Here are some photos that I found interesting in light of the expert testimony I've been reading regarding apes....
Rumor has it that ---
1) Female apes cannot have the crest seen in the PG film.
2) Female apes never have visible breasts.
3) Apes never walk upright.
All of this is wrong, of course. So here are a few images to demonstrate.
At top are apes that prefer walking upright. There seems to be quite a few. Here's the bonomo, the gorilla and the chimp walking upright in a study on this very subject being done currently at the Berlin Zoo to determine why these particular animals prefer this style of locomotion.
There's Koko with her pointed crest in the bottom right corner.
And I think you don't need to be a scientist to see the breasts on both the lowland and mountain gorillas pictured here as well as the bonomo.
How do these rumors get started anyway? :doh:
- Dfoot
Full Version: Upright walking apes - with breasts
QUOTE(Dfoot @ Oct 13 2004, 05:38 PM)
...How do these rumors get started anyway? :doh:
Good question.
Great post.
QUOTE
Mammary Glands
Thus the organic adaptations of the female, may be complemented by the behavioural adaptations of the young. In general, the female's organic and behavioural adaptations increase with the brain mass/body mass ratio.
The mammary glands of the Human specie are different from those of the Chimpanzee or Gorilla. These apes have relatively flat breasts and long nipples. This meets the needs of their young, who tend to have marginally protruding jaws and palates -- which need a proportionately long nipple. By contrast, the human breasts tend to be more bulbous, with a much shorter nipple.
In this context, there is no reason to believe that the needs of the hominoid (Ape) young varied very greatly, during the period of pre-hominidal evolution. However, when there are substantial, physiological variations of either mammae nipple size; or testes size; or penis size; it is reasonable to assume that these were caused by evolutionary adaptations - to changes in mating, reproduction, or infant-rearing systems.
In Chapter Five, the author proposed that the adaptation to the requirements of a
subtropical climate involved a reduction in body size, which led to a change in the specie’s head to body ratio. This led to the extension of the period of helplessness of the hominid baby.
In this regard, it will be immediately apparent that a helpless hominid baby would need some maternal assistance to reach its mother's breasts. The mother would have to pick up its baby, and guide the baby's mouth to her nipple. The baby would be able to 'forage' for the nipple itself, and start suckling -- as both of these are reflex actions. However, the mother would still have to support the baby's head during feeding.
Even a helpless baby could still hang on to its mother, by holding on to her skin, or fur, providing the baby's hands and feet were guided to the right place -- and provided its hands and feet were kept open before contact was made. Infantile gripping is another reflex action, and hominid babies would be able to hang on to their mothers -- if they were placed in the appropriate position, in the appropriate way.
Unfortunately, it is not normal for babies to open up their hands, if they are very young --because this requires cognitive ability. A young baby's hands tend to remain clenched, and they cannot grip anything unless it is physically placed into the palms of their hands.
Forward facing nostrils
Thus during suckling, a hominid baby would depend upon its mother for support, and the mother would tend to hold the baby's head close to her breast. This would tend to position the proto-hominidal, forward-facing nostrils of a hominid baby very close to the chest wall of the mother. As a result, an anxious, or careless, or frightened mother, could accidentally suffocate her baby as she pressed its head against her breast.
The hominoidal Ape baby does not stiffer from this problem because it can climb up, and hang on to its mother to suckle. Such a baby can feed itself without the need for maternal support. If its forward-facing nostrils are accidentally blocked, it will immediately move its head back by reflex action.
A helpless, hominid baby could not do this, as its head would be pressed in to its mother's breast by the mother's hand. It could not cry out, as the nipple would be in its mouth.
Instead, it would silently suffocate.
It is proposed that the frequency of early hominid infant mortality, due to accidental suffocation, would be sufficient to lead to evolutionary adaptations by both babies and mothers.
In this context, it is proposed that the baby's nose would gradually change, so that the forward-facing nostrils of the hominoid Apes would be replaced by the downward facing nostrils of the present day humans.
It is further proposed that mammae of early hominids would be supplemented by fat -- to project the female nipple well clear of the chest wall. This would prevent the nose of the baby from being squashed up against the chest of its mother.
This organic adaption illustrates a possible example of series evolution, where one adaption can create a demand for another, consequential adaption.
Bulbous, protuberant breasts
For example, the evolution of bulbous, protuberant breasts could lead to further suffocation, albeit on a lesser scale. This is because the soft skin and fat of the breast, could envelop the nose of the baby and lead to its suffocation.
It is proposed that a further evolutionary adaption would involve the dilation of the blood vessels surrounding the mammary gland, and this would make the breast relatively stiff.
The dilation of the blood vessels would be stimulated by the suckling action of the baby, and the stiff breast would prevent the baby's face and nose from being enveloped by the breast's soft, fatty tissue.
Another potential threat to the helpless baby would be the long, hominoidal nipple. This could easily choke the baby, as its head was pressed in to its mother's breast. It is proposed that this danger would lead to the evolution of the short, hominidal nipple.
These are minor changes of physiology, but quite typical maternal adaptations which meet the needs of the young. If the babies die, the specie dies. In this regard, the suckling of young babies is a very critical element in mammalian survival.
As a result, it is reasonable to deduce that any perceived changes to a baby's mouth, palate, lips, gums etc. , and its nose -- if this is close to the mouth, will be due to a change in infantile, or maternal demands.
It should be noted that it is very much easier for an adult to adjust to the demands of an infant, than the other way round. As a result, most evolutionary changes involving mammary glands and nipples, are due to adaptations by the adults to the needs of their infants.
http://www.jdwaters.info/HAAB%20Acro/c6to.pdf
Thus the organic adaptations of the female, may be complemented by the behavioural adaptations of the young. In general, the female's organic and behavioural adaptations increase with the brain mass/body mass ratio.
The mammary glands of the Human specie are different from those of the Chimpanzee or Gorilla. These apes have relatively flat breasts and long nipples. This meets the needs of their young, who tend to have marginally protruding jaws and palates -- which need a proportionately long nipple. By contrast, the human breasts tend to be more bulbous, with a much shorter nipple.
In this context, there is no reason to believe that the needs of the hominoid (Ape) young varied very greatly, during the period of pre-hominidal evolution. However, when there are substantial, physiological variations of either mammae nipple size; or testes size; or penis size; it is reasonable to assume that these were caused by evolutionary adaptations - to changes in mating, reproduction, or infant-rearing systems.
In Chapter Five, the author proposed that the adaptation to the requirements of a
subtropical climate involved a reduction in body size, which led to a change in the specie’s head to body ratio. This led to the extension of the period of helplessness of the hominid baby.
In this regard, it will be immediately apparent that a helpless hominid baby would need some maternal assistance to reach its mother's breasts. The mother would have to pick up its baby, and guide the baby's mouth to her nipple. The baby would be able to 'forage' for the nipple itself, and start suckling -- as both of these are reflex actions. However, the mother would still have to support the baby's head during feeding.
Even a helpless baby could still hang on to its mother, by holding on to her skin, or fur, providing the baby's hands and feet were guided to the right place -- and provided its hands and feet were kept open before contact was made. Infantile gripping is another reflex action, and hominid babies would be able to hang on to their mothers -- if they were placed in the appropriate position, in the appropriate way.
Unfortunately, it is not normal for babies to open up their hands, if they are very young --because this requires cognitive ability. A young baby's hands tend to remain clenched, and they cannot grip anything unless it is physically placed into the palms of their hands.
Forward facing nostrils
Thus during suckling, a hominid baby would depend upon its mother for support, and the mother would tend to hold the baby's head close to her breast. This would tend to position the proto-hominidal, forward-facing nostrils of a hominid baby very close to the chest wall of the mother. As a result, an anxious, or careless, or frightened mother, could accidentally suffocate her baby as she pressed its head against her breast.
The hominoidal Ape baby does not stiffer from this problem because it can climb up, and hang on to its mother to suckle. Such a baby can feed itself without the need for maternal support. If its forward-facing nostrils are accidentally blocked, it will immediately move its head back by reflex action.
A helpless, hominid baby could not do this, as its head would be pressed in to its mother's breast by the mother's hand. It could not cry out, as the nipple would be in its mouth.
Instead, it would silently suffocate.
It is proposed that the frequency of early hominid infant mortality, due to accidental suffocation, would be sufficient to lead to evolutionary adaptations by both babies and mothers.
In this context, it is proposed that the baby's nose would gradually change, so that the forward-facing nostrils of the hominoid Apes would be replaced by the downward facing nostrils of the present day humans.
It is further proposed that mammae of early hominids would be supplemented by fat -- to project the female nipple well clear of the chest wall. This would prevent the nose of the baby from being squashed up against the chest of its mother.
This organic adaption illustrates a possible example of series evolution, where one adaption can create a demand for another, consequential adaption.
Bulbous, protuberant breasts
For example, the evolution of bulbous, protuberant breasts could lead to further suffocation, albeit on a lesser scale. This is because the soft skin and fat of the breast, could envelop the nose of the baby and lead to its suffocation.
It is proposed that a further evolutionary adaption would involve the dilation of the blood vessels surrounding the mammary gland, and this would make the breast relatively stiff.
The dilation of the blood vessels would be stimulated by the suckling action of the baby, and the stiff breast would prevent the baby's face and nose from being enveloped by the breast's soft, fatty tissue.
Another potential threat to the helpless baby would be the long, hominoidal nipple. This could easily choke the baby, as its head was pressed in to its mother's breast. It is proposed that this danger would lead to the evolution of the short, hominidal nipple.
These are minor changes of physiology, but quite typical maternal adaptations which meet the needs of the young. If the babies die, the specie dies. In this regard, the suckling of young babies is a very critical element in mammalian survival.
As a result, it is reasonable to deduce that any perceived changes to a baby's mouth, palate, lips, gums etc. , and its nose -- if this is close to the mouth, will be due to a change in infantile, or maternal demands.
It should be noted that it is very much easier for an adult to adjust to the demands of an infant, than the other way round. As a result, most evolutionary changes involving mammary glands and nipples, are due to adaptations by the adults to the needs of their infants.
http://www.jdwaters.info/HAAB%20Acro/c6to.pdf
It's not that Apes haven't been seen walking through water or that some do have protuberant breasts......but those are exceptions, not the rule.
If I hold a cookie out, my dog will magically become bipedal too. If I took a picture of it, could I ask who started the 'rumor' that dogs can't be bipedal?
I swear bonobos are the possums of the ape kingdom. Ugly fokers.
I think I dated that one once! 
QUOTE
Cronic's Quote:
The mammary glands of the Human specie are different from those of the Chimpanzee or Gorilla. These apes have relatively flat breasts and long nipples. This meets the needs of their young, who tend to have marginally protruding jaws and palates -- which need a proportionately long nipple. By contrast, the human breasts tend to be more bulbous, with a much shorter nipple.
In this context, there is no reason to believe that the needs of the hominoid (Ape) young varied very greatly, during the period of pre-hominidal evolution. However, when there are substantial, physiological variations of either mammae nipple size; or testes size; or penis size; it is reasonable to assume that these were caused by evolutionary adaptations - to changes in mating, reproduction, or infant-rearing systems.
The mammary glands of the Human specie are different from those of the Chimpanzee or Gorilla. These apes have relatively flat breasts and long nipples. This meets the needs of their young, who tend to have marginally protruding jaws and palates -- which need a proportionately long nipple. By contrast, the human breasts tend to be more bulbous, with a much shorter nipple.
In this context, there is no reason to believe that the needs of the hominoid (Ape) young varied very greatly, during the period of pre-hominidal evolution. However, when there are substantial, physiological variations of either mammae nipple size; or testes size; or penis size; it is reasonable to assume that these were caused by evolutionary adaptations - to changes in mating, reproduction, or infant-rearing systems.
I have heard it theorized that changes in mating (face to face) is what caused women to develop large breasts (forward facing sexual displays). If that is correct, I guess that would tell you something about how Bigfoots mate. Patty looks more human than chimp in the front and rear part of her anatomy.
@ Bipto!
QUOTE(bipto @ Oct 13 2004, 07:30 PM)
I think I dated that one once!
:willies: 
QUOTE(bipto @ Oct 13 2004, 06:30 PM)
I think I dated that one once!
You used to tell me I looked cute when I did my Jane Fonda workout! That's it, you are not getting your shirts or CDs back!
QUOTE(BobZenor @ Oct 13 2004, 07:35 PM)
I have heard it theorized that changes in mating (face to face) is what caused women to develop large breasts (forward facing sexual displays). I
Really? I'll have to try that sometime.
@ biptoBelle
QUOTE(chronic @ Oct 13 2004, 06:01 PM)
QUOTE
Mammary Glands
The mammary glands of the Human specie are different from those of the Chimpanzee or Gorilla. These apes have relatively flat breasts and long nipples.
This meets the needs of their young, who tend to have marginally protruding jaws and palates -- which need a proportionately long nipple. By contrast, the human breasts tend to be more bulbous, with a much shorter nipple.
In this context, there is no reason to believe that the needs of the hominoid (Ape) young varied very greatly, during the period of pre-hominidal evolution. However, when there are substantial, physiological variations of either mammae nipple size; or testes size; or penis size; it is reasonable to assume that these were caused by evolutionary adaptations - to changes in mating, reproduction, or infant-rearing systems.
In Chapter Five, the author proposed that the adaptation to the requirements of a
subtropical climate involved a reduction in body size, which led to a change in the specie’s head to body ratio. This led to the extension of the period of helplessness of the hominid baby.
In this regard, it will be immediately apparent that a helpless hominid baby would need some maternal assistance to reach its mother's breasts. The mother would have to pick up its baby, and guide the baby's mouth to her nipple. The baby would be able to 'forage' for the nipple itself, and start suckling -- as both of these are reflex actions. However, the mother would still have to support the baby's head during feeding.
Even a helpless baby could still hang on to its mother, by holding on to her skin, or fur, providing the baby's hands and feet were guided to the right place -- and provided its hands and feet were kept open before contact was made. Infantile gripping is another reflex action, and hominid babies would be able to hang on to their mothers -- if they were placed in the appropriate position, in the appropriate way.
Unfortunately, it is not normal for babies to open up their hands, if they are very young --because this requires cognitive ability. A young baby's hands tend to remain clenched, and they cannot grip anything unless it is physically placed into the palms of their hands.
Forward facing nostrils
Thus during suckling, a hominid baby would depend upon its mother for support, and the mother would tend to hold the baby's head close to her breast. This would tend to position the proto-hominidal, forward-facing nostrils of a hominid baby very close to the chest wall of the mother. As a result, an anxious, or careless, or frightened mother, could accidentally suffocate her baby as she pressed its head against her breast.
The hominoidal Ape baby does not stiffer from this problem because it can climb up, and hang on to its mother to suckle. Such a baby can feed itself without the need for maternal support. If its forward-facing nostrils are accidentally blocked, it will immediately move its head back by reflex action.
A helpless, hominid baby could not do this, as its head would be pressed in to its mother's breast by the mother's hand. It could not cry out, as the nipple would be in its mouth.
Instead, it would silently suffocate.
It is proposed that the frequency of early hominid infant mortality, due to accidental suffocation, would be sufficient to lead to evolutionary adaptations by both babies and mothers.
In this context, it is proposed that the baby's nose would gradually change, so that the forward-facing nostrils of the hominoid Apes would be replaced by the downward facing nostrils of the present day humans.
It is further proposed that mammae of early hominids would be supplemented by fat -- to project the female nipple well clear of the chest wall. This would prevent the nose of the baby from being squashed up against the chest of its mother.
This organic adaption illustrates a possible example of series evolution, where one adaption can create a demand for another, consequential adaption.
Bulbous, protuberant breasts
For example, the evolution of bulbous, protuberant breasts could lead to further suffocation, albeit on a lesser scale. This is because the soft skin and fat of the breast, could envelop the nose of the baby and lead to its suffocation.
It is proposed that a further evolutionary adaption would involve the dilation of the blood vessels surrounding the mammary gland, and this would make the breast relatively stiff.
The dilation of the blood vessels would be stimulated by the suckling action of the baby, and the stiff breast would prevent the baby's face and nose from being enveloped by the breast's soft, fatty tissue.
Another potential threat to the helpless baby would be the long, hominoidal nipple. This could easily choke the baby, as its head was pressed in to its mother's breast. It is proposed that this danger would lead to the evolution of the short, hominidal nipple.
These are minor changes of physiology, but quite typical maternal adaptations which meet the needs of the young. If the babies die, the specie dies. In this regard, the suckling of young babies is a very critical element in mammalian survival.
As a result, it is reasonable to deduce that any perceived changes to a baby's mouth, palate, lips, gums etc. , and its nose -- if this is close to the mouth, will be due to a change in infantile, or maternal demands.
It should be noted that it is very much easier for an adult to adjust to the demands of an infant, than the other way round. As a result, most evolutionary changes involving mammary glands and nipples, are due to adaptations by the adults to the needs of their infants.
http://www.jdwaters.info/HAAB%20Acro/c6to.pdf
The mammary glands of the Human specie are different from those of the Chimpanzee or Gorilla. These apes have relatively flat breasts and long nipples.
This meets the needs of their young, who tend to have marginally protruding jaws and palates -- which need a proportionately long nipple. By contrast, the human breasts tend to be more bulbous, with a much shorter nipple.
In this context, there is no reason to believe that the needs of the hominoid (Ape) young varied very greatly, during the period of pre-hominidal evolution. However, when there are substantial, physiological variations of either mammae nipple size; or testes size; or penis size; it is reasonable to assume that these were caused by evolutionary adaptations - to changes in mating, reproduction, or infant-rearing systems.
In Chapter Five, the author proposed that the adaptation to the requirements of a
subtropical climate involved a reduction in body size, which led to a change in the specie’s head to body ratio. This led to the extension of the period of helplessness of the hominid baby.
In this regard, it will be immediately apparent that a helpless hominid baby would need some maternal assistance to reach its mother's breasts. The mother would have to pick up its baby, and guide the baby's mouth to her nipple. The baby would be able to 'forage' for the nipple itself, and start suckling -- as both of these are reflex actions. However, the mother would still have to support the baby's head during feeding.
Even a helpless baby could still hang on to its mother, by holding on to her skin, or fur, providing the baby's hands and feet were guided to the right place -- and provided its hands and feet were kept open before contact was made. Infantile gripping is another reflex action, and hominid babies would be able to hang on to their mothers -- if they were placed in the appropriate position, in the appropriate way.
Unfortunately, it is not normal for babies to open up their hands, if they are very young --because this requires cognitive ability. A young baby's hands tend to remain clenched, and they cannot grip anything unless it is physically placed into the palms of their hands.
Forward facing nostrils
Thus during suckling, a hominid baby would depend upon its mother for support, and the mother would tend to hold the baby's head close to her breast. This would tend to position the proto-hominidal, forward-facing nostrils of a hominid baby very close to the chest wall of the mother. As a result, an anxious, or careless, or frightened mother, could accidentally suffocate her baby as she pressed its head against her breast.
The hominoidal Ape baby does not stiffer from this problem because it can climb up, and hang on to its mother to suckle. Such a baby can feed itself without the need for maternal support. If its forward-facing nostrils are accidentally blocked, it will immediately move its head back by reflex action.
A helpless, hominid baby could not do this, as its head would be pressed in to its mother's breast by the mother's hand. It could not cry out, as the nipple would be in its mouth.
Instead, it would silently suffocate.
It is proposed that the frequency of early hominid infant mortality, due to accidental suffocation, would be sufficient to lead to evolutionary adaptations by both babies and mothers.
In this context, it is proposed that the baby's nose would gradually change, so that the forward-facing nostrils of the hominoid Apes would be replaced by the downward facing nostrils of the present day humans.
It is further proposed that mammae of early hominids would be supplemented by fat -- to project the female nipple well clear of the chest wall. This would prevent the nose of the baby from being squashed up against the chest of its mother.
This organic adaption illustrates a possible example of series evolution, where one adaption can create a demand for another, consequential adaption.
Bulbous, protuberant breasts
For example, the evolution of bulbous, protuberant breasts could lead to further suffocation, albeit on a lesser scale. This is because the soft skin and fat of the breast, could envelop the nose of the baby and lead to its suffocation.
It is proposed that a further evolutionary adaption would involve the dilation of the blood vessels surrounding the mammary gland, and this would make the breast relatively stiff.
The dilation of the blood vessels would be stimulated by the suckling action of the baby, and the stiff breast would prevent the baby's face and nose from being enveloped by the breast's soft, fatty tissue.
Another potential threat to the helpless baby would be the long, hominoidal nipple. This could easily choke the baby, as its head was pressed in to its mother's breast. It is proposed that this danger would lead to the evolution of the short, hominidal nipple.
These are minor changes of physiology, but quite typical maternal adaptations which meet the needs of the young. If the babies die, the specie dies. In this regard, the suckling of young babies is a very critical element in mammalian survival.
As a result, it is reasonable to deduce that any perceived changes to a baby's mouth, palate, lips, gums etc. , and its nose -- if this is close to the mouth, will be due to a change in infantile, or maternal demands.
It should be noted that it is very much easier for an adult to adjust to the demands of an infant, than the other way round. As a result, most evolutionary changes involving mammary glands and nipples, are due to adaptations by the adults to the needs of their infants.
http://www.jdwaters.info/HAAB%20Acro/c6to.pdf
It's not that Apes haven't been seen walking through water or that some do have protuberant breasts......but those are exceptions, not the rule.
If I hold a cookie out, my dog will magically become bipedal too. If I took a picture of it, could I ask who started the 'rumor' that dogs can't be bipedal?
I can't let this go by without a couple of comments. As someone who successfully breast fed four children until they were at least eight months old (someone do the math, every three to four hours around the clock for eight months, multiplied by four...) Ok, that adds up to 5760 hours of close observation of the nursing habits of human infants. Now here's what I have found to be true: When a human female is not producing milk her breasts are soft and could suffocate a very young infant if it was nursing, BUT (and this is one big but) human (and humanoid) females who are producing enough milk to meet most of an infants daily intake of food (each breast produces the same amount of milk per day that was taken from it on the previous day) have breasts that are very (to extremely) firm and in no way soft, not because the blood vessels have dilated when triggered by the baby nursing, but because the milk ducts are FULL of milk. The breasts of nursing women are not fatty, or soft at any time while they are producing milk. This firmness is what keeps the baby from suffocating.. and not because their nostrils point downward as in an adults', but because human infants are born with very short turned up noses, which enables them to nurse without having to unlatch from the breast in order to breathe. Around six months old the nose lengthens and become less turned up. See the pic below of my Grandson when he was 1 week old showing very clearly what I am referring to about the shape of a human infants nose...
Also, if a human female were to produce milk for even a short length of time without adequately supporting the weight of the breasts her breasts would look exactly like the breasts of non-milk producing hominids you see in the photographs, very flaccid, very flat, and very pendulous. Ape breasts aren't that way due to genetics, they are that way due to the damage done to the supporting structures of the breasts from the excessive weight while they were producing milk.
those pics clearly are of apes, not what we are looking for.
Dfoot wrote:
1) Female apes cannot have the crest seen in the PG film.
2) Female apes never have visible breasts.
3) Apes never walk upright.
Rumor? I think you meant exaggeration.
Apes as well as other animals are known to have sagittal crests. Even fish. http://www.fishbase.org/glossary/images/G_...81_SagCrest.jpg
All females, apes and human, have breasts. If you compare whats been posted in this thread with regard to nipples in particular, you will see that the Patterson subject has nipples that are flat and that her breasts are much larger than the average ape breast.
As for walking upright, it is well known that apes often do this for short periods of time. I would suspect monkeys do as well.
1) Female apes cannot have the crest seen in the PG film.
2) Female apes never have visible breasts.
3) Apes never walk upright.
Rumor? I think you meant exaggeration.
Apes as well as other animals are known to have sagittal crests. Even fish. http://www.fishbase.org/glossary/images/G_...81_SagCrest.jpg
All females, apes and human, have breasts. If you compare whats been posted in this thread with regard to nipples in particular, you will see that the Patterson subject has nipples that are flat and that her breasts are much larger than the average ape breast.
As for walking upright, it is well known that apes often do this for short periods of time. I would suspect monkeys do as well.
QUOTE(califb @ Oct 14 2004, 01:42 AM)
(someone do the math, every three to four hours around the clock for eight months, multiplied by four...)
Yes, but how many gallons are we talking about?
Chronic: Near Tel Aviv at the Ramat Gan Safari Park they currently have a monkey that ONLY walks upright. They cannot understand why. The current theory is that it suffered from some sort of brain damage.
The upright gate of those apes in the pictures I displayed PREFER an upright walking gait. No one knows why. This is the reason for the study being done at that zoo.
We also have the now famous chimp "Oliver" who prefers walking and standing on two legs. No one has a real explaination for this. Some assume that it could be simply his choice as there appears to be no other physical cause.
My point is that I have often seen gorillas and other apes with breasts hanging down. Yet I read that this is supposedly an exception. If that's the case then I see a lot of exceptions. Or maybe I'm just paying attention to it.
In nature we have apes with hair on the breasts and no hair at all. Based on what I've seen there is no reason at all that an animal that matches the bigfoot description cannot exist in nature.
A test in human perception was done using videotape in which the test subjects were told to count the number of times a basketball was passed between a group of people. Most people who watched the tape either got the answer right or came very close.
The thing that NO ONE saw was this: There was a woman who walked across the middle of the screen wearing a gorilla suit. She stopped and watched the game, beat her chest, then walked off. Not one single test subject saw her.
When later shown the tape and told to look at the gorilla watching the game, the test subjects all suddenly noticed. Some even swore that this had to be a DIFFERENT tape as they were sure they would have seen this if it existed.
My point is that this is human perception. People who simply looked at the tape without the preconceived notion that it was about counting the passes, noticed the gorilla right away. Those who concentrated on what they already had in their minds (the passing of the ball itself) never noticed the gorilla and accused the testers of changing to a different tape as they believed that they would easily have noticed the gorilla woman.
So here we are today... We have upright walking apes and we have primatologists who have witnessed this in nature. Yet the current accepted theory is that this only occurs due to some disease or brain damage.
If the "bigfoot" is a real animal, then it is an upright walking ape. And it would look very much like what we see in the Patterson film.
Someday, perhaps, something will happen similar to what happened years ago when the gorilla was considered nothing more than a native superstition.
If the bigfoot population is as small as the mountain gorilla population, they may die off before they are "discovered."
The Panda and the Gorilla certainly proved difficult to get close to. An ape that moves about mainly at night surely would be much more difficult a subject. Yet reliable people keep reporting that it exists. I'd like to see them proven right myself.
My point in all this is that not only is it possible, but we also have photos and studies of it. The breasts, the head, the gait - these are the things that are supposed to be "impossible" much as the gorilla is an "impossible animal."
Or maybe we humans are simply impossibly arrogant in our superior knowledge of nature? Until we are forced to upgrade our knowledge, of course.
Here's good ol' upright citizen, Oliver the Biped. A freak? Maybe not.
- Dfoot
The upright gate of those apes in the pictures I displayed PREFER an upright walking gait. No one knows why. This is the reason for the study being done at that zoo.
We also have the now famous chimp "Oliver" who prefers walking and standing on two legs. No one has a real explaination for this. Some assume that it could be simply his choice as there appears to be no other physical cause.
My point is that I have often seen gorillas and other apes with breasts hanging down. Yet I read that this is supposedly an exception. If that's the case then I see a lot of exceptions. Or maybe I'm just paying attention to it.
In nature we have apes with hair on the breasts and no hair at all. Based on what I've seen there is no reason at all that an animal that matches the bigfoot description cannot exist in nature.
A test in human perception was done using videotape in which the test subjects were told to count the number of times a basketball was passed between a group of people. Most people who watched the tape either got the answer right or came very close.
The thing that NO ONE saw was this: There was a woman who walked across the middle of the screen wearing a gorilla suit. She stopped and watched the game, beat her chest, then walked off. Not one single test subject saw her.
When later shown the tape and told to look at the gorilla watching the game, the test subjects all suddenly noticed. Some even swore that this had to be a DIFFERENT tape as they were sure they would have seen this if it existed.
My point is that this is human perception. People who simply looked at the tape without the preconceived notion that it was about counting the passes, noticed the gorilla right away. Those who concentrated on what they already had in their minds (the passing of the ball itself) never noticed the gorilla and accused the testers of changing to a different tape as they believed that they would easily have noticed the gorilla woman.
So here we are today... We have upright walking apes and we have primatologists who have witnessed this in nature. Yet the current accepted theory is that this only occurs due to some disease or brain damage.
If the "bigfoot" is a real animal, then it is an upright walking ape. And it would look very much like what we see in the Patterson film.
Someday, perhaps, something will happen similar to what happened years ago when the gorilla was considered nothing more than a native superstition.
If the bigfoot population is as small as the mountain gorilla population, they may die off before they are "discovered."
The Panda and the Gorilla certainly proved difficult to get close to. An ape that moves about mainly at night surely would be much more difficult a subject. Yet reliable people keep reporting that it exists. I'd like to see them proven right myself.
My point in all this is that not only is it possible, but we also have photos and studies of it. The breasts, the head, the gait - these are the things that are supposed to be "impossible" much as the gorilla is an "impossible animal."
Or maybe we humans are simply impossibly arrogant in our superior knowledge of nature? Until we are forced to upgrade our knowledge, of course.
Here's good ol' upright citizen, Oliver the Biped. A freak? Maybe not.
- Dfoot
Good points brought up by Dfoot. 
It's also worth noting that upright-walking apes do so with a straight back. Like a soldier marching. The first gorilla in the first series of photos above is midway between a quadrupedal and bipedal walk. All the other bipedal apes in the photos (especially Oliver) show the bolt-upright walk typical of bipedal primates.
This is strange considering the number of reports of a hunched over Sasquatch. Apes and humans all walk bipedally with a fully-upright gait. The hunched-over gait sounds more like something out of a bad sci-fi "apeman" flick.
Patterson's creature seems to display a fully-upright, though pitched-forward gait, exactly like a human in a fast walk. Whatever that means...
It's also worth noting that upright-walking apes do so with a straight back. Like a soldier marching. The first gorilla in the first series of photos above is midway between a quadrupedal and bipedal walk. All the other bipedal apes in the photos (especially Oliver) show the bolt-upright walk typical of bipedal primates.
This is strange considering the number of reports of a hunched over Sasquatch. Apes and humans all walk bipedally with a fully-upright gait. The hunched-over gait sounds more like something out of a bad sci-fi "apeman" flick.
Patterson's creature seems to display a fully-upright, though pitched-forward gait, exactly like a human in a fast walk. Whatever that means...
This is an excellent thread. There are lots of great points being brought up. I'm lovin' it.
QUOTE(Dfoot @ Oct 14 2004, 10:08 AM)
The upright gate of those apes in the pictures I displayed PREFER an upright walking gait. No one knows why. This is the reason for the study being done at that zoo.
I've read it's because of the boredom of sitting in a cage all day. I doubt you can find a photo of a gorilla/bonobo/chimp walking in the wild, they don't have the pelvis for it (except when wading in water, easier to stay upright and your head won't get wet.)
QUOTE
If the "bigfoot" is a real animal, then it is an upright walking ape. And it would look very much like what we see in the Patterson film.
Or, it could be Homo Erectus, who could also look very much like the Patterson film.
QUOTE
Or maybe we humans are simply impossibly arrogant in our superior knowledge of nature? Until we are forced to upgrade our knowledge, of course.
Couldn't agree more. Plurality is the rule of nature, it's pretty arrogant to say humans are the exception.
QUOTE(bipto @ Oct 14 2004, 04:34 AM)
QUOTE(califb @ Oct 14 2004, 01:42 AM)
(someone do the math, every three to four hours around the clock for eight months, multiplied by four...)
Yes, but how many gallons are we talking about?
Depending on it's age a nursing infant will consume between 10 and 20 ounces of breast milk per day per breast for a total consumption of between 20 and 40 fluid ounces per day. The milk is produced and held in many small "reservoirs" called alveolas. The milk then empties into the milk ducts that carry the milk where it leaves the breast through several separate openings in the nipple. The image below shows the internal structure of a (non-milk producing) breast.
QUOTE(califb @ Oct 15 2004, 02:13 AM)
The image below shows the internal structure of a (non-milk producing) breast.
Hey, any opportunity to get a boobie picture on the site and yet still remain on topic is OK by me.
I'm so ashamed of myself.
Ok...Im...not....going....to.....post....the....pics....I...just....found.....
must.....not.....do...it....ARRRRGGHH!!!
must.....not.....do...it....ARRRRGGHH!!!
Aha--lemme whip out my magnifying glass!
(The Windows utility Califb just posted, I mean.)
It's OK, I'm Sherlock Holmes, it's all in a day's work.
(The Windows utility Califb just posted, I mean.)
It's OK, I'm Sherlock Holmes, it's all in a day's work.
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Oct 15 2004, 08:30 AM)
Aha--lemme whip out my magnifying glass!
(The Windows utility Califb just posted, I mean.)
It's OK, I'm Sherlock Holmes, it's all in a day's work.
(The Windows utility Califb just posted, I mean.)
It's OK, I'm Sherlock Holmes, it's all in a day's work.
Roger, I mean Mr. Holmes......that made me laugh!
califb: I recognize that breast close-up of one of the chimps they tried to interest poor Oliver in.
If you have any of a Dolly Parton-type (with hair) I'm sure Oliver would appreciate it. Even though they don't really exist in nature...
Here's that upright walking monkey in Israel. What's his problem anyway? Why won't he just get down on all fours?
I think he may be mocking someone. That's my personal theory.
- Dfoot
If you have any of a Dolly Parton-type (with hair) I'm sure Oliver would appreciate it. Even though they don't really exist in nature...
Here's that upright walking monkey in Israel. What's his problem anyway? Why won't he just get down on all fours?
I think he may be mocking someone. That's my personal theory.
- Dfoot
QUOTE(Dfoot @ Oct 14 2004, 09:08 AM)
Chronic: Near Tel Aviv at the Ramat Gan Safari Park they currently have a monkey that ONLY walks upright. They cannot understand why. The current theory is that it suffered from some sort of brain damage.
The upright gate of those apes in the pictures I displayed PREFER an upright walking gait. No one knows why. This is the reason for the study being done at that zoo.
We also have the now famous chimp "Oliver" who prefers walking and standing on two legs. No one has a real explaination for this. Some assume that it could be simply his choice as there appears to be no other physical cause.
My point is that I have often seen gorillas and other apes with breasts hanging down. Yet I read that this is supposedly an exception. If that's the case then I see a lot of exceptions. Or maybe I'm just paying attention to it.
In nature we have apes with hair on the breasts and no hair at all. Based on what I've seen there is no reason at all that an animal that matches the bigfoot description cannot exist in nature.
A test in human perception was done using videotape in which the test subjects were told to count the number of times a basketball was passed between a group of people. Most people who watched the tape either got the answer right or came very close.
The thing that NO ONE saw was this: There was a woman who walked across the middle of the screen wearing a gorilla suit. She stopped and watched the game, beat her chest, then walked off. Not one single test subject saw her.
When later shown the tape and told to look at the gorilla watching the game, the test subjects all suddenly noticed. Some even swore that this had to be a DIFFERENT tape as they were sure they would have seen this if it existed.
My point is that this is human perception. People who simply looked at the tape without the preconceived notion that it was about counting the passes, noticed the gorilla right away. Those who concentrated on what they already had in their minds (the passing of the ball itself) never noticed the gorilla and accused the testers of changing to a different tape as they believed that they would easily have noticed the gorilla woman.
So here we are today... We have upright walking apes and we have primatologists who have witnessed this in nature. Yet the current accepted theory is that this only occurs due to some disease or brain damage.
If the "bigfoot" is a real animal, then it is an upright walking ape. And it would look very much like what we see in the Patterson film.
Someday, perhaps, something will happen similar to what happened years ago when the gorilla was considered nothing more than a native superstition.
If the bigfoot population is as small as the mountain gorilla population, they may die off before they are "discovered."
The Panda and the Gorilla certainly proved difficult to get close to. An ape that moves about mainly at night surely would be much more difficult a subject. Yet reliable people keep reporting that it exists. I'd like to see them proven right myself.
My point in all this is that not only is it possible, but we also have photos and studies of it. The breasts, the head, the gait - these are the things that are supposed to be "impossible" much as the gorilla is an "impossible animal."
Or maybe we humans are simply impossibly arrogant in our superior knowledge of nature? Until we are forced to upgrade our knowledge, of course.
Here's good ol' upright citizen, Oliver the Biped. A freak? Maybe not.
- Dfoot
The upright gate of those apes in the pictures I displayed PREFER an upright walking gait. No one knows why. This is the reason for the study being done at that zoo.
We also have the now famous chimp "Oliver" who prefers walking and standing on two legs. No one has a real explaination for this. Some assume that it could be simply his choice as there appears to be no other physical cause.
My point is that I have often seen gorillas and other apes with breasts hanging down. Yet I read that this is supposedly an exception. If that's the case then I see a lot of exceptions. Or maybe I'm just paying attention to it.
In nature we have apes with hair on the breasts and no hair at all. Based on what I've seen there is no reason at all that an animal that matches the bigfoot description cannot exist in nature.
A test in human perception was done using videotape in which the test subjects were told to count the number of times a basketball was passed between a group of people. Most people who watched the tape either got the answer right or came very close.
The thing that NO ONE saw was this: There was a woman who walked across the middle of the screen wearing a gorilla suit. She stopped and watched the game, beat her chest, then walked off. Not one single test subject saw her.
When later shown the tape and told to look at the gorilla watching the game, the test subjects all suddenly noticed. Some even swore that this had to be a DIFFERENT tape as they were sure they would have seen this if it existed.
My point is that this is human perception. People who simply looked at the tape without the preconceived notion that it was about counting the passes, noticed the gorilla right away. Those who concentrated on what they already had in their minds (the passing of the ball itself) never noticed the gorilla and accused the testers of changing to a different tape as they believed that they would easily have noticed the gorilla woman.
So here we are today... We have upright walking apes and we have primatologists who have witnessed this in nature. Yet the current accepted theory is that this only occurs due to some disease or brain damage.
If the "bigfoot" is a real animal, then it is an upright walking ape. And it would look very much like what we see in the Patterson film.
Someday, perhaps, something will happen similar to what happened years ago when the gorilla was considered nothing more than a native superstition.
If the bigfoot population is as small as the mountain gorilla population, they may die off before they are "discovered."
The Panda and the Gorilla certainly proved difficult to get close to. An ape that moves about mainly at night surely would be much more difficult a subject. Yet reliable people keep reporting that it exists. I'd like to see them proven right myself.
My point in all this is that not only is it possible, but we also have photos and studies of it. The breasts, the head, the gait - these are the things that are supposed to be "impossible" much as the gorilla is an "impossible animal."
Or maybe we humans are simply impossibly arrogant in our superior knowledge of nature? Until we are forced to upgrade our knowledge, of course.
Here's good ol' upright citizen, Oliver the Biped. A freak? Maybe not.
- Dfoot
This may sound crazy, but what if the various apes taking to bipedalism are a genetic mutation? I think thats very possible and we are likely seeing an example of the same mutations that allowed our ancestors to start walking on primarily two legs.
QUOTE(bipto @ Oct 15 2004, 05:31 AM)
QUOTE(califb @ Oct 15 2004, 02:13 AM)
The image below shows the internal structure of a (non-milk producing) breast.
Hey, any opportunity to get a boobie picture on the site and yet still remain on topic is OK by me.
I'm so ashamed of myself.
ROFL Bipto!
Don't be ashamed! You are suppoosed to love boobies!
According to a theory I heard once, human males are attracted to boobies because of their resemblance to the female posterior as how it is viewed in certain instances of "from the rear" mating.
Never seen a bigfoot, but i have seen a boobie!
Again, the center pic of the walking gorilla looks more like the thing in the Patterson movie than any man-in-a-costume picture I have seen. And Gorillas are not even that tall...
Carlie
Carlie
QUOTE(StacyInMI @ Oct 15 2004, 07:05 PM)
Oh, Stacy, you gave me my first belly laugh of the day!!!! Thank you!! (and Shroom, you get an assist!!! )
QUOTE(rhinohunter @ Oct 15 2004, 08:16 PM)
Never seen a bigfoot, but i have seen a boobie!
Think i had a (not sure) encounter with a boobie once and then the tree knocking and high pitched screams started. :pinch:
QUOTE
According to a theory I heard once, human males are attracted to boobies because of their resemblance to the female posterior as how it is viewed in certain instances of "from the rear" mating.
Messed up!
That's like saying we hold hands because we like to play footsie under the table. Good night. Can't we just appreciate the wonderful merits of both? If I was a woman, I'd be insulted. "Does my butt make my chest look big?"
QUOTE(rhinohunter @ Oct 15 2004, 09:16 PM)
Never seen a bigfoot, but i have seen a boobie!
Just one?
This thread is full of pr0n!!!!!
I didn't think this day would ever come.
Also, what is Volsquatch doing here?
I didn't think this day would ever come.
Also, what is Volsquatch doing here?
QUOTE(the beaver @ Oct 18 2004, 05:57 PM)
QUOTE(rhinohunter @ Oct 15 2004, 08:16 PM)
Never seen a bigfoot, but i have seen a boobie!
Think i had a (not sure) encounter with a boobie once and then the tree knocking and high pitched screams started. :pinch:
OMG ROTHFLMAO!
Belle
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.