Proof of Yetis?

Fuzzy Chupacabra: Vampire Bats and other Blood Drinking Mammals

The Fuzzy Chupacabra Hypothesis holds that this cryptid is most likely mammalian, not reptilian, not only for those reasons outlined in the Hominan Hypothesis, for the very simple reason that while we do have have no evidence of a blood drinking-reptile, nor any reptile in humanoid form, we do know of three species of blood-drinking mammals that see in the dark, with razor sharp teeth, Desmodus rotundus, Diphylla ecaudata, Diaemus youngi, otherwise known as infamous vampire bat.

Of course, bats aren’t the only mammals that drink blood. While many Homo sapiens enjoy eating blood in the form of sausages (black puddings and such), even more people enjoy drinking the nutritious fluid up in hearty broths, known as blood soups, of which there are at least a dozen.

But perhaps no people loves drinking blood more than the noble Maasai of the Rift Valley, herders whose who live quite happily on cow’s blood and milk. Delicious, if you ask me, and healthy too, according to very credible medical reports.

Thus, not only do we have proof of blood drinking mammals, but blood drinking hominans. So until some blood-drinking reptilian humanoid should cataloged, whether in high office or out in the wild, the most likely morphology for the beloved Chupacabra, based on the evidence we do have in hand at the present time, is to be hominoid of the family of the apes.

The wily and impressive Desmodus rotundus feeding on an unsuspecting and tasty cow. [Note the fuzzy hide of our gourmandizing friend, D. rotundus, otherwise known as the common vampire bat.]

A Case for the Existence of Undiscovered Hominids

5 Replies

In this real science article ‘Hobbit’ joins human family tree, Dr. Henry Gee speculates that species like Homo floresiensis, a recently discovered species in the human family, might still exist somewhere in the unexplored tropical forest of Indonesia.

Incredible.

Although this is only speculation, one would be hard pressed to find a more educated guesser than Dr. Gee, PhD of Cambridge university and senior editor at Nature magazine, one of the world’s most venerable scientific journals.

Homo Floresiensis (a.k.a. The Hobbit)

Scientists are often reluctant to make such speculations because of backlash that can occur in the scientific community, and so Dr. Gee is to be commended.

Indeed, what harm is there in these kind of fun speculations, especially in the context of real science? More likely these types of ideas can get people interested in fields they otherwise may not have.

It’s a safe bet that if you were to poll scientists on their fiction reading habits, you are likely to find more than a few fans of science fiction.

One of my favorite such fun speculations is the mathematical proof of the concave Earth model proposed by Egyptian mathematician Mostafa Abdelkader. The Concave Earth Hypothesis posits the highly unlikely scenario that we live, not on the exterior of a globe, but on the inside of a hollow sphere!

In his 1992 book On the Wild Side, author Martin Gardner states that ”most mathematicians believe that an inside-out universe, with properly adjusted physical laws, is empirically irrefutable”, and that the model can only be discounted by the use of Occam’s Razor.

I can’t think of a funner way to get interested in math, nor can I think of a funner way to get interested in biology than the idea that some undiscovered species may yet live in those places most inaccessible to man.

And the possibility of undiscovered hominan certainly seems more likely than an inverted universe, as mathematically irrefutable as the latter concept may be.

Indeed, the hunt for undiscovered hominids continues to this day in the very region proposed by Dr. Gee, most notably by famed Cryptozoologist, Richard Freeman, and documented in this very interesting article in the Guardian “On the trail of the orang pendek, Sumatra’s mystery ape” and in Mr. Freeman’s own Cryptozoology book, ORANG PENDEK: Sumatra’s Forgotten Ape.

Perhaps Richard Freeman is not so far on the fringe as he may seemed. One wonders what Dr. Gee would have to say about it.

* * *

Dr. Henry Gee’s books include The Science of Middle-Earth, now available in eBook format, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, and Jacob’s Ladder: The History of the Human Genome.

PDFs of cited Articles:

‘Hobbit’ Joins Human Family Tree – BBC News

On the trail of the orang pendek, Sumatra’s mystery ape – UK Guardian

Dr. Melba Ketchum and Homo Sapien Hirsutii

5 Replies

Very recently Dr. Melba Ketchum of DNA Diagnostics and noted Bigfoot Researcher David Paulides proposed the taxonomy Homo sapien hirsutii for a species yet unidentified hominid cryptid.

However, this proposed new species, the proof of the existence of which is said to have been derived from a recent tissue sample, has been reported to be a hybrid species, possibly a cross between a human and a Sasquatch-like creature at a point about 15,000 years ago.

In other words, some lucky cavelady “got it on” with a roaming Homo hirsutus or simular species, and the DNA in question was extracted from descendants of its progeny, some fifteen millennia after the joyous event.

Dr. Melba Ketchum

‘Bigfoot’ is part human, DNA study claims – Fox News [PDF]

Bigfoot DNA study: Sasquatch is Real - Baltimore Post Examiner [PDF]

Bigfoot? Sasquatch? They Live! Or Maybe Not. – ABC News [PDF]

The Theoretical Approach to the Evolution of Hominid Cryptids

2 Replies

In their excellent documentation of Bigfoot anatomy, physiology, behavior and cultural origin, the Bigfoot Field Research Organization notes that “evolutionary discussion at this stage would consist of rather futile conjecture when a single good DNA analysis of a piece of skin or well-preserved blood could narrow the choices dramatically.”

Not so.

Indeed, with possible DNA evidence about to be made public by Dr. Melba Ketchum, the initial results seem to open up more questions than they answer.

For instance, Ketchum’s results make the Bigfoot a subspecies of Homo sapiens, ”Homo sapiens hirsutii”, while the data based on an aggregation of sightings in North America published by BFRO states that “the species is deviant from Homo sapiens by anatomy (crest, feet, musculature, body posture and gait), behavior (nocturnality, lack of compelling tool use, lack of language, lack of cultural traits) and sociology, which strongly suggests an early evolutionary branching.

However, these two seeming conflicting positions are not irreconcilable—the Ketchum DNA seems to be from a hybridization, a cross between a Homo sapien female and male of an unknown hominid species. Thus the Ketchum DNA is not the original hominid cryptid, but a hybrid offspring.

Regardless, none of this precludes serious speculation on the evolution of homind cryptids because much of paleontology and anthropology is precisely that—speculation, albiet based on physical evidence and rigorous analysis. But barring a time machine, we can only reconstruct the lives of extinct species and early humans by speculation, and our understanding continues to change with each new piece of evidence and idea. The the point is that this speculation is based on real science.

What the Homo Hirsutus attempts to do is propose credible scenarios for the evolution of hominid cryptids based on the current academic knowledge in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology and related disciplines. It is the intent of Homo Hirsutus to apply the tools provided by the theories and methodologies of these scientific fields to the phenomenological data on Bigfoots and related hominid cryptids, that is to say the observations and circumstances necessary for their existence, and seek to form plausible hypotheses of the evolution of these hominid cryptids.

Who is to say that such hypotheses might not help the growing community of field researchers narrow the search for forensic and fossile evidence of hominid cryptids, and thus increase the likelihood of finding such evidence that may be used to test these hypotheses.

Richard Freeman’s 2011 Sumatra expedition was based on real scientific speculation on the existence of yet undiscovered, living hominid species. [See "A Case for the Existence of Undiscovered Hominids".]

Although the results of Freeman’s expedition are still being analyzed, this too is a part of the scientific process.

The recent proposal of a new hominan dubbed Homo gautengensis by David Curnoe in 2010 was based on fossils found decades earlier that were previously believed to belong to Homo habilis. If Curnoe’s hypothesis proves to be correct, it would change the very family tree of humanity. And the evidence was right under our noses for well over half a century. The point being, that correct analysis of fossil evidence can sometimes a long time.

Thus, while BFRO is to be commended as a trailblazer and leader in the field of Bigfoot research, perhaps speculation into the evolutionary origin of hominid cryptids is not a futile as once believed.

Sterkfontein Cave dig site in the “Cradle of the World”

Links:

BFRO Bigfoot FAQ, BFRO Bigfoot Anatomy, BFRO Bigfoot Physiology, BFRO Bigfoot Behavior, BFRO Book Recommendations

Articles:

Have we found evidence of the elusive orang pendek? – UK Guardian [PDF]

Bigfoots?

Hominoids and Lloyd Pye

1 Reply

Lloyd Pye has recently proposed the use of the term Hominoid to be adapted to mean Bigfoots, Yetis, and other related cryptids.

Strictly speaking, hominoids are members of the biologic superfamily Hominoidae, which consists of two biologic families, Hylobatidae, which includes gibbons and is sometimes referred to as the family of “lesser apes”, and Hominidae (aka hominids), also known as the family of “great apes” which includes chimps, orangutans, gorillas and humans.

Here are the key distinctions:

Lesser Apes (Hylobatidae)

smaller size (the largest gibbon is about 30 lbs.)
longer arms (specifically adapted for swingin’ in the trees)

Great Apes (Hominidae)

greater size (smallest chimp is about 35 lbs. and the gorillas getting up to about 400 lbs.)

Although Bigfoots and related cryptids are often reported as having very long arms, which gives some basis for the broader “Hominoid” taxonomy, it is not impossible that this trait could have developed independently yet unclassified hominids. Indeed, we do see members of the hominid family, such as orangutans, possessing much longer arms than their human cousins, while we have no examples of lesser apes attaining sizes comparable to any but the smalles of the great apes. Thus, for reasons of size alone, it is much more probable that Bigfoots and related cryptids are members of the narrower hominid family, and thus the term “Hominid Cryptids” has been proposed.

Another factor weighing in favor of “Hominid Cryptids” is that “Hominoid”, although not commonly used, does have a prior scientific use that would cause confusion between the Biology and Cryptozoology fields and present a potential obstacle for conversation on such topics, and thus adopting the more specific “Hominid Cryptid” (or “Hominoid Cryptid” for those desiring a broader classification) is advantageous.

Which Hominoid Are You? (Hominid Skeletons) Post Card

Hominid Skeletons Post Card by wordsunwords

* * *

Lloyd Pye – Hominoids [PDF]

Do Bigfoots like Blueberry Bagels? Occam’s Razor and the Science of the Fringe

A Call for a Cryptopaleontology Initiative

2 Replies

While the field of Cryptozoology has never been more robust, containing many prominent Bigfoot Hunters, the field of Cryptopaleontology is sadly neglected. However, the paleontological aspect of the search for cryptids should not be overlooked. Indeed, who is to say that the first hard evidence for Sasquatch will not come from the fossil record?

It is the hope that in response to the avoidance hypothesis, those interested in researching the existence of Hominid Cryptids do so not by looking in the most likely places for ancient hominids to have existed, but the least likely places for them to have existed, consistant with the idea that for such species to have survived into modern times, those species must dwell in those places most inaccessible to Homo Sapiens.

Whether or not this endeavor will yield hard results, it is certain it will bear many hours of imaginative research.

Picture Credit: Georgian National Museum

Hominin vs. Hominan

1 Reply

There has been some discussion about the distinction between these two related words, and I thought this would be a good place to discuss the distinction.

Hominin is a really great word that seems to have been getting more frequent use in past decades. It refers to a specific taxonomic tribe of hominids after the split from Orangutans, Gorillas, and even our closest genetic cousins, the gentle Bonobos and surly Chimpanzees.

The difference between hominin and the until now almost never used hominan, is that hominins contain our early ancestors the australopithecines (of which the famous Lucy, aka Australopithecus afarensis is a member) while hominans contain only members of the Genus Homo, such as Homo habilis, Homo eragaster, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo sapien.

The key morphological distinction of hominans, which forms a distinct sub-tribe of hominins, is the radical increase in brain size from that of apes to that of modern humans within a few million years.

The average brain size of Homo habilis (600 cm³) is about 50% greater than that of australopithecines.
The average brain size of later Homo eragaster (900–1100 cm³) nearly doubles that again.
The cranial capacity of Homo heidelbergensis (1100–1400 cm³) overlaps the brain size of modern humans (1350-1450 cm³)

Thus, when we use the taxonomic identifier hominan, we are referring to our own little sub-tribe of big-brained Great Apes.

Biological Classification Guide