Cryptic Megafauna

Would the scientific discovery of Sasquatch revolutionize Paleo Anthropology

217 posts in this topic

13 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Reread your post and then ask yourself why you would say "over and out" sequentially.

 

 

Cause I have been air traffic control and on train dispatch.

Ovah!

15 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Reread your post and then ask yourself why you would say "over and out" sequentially.

 

 

You never just use out, over and out.

Unless your talking some more then disregard, ovah!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so trains and planes say "Over and Out". AKA........"I'm waiting for you to respond......actually no, no Iam not. Click"

 

Out!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FarArcher said:

But thousands of depictions and personal eyewitness narratives over the millennia, backed up by footprints - that's no proof at all.

 

Something wrong here.

 

23vgw46.jpg

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, norseman said:

Ok so trains and planes say "Over and Out". AKA........"I'm waiting for you to respond......actually no, no Iam not. Click"

 

Out!

I'm with you on that one ... it's one or the other but not both in some circles.

 

More importantly, is ASAP pronounced "AA-ES-AA-PEE" or "A Sap?"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Night Walker said:

 

23vgw46.jpg

 

That's not true.

 

We DO have Bigfoot like creatures in the fossil record....and fairly recently. Fire breathing Dragons and Aliens? Not so much.

14 minutes ago, Trogluddite said:

I'm with you on that one ... it's one or the other but not both in some circles.

 

More importantly, is ASAP pronounced "AA-ES-AA-PEE" or "A Sap?"

 

I say A sap.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. tomayto, tomahto. But yeah, A-Sap. Sometimes aa-es-aa-pee. And sometimes......ah-sahp.......and sometimes........oh nevermind.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

That's not true.

 

We DO have Bigfoot like creatures in the fossil record....and fairly recently. Fire breathing Dragons and Aliens? Not so much.

 

 

... but none of them ARE Bigfoot. Just as plesiosaurs are not Nessie or Sea Serpents (which of the creatures I posted is shown breathing fire?), midgets and mayflies are not fairies, and mangy canids are not chupacabras (I forgot to add that one). Doesn't stop anyone from "seeing" it as otherwise, though - just like Bigfoot...

 

Bigfoot is just one of a long list of strange creatures/entities that people have subjectively experienced but which leaves behind no objective identifying evidence. That doesn't mean such experiences are invalid or didn't actually happen but neither does it mean that such creatures/entities tangibly exist...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If y'all insist on not taking the scientist's approach to this topic...over and out.

 

New thread, seeya...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Night Walker said:

 

23vgw46.jpg

 

 

Yeah, depictions and narratives.

 

Over centuries.  From every populated continent on earth.  Depictions - drawings, wood carvings, metal pressings, paintings - from multiple cultures disconnected from other cultures depicting the same things.

 

Eyewitness narratives.  Commonly used in a court of law to determine the facts.  Even if only 1% were accurate and all others were mistaken or lies - that's a significant body of generally accepted evidence.  Even in a court of law in death penalty cases - which is about as serious as it gets.

 

The only ones to discount that amount of testimony - are retards.  AKA archaeologists, anthropologists who brought us the Piltdown man.  Constructed LUCY with bones scattered over acres of rolling strata from different geological eras, and bones purchased from farmers and other "non-professionals."  They get to grade their own papers.

 

So yeah.  Depictions and eyewitness narratives.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FarArcher said:

 

 

Yeah, depictions and narratives.

 

Over centuries.  From every populated continent on earth.  Depictions - drawings, wood carvings, metal pressings, paintings - from multiple cultures disconnected from other cultures depicting the same things.

 

Eyewitness narratives.  Commonly used in a court of law to determine the facts.  Even if only 1% were accurate and all others were mistaken or lies - that's a significant body of generally accepted evidence.  Even in a court of law in death penalty cases - which is about as serious as it gets.

 

The only ones to discount that amount of testimony - are retards.  AKA archaeologists, anthropologists who brought us the Piltdown man.  Constructed LUCY with bones scattered over acres of rolling strata from different geological eras, and bones purchased from farmers and other "non-professionals."  They get to grade their own papers.

 

So yeah.  Depictions and eyewitness narratives.

 

People make mistakes and fall victim to hoaxes all the time and scientists are people first and foremost. The Piltdown hoax worked because many English scientists desperately wanted evidence to support their ideas of English evolutionary superiority. It didn't fool scientists from, say, France or Germany at the time. LUCY was still reconstructed using just Australopithecus bones. You're aware that evidence of Gigantopithecus was first discovered in a shop selling traditional Chinese remedies, right? If even 0.1% of Bigfoot claims returned verifiably objective proof (which they don't) then the question would be: What is going on in all the other 99.99%? Technically, if Bigfoot is a real creature then we're still at point zero, you know...

 

Testimony is not "discounted" - it just doesn't meet the basic objective standards to identify a new species. It really is that simple - its not a conspiracy to keep the International HairyMan of Mystery down...

 

The apparent universality of the Bigfoot phenomenon is a big indicator that we are not dealing with a simple question of taxonomic classification but one of universal human experience. Perhaps Bigfoot is more akin to the "Night Hag" phenomenon - both the intensity of the experience and the complete lack of objectively verifiable evidence would seem to support that notion, wouldn't it? It took a folklorist to get to the bottom of the Night Hag-Sleep Paralysis connection - maybe a similar approach would yield tangible results for the Bigfoot experience...

 

If you believe Bigfoot is a real creature rather than just a real experience then you are welcome to prove it like everyone else. No point in raging against the machine (eg those **** scientists!) - the rules are the same for Bigfoot as they are with any new species. Many people say they already have proof of Bigfoot but, while that may be good enough for you, it is not the same thing as actually having it. Would it really cost $14.5k to point a camera and go 'click'? Wouldn't clear photos of Bigfoot be worth way more than $14.5k? Why not get the photos first then reimburse yourself for the cost of research? Is it a conspiracy that funding is stuck at 2% after 16 months?

 

I'm sure a lot of people here take your own Bigfoot narrative and plans as genuine but that doesn't exactly equate to tangible support, does it? Have you ever wondered why that is?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If one compared the reams of evidence for sasquatch and yeti with the almost nonexistent evidence we have for numerous hominoids *we "know" to exist,* one would have to vouch for sasquatch and yeti.

 

And please don't even try to tell me "yeah but we have bones for those; we don't have bones for these." First, *you do not know that,* do you?  (Hint:  You  don't. Hint:  the evidence is *that we do.*) Second, the likenesses we have of all extinct primates are largely derived from fragments that would suggest nothing to a layman; the likenesses we have of sasquatch and yeti are derived from *footprints that happen all the time, pretty much* and *thousands of very consistent sightings of whole living moving breathing grunting yelling growling screaming animals by both laymen and scientists.* 

 

Just about the most powerful indicator possible:  These animals have been seen doing pretty much every single thing a living animal does.  There is not a possible encounter type with a living wild animal that someone has not had with a sasquatch or yeti.  One could write a pretty good guidebook entry for both, right now.  How's that working for "Lucy?"  Not much better than it is for unicorns, I'm afraid.

Edited by DWA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

16 hours ago, Night Walker said:

 

People make mistakes and fall victim to hoaxes all the time and scientists are people first and foremost. The Piltdown hoax worked because many English scientists desperately wanted evidence to support their ideas of English evolutionary superiority. It didn't fool scientists from, say, France or Germany at the time. LUCY was still reconstructed using just Australopithecus bones. You're aware that evidence of Gigantopithecus was first discovered in a shop selling traditional Chinese remedies, right? If even 0.1% of Bigfoot claims returned verifiably objective proof (which they don't) then the question would be: What is going on in all the other 99.99%? Technically, if Bigfoot is a real creature then we're still at point zero, you know...

 

Testimony is not "discounted" - it just doesn't meet the basic objective standards to identify a new species. It really is that simple - its not a conspiracy to keep the International HairyMan of Mystery down...

 

The apparent universality of the Bigfoot phenomenon is a big indicator that we are not dealing with a simple question of taxonomic classification but one of universal human experience. Perhaps Bigfoot is more akin to the "Night Hag" phenomenon - both the intensity of the experience and the complete lack of objectively verifiable evidence would seem to support that notion, wouldn't it? It took a folklorist to get to the bottom of the Night Hag-Sleep Paralysis connection - maybe a similar approach would yield tangible results for the Bigfoot experience...

 

If you believe Bigfoot is a real creature rather than just a real experience then you are welcome to prove it like everyone else. No point in raging against the machine (eg those **** scientists!) - the rules are the same for Bigfoot as they are with any new species. Many people say they already have proof of Bigfoot but, while that may be good enough for you, it is not the same thing as actually having it. Would it really cost $14.5k to point a camera and go 'click'? Wouldn't clear photos of Bigfoot be worth way more than $14.5k? Why not get the photos first then reimburse yourself for the cost of research? Is it a conspiracy that funding is stuck at 2% after 16 months?

 

I'm sure a lot of people here take your own Bigfoot narrative and plans as genuine but that doesn't exactly equate to tangible support, does it? Have you ever wondered why that is?

 

I think that people do make mistakes all the time - but only the scientific community gets to change the rule to meet the requirement of the moment - and I just feel that's basically dishonest.  Oh, I understand - they need funding for their field trips, and there's nothing like someone suddenly discovering a "new" hominid to provide a few years of paid vacation.

 

Yes, Lucy was constructed.  Estimated to be 3.2 million years old.  Bowlegged as a newborn - but supposedly walked erect - on a foot with curved toes for tree life, loosely hinged, with a divergent toe.  Shoulder blades of an ape, shoulder joint vertical, large ape-like wrist flexors, elbows were ape, metacarpals large, parallel with curved shafts like chimps, finger bones even more curved than chimps, muscle attachments for shoulder and back muscles massive compared to humans, hip blades oriented like chimp blades for climbing, and a valgus knee joint like a gibbon's - great for climbing.  Yes, she was constructed, but even with the v-shaped jaw - which if found alone would indicate ape - they fudged on every description - to make her something she isn't.  They lied and exaggerated everything.  Just another extinct ape.  But they made a career out of it.

 

And they ignored the other finds, including tools, indicating a second species - maybe Habilis - but to include that in the reports just wouldn't work.  So that part was unaddressed.  Mighty honest of them, huh?

 

The reason they went to lengths to exaggerate upright, bipedal characteristics is, the footprints.  Not hers.  Those found at Laetoli.  3.6 million years old.  Lucy was only 3.2 million years old, so they're trying to sell Lucy as being the track maker - and that's fraud.  

 

Oh, we all know about the finds since WWII in the Olduvai Gorge by the Leakey's and others.  There's one no one seems to want to talk about.  Found there in 1913.  A completely modern skeleton - found IN SITU, in the upper bed of Bed II - not on the surface of the ground like Lucy and the others - and this clearly modern skeleton was dated to be 1.15 million years old.  KInda shoots that 100,000 year ago showing of modern man up - right in the butt - doesn't it?  Louis Leakey even came to verify the dating of this modern skeleton - and admitted it was correct.

 

So for God's sake, I really don't want to hear about "proof."  "Scientific evidence."  "Scientific method."  "Acceptable scientific evidence."

 

Anthropological "proofs" are BS.

 

And if you need further examples of outright, scientifically accepted, ongoing frauds - I got plenty.

 

 

Edit:  To add on.

 

The Dmanisi finds will go even further - as it appears anthropologists have mis-identified two, or maybe three homo species incorrectly, and they'll likely be stricken from the record.  A reader can look this up and consider the implications for themselves.  Just too big of a rush to "find" a new species, name it, and bask in the glow of Anthropological fame.

Edited by FarArcher
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Night Walker said:

 

... but none of them ARE Bigfoot. Just as plesiosaurs are not Nessie or Sea Serpents (which of the creatures I posted is shown breathing fire?), midgets and mayflies are not fairies, and mangy canids are not chupacabras (I forgot to add that one). Doesn't stop anyone from "seeing" it as otherwise, though - just like Bigfoot...

 

Bigfoot is just one of a long list of strange creatures/entities that people have subjectively experienced but which leaves behind no objective identifying evidence. That doesn't mean such experiences are invalid or didn't actually happen but neither does it mean that such creatures/entities tangibly exist...

 

Proof is needed......absolutely.

 

But other Hominids were sharing this planet until very recently with us. In fact non African Homo Sapiens are hybrids with Neanderthal DNA and Denisovian DNA. And that's just the ones we know about. This is a very very small sliver of time.

 

A comparison like a plesiosaur in which no fossil evidence has ever been found above the KT boundary which was 65 million years ago? Is a very very poor one.

 

And we have ZERO fossil evidence of Aliens, Pixies and Gnomes.....zero.

 

And I'm willing to bet that if I reverse cloned a Homo Hedelbergensis or Gigantopethicus or other large fossil cousin and had him run out in front of your car at 2 in the morning? 

 

You would proclaim you saw a Bigfoot.

 

So while proof is needed for any proposed crypto species? I would bet a lot more money on cryptids that fit the description of known species that were walking the Earth until very recently. Your mileage may very.

Added:

 

By your logic why not add the Tasmanian Tiger to that Cartoon picture? They are supposedly extinct and people claim to see them all the time in Tasmania? I will tell you why.....because there is a dang good chance that animal is not extinct. A little over 100 years is a nano second on the evolutionary scale. Proof is still needed of course! But it's odds in cryptozoology are some of the best. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, norseman said:

And we have ZERO fossil evidence of Aliens, Pixies and Gnomes.....zero.

Unless the Australopith Hobbit could be considered a gnome...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a gnome but possibly a ebu gogo....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites