instead of being hypnotized by the things they want to show and print everywhere. Travel more, talk with people more intelligent than you instead of the usual crap you see around. Learn to digest before making a quick criticism and then regret it and making a fool of yourself in front of other people. Posts: 3542 | From: china | Registered: Feb 2003


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:46:20 pm
oscar
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member    Icon 1 posted 01-26-2006 05:02 AM      Profile for oscar     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  And BTW, don't think that cos I'm writing from Brazil I have to be Brazilian or I am making a stupid and subjective comment out of "patriotism"; it's not so & the education here SUCKS! Posts: 3542 | From: china | Registered: Feb 2003


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:46:53 pm
Ishtar was here 777
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 736

   Icon 1 posted 01-26-2006 06:45 AM      Profile for Ishtar was here 777     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  quote,
When we find a skeleton is naïve to think we can really reconstruct their forms. In fact no hair, no color is known and the artist reconstruct what they already think must be the basis.

So true, you know Oscar my husband is a simple man and he always sees these simple truths.

--------------------
The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
Posts: 12848 | Registered: Feb 2002


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:47:02 pm
oscar
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member    Icon 1 posted 01-26-2006 07:16 AM      Profile for oscar     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Simple man has always seen cats never change so much that "jump" species to become horses, snakes, cats or elephant. He observes in nature plants remain the same (and if you show him ancient fossils e will check there were plants like today that never changed or fishes, insects, etc). In thousands of years not even stages of the so-called metamorphosis except adaptation to climate respecting the very pattern of life. Simple men are not deceived by words written with Latin names and strange names saying too much without saying anything, it's part of the purpose to write like this in order to "interpret" and mask truth...exactly like the laws written in Constitution, linguistic chaos not even layers understand.... and hence thieves and assassins get free. Posts: 3542 | From: china | Registered: Feb 2003 


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:47:15 pm
oscar
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member    Icon 1 posted 01-26-2006 07:18 AM      Profile for oscar     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  oops! I repeat cats instead of dogs... Posts: 3542 | From: china | Registered: Feb 2003


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:47:57 pm
Ishtar was here 777
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 736

   Icon 1 posted 01-26-2006 01:48 PM      Profile for Ishtar was here 777     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Time changes modern human's face
By Rebecca Morelle
BBC News science reporter

Our ancestors had more prominent features but lower foreheads
Researchers have found that the shape of the human skull has changed significantly over the past 650 years.


I thought maybe I would post this here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4643312.stm

[ 01-26-2006, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Ishtar ]

--------------------
The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
Posts: 12848 | Registered: Feb 2002 


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:48:07 pm
oscar
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 1390

Rate Member    Icon 1 posted 01-26-2006 03:15 PM      Profile for oscar     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Hahaha! Did you read that statement? "He suggests that the increase in size may be due to an increase in mental capacity over the ages." Yap! If you use the same argument in reverse we would have to admit Cro Magnon & Neanderthal INDEED had an increased mental capacity, more than us! You know what? These people are idiotic. We would have to believe size is document and women are less intelligent than men which is not the case, we're just built in different way with different capacities. These people have confused "progress" which is accumulation of knowledge through time in a step by step procedure 1+1=2 but "intelligence". Some modern tribes which didn't have that process were taught modern things and they learned easily. If we put an ancient Egyptian and teach him how to use desktop he will certainly learn like us. This has nothing to do with size, all those arguments are superficial. They were saying neurons don't grow in adults, recent investigation contradicts that. All speculation in behalf of "science". Posts: 3542 | From: china | Registered: Feb 2003


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:48:26 pm
Carolyn Silver
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2287

Member Rated:
5    Icon 1 posted 01-28-2006 06:17 PM      Profile for Carolyn Silver     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Brain size sure doesn't have anything to do with intelligence! If it did, men would be smarter than women, and we all know that's not true! Posts: 403 | Registered: Jan 2005


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:50:17 pm
Hybrid bear shot dead in Canada
   
There have long been stories about mysterious crossbreeds

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/sci_nat_enl_1147448270/img/1.jpg)

A white bear with brown patches shot dead in northern Canada is the first grizzly-polar hybrid found in the wild, DNA tests have confirmed.

Canadian wildlife officials say it is the offspring of a male grizzly bear and a female polar bear.

There have long been stories of oddly coloured bears living in regions where the two territories overlap.

But until now, grizzly-polar hybrids, dubbed "grolar bears" or "pizzlies", have been found only in zoos.

The hybrid bear was shot last month by an American big game hunter on Banks Island, Northwest Territories, Canada.

His guide, Roger Kuptana, noticed the creature had the long claws and slightly humped back of a grizzly bear and thought it might be a hybrid.

The body was seized by officials, who sent a DNA sample for tests which confirmed its unusual origins.

   
There are behavioural differences between the species, including timing of mating seasons, that make hybrids highly unusual
David Field, Zoological Society of London

"It's something we've all known was theoretically possible because their habitats overlap a little bit and their breeding seasons overlap a little bit," said Ian Stirling, a biologist at the Canadian Wildlife Service in Edmonton.

"It's the first time it's known to have happened in the wild."

Nanulak bear

Polar and grizzly bears have been bred together in zoos, but in the wild they rarely cross paths.

However, some grizzly bears have been seen venturing across the ice towards polar bear territory to search for food after emerging from hibernation. This might explain how the rare union occurred.

"In the limited area where the two species' ranges overlap, it is not entirely surprising that we might find a polar-grizzly hybrid," said David Field, Zoological Director of the Zoological Society of London.

"However, there are behavioural differences between the species, including timing of mating seasons, that make such hybrids highly unusual and it is unlikely that any resultant offspring would be viable."

Canadian wildlife officials are now thinking up a name for the creature. Some of the suggestions they have come up with so far are "pizzly", "grolar bear" or "nanulak", after the Inuit names for polar bear (nanuk) and grizzly bear (aklak).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4766217.stm


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:53:45 pm
Scientists Claim New Monkey Species Found
 By MICHAEL ASTOR, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 35 minutes ago



RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - Brazilian scientists say they have discovered a new monkey species overlooked in the receding rain forest of the country's northeast coast, although other experts believe the primate may have been documented before.


Antonio Rossano Mendes Pontes, a professor of Zoology at the Federal University in Pernambuco, said in a telephone interview on Thursday that the discovery of the monkey, dubbed Cebus queirozi, showed how little is known about Brazil's flora and fauna even in developed areas.

He spotted the monkey near the Pernambuco state capital of Recife, about 1,200 miles northeast of Rio de Janeiro.

"As soon as I saw the monkey with its golden-yellow hair and the white tiara on its head, I knew it was a new species," Pontes said.

A scientific description of Cebus queirozi, which has longish golden-yellow fur and a snow-white cap on the front half of its head, was published in the international scientific journal Zootaxa earlier this month.

A male adult weighs about 6.4 pounds and measures 32 inches from head to tail, according to the description.

But some primatologists questioned whether the species was in fact new to science.

Some suspect Pontes merely rediscovered a monkey called Simia flavia, named and depicted in a drawing by German taxonomist Johann Christian Daniel von Schreber in the 18th Century but never seen since.

Mario de Vivo, a primatologist at the University of Sao Paulo not involved in the new finding, said the monkeys look almost exactly alike.

"But we don't know, because Pontes didn't keep a specimen of the monkey," he said.

Scientific descriptions usually require that scientists kill a specimen and deposit it in a museum for future examination, though there are exceptions.

Pontes said he captured, examined and photographed one of the monkeys but returned it to the wild because of the small number of individuals surviving in nature.

Pontes said he had identified about 32 individuals belonging to the species in an area covering some 500 acres of forest and swamplands.

Vivo conceded that the monkey in Schreber's drawing differs from Cebus queirozi in that it lacks the distinctive white band stretching from ear to ear, but he said that may have to do with the age of the specimen in question.

"Even if it is only a rediscovery it is important that such a large monkey could go unnoticed for so long," Vivo said.

Pontes said the monkey, which he was calling the blond capuchin in English, avoided detection for so long by hiding inside the swamp.

He said he stumbled on the species by accident during a five-year forest survey in Pernambuco state.

Pontes said the monkey appeared in the last of 24 forest fragments he was studying along with his students at the Federal University of Pernambuco, and when their guide told him there was a monkey species living in the area he didn't believe him because the area was so small.

"It's incredible that in the 21st century there hasn't been an extensive survey of medium and large mammals in that area," Pontes said.

Only about 7 percent of the Atlantic rain forest, which once lined much of Brazil's coast, remains standing, compared with the better-preserved Amazon rain forest to the north, of which about 80 percent remains intact.

There are more than 300 known monkey species in the world, including 111 that are endemic to Brazil.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060518/ap_on_sc/brazil_new_monkey


Title: Re: King Kong, Gigantopithecus & the Missing Link
Post by: Kristin Moore on May 27, 2011, 07:54:14 pm
Pagan
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 2369

Member Rated:
4    Icon 1 posted 07-11-2006 01:37 AM      Profile for Pagan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  King Kong, the new one: great movie for whoever hasn't seen it!

--------------------
╔╪╪╪╪╪╪╪╪╗
☼The Pagan ☼
╚╪╪╪╪╪╪╪╪╝
Posts: 467 | Registered: Feb 2005