I recently came across a video lecture by researcher and author Lloyd Pye. His discussion centered on what he calls "Intervention Theory". This is in regard to how life in general and our ancestors arrived on Earth. This aside, I was intrigued by what he discussed concerning fossil hominids. What ever anyone's background education or knowledge of hominids may be, his discussion is worth considering. Particularly interesting was his discussion of the Australopithecines. His contention, and he is not the first to arrive at this idea, is that the Australopithecines were not actually in the human lineage but rather the ancestor to the creatures inhabiting the fringes of societies today to put it generally. He suggests that the Sasquatch, Yeti, Almas and creatures that are said to inhabit the south American jungle regions are the decendents of these creatures. There were 6 Australopithecus species discovered so far, two "Gracile" meaning essentially smaller, and four "Robust". John Napier in the early 1970's suggested this, and he was an anthropologist assigned to the Smithsonian, so the idea has merrit. Below I have provided some information about the Australopithecines, and photographs of skulls, and artist conceptions of what they looked like from the fossils discovered of them. Compare them to the Sasquatch from Roger Patterson's film, notice the similarities? I am a simple Sasquatch Hunter (non-lethal)and don't pretend to be an expert on such things, however this provides us with a different vantage point on the issue. Lloyd Pye suggests that creatures such as the Sasquatch, Yeti, etc are already represented in the fossil record, and that these are them. Food for thought.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Anatomy and biology of the australopithecines:
· Bipedal apes with modified dentition.
· Lived in more open environmental setting, not the open plains of bushland and wooden Savannah.
· Hominid structure of teeth and jaws appear to have required more grinding that an ape’s diet.
· Male australopithecines were larger in body size. 20-40% taller, 30-40% heavier than females.
· Australopithecines were social animals.
· Foraging strategies of hominids were not dramatically different: australopithecines have been carnivores.
· Australopithecines were principally vegetarian.
· Australopithecines of 2 million years ago occurred in 2 forms:
Gracile (means slender)
Robust.
So far, only one gracile australopithecines has been identified whereas, as many as 4 robust species have been named. In South Africa, the gracile species is australopithecus africanus and the robust australopithecus robustus. The robust australopithecine in East Africa is australopithecus boisei. Naming gracile species in East Africa is more contentious; some apply the name australopithecus africanus to some specimens. The term gracile and robust implies substantial anatomical differences between the 2 forms. One small and delicately built. The other bigger and more massive. Scholars realize the difference between the 2 forms is mainly in the dental and facial adaptations to chewing. The robust forms have bigger grinding teeth, more robust jaws and more bulky chewing muscles and muscle attachments.
Australopithecines anatomy
· Teeth, jaw and cranial anatomy are one functional complex.
· Difference between the 2 forms of australopithecine is that the robust species have taken this adaptation to an extreme, having enormous, flat molars and relatively small blade-like incisors and canines.
· In all hominid, the tooth row is tucked under the face more than the apes, giving a less projecting facial profile and increasing chewing efficiency.
· Australopithecines tucking under are particularly marked.
· The robusticity of the lower jaw (mandible) that is characteristic of hominids compared with apes is particularly apparent in the robust species, reflecting more powerful chewing action.
· Extra muscle in the robust has 2 anatomical consequences:
One of the muscle that power the lower jaw-the temporal muscle-is anchored to a raised bony crest that run along the top of the cranium, front to back.
This so-called sagittal crest also in gorillas is absent in gracile australopithecines.
The great site of the temporal in robust and a second chewing muscle, the masseter, causes the cheekbones (the zygomatic arch) to be exaggerated and flared forward
This and the strengthening of the central part of the face by pillars of bone, gives the robust australopithecine face a characteristic dished appearance. The difference in dental apparatus between gracile and robust australopithecines was once interpreted as a result of substantial differences in diet. Robust was more vegetarian. Gracile more carnivorous. The past decade they were implies a vegetarian diet for the australopithecines. More recent Fredrick Grine and Richard Kay concluded robust consume tougher foods than gracile. It is consistent with evidence that robust australopithecine’s lived in drier habitats where soft fruits and leaves were more common. Sillien recently challenged this conclusion. His analysis included the robust species included a significant amount of meat.
Sound familiar to things being reported in contemporary times?