Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
NatureBoff

40,000-yr-old footprint 5ft Spider Monkey USA

70 posts in this topic

A plastic replica of a 40,000-year-old, size eight foot has shattered previous theories of the identity of the first humans to walk in the Americas. Scientists made the foot from tracks left on the shore of an ancient volcanic lake in central Mexico. The traditional view is that the first settlers walked across the Bering Strait, from Russia to Alaska, at the end of the last ice age around 11,500 to 11,000 years ago. But the discovery of footprints in the Valsequillo Basin by a British-led team provides new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago, suggesting that there were several migration waves at different times by different groups.

40,000-year-old footprint of first Americans shows fascinating human-like footprints recorded in volcanic ash in the americas. How can this be? As an alternative to the early human migration hypothesis, I'm suggesting that the de Loys' ape may have made them. Then compare to the finds in the massive cave system of "Brazil Searching for Extinct Giant Mammals in the Longest Cave of the Southern Hemisphere":

The skull of Caipora bambuiorum, one of the two complete primate skeletons recovered from Toca da Boa Vista. It closely resembles the living spider monkey, but is more than twice the size, suggesting that South American monkeys participated fully in the mega-faunal phenomenon of the last Ice Age..Frontal view of the crania of Protopithecus (left) and Caipora (right), both from Toca da Boa Vista. They resemble living South American monkeys that inhabit the top levels of the tropical forest canopy, but they were significantly larger than any living species. Further exploration of Toca da Boa Vista hopefully will yield more primate species that also were quite large compared to modern monkeys

Twice size living spider monkeys!? They must be a contender for the footprints at least, surely?

post-94765-0-84633500-1321354514_thumb.j

post-94765-0-84963800-1321354523_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40,000-year-old footprint of first Americans shows fascinating human-like footprints recorded in volcanic ash in the americas. How can this be? As an alternative to the early human migration hypothesis, I'm suggesting that the de Loys' ape may have made them. Then compare to the finds in the massive cave system of "Brazil Searching for Extinct Giant Mammals in the Longest Cave of the Southern Hemisphere":

Twice size living spider monkeys!? They must be a contender for the footprints at least, surely?

Well, look at those feet:

Z9080010-Spider_monkeys-SPL.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, look at those feet:

Yes, and if a spider monkey evolved over millions of years to walk bipedally, then the footprints would be near identical to a human print wouldn't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and if a spider monkey evolved over millions of years to walk bipedally, then the footprints would be near identical to a human print wouldn't they?

Well, if they did find the skeleton of a bipedal (spider) monkey, then yes: you could be right.

Btw: a bit more about those footprints (plus more pics):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4650307.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40,000-year-old footprint of first Americans shows fascinating human-like footprints recorded in volcanic ash in the americas.

Cool link Tail-Fog. This could be the evidence that busts open the Clovis theory once and for all.

Twice size living spider monkeys!? They must be a contender for the footprints at least, surely?

That the footprints are giant spider monkeys... is unevidenced and even more unlikely then humans making them.

Spider monkeys are supposed to be around 16 to 24 inches long, so double that would be 48 inches tall, or about 4 feet (1.3m) tall. They are supposed to weigh up to 20 pounds so a double height monkey should weigh around 160 pounds. That would be tall enough and heavy enough to make such tracks, but I don't think their legs would allow that trackway pattern that is shown in the volcanic ash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting indeed. Perhaps this might reveal some valuable insights all round, Australia was settled long before this, perhaps we might be on a path that will help us learn more of the first sailors. It will be quite a battle to validate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your positive posts. Mind you, the de Loys' ape photo doesn't look like it has the right feet. Maybe that was a fake..but the cave bones are good..

Edited by tailormaneinafog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm now leaning towards the existance of bipedal spider monkeys for the origins of the pendek, yeti, yowie, littleman and bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm now leaning towards the existance of bipedal spider monkeys for the origins of the pendek, yeti, yowie, littleman and bigfoot.

De Loys ape - Ameranthropoides loysi - was a prank/hoax.

If there is any doubt that the original photos was of a regular spider monkey then I encourage you to read Ameranthropoides loysi Montandon 1929: the History of a Primatological Fraud - http://www.amazon.com/Ameranthropoides-loysi-Montandon-1929-Primatological/dp/1597544450

Better stick with your hyrax theory - at least it is original...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

De Loys ape - Ameranthropoides loysi - was a prank/hoax.

If there is any doubt that the original photos was of a regular spider monkey then I encourage you to read Ameranthropoides loysi Montandon 1929: the History of a Primatological Fraud - http://www.amazon.com/Ameranthropoides-loysi-Montandon-1929-Primatological/dp/1597544450

Better stick with your hyrax theory - at least it is original...

That fuel can is a dead giveaway ;)

Oops, scale has entered the picture! LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2011/09/27/rare-prehistoric-footprints-found-in-mexico

look at the picture.

On further inspection, they are quarry marks that have weathered into shapes that resemble footprints.

That article seems to imply that there are only 5 tracks from 3 individuals. If that is true, then I think a lot of what they are making of this is Bunk. The age would be hard to pinpoint as these are not buried. You can see moss and lichens growing in them, they have been exposed for years and years.

Edit. I guess the original recording of the prints was in 2003, so moss and lichens could have set up by now. The OP article says there were 269 prints of animals and humans (supposedly), which makes me think that these are not just random quarry marks.

I do wonder what kind of quarry it was if it was only quarring stone less then 40,000 years old?

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this a long time ago:

The famous primatologist, Ernest Hooten also identified the animal in the photograph as a spider monkey. In addition he had word from an acquaintance in South America that men who accompanied De Loys had testified that the animal shot and photographed was indeed a spider monkey.

PROOF IN THE BAG

During the course of my early field work in northern Colombia I made a point of exploring the same Tarra river region visited by De Loys. The area is one of the wildest in South America. It is inhabited by a savage tribe of the Motilones Indians, but not any man-like apes. Spider monkeys, however, were abundant and I secured a large series for laboratory study. These monkeys agreed in everything from the thumbless hands to the triangular blaze on the forehead, with the photograph of Ameranthropoides loysi, a copy of which I carried with me. The animals proved to belong to a race of the common species of spider monkeys known technically as Ateles belzebut hybridus. The largest specimen I secured, a female, measured 21 inches from crown to base of tail. The largest spider monkey on record, also a female of the same species, measured 26 inches in combined head and body length.

How these dimensions compare with those of the animal photographed by De Loys is impossible to judge with accuracy. Standing height measurements such as those given by De Loys and Montandon for Ameranthropoides loysi are not reliable. It may be possible, however, to make a rough estimate of the size of the animal by using for a scale the box in the photograph. According to De Loys this was a petrol crate. If it was of the common sort used in northern South America it packed two 5 gallon cans and its height is not over 15 inches. The cans themselves are 13 inches high. The height of the monkey from seat to crown is 1.8 times the height of the box or 27 inches. This is the combined length of head, body and buttocks. Account must be taken of the fact that the head and feet of the animal are nearer the camera than the crate and, therefore, appear disproportionately larger in the photograph than they are in life. The adjusted dimensions for combined head and body length alone would probably be under 25 inches. It may be safe to conclude, therefore, that far from being a giant ape, Ameranthropoides loysi is not only a common spider monkey but is hardly an extremely large one.

From time to time our attention is called to expeditions being formed, or only planned, for the purpose of finding a real specimen of the ape man of northern South America.

It is hoped that the information in this article may be of some help.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletin31chic/bulletin31chic_djvu.txt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a monkey-like bigfoot image from the California BF group.

post-94765-0-53905400-1322058441_thumb.j

post-94765-0-64437300-1322058531_thumb.j

Edited by tailormaneinafog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've changed my mind. I think that fleeing neanderthals crossed the flat land of the Bering Strait during the ice age and made it to central america, just before 40,000 B.P and walked the fresh ash fall of the volcano.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've changed my mind. I think that fleeing neanderthals crossed the flat land of the Bering Strait during the ice age and made it to central america, just before 40,000 B.P and walked the fresh ash fall of the volcano.

If they made it that far where are their bones and the evidence of their existence here? Although Im tired of asking you for evidence since you never feel the need to provide any for whatever your latest pet idea is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same amount of evidence which points to the footprints being made by modern humans via a coastal migration hypothesis, favoured by the leading expert, Prof Gonzalez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same amount of evidence which points to the footprints being made by modern humans via a coastal migration hypothesis, favoured by the leading expert, Prof Gonzalez.

So you just want to take all the evidence for the human settlement and movement into the americas and say that its actually neanderthaal evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you just want to take all the evidence for the human settlement and movement into the americas and say that its actually neanderthaal evidence?

They were more adept at surviving in colder and harsher environments than Africa-emerging humans. Here's some evidence that they might have dwarfed into little people, just 14 inches high San Pedro Mountains Mummy
Pedro the mummy was found sitting in an upright position with his arms crossed, covering its crossed legs. It sat perpendicular to the floor on a small ledge in the room. It weighed approximately 12 ounces and was around 7 inches tall sitting, and 14 inches tall (estimated) standing. Its cranium was flattened, the eyes bulging and so well preserved that even the fingernails were visible.[1] The head was covered in a dark, gelatinous substance, leading some to accuse Mayne and Carr of perpetrating a hoax using an infant from a medical collection, since some of the mummy appeared to have been preserved in liquid.[2]

Upon its discovery, it was instantly called a hoax by most scholars. Many believed that it was a dummy or some type of Frankenstein taxidermy. Scientists came from all over the country to take a look at the remains. X-rays were performed on the mummy in 1950 and it was discovered that there was a "manlike" [3] skeleton inside, almost fully formed. Some of the bones were broken, including the spine, collarbone and skull. These injuries and congealed blood at the top of the skull insinuated a violent death.

In 1950, the mummy was examined by Dr. Henry Shapiro, a biological anthropologist from the American Museum of Natural History. After examining the x-rays, Dr. Shapiro believed that this mummy was the body of an approximately 65 year old man at the time of his death. Also, this mummy had particularly large canines in comparison with the rest of his body size, almost vampire-like.[3] These findings were substantiated by Harvard University and their anthropology department. However, 30 years later, Dr. George Gill, a forensic anthropologist proposed another theory after looking at the x-ray. He thought that the body could have been an infant of some unknown tribe of Indians. Mummies in Wyoming are not unusual since its arid climate is conducive to preserving tissue, however tiny mummies are a rarity.[4] A second, similar mummy was found in roughly the same area and brought to the attention of Dr. Gill after he appeared on a television show called Unsolved Mysteries.[5] After the discovery of the second, this time a female mummy, he could x-ray her and look at her in great detail. She was only 4 inches high, and in a slumped position. Dr. Gill determined that she was an infant and hypothesized that she was either a prematurely born baby, or possibly a child with anencephaly.[5] After his testing the family that owned the girl mummy took her back and was never heard from again.[5] Gill suggested that both mummies were the result of malnutrition of babies born to a tribe (possibly even immigrants) still adapting to the harsh conditions of the area, about three centuries ago.[6] One problem that arises with trying to date the mummy without it being present is that it was sealed tightly in a cave with thick rock, which could take thousands of years if done by natural processes, or it could have been placed there and sealed at a later date. Thus without the bodies, determining age is improbable.

Little People of Wyoming: Also called the Nimerigar, Native American legends, mainly the Shoshone tribe, speak of an aggressive race of "little people"[7] which ranged in height from around 20 inches to 3 1/2 feet tall. According to Native American lore they lived in the San Pedro Mountains in south central Wyoming and fought constantly with the average sized humans of the area using poisoned arrows. It was often said that if one of the Nimerigar became sick or old, they were killed by their own people with a blow to the head. It was also said that the little mummies brought bad luck to anyone who found them, and to this day Native Americans warn people of the tribe of "tiny people eaters" [3] that roam the San Pedro Mountain Range of Wyoming. Most of these claims were considered folklore until the discovery of what is now known as "Pedro" the mummy.

Comparisons with Other "Little People" in Native American Folklore: Other alleged discoveries, like that of the 1876 discovery of a "pygmy" graveyard in Coffee County, Tennessee, has some people saying that a race of pygmy people ranged all over the United states, and they often use Pedro the mummy as the proof.[8] A man plowing his field supposedly found graves that were 2 feet long, 14 inches wide, and 18 inches deep. Other explanations have been offered for the burials, that they were of children or disarticulated people.[9] The Cherokee had a legend of little people who lived in mountains, came up to an average sized persons knee and were quite nice unless you disturbed their homes.[10] There are many Native American stories about little people.

post-94765-0-73410900-1323686233_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were more adept at surviving in colder and harsher environments than Africa-emerging humans. Here's some evidence that they might have dwarfed into little people, just 14 inches high San Pedro Mountains Mummy

So you are under the impression that the people who came here over the land bridge came directly from africa somehow? It would be wonderful if just once you would aknowledge what kind of crap you continually post here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err..no. You need to re-read what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err..no. You need to re-read what I said.

I read it. I still dont know why you think that just because humans originated from africa that they werent well equipped to handle a cold environment by the time they migrated across to the americas? Where do you believe the neanderthaals originated from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were more adept at surviving in colder and harsher environments than Africa-emerging humans. Here's some evidence that they might have dwarfed into little people, just 14 inches high San Pedro Mountains Mummy

Did you read this part?

After the discovery of the second, this time a female mummy, he could x-ray her and look at her in great detail. She was only 4 inches high, and in a slumped position. Dr. Gill determined that she was an infant and hypothesized that she was either a prematurely born baby, or possibly a child with anencephaly.[5] After his testing the family that owned the girl mummy took her back and was never heard from again.[5] Gill suggested that both mummies were the result of malnutrition of babies born to a tribe (possibly even immigrants) still adapting to the harsh conditions of the area, about three centuries ago.[6] One problem that arises with trying to date the mummy without it being present is that it was sealed tightly in a cave with thick rock, which could take thousands of years if done by natural processes, or it could have been placed there and sealed at a later date. Thus without the bodies, determining age is improbable.

Seems a lot more likely than 14 inch high Neanderthals to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The so called experts always will come up with this hypothesis, because it's all they have. Babies don't get born with long canines, just because they are born with anencephaly.

P.S. I've changed my mind and now think the 40,000 year old footprints *are* modern humans, but they were swept there by the mega-tsunami from a dark matter comet ocean impact event, evidenced by the Lachamps geomagnetic excurion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.