Page 1 of 1
De Loys Ape
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:18 pm
by Dean Harrison
Google it.
I think there is something wrong with the story and picture.
If anyone who can tell me what is right about it - let me know.
Do you believe it is real, or a 1920's fraud? I don't doubt the Animal is real, but is it an unknown Ape?
Lets investigate.
DMH
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:33 pm
by steve_tracker
Hi ya DMH
I that is the photo of the Braidwood (NSW) ape
shot by some gold prospectors in the late 1850`s
will ring my brother who lives there and has the original
story. will let you how i go over th next few days .
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:56 pm
by mikka
Hey steve I think Deans talking about a incident in 1920's over on the colombian boarder.
What ive noticed so far is on every website, but one and that one didnt meantion a gender, The report was that a female was shot and got away and in the photo it clearly looks like a male.
Pitty the picture wasnt clearer.
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:55 pm
by Buck
I agree with mikka about the gender discrepency, there appears to be a male appendage. However, on some sites it reports to debunk the myth as a new world Spider monkey sitting on it's tail. I don't think it's a tail.
The best photo I've come across other than the one in a book I have at home is on this link.
http://www.occultopedia.com/d/de_loys_ape.htm
You can see that the thumb looks like it doesn't oppose. There is a pre-hensile big toe. It seems to be a large primate with huge nocturnal eyes, how it was active during the day and aggresive is beyond me.
I have no reason to believe it's a hoax because there doesn't seem to be a clear motive for doing so, other than gaining fame or notoriety for discovering a new species.
Great post Dean. I've often wondered what other people thought of this sad and unusual photo.
Cheers Buck
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:12 pm
by mikka
Ive been debating the thumb myself for the last hour or so. Sometime you look at it looks like it oposes and other times it doesnt
As for the size its hard to tell as the crate could be of any size
I can think of one good reason to hoax this, They traveled half way round the world, Quite a few people died and they didnt find anything. Wouldnt be to good a chip on the ego would it and I wouldnt think they would get must in the way of sponsorship for the next trip if they didnt come up with something.
Not really convinced either way yet. It really is an intrasting picture

Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:42 pm
by Stainmaster
I have seen this photo before i think in a copy of a magazine i used to get called the Unexplained, i am open minded about this one as the photo looks to be real and the ape? looks to good to be a fake in that period of time.
But if one was found back then surely another would have atleast been seen since.
Like our hairy friend well no one that i have talked to or i have never read of a Yowie body been found, but there is plenty of sightings, unlike this ape so you would think at least a sighting since would have been seen??
anyway got to be open minded dont we
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:15 am
by Alex
I've read 2 seperate articles about De Loys Ape. One said it was a female. The other, a male. He shot it on a riverbank or something, if memory serves correctly.
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:24 am
by bowhunter
yeh i read a bit about this in a book i have at home...apparently(i think it was these guys) tried to bring back a skull but it got to rotton and smelly in the jungle so they had to discard it...the crate is a "standard fuel crate" I think they said which around 50 cm tall or a bit more...cant remember anything else.
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:51 am
by dawn
Its an interesting topic! Isn't its genitalia (if its a male! LOL) a little large for a monkey? Or is it just the way its proped up?
Venezualia around 1912 would have been reasonably unexplored, so I guess it would be possible for the remnants of a large monkey-type critter to be hanging on by a thread. (There was that recent discovery of a new monkey speices,after all).
Why didn't they skin it and tan it? Explorers where always returning with animal skins, if they believed it was an unknown animal at the time, I find it strange that they didn't do everything they could to get it back,catergarise and named!
I would like to think it was genuine, gut-feeling says fake!

Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:41 am
by Steve Mason
No size refference is a problem. Spider monkey's can grow upto 4 1/2'. Deloys Ape was said to be 5ft. Could have been sitting on it's tail.
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:54 am
by MAGZDA
Hang on. This is a female right? This looks like a man.
Those arms r huge! I wonder where they shot. Maybe in the back.
mark
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:46 am
by Dion
Well there are a few things that could be noted on the De Loys ape which I believe to be a hoax
Look at the photo and one can clearly note some of the features which are out of character, the head, hands and feet and genitalia are all standouts.
http://www.cryptozoology.com/gallery/ga ... 1108634777
They supposedly shot the female after the male was shot at and escaped into the forest. Note the lack of breasts for a female, the abnormally elongated clitoris, too long in my mind (No, I did not stutter either).
Also the hands and feet seem to be suited more for climbing trees than walking around upright. Especially the feet, how something can walk around on recurved feet has got me stumped.
Nearly a decade passed before the image was made public. Odd in its self don?t you think? Enough time to create a well drawn out picture of a spider monkey.
The tail is simply cut off or stuffed in the box!
A friend of de Loys, Note, A (Dr). George Montandon published the image claiming it was a type of South American ape he dubbed "Ameranthropoides loysi". What sort of doctor was he?
The head seems out of place as well for me, almost human like but tapered with. In fact the whole photo seems odd, a mad doctor?s creation in my mind.
The fact that there was only one photo seems strange, why photograph it once? Why not from different angles?
And then there?s the bones and skull that mysteriously disappeared over the years. All the evidence points too a hoax!

Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:05 pm
by Dean Harrison
In the report, Deloys Journal states that while camped on the river's edge, both the male and female came out screeching, waving branches and throwing 'dung' at them. This in my opinion is classic low level primate behaviour - vastly dieefernt to the higher interlect of a Hominid/BF. For years, due to the reported size of the creature, some researchers have sugested 'unknown himinid/BF', but the bahaviour aspect rules that out.
Also, there is no definitive size ratio in the photo, only an estimation by Deloy. If spider monkeys are known to be up to 4ft tall, who is to say that there can't be any exceptionally tall ones wondering around.
Thirdly, it's quite possible it 'was' sitting on it's tail or had the tail disguised.
The region is however well known for both the large and small BF type Hominids. Such a large and mysterious place.
DMH
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 4:16 pm
by Viashino
I'm probably late to the discussion, but here goes.
I think it's quite clear that Loy's Ape was in fact a member of the Atelidae, or spider monkey family. As regards it's traits:
* it clearly has a classic platyrrhine nose
* the reduced thumb, barely a nub, is another key trait of the atelids, with the hand being reduced to a hook-like curve to aid in brachiation.
* now, the "penis". This actually is the engorged clitoris of the female of any of the _Ateles_ members, which grows as large as the penis; the labia majora are also quite large.
What we have here is to all obvious clues a member of the _Atelidae_, most likely even in the same genus _Ateles_. At best we could hope for a new species - not impossible. A few years back, a fossil atelid was found in caves indicating an animal with a body mass about 20-30% greater than the extant forms - perfectly in range with the *supposed* size of Loy's creature.
Problem there is that all we have to go on is that single size value, and no corroborative evidence of the size of the specimen pictured.
The issue of the dental count is likewise anecdotal, and does not conform to all known platyrrhine tendencies (36 teeth for the majority, with a tendency towards an *increase*, not a decrease.)
V.
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 4:22 pm
by Viashino
Chewy wrote:What sort of doctor was he?
As best can be found from modern references, a "medical genealogist" - what could perhaps be considered a protoform of a sociobiologist.
V.
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 4:34 pm
by Dean Harrison
Very impressive observations, also a very impressive apendage if that's the case.
Keep contributing - good post!
DMH
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 5:19 pm
by steve_tracker
woops sorry ......but will still try and get more
info from Braidwood ...would like to think that,
that pic is real ...did the have the means back
then to "fake" pic`s ???
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:18 pm
by Tommi
It is possible to manipulate a photo however the signs would be clearly visible, e.g.: hand drawn lines etc.
That's a very long torso, to me it looks like a Spider-monkey, however I want to believe it isn't
My Observations:
Hair on the left side (right side of the subject) below arm looks different to the rest of the body. IE: It could have longer hair on the back then the front?
Face has very contrasting tone, specially the checks which don't look like they are covered in hair but more like swollen skin.
The feet look like they belong to a tree dweller.
Why is the mouth open if a stick has been jammed under it? Also if you tried to prop yourself up like that I would imagine that you would have a tendancy to fall forwards, unless it has a stick inserted through its anus which runs all the way through to his skull?
Actually the whole of the lower Torso looks a little odd, picture removing the whole of the darkened lower area and then joining the light area to the hips, you would have a smaller ape like creature, which you could argue is a spider monkey?
My thoughts on the issue.
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:21 pm
by Tommi
Apparently humans have the smallest penis to body size conparision. The smaller the monkey the bigger it is.
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:46 pm
by Viashino
Tommi wrote:Apparently humans have the smallest penis to body size conparision. The smaller the monkey the bigger it is.
Not true. Humans have the longest penis to body size of the "Great apes", but the smallest testes to body size. IIRC gorillas have the shortest penises (a calculation done on King Kong meant he topped the scale at 8") and chimps have the largest testes.
V.
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:51 pm
by Tommi
ahhhh k, I wasn't to far off then lol
Once when I was a wee lil lad at a zoo in europe I saw monky and asked the keeper "Are you doing tests on the monkies? why do they have big tubes hanging out of em??"
And then it dawned on me

Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:52 pm
by Dean Harrison
Viashino,
Can you quote you sources?
DMH
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:58 am
by Vic
I can't tell from the photo if it's anything other than a large spider-monkey. Crates come in as many sizes as there are lengths of string and my cynical eyes can't see anything to indicate exceptional size. Those hands and feet definitely belong to a tree-swinger.
Deliberate deception or just plain amateurish photography? Who knows? Maybe it was an unremarkable incident and was forgotten for years until the photos of the trip were reviewed for publication. Everyone knows how the memory can play tricks.
Vic
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 2:46 am
by Viashino
Dean Harrison wrote:Viashino,
Can you quote you sources?
DMH
Which parts? Most of the material on the biology of Atelidae is from Walker's "Mammals of the World", volume 5. The stuff about the penis/testes I'd have to dig through my uni anthropology stuff - I'm pretty sure it was from there. Most of the stuff pertaining to Loy's specimen in general comes from Huevelmans.
I can be more specific, if needs be.
V.
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:21 am
by Dean Harrison
Thats fine - just curious.
Nice work.
DMH