Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
norseman

Saskeptic’s first post.

65 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Given that Gigantopithecus’ main feature of interest has been its size, and not genus or location, I would say the theory is overly popular. A confounding aspect is that every anthropologist in this field of research has given credence to the theory while simultaneously having knowledge of the sasquatch’s morphology and biomechanics, which rule out ponginae as potential ancestors.

 

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch
1

Share this post


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

 

Around 20-19 million years ago Proconsul had evolved in central Africa.

 

Between 9 and 17 million years ago apes from the genus Dryopithecus were living not just in Africa, but were the first known species’ of ape to have migrated in to Europe and Asia.


Between 8.5-12.5 million years ago, three species of the genus Sivapithecus were living in the rainforests of Asia.


The genus Sivapithecus is now acknowledged as being the direct ancestor of modern day orangutans and the lineage that descended to modern day orangutans, branched off from the line that descended to modern day gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobo’s and humans at around 12 million years ago.

 

Gigantopithecus also evolved from Sivapithecus around the same time as the orangutans.


Bipedality occurred much later in Africa. The European and Asian apes remained quadrupedal...
 

 

That explaination is just fine, unless the wide jaw of Gigantopithecus shows it was bipedal. In which case you have two options. Bipedalism evolved twice. Or Gigantopithecus did not evolve from Asian Apes at all.

 

Still have not found video.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey there Rockape. I think the whole idea of needing skeptics is way overblown, and I think it lends them an unearned sense of their own value. Vetting evidence is a basic skill we all have in sufficient quantities. Instead of finding that adequate we outsource it to a crew of the self-important who hide behind that shield to only snipe and taunt. Not very useful. When your motto is “Better all evidence be discounted lest a single hoaxer succeed”, you are not of much value to me. Really, some people are hoaxer? Well who’d a thunk it?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, WSA said:

Hey there Rockape. I think the whole idea of needing skeptics is way overblown, and I think it lends them an unearned sense of their own value. Vetting evidence is a basic skill we all have in sufficient quantities. Instead of finding that adequate we outsource it to a crew of the self-important who hide behind that shield to only snipe and taunt. Not very useful. When your motto is “Better all evidence be discounted lest a single hoaxer succeed”, you are not of much value to me. Really, some people are hoaxer? Well who’d a thunk it?

 

If only the bolded were true.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, WSA said:

Hey there Rockape. I think the whole idea of needing skeptics is way overblown, and I think it lends them an unearned sense of their own value. Vetting evidence is a basic skill we all have in sufficient quantities. Instead of finding that adequate we outsource it to a crew of the self-important who hide behind that shield to only snipe and taunt. Not very useful. When your motto is “Better all evidence be discounted lest a single hoaxer succeed”, you are not of much value to me. Really, some people are hoaxer? Well who’d a thunk it?

 

Its varying degrees!  I view myself as skeptical. I fight very hard for what I see to be the reality of the situation. Which is Bigfoot is not some crazy way out there monster. Many hominids in the fossil record fit the bill. BUT....a lot of the evidence I see for the creature, especially in a park in Chicago I call bull on.

 

I have one interesting encounter under my belt, but it was far from conclusive.....I never saw the track maker. And I could very well be wrong in my assessment.

 

And I’ve never wavered from my absolute requirement that a body must be procured for it to be proven a reality. Do I have my doubts? Absolutely as time goes on. But I don’t hang my hat on it. I enjoy my time in the woods. And I’m always packing a rifle and or pistol. Fishing, packing mules for the forest service, hunting, scouting, prospecting, etc.

 

The people that have no dialogue other than to mock people who take this subject more seriously? I’ve put on ignore for the most part. It’s like talking to a doll with a string on its back and if you pull it? You get one of five prerecorded responses. It’s tiresome.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

WSA,

 

We're all hopefully somewhat skeptical, when new evidence is presented, we look at it for what it is, go from there. I've seen it time an again here on the forum. Skepticism makes for a healthy conversation, scoftics on the other hand like the 2 or 3 we have, have the completely opposite effect.  

 

Twist an Patterson-Gimlin are skeptical, yet I enjoy their contributions to the conversations an forum.

 

When your on a bigfoot website tellin' the members "bigfoot is a joke.", "Stop wasting your life on something that does not exist.", or "No bigfoot. Not a sausage The only thing left is the myth and the lore. Don't waste your time trying to convince me or any other skeptic out there. Most of what you consider evidence I consider laughable . The PGF was a great hoax. ",  etc., totally different story.

 

Pat...

 

Edited by PBeaton
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Given that Gigantopithecus’ main feature of interest has been its size, and not genus or location, I would say the theory is overly popular. A confounding aspect is that every anthropologist in this field of research has given credence to the theory while simultaneously having knowledge of the sasquatch’s morphology and biomechanics, which rule out ponginae as potential ancestors.

 

 

 

I gave other possible contenders in my original post. And I think Gigantopithecus is thrust into that subfamily based on its geographical location.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There’s been controversy in scientific community over Gigantopithecus’ taxonomic classification for family and subfamily, but it’s been morphology-based. Some studies support the theory that they’re neither pongids or hominids http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-GJZD196204006.htm. Either case is far from the PGF and eyewitness sketches, which display more morphological similarity to humans than even chimps and bonobos do.

 

A recent analysis of the carbon isotopes of their teeth has indicated that they were herbivorous http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/gigantopithecus-diet-revealed.html. This rules out the possibility that gigantopithecus could be closer to humans than chimps and bonobos are. It also conflicts with the widely-alleged omnivorous diet of sasquatch.

 

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch
1

Share this post


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

BUT....a lot of the evidence I see for the creature, especially in a park in Chicago I call bull on.

 

Frequently, and unprovoked!

 

I have a lot to say on the topics at hand, and I started to type, but honestly it makes me not want to bother.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

There’s been controversy in scientific community over Gigantopithecus’ taxonomic classification for family and subfamily, but it’s been morphology-based. Some studies support the theory that they’re neither pongids or hominids http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-GJZD196204006.htm. Either case is far from the PGF and eyewitness sketches, which display more morphological similarity to humans than even chimps and bonobos do.

 

A recent analysis of the carbon isotopes of their teeth has indicated that they were herbivorous http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/gigantopithecus-diet-revealed.html. This rules out the possibility that gigantopithecus could be closer to humans than chimps and bonobos are. It also conflicts with the widely-alleged omnivorous diet of sasquatch.

 

 

 

Why does it rule it out? I just posted a video of a Orangutan stealing a boat, and checking fish traps and eating raw fish. Not something you would expect from a tree dwelling herbivore primate.

 

One thing I truly believe about primates is we are super adaptable. And it’s why we humans can be found from the North Pole to the South Pole.

22 minutes ago, ioyza said:

 

Frequently, and unprovoked!

 

I have a lot to say on the topics at hand, and I started to type, but honestly it makes me not want to bother.

 

You should not let me or anyone else stop you from posting. My opinion is no more valid than yours. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WSA said:

Hey there Rockape. I think the whole idea of needing skeptics is way overblown, and I think it lends them an unearned sense of their own value. Vetting evidence is a basic skill we all have in sufficient quantities. Instead of finding that adequate we outsource it to a crew of the self-important who hide behind that shield to only snipe and taunt. Not very useful. When your motto is “Better all evidence be discounted lest a single hoaxer succeed”, you are not of much value to me. Really, some people are hoaxer? Well who’d a thunk it?

Sorry to disagree. I occasionally visit our Paranormal section. Vetting skills nowhere to be found.

1

Share this post


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

 

Why does it rule it out? I just posted a video of a Orangutan stealing a boat, and checking fish traps and eating raw fish. Not something you would expect from a tree dwelling herbivore primate.

 

One thing I truly believe about primates is we are super adaptable. And it’s why we humans can be found from the North Pole to the South Pole.

 

It becomes a question of whether a primate adaptated to eating plants and living in closed forests could’ve become an effective hunter in open and extremely cold environment in just 100,000 years. Also questionable is the idea that their their jaw could’ve receded so far back in that time. These aspects were overlooked by both Krantz and Meldrum, who only ever mentioned the question of whether bipedalism could’ve arose a second time.

2 hours ago, ioyza said:

 

Frequently, and unprovoked!

 

I have a lot to say on the topics at hand, and I started to type, but honestly it makes me not want to bother.

 

If the content you wanted to post accurately reflects your true opinions, then there shouldn’t be an issue aside from contradicting some of the claims you’ve made in the past.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If they hugged the coast, all things are possible, now if an orangutan could build a boat without a model or social model that would be something or get all depressed and board a driftwood log or weaved set of leaves and end it all (not).  Yeah, that's the ticket!

 

Other things to consider would be the footprints recently uncovered off the coast of BC and Alaska in shallow oceanic waters (maybe this recent, last few weeks story is to which Norseman refers).  Called human, but who knows  https://phys.org/news/2018-03-year-human-footprints-canada-pacific.html if such a set of circumstances could not occur with our hominid friends that were heretofore "dumb animals" like Neanderthal

Edited by bipedalist
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Sorry to disagree. I occasionally visit our Paranormal section. Vetting skills nowhere to be found.

We don’t disagree. I am talking about the traditional and accepted forensic and cross-examination practices only. I don’t know how you apply an evidentiary hierarchy to telepathic communications.  This is a very intelligent community here...including the scoffers, who mostly only pretend to be so obtuse just for the sake of the sport of it. Well, most are anyway.

 

0

Share this post


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

If they hugged the coast, all things are possible, now if an orangutan could build a boat without a model or social model that would be something or get all depressed and board a driftwood log or weaved set of leaves and end it all (not).  Yeah, that's the ticket!

 

Other things to consider would be the footprints recently uncovered off the coast of BC and Alaska in shallow oceanic waters (maybe this recent, last few weeks story is to which Norseman refers).  Called human, but who knows  https://phys.org/news/2018-03-year-human-footprints-canada-pacific.html if such a set of circumstances could not occur with our hominid friends that were heretofore "dumb animals" like Neanderthal

 

Nice find on BC footprint.

 

hobbits had to have used boats to get to Flores.

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/were-the-hobbits-ancestors-sailors-1231030/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0