By Ray Doherty
Photos by Ray Doherty and Nigel
Francis
March 2013
© Copyright
The Australian Ape Project
ABSRACT
The purpose
of this report is to present and to discuss findings on the comparison of Unknown
foot prints obtained from three (3) locations around the Sunshine Coast
- Identify the consistency in the
print patterns in order to confirm the various prints where made by the
same animal ‘type’ – Human or Australian
Ape?
- Allow us to determine the
existence of a second or several different animals of the same species in
different geographic area or does this evidence give rise to different
species
- Or to confirm multiple species
co-existing in the same location
Whilst I am
not an anatomical or primalogical expert, I open this report to those in the
scientific community with the appropriate level of expertise in this field for
further comment.
BACKGROUND
IN January
2013, Researcher Anthony Lapanivich and Nigel Francis where responding to a
report of a sighting of an alleged Australian Ape in the Sunshine Coast
Hinterland by two people who where mountain bike riding. During the course of
the investigation two new set of prints where located in two separate area quite
a distance but in the general area of the original sighting. This report is to
discuss those prints, comparing them two the prints already captured from
another study site in 2012. Full detailed reports on those prints (Doherty 2012 – AYR ) have previously been published
The photos classified
as site C, presented within this document where taken some distance from the
original location of the sighting report in an obscure and remote creek located
at the bottom of a small range. Access is exceptionally difficult. Researcher
Nigel Francis found this prints after a long process of accessing this
waterway. In commenting
On those
prints briefly, it is our opinion that the prints where made literally within
minutes of their discovery by Nigel. This is evident by the level of water
still contained within the print; enough time had not yet elapsed for the water
to soak back through the mud.
The site B
print (largest print) was taken by myself after the aforementioned researchers
contact the author to inspect the prints as Nigel and Anthony where not
available at this time, hence my involvement.
I wish to
thank Anthony and Nigel for inviting me to take part in their investigation and
to have access to the photos of these prints for comparison and for publication.
LOCATION
Location A
is a coastal river system where we have been working for 2 years. It shall be
referred to as simply as Site A –
Control site. Site A is the control site given the extensive previous work
done on the prints acquired there, we already know the prints at Site A are not
human and are more than like that of an Australian Ape. Location B is the
location where the larger prints where found which I inspected and photographed
on top of a mountain range and will be referred to as Site B. Location C is in a valley of a mountain range some 5
kilometers away, this is Site C as investigated and photographed by Nigel
Francis
RELEVANT
DISTANCE FROM CONTROL SITE
If using A as the focal point, then the
following distances apply
A – B - 28
Klms (Straight line measure)
A – C- 33
KLM (Straight-line measure)
B – C - 5
Klms (straight-line measure)
Conditions which rule out Migration
between sites: In
my view it is impractical that the same animals made these prints as in Site A
due to two factors (A) size; prints differ in size significantly (B) a direct
travel path from site A to B&C is not possible due to highways and
residential area in between them. Whilst a trek around these obstacles would be
possible it would also impractical given the energy required by the animals to
make the trip and the possible risk of exposure, hence why I am very confident
that this is indeed a second unit of Australian Apes.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site A – there are two sites within A, A1
(camp ground roads and trails) A2, rarely used fishing area – both located deep
within a state forest – prints have been located in un official camping
grounds, trails, forest and some by road side
Site B – Atop of a mountain range with a
rarely used small sealed road and grassy bush laden hillside which rests
between two rarely used trails extending across high ridge lines atop of
another state forest mountain range
Site C – located 5 klms from Site B, deep
into the bottom of a valley nestled amongst said mountain range with creeks
running throughout down from the
mountain. The Terrain makes entry nearly impossible, best entry is careful
ascent from valley wall, no signs of human presence could be located or
identified at all. As far as field researcher Nigel Francis could see that no
human presence was detectable whatsoever
CAPTURE PERIOD
Site A
photos where captured between May 2012 and January 2012 after heavy rain
periods. Site B and C photos where captured on Feb 13, 2013 and Feb 15, 2013,
once again after extremely heavy rang periods. NO PRINTS RECENT PRINTS WHERE ABLE TO BE CAST DUE TO WEATHER AND
TERRAIN – Print maps are not available as this time
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thanks for posting this, these tracks are intriguing and convincing evidence! I can see how people think that they show different species, but I think it's just juvenile to adult progression. The juvenile prints from North America often show splayed toes, just like the ones you shared here! Also, I've seen a print from America in a book which looks just like the larger print but I can't think of where I saw it. The outline also reminds me of the Laetoli Australopithecine footprints, as the big toe is high up on the foot.
ReplyDeleteI thought so too but the thing to remember is that of the smallest ones, there is a corresponding bigger one of the same shape which lead me to think Adult & child.......Same to with the middle one, and smaller and a much bigger, the biggest of all where two big ones, the mind boggles
ReplyDeleteRay
Feet can look different though. They can vary in length, width, toe length/placement, and many other things which can confuse a person into thinking there are two species. Also, an imprint is not necessarily exactly what the animal's foot looks like, it can be distorted. I have two Sasquatch casts which I am positive are from a real Sasquatch, but they are different in length, width, and toes. Doesn't mean they are different species, just different individuals.
Delete