48 Responses to “Erectus Dimorphism Discovered?”

1. ZenBug responds: May 4th, 2006 at 10:22 am

   “Remarkable potential findings” - potential being the operative word.
   I’ll believe it when I see it.
   …Or maybe I won’t.

   Any idea when we’ll see these photos?

2. ZenBug responds: May 4th, 2006 at 10:33 am

   Nevermind - I just read the original post.

3. LAShiel responds: May 4th, 2006 at 10:59 am

   The notion that hairy hominids are relict H. erectus is hardly a new theory. Others have proposed it before — as well as proposed a kinship with other ancient hominids, like Neanderthals and Australopithecus. So Mr Chow’s theory, as described thus far, has nothing really new about it.

   As for the photos, I hope they are as good as he claims. But I’ve learned to take each new “ultimate photographic proof” claim with a (large) grain of salt.

4. Shawshank responds: May 4th, 2006 at 10:59 am

   Does any of the fossil evidence suggest that Homo erectus reached heights of ten feet?

5. shovethenos responds: May 4th, 2006 at 11:10 am

   Loren-

   If the Johor cryptids are homo erectus, shouldn’t the footprints be more human-like? The prints that have been found that are alleged to be from these cryptids seem to have four main toes and a somewhat vestigial fifth toe that seems to have been originally opposable. Any ideas on why there is a discrepancy there?

   Crossing fingers again…….

6. Shawshank responds: May 4th, 2006 at 11:30 am

   I could be wrong, but I thought I remembered that Homo erectus was quite a diminutive hominid.

7. MattBille responds: May 4th, 2006 at 11:43 am

   Anytime someone says he has photos but has not yet shared them - not even on a confidential basis to someone as well known in this business as Loren - the evidence is not evidence yet. I hope it will be. There’s nothing that strikes me as impossible about H. erectus survival in that area, not when some anthropologists believe they were in SE Asia only 26,000 years BP.

8. apiraymond responds: May 4th, 2006 at 11:54 am

   Before we get too excited, let’s take a look at the footprints that Kong found. It looks like double stamping of rhino prints.

9. apiraymond responds: May 4th, 2006 at 11:58 am

   The pictures and Kong’s interview can be seen here.

10. PDNate responds: May 4th, 2006 at 12:13 pm

    Any idea when the book/photos will be released? Also, any body hear any more about the “captured juvenile”?

11. Peter Loh responds: May 4th, 2006 at 12:43 pm

    Yes, LAShiel, indeed Chow’s claim is nothing new. And, yes, it’s understandable that you’d want to take this with a large grain of salt :)…
    However, I’m somewhat convinced by this man, especially by the way he described the features of the animals - you could tell he was describing them from his mind’s eye, recalling what he’d seen in the photos. And his remark that the female creatures looked rather feminine (by human standards, I presume) sort of gave me the impression that he was very keen and willing to share this openly, short of showing us the actual photos, that is! I do understand his position on this matter - why he’s not revealing too much at this juncture - but he did say the truth would be revealed very soon…and we can only hope.

12. Loren Coleman responds: May 4th, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    Summary of responses:

    Yes, potential is a key word.

    No one said that Homo erectus was a new theory. Hey, that’s why I pointed out that in my and Patrick Huyghe’s field guide we discussed a type, the Erectus Hominid.

    We all can be excited but still be careful, correct? Until something is shown and proven, of course, this is all premature intrigue. But what’s wrong with that?

    I am awaiting photographic evidence.

    The picture (no pun intended) is confusing out of Malaysia, and I think some people under comments are confusing different reports of different things.

    The footprints that look like rhinos, thus, may be tracks of rhinos. They may have nothing to do with Malaysian Bigfoot, other than people labeling them as Bigfoot.

    The Mawas may be different than some other reports of Bigfoot, Orang Dalam, and more.

    Homo erectus are varied in size. That’s the point in bringing up the business about their variation and diversity.

    The “Giant Java Man” may be an evolved form of Paranthropus or Homo erectus. We are working in the neverneverland of theories and suggestions here.

    Bring on the photos of the Mawas!

13. Craig Woolheater responds: May 4th, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    But is that a larger grain of salt than you would take for these claims Ms. Shiel?

    Michigan Researcher Provides Evidence for Link Between Bigfoot and UFOs

    At the May 7, 2006, meeting of the Michigan Mutual UFO Network, Lisa Shiel will provide compelling evidence for a connection between two usually separate esoteric phenomena — Bigfoot and UFOs.

    Michigan Bigfoot expert and certified Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) field investigator Lisa Shiel will be the featured speaker at the May 7, 2006, meeting of the Michigan MUFON chapter at Walli’s East Restaurant in Burton, Michigan (near Flint). During her presentation of “Bigfoot and UFOs,” she will present the results of years of personal research into both phenomena and clearly explain the usually overlooked connections between them.

14. Peter Loh responds: May 4th, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    apiraymond, I think it doesn’t really matter now whether those were rhino prints or not. As Vincent Chow said, these are just “secondary evidence”. So what if those were actually rhino prints? That doesn’t prove anything but that a rhino had been there. Would that prove that the sighted creatures don’t exist? The main concern now is: Do photographs of these animals exist as claimed? In my opinion, the veracity of Kong’s footprints has no bearing whatsover on Chow’s latest claim.

15. Bennymac responds: May 4th, 2006 at 1:27 pm

    After reading these posts I am both jacked and pumped! I really hope this is the real deal, and I also hope the “mawa’s” or “homo erectus” are protected from the horde that will follow if this is true.

16. Peter Loh responds: May 4th, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    Yes, Bennymac, my sentiments exactly!

17. dbard responds: May 4th, 2006 at 2:19 pm

    Loren,

    This is very exciting, thanks to all of you. I can’t wait to see the pics!!

18. texasgirl responds: May 4th, 2006 at 2:19 pm

    If I ever had any pictures or evidence or sightings of anything potentially cryptid, Loren would be the first person I’d talk to.
    Have there ever been any discussions on this site about whether or not someone should “capture” or shoot a bigfoot if they saw one and had the opportunity? If so I may have missed the thread.

19. mrdark responds: May 4th, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    I am skeptical about this for one reason: you hold a press conference announcing ‘photos’ (multiple) yet don’t show -one-?

    Just one shot would make the book a bestseller worldwide…no shots just screams ‘buy my book’ as opposed to ‘I have proof…NOW buy my book’.

20. SaruOtoko responds: May 4th, 2006 at 3:00 pm

    I really hope this is something. It would really be great to get something scientific out there to make the states more open to the possibility of Bigfoot.

21. planettom responds: May 4th, 2006 at 3:07 pm

    Wow! So very interesting. I trust the judgement of the Cryptomundo faculty for posting the information, and thus far, I will take it for what it is, and remain on the edge of my seat for what happens next! I can’t wait. I’ll stay tuned!

22. pandafarmer responds: May 4th, 2006 at 3:49 pm

    yeah i guess that is my only fear. by not gathering respected scientists together to share the findings before doing a “book launch,” it’s hard for me to not suspect something fishy.

    let’s all hope though! it’s been a fun ride thusfar!

23. kidquid responds: May 4th, 2006 at 3:55 pm

    This is why cryptozoology is so much fun.

    mrdark-who knows if it will pan out or not at this point, I am sure we will have in-depth reviews when the book comes out from all the cz’s, but this is a pretty exciting possibility.

    I second Loren’s comment:

    Bring on the photos of the Mawas!

24. dbard responds: May 4th, 2006 at 3:55 pm

    Craig,

    Apparently Ms. Sheil is a Bigfoot expert “having been interviewed in newspapers and on radio and tv”. “Sheil developed her research skills through earning a Master’s Degree in Library Science and certification as a professional librarian”. She also recently published a non-fiction book entitled “Backyard Bigfoot: The True Story of Stick Signs, UFOs and the Sasquatch.

    From PRWeb

25. Shawshank responds: May 4th, 2006 at 4:12 pm

    All the sources I am able to find put Homo erectus stature at no larger than that of current-day humans, and most put it smaller. Can you point me toward better sources?

26. kidquid responds: May 4th, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    Shawshank- some interesting reading at wikipedia on Meganthropus fossils, which are generally considered to be closely related to Homo erectus if not the same species. They appear to be quite large, although the current opinion seems to be that they were not as big as say Gigantopithecus, for example.

    An interesting sidenote since this thread started with the question of sexual dimorphism: some scientists think that Meganthropus fossils could be just males of the Homo erectus species, exhibiting a sex-based size difference. Food for thought.

27. cor2879 responds: May 4th, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    Interesting news, though I’m afraid I have to remain skeptical about this. I would like to believe but we’ll see in June when the book comes out.

28. greatanarch responds: May 4th, 2006 at 6:18 pm

    ‘Erectus dimorphism discovered’, without even a question mark? I shall be happy if erectus is discovered. Or if anything at all is discovered.

    When we were looking for orang pendek in Sumatra I thought of circulating posters offering a reward for a photo, but I was reminded that Indonesians have a sense of humour. Maybe Malaysians have as well.

29. BLiND responds: May 4th, 2006 at 7:08 pm

    If Peter Loh, belives that this species of Hominin are H. erectus/ergaster, then some qustions puzzle me. First the height and weight of the individuals do not match with finds in the fossil record (including those in africa and asia). 2nd the foot print shows a pertruding big toe. Thirdly and most importatnly, if hominin group is indeed H. erectus or a side branch of the asia erectus population then why is there no evidence of stone tool technology that is indicative to H. erectus finds in asia. If the author of this book has observed these hominins for some time I would expect they would have found some lithic evidence. Either Aueulean tool technology associated with H. erectus or at the very least a chopper technology like that of the Oldowan or developed Oldowan techonology.

    Any ways hope that photos are real and more evidence turns up.

30. earthman responds: May 4th, 2006 at 7:29 pm

    The Nova series In Search of Human Origins, puts H. erectus as larger than current humans. Australopithicines have known sexual dimorphism where the females were 60 percent the size of the males.

31. pipdog responds: May 4th, 2006 at 9:35 pm

    apiremond where are these strands of hair, i think some dna testing is in order.

32. Peter Loh responds: May 4th, 2006 at 11:31 pm

    BLiND- I’m not exactly sure if this H.erectus identification is accurate. I also can’t say and I’m not saying this on behalf of Vincent Chow. But what I can say is this: Chow is certain this is a remnant population of a prehistoric hominid species (be it Homo erectus/ergaster/habilis). That alone, to me, is fascinating enough!

33. timi_hendrix responds: May 4th, 2006 at 11:40 pm

    A lot of people are certainly hoping for this to be Homo erectus, but this could just as well be an undiscovered animal.

    We are close to proof I can taste it!!

    I support the push for more research.

34. BLiND responds: May 5th, 2006 at 12:30 am

    I agree Peter that if these hominins are an undescovered species of Homo then it would be a great descovery for anthropology, Acheaology and Crypto. I would just like to see other evidence other than photographic. All Homo species including and after Habilis have a stone tool technology associated with them. I feel that the best evidence to prove the exsistence of these homonins along with photo evidence would be some kind of archaeological evidence such as a tool kit, or evidence suggesting tool manufacturing including tool caches, quarry sites, cores, and flake evidence.
    I guess being a paleo/physical anthro student the best evidence regarding this story would be stone artifacts.
    that being if indeed this homonin species is of the genus Homo.

35. twblack responds: May 5th, 2006 at 4:11 am

    Is their any thought that this could be something to generate some tourist dollars?? This is not a place that is “Overflowing with wealth” here.If these pictures are as conclusive as he says how long before we get some video?? And why has this not been done already? Was the gentleman he got the pictures from given any $$$ for this “Proof”?? Some things like this seems to “Always” sound to good to be true. And I hope not in this case!

36. Ranatemporaria responds: May 5th, 2006 at 4:33 am

    I think it has been, as it is so often, over looked that if these are a species of previously extinct hominids, a living fossil some might say, then we should perhaps expect some morphological divergence. Don’t forget that the fact that many of these pre-human species (Homo erectus et al) date well back into history. It’s more than likely that they may have adapted, grown, and/or changed over the many many years. After all humans now average several inches taller than we were a mere century ago, and also foot size is and has enlarged!!

    Great news anyhow, and, however it works out its going to be interesting and certainly one to remember!

37. Bennymac responds: May 5th, 2006 at 6:38 am

    Maybe Jeff Corwin should go down there and get to the bottom of this…

    Seriously, if this all turns out to be legit it would have to mean that there is an active breeding population. There must be alot of them. This “old man”, the Jane Goodall of the mawas, must have pages and pages of notes and photos from 11 years of observation. I must admit, part of me finds it hard to believe that anyone would sit on this kind of discovery for over a decade. Also, where is the media “bounce” from this news conference that Mr Loh attended? I haven’t seen or heard anyhing about this announcement on any other website or newspaper. The New Straits Times didn’t even have the story the last I checked. Who is publishing this book that is coming out in June? Who tested these hair samples? There has to be more information…..

38. Aradia responds: May 5th, 2006 at 8:47 am

    I have always believed that the “Bigfoot” creatures would be more akin to Gigantopithecus, especially due to size, but of course we won’t know until someone has a body. And for that reason, I’d rather see this whole thing remain a mystery. These animals won’t be protected once they’re found. Also, I agree that all the info needs to be checked and re-checked to verify its veracity, but why would anyone be surprised that this stuff isn’t getting published? Most media channels are much like Clear Channel radio stations - except they have the same news stories on high rotation…

39. ZenBug responds: May 5th, 2006 at 8:54 am

    …An old hermit who has collected data on these creatures for years, but is the only person who has any such data…

    …Reminds me of Billy Meier.

40. apiraymond responds: May 5th, 2006 at 10:04 am

    pipdog: Vincent found 2 strands of hair embedded in dry clay in the jungles of Panti. The fact that DNA testing turns out to be human is no surprise (Personally I think the hairs come from the workers there rather than Homo Erectus whose DNA I suspect, differs from Human DNA) Also at that time was the announcement from the Johor Wild Life Protection Society who called for a press conference to say that one of their members, who has been living in the jungle for the past six years, has seen a group of Bigfoot and knows where they live.

    But when pressed for more details, society secretary Tay Teng Hwa claimed that the evidence, including images, were“locked away in a safe”.
    This two news is published in The Star on Feb 19.

    As you know Malaysia is the only country without orang utan (mawas)surrounded by two countries that has orang utan. It is remotely possible for a new subspecies of orang utan to be discovered other than Pongo pygmaeus (Borneo) and Pongo abelii(Sumatra). (Gigantopithecus also belong to Pongo subfamily).

    I found it significant that the description from the witness mention big ears like monkey.

    Anyway, we await with eager anticipation: mawas, or orangutan, it is still a big discovery!

41. Bennymac responds: May 5th, 2006 at 11:11 am

    It also reminds me of Eugene Dubois. Here’s a snipit from Archaeologyinfo.com that was interesting, it talks about homo erectus and the splitting off of these species; “The species was named by Eugène Dubois (it was originally designated as Pithecanthropus erectus) in 1894, after his 1891 find from Trinil, Java, in Indonesia (Trinil 2). Dubois was inspired by A. Wallace’s conviction that the origins of modern humans might lie in Southeast Asia. Dubois enlisted as an army surgeon in the Royal Dutch East Indies Army, and searched for fossils in Sumatra. He had little success in Sumatra, but found unearthed a thick mineralized hominid skull near the bank of the Solo River in Java. Dubois made his find public a few years later, and was met by derision from the dominant British paleontological hierarchy. Dubois was disillusioned, and this important find actually spent some time in a box underneath the floorboards of Dubois’ home.”

    So, who knows what this guy has, all I know is I want to see it….

42. Bennymac responds: May 5th, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    Hi Eric,

    This Vincent is a great confusion of a guy.

    He constantly mixes thing up. And when reporters quoted what he says, things can go horribly wrong.

    The mawas he was talking about refers to the colony of Bigfoot founded by this previously unknown Johor Wildlife Protection Society.

    He mentioned that he knew the person who took the photos. but it is clear that those photos he mentioned refers to the mawas that was spotted by a logger in Lenggor Forest. The Society later tried to get it named as Orang Lenggor.

    The links to those mawas are here and here.

    Vincent also informed that the DNA test from 2 strand of hair proved to be human. It was mentioned in such a way as if to indicate that the strand of hair was found at the location where the mawas was photographed.

    But it was actually found at Panti areas, where Kampung Lukut was situated, a agricultural farmland. That those hairs proved to be human is no surprise.

    The story of those hairs is here.

    I have been emphasising a fair bit that Kampung Lukut is not the place where maswas or bigfoot was found.

    When the news break out in Dec 2005, Vincent called it King kong before reverting to the more popular Bigfoot. In fact, I conducted interviews around Johor and only people in Kota Tinggi describe the mawas as king kong-like.

    Historically, Mawas, or orangutan was seen in Mawai, whose rivers run into Sedili forest (that connects lenggor forest).

    Interesting, Lenggor is the place where also this wildlife society says their mawas was seen, and where also our Orang Asli Interviewees, especially, Amir Ali, said he saw his mawas.

    One of his description, included a bigger-than average ear feature. This is recorded in my Bigfoot article under Amir’s interview, and is a fact not mentioned elsewhere before. But this desciption was picked up by Vincent as well.

    During the interview, the reporters asked him about the Sultan’s family pointed that the mawas could be the orangutans released 40 years ago. This news of the Sultan appeared not in the Malaysia press, but in Singapore chinese papers. It was discovered by me and translated into english, and remains the only source anywhere where this news in english could be found.

    Thus I can say that though no one mentioned it, THEY ARE getting pointers from my article.

    As for Pter Loh, he is a SPI member, 1 organisation who is helping Vincent Chow launch his book. This fact is of course not disclosed as he tried to write his commentary as ‘an outsider’ impressed with Mr Vincent.

    There is a great mix up of stories arising from malaysia, and anyone not in the know, can be misled easily.

    The original story of the Bigfoot Family never existed. The Fish farm workers who saw the family never existed. Vincent mixes everything up by describing accounts of past years encounters and reciting them as if they were happening.

    You can read all these here.

    I remain the only person who is in full knowledge of the facts concerning this Malaysian Bigfoot, but alas, nonbody likes truth anymore.

    But you can contact me any time for any questions.

    regards

    Charles
    ************************************

    Hello,

    I’m curious to know your thoughts on the recent announcement by Mr Vincent Chow that he has pictures of the Mawas. I recently read an article on Cryptomundo.com that had a post from a Mr Peter Loh claiming Mr Chow has proof of their existence.

    Regards,
    Eric

43. Doug responds: May 5th, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    It is strange just a few weeks ago there was a possibility of a bigfoot of sorts there and then “kapow!” we have pictures and folks studying them for a decade. I am naturally suspicious because of the claims made in the past, but maybe we have finally made it in our search.

44. Ajeyya responds: May 5th, 2006 at 7:28 pm

    Hi, I am reading all these, all the way from Malaysia here. The quote of Bennymac about Charles is totally correct: nobody likes truth anymore.

    Since the story of the Bigfoot surfaced in my country, interviews of several aborigine eye-witnesses ranged from the mythical creature called “Sejarang Gigi” with fangs and fiercely able to harm a human being, leaving only traces of their activities but never any photographic evidence; and then right down to descriptions of a possible Malaysian sunbear, while local forestry scientist trekking all over the forest for the past 20 years had no recollection of ever recording anything remotely related to the possibility of a Bigfoot creature.

    Vincent Chow saw a monkey/human like creature when he was young, and memories tend to fail, mixed with all kinds of input from the media (remember we had King Kong, Planet of the Apes…). Mr Coleman is right in reminding us all to be cautious about this, because to be totally honest, big (huge, enormous) footprints can be found easily in the plantations where wild boars trample around, easily creating overlapping footprints. Lessons from optical illusion taught us that if we want to see something, even a vague resemblance could signify that there really is the thing that we are looking for. Not surprising then, that so many overlap footprints may conjure as the image of a huge footprint in our minds, interpreting it as a possible Bigfoot footprint.

45. Chymo responds: May 6th, 2006 at 6:18 am

    Anyone who considers themselves a serious crypto researcher & who values their credibility would do well not to sound too excited over this. This will be a debunkers dream.

    There was a show on TV recently by a couple of famous Vegas magicians, I dunno if anyone recalls… ?

46. ZenBug responds: May 6th, 2006 at 11:43 am

    Agreed Chymo.

    It’s dangerous enough to put one’s faith in a photo, but in an alleged photo…?

47. Kathy Strain responds: May 6th, 2006 at 12:44 pm

    Yes, if this are the prints of a Homo Erectus, they should appear more human like, and they don’t…

    If bigfoot (or whatever this is) is a primate, why would sexual dimorphism be a surprise? All primates exhibit sexual dimorphism, including us. You can tell our gender when we are naked as well, so hypothesizing that Homo Erectus would share that same characteristic (since it is in the Homo line) wouldn’t surprise me either.

48. Loren Coleman responds: May 6th, 2006 at 8:51 pm

    Sexual dimorphism is the systematic difference in form between individuals of different sexes in the same species. There is some debate that among fossil hominids, fossil hominoids, and fossil anthropoids, sexual dimorphism may not be clearcut.

    Believe it or not, even sexual dimorphism in humans is the subject of controversy, especially related to mental ability and psychological gender.

    Homo sapiens has a low level of sexual dimorphism compared with many other species. Standard growth curves for male and female humans have an overlap that is slightly less than 1 standard deviation.

    I guess we all will have to wait to see if anything comes of the Malaysian developments to know.

    The prints found may have nothing to do with the Mawas reported by Chow.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|