Leaderboard

The main point of the giant tooth and other features of meganthropus aren't really meant to indicate that I think it is a likely direct ancestor of sasquatch. What they point out is that a relatively recent member of genus Homo that lived in Asia apparently had features that aren't really compatible with a technological hominid. There is a strong bias of "erectus first" out of Africa and that line of reasonings has the basic theme that all of the erectus were the same population. There was a huge difference in at least one of the very early Georgia fossils and they recently found habilis living at the same time as erectus at about that time. It is strong evidence that there have been multiple populations of hominids for at least 1.5 million years. I don't know why multiple species of ancient hominids in Asia is still a hard concept to accept. They didn't all evolve into modern humans and it is very likely that none of the Asian erectus are in our lineage besides more recent ones starting about 800,000 years ago. Some of the later ones are very likely descended from the group that included the ancestors of heidelbergensis, neanderthals and modern humans. That population probably occupied most of Africa, Europe and Asia roughly 800,000 years ago. There are teeth studies that supposedly indicate an extremely fast evolution or more likely a replacement of hominids in Asia about that time. The reference I am thinking of was second hand from Mike Morwood's book A New Human I read several years ago by the way. Those older Java fossils are larger at least in teeth size. It seems likely to me that our ancestors basically conquered the globe about that time and became the dominant hominid. Technology also seemed to have a huge advance about that time. There were apparently two populations in Asia when the wave out of Africa apparently happened 800,000 years ago. I would accept that as the most plausible scenario. Many of the features of the early "erectus" in Java including the enormous chewing apparatus weren't something you would expect in a technological hominid evolving into modern humans. Starting about that time 800,000 years ago there was a rapid increase in the sophistication of tools and that logically means that one group was significantly more technological. The other less technological populations would logically be persecuted The old population would have to find a way to survive. The question basically comes down to how does another population hominid survive in the presence of a more technological hominid. The niche that modern humans don't exploit is non-technological hominid. We don't do especially well at night. We avoid areas that are swampy and we avoid areas that are very steep. It doesn't really take that much imagination to figure out how a species of hominids living in the wild could avoid us if they are adapted to live where we rarely go especially if they did things to avoid us like coming out at night. There were apparently much more primitive populations living in Asia that apparently included the ancestors of floresiensis and possibly populations in Java that were more primitive than erectus. They could be a much less technological population that diverged from other erectus. It doesn't really matter. Once they adopt the niche of non technological hominid their morphology would likely very quickly diverge from ours. They would have different selection criteria that would produce different features like massive teeth and jaws. Pressure from the more technological hominids could have pushed other changes like bigger eyes and better night vision. One interesting thing about neanderthals is the large eyes they had. It exists as trait in hominid populations even though it may not have been fully developed in neanderthals. Better night vision even in neanderthals isn't out of the question. Large size is also entirely possible and the assumption that hominids can't quickly grow to that size seems pretty silly to me from a basic biology point of view. The bias against it is not based on rational biological reasons. I don't mean to be poking fun at this guys enormous size. He is only 6' 2" but he was almost 800 lbs. I think the song is one of the most beautiful voices I ever heard. It makes me miss Hawaii even though I felt like a menehune when standing with a group of Polynesians. Many of the Polynesians are extraordinarily large and strong. I see modern humans changing size very rapidly so why not other hominids. They aren't going to have the same selection pressure if they occupy a different niche. Enormous size may have happened often. I do think that sasquatch if they exist are far beyond what we have found in the fossil record. It doesn't seem at all biologically implausible to me however.

Wax on. Wax off. Genes on. Genes off.

Highly variable w/sustained blowing from what I've seen today. How are they in your area?

What direction is the wind blowing?

Again, just to be sure I'm not reading anything into this...Are you now stating that if you called 911 and told them sassy was eating two of your children right in front of you that you would expect the cops to respond?

TESTIFY! Hearsay is normally excluded from testimony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAiHhueI3M8

^ That boy, ah say, that boy is a comic genius.

He's got me rolling in the aisle. Amazing what twenty bucks spent supporting BFF will get ya.

dmaker - I must have read too much into your post, guess it's catching I agree with you 100%. WSA - I'm not sure what you are reading but I'm definitely not saying that I refuse to read encounter reports - less "into" and more literal interpretation! I'm responding to the lack of verifiable details available in this Urban Bigfoot thread. Specifically I'm addressing the lack of official reports available despite claimed reports of sassy walking on the roof of folks houses, sassy damaging fences, and a mother who was scared so terribly by a purported sassy that she wouldn't let her daughter play in a park. This thread is specifically addressed to claims of urban sassy - were you perhaps trying to post in another thread? If not, in what thread would you like to talk about urban sassy claims and why would it be better than this one specifically addressed to such claims? I'm not veering off-topic at all by addressing the lack of 911 calls in this thread and your oft-repeated statements regarding your lack of investment in this topic don't inspire me to follow you around so can decline to engage further any time a tough question is asked.

I understand that ohiobill, I was responding to WSA's rather ludicrous idea that you should call 911 just to try to prove a point in this thread. I can guarantee you the constabulary will not be pleased to learn why they arrived at your doorstep. And you can be positive that they will--despite what others would have you believe. A 911 call would never be ignored. How many times have people accidentally dialed 911 from their cell phone? I have and you have no choice but to wait for the police to arrive to clear the call. Despite how strongly you try to explain it was an error. You could call and say Captain Crunch was kicking your dog and they would still come.

LOL Bill. You really don't want to get into hearsay and its exceptions, do you? It is the #1 crippler of young L1 students, I can tell you that, and it really doesn't add anything to this. (BTW, I think I can still read into your responses, "Nope, still haven't read them yet...) Go ahead....call up your local constabulary and tell them you just saw an 8' hairy monkey thing crossing the road on your way home from Aunt Sallie's Wed. sewing circle. We'll wait.

As usual, you two aren't comprehending what evidence is...I don't want to read the online encounter report from the sassy witness who saw the overall wearing sassy on the train smoking - I want to see the police report where police officers investigated it. We all know it's possible to file a false sassy report or even lie about something as serious as how calling 911 won't get a response if sassy are involved. I've read enough lies here from hoaxers and their die-hard supporters. Unlike some who constantly bray about how important anonymous reports are or even the special folks who claim to be able to discern the veracity of the reports just by reading them, I want to see the official investigation or lawsuit filed that proves it. We all know that if these extraordinary claims were actually taking place we would see official evidence of it. We all know what hearsay is and why it's not accepted in court, provide some proof that urban encounters are taking place. Where are the reports from LEO investigating property damage to chain link fences or the roofs of houses caused by sassy? Please point me to the paperwork where firemen are investigating smoldering middens or noxious fumes left by sassy? Can you provide some documentation that animal control officers are taking special measures to safeguard urban dumpsters from sassy? Show me the official report where LEO investigated the sassy at the park that had a young girl's mother scared terribly? If you can't do it then please provide an apology to the hard working men and women who actually do the jobs in law enforcement, EMS, firefighting, animal control, waste management, etc who are going to work everyday and NOT finding evidence of sassy everywhere they go and who aren't even being called about it. Apologize to them about lying about how they won't respond to calls for help. You know the folks I'm talking about - they're your neighbors.

That's why eyewitness evidence has long been established in both the judiciary as well as law enforcement as the least reliable form of evidence. The "moment" is a rush, the likes of which you have never before experienced. Lot's of people out there that "think" they've had an encounter and only a few that actually have....as, it changes you, forever.

One of the major factors in my ultimate decision that killing a UHS, whether it be for profit or for science was totally wrong, were communications with some of the tribal elders regarding the NA perspective. IMO, are some groups attempts to apparently demonize UHS by portraying them as some sort of medieval monster more grounded in trying to justify a position than anything else?

http://i59.tinypic.com/w0p25v.jpg Similar to this by chance? Bottom left picture you can barely make out part of the figures face through it's hair, figure is facing to your left in every picture, it's left side is what is showing towards you but typically facing at a angle away except when it turned around.

agreed rock, learning the truth would be a real face melting discovery........no, wait......sorry, we already tried that .....

Depends upon how worthy the cause and how strong the men.