Comments on: Myakka, Masks, and Apemania

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:59:36 +0000

Aphyllos- Thanks for clearing that up. Well, I definitely agree that it is not a sure hoax, although it might be. I don’t think it can be said for sure just what it is that we are seeing in the photos, so one opinion is as good as another. All we can really do is speculate. We already have a few explanations for the “glowing eyes” being present; eye shine, red eye, or some hoax effect. I don’t think the red eyes present discount some large ape or necessarily point to a hoax, and neither do you it seems, so its a bit of a start. It’s good that you are looking at all angles, and of course your opinion is very welcome. Always nice to have a new poster here putting out their ideas.

By: Aphyllos

Aphyllos — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:21:48 +0000

I was merely voicing my opinion, apologies if it came across as overly critical, that wasn’t my intention at all. I couldn’t claim to be an expert on such phenomenon, I was considering the options as openly as possible, and it seemed (in my opinion at least) that perhaps there was too much emphasis being placed on the “eye-shine” as strongly suggestive of nocturnal habits. Surely that is just as reductive in the field of possibility?

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:07:52 +0000

Aphyllos- Right. I would direct you to my post on the red eye effect in humans above. It is caused by a completely different set of mechanics than eye shine, but the end result is the same. Shiny red eyes. I have mentioned it, it has been said. No one has actively challenged that, so I don’t see what you find unappealing about our speculation.

I don’t think people are insisting that it is a nocturnal ape. The possibility is being considered because eye shine is associated with nocturnal animals. So since eye shine is present in nocturnal animals and this photo was taken at night, is it so unreasonable to speculate along those lines? You said it yourself that you agree to the possibility. What sort of unfounded speculation is being “given rise to”? What more evidence is there that it is the red eye effect we are seeing? Keeping all options open is important isn’t it? Unless you have some insider evidence that points to more knowledge than we have on the photos.

Regardless, as I have said, red eye in people can be pronounced, so it is something to be considered as well. I have made this clear, no one has been disagreeing with that. It seems that no one has flat out said what this must or must not be. This photo is an unknown. Your input is very welcome, but I don’t think you can say that a “nocturnal ape” theory is some sort of unfounded assumption. We are looking at options, digging for the truth.

Really, what is important in the end is not whether we are seeing red eye or eye shine or spirit orb power, or whatever. It is whether this photo represents a new species at all.

By: Aphyllos

Aphyllos — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:57:55 +0000

This is my first post, but i’ve been avidly reading the debate surrounding these images and whilst I agree with most of the debate concerning the source of the eyeshine seen in the images, and the possibility that an unknown or divergent species of primate has evolved a tapetum lucidum layer within it’s eyes, i;m struggling to accept some of the speculation this possibility has given rise to.
There has been an increasing number of comments referring to this unknown (or unidentified) animal (for I DO doubt that this is hoaxed) being “nocturnal”. The only “evidence” for this seems to be that it has been pictured at night.
Whilst the eyeshine points toward nocturnal living, it is also present in Homo sapiens, and whilst I am something of a “creature of the night” myself, as a species we are largely diurnal (and I’d say adapted as such). A photo taken of an unknown human taken at night and showing signs of “red eye” from a flash would not so quickly be heralded as proof that humanity is nocturnal.
Perhaps the animal was disturbed at night, perhaps it had yet to “bed-down” for the night (in which case, and here i’m taking my speculation a little far, could the frond not have been the basis for a “bed”? Orangs, Chimps and Bonobos all exhibit “nest-making” behaviour.)
I don’t want to hypothesise too wildly about what I think it MIGHT be, but i think it’s a bit too early to be discussing it as primarily “nocturnal” without more evidence.

Aphyllos

By: dmpelley

dmpelley — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:48:29 +0000

Hey, its all about the roughage!

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:54:59 +0000

dmpelley- In answer to your question about why the frond is stuffed in its mouth. Fiber? I’m with you in that I still hold that there is a possibility this is a hoax.

Also, it does have to be kept in mind that there are no known nocturnal apes or large primates like this and I think it’s important to remember that just because one COULD conceivably exist does not mean that it DOES.

Anyway, that’s cool that you live in Florida right up near this whole phenomena.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:20:23 +0000

Bake Neko- Yeah, that is weird, huh? I noticed the timing of our posts too. I wrote mine and sent it off and then as it was in waiting to be checked and posted, yours popped up. We must have been typing them up at about the same time. Whoa.

DWA- About the possibility of nocturnal apes. What you said.

You summed it up really quite well. As had been mentioned, this is not a totally absent physiological feature for all primates. I think it should be considered that the nocturnal adaptation that produces eye shine has popped up in a wide range of unrelated creatures, from the prosimians, to cats, to raccoons, the list goes on and on. So since it is obviously a useful and recurring adaptation for many wide ranging species, why should it not become present in an ape that evolves into a nocturnal lifestyle? We don’t know of such an ape, but it is not a completely far fetched notion.

You brought up basically convergent evolution, or the tendency for certain animals that are not related to develop similar survival traits for similar niches. Your examples of bat wings and shapes like a fish are superb. We don’t know of any apes with a tapetum lucidum, but I agree that it would be a rather bold statement to say that one could not evolve to take advantage of such a feature. You’re right. It would be a break from the norm and the current knowledge we have on apes, but I’d say technically there’s nothing to really say an ape or large primate CANNOT have developed nocturnal proclivities and the adaptations to go with them.

So in answer to your question “why specifically rule it out on an ape?” The answer is, you can’t. It would still need evidence to prove one exists, of course.

Good post, by the way!

By: dmpelley

dmpelley — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:16:13 +0000

“In fact prosimians, such as the lemurs, aye-aye, loris, and potto, which are primates, do exhibit eye shine.”
I stand corrected! Thank you for pointing this out Mystery_Man. When I wrote my response last night it as very late, and I thought about the prosimians but I have no idea why I didn’t include them with the primates! I knew that they exhibit eyeshine, but it simply didn’t occur to me to place them with the “great apes”. Argghhh! More primitive and smaller, but primates nonetheless. Regarding the palmetto, it seems apparent to me that a frond is in its mouth. If its not eating the frond, I could not even begin to tell you why its stuffed in there (unless it is to hide something from the camera’s view?).
Just my opinion.
Regardless, I am pleased to see some interest with something local to me for a change. It makes all of us here in Florida feel more included in the crypto loop!

By: Bake Neko

Bake Neko — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:14:15 +0000

Wow mystery_man addressed dmpelley’s tapetum error a minute right after I did. Thats interesting that red eye can appear to look bright in a photograph. It still drive me nuts. If hoaxed: why under such strange circumstances and how was it hoaxed? If real: what the hell is it? Gigantopithecus or giganto descendant? Bizarre orangutan? Or an entirely new species of great ape?

By: DWA

DWA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:01:18 +0000

Alistair says:

“Isn’t this an obvious fake?

If someone did take those photos in the wilderness, you wouldnt stand there, you would run for your life in shock that maybe you would be torn limb from limb.”

Well, not necessarily. (I’d like to know who “you” was, the ape or the photographer; but it’s really irrelevant.)

People taking photos in the wilderness HAVE been torn limb from limb. By a species that, in other cases, either ran away, moseyed slowly off, or did nothing. It’s commonly raised as a “case against” the veracity of the Patterson-Gimlin film that Patty isn’t breaking both legs in a frantic effort to escape. Fact is, such a leisurely departure - and sometimes an animal that, at least initially, doesn’t retreat at all - frequently crops up in sasquatch encounter reports. In other words, the reports and the film reinforce each other.

So, no, the reaction or lack of same of the alleged subject says nothing about whether this is faked or not. Debunking it requires pointing out specific earmarks of fakery. Until then, nope, we don’t know what it is.