Leaderboard

There was a Samoan in my platoon that was about 6' 6" and built like that guy. What astonished me about him wasn't his size but strength. Even for his size he was much stronger than any European I ever saw. He didn't work out like that guy probably did to get that strong and he was far from the biggest Samoan I ever saw. He was by far the strongest human I ever saw and I wouldn't know that except some guy in a bar finally got him angry after trying to pick a fight with the biggest guy in the room. When he saw large groups of people flying to the side as my Samoan friend made his way through the crowd on a run to get him it was the most terrified look I ever saw on someone as he ran away. I remain skeptical that any Caucasian would worry him but it would take a lot to get him to fight. I learned something that day but it is just my opinion since you had to be there. I still find it hard to believe what I saw that night. He used to run 3 miles every day with us in under 20 minutes. He could easily put on another couple hundred pounds and still get around well enough. He had the natural strength to carry it. The thing about the fossil record is that it is so incomplete. The femur example is one of the very few examples of a leg bone where you could estimate body size. None exist for Meganthropus. What they do have is some skulls that have indications of great size and like a nuchal crest on one for large neck muscles and the huge jaws on some of them and other features. No fossils exist at all for the lineage the led to hobbits. They didn't just drop from the sky. I am not arguing from ignorance in saying that the fossil record is incomplete so it might have been large. I cited specific examples that indicated large size and explained why it was ignored. Even in the femur example the bias exists that it couldn't be from a extraordinarily large individual because it isn't complete. That bias is baseless from the perspective of biology. The overheating hypothesis is just nonsense to put it nicely. They just assume they weren't extra large and the argument is basically an an argument from incredulity. I don't respond well to emotional arguments like that. I am not accusing you of making it. Your argument is reasonable that they don't exist as proof where you can definitely say they were approaching the size of a sasquatch. I wouldn't argue with you about that. I just pointed out the biological reasons that it isn't a valid argument to extend that to saying they couldn't grow as large as a sasquatch very quickly. All they would need is selection pressure and a relatively small amount of time to do it. Size isn't a valid biological argument against sasquatch existing or being a member of the genus Homo for that reason. Assumptions that members of the genus Homo being "human" with the implication of significant technology is dubious at best. The guy with the theory of the killer ape Neanderthal made great points but it should have been a parody. It shows how much we don't know and how invested some anthropologists are in their constructed realities. I found it pretty amusing myself especially the part about the cat eyes. He really went overboard on that. There are few modern paleontologists that think the ancient Java hominids were australopithecines. That would violate the "erectus first" hypothesis and the hypothesis has political power in the field. It also violates conventional wisdom which is pretty much meaningless in the field where so much is interpretation and guesswork. Tools don't tell you anything when there are multiple hominids by the way. They also don't tell you how human something was contrary to popular opinion. Thinking it does just points out another bias in the field. The point of the Polynesians wasn't the weight of that guy. That was just a nice song. It was the size of Polynesians in general and how fast some populations of modern humans got larger. We are talking like maybe less than 1 percent of the time that erectus had to grow that large, even the ancient ones. There are also probably constraints to growing larger in most modern human societies once we reached a certain level of technology that may not have existed in ancient populations. The baddest guy in the world is still vulnerable to a spear. I don't think that particular constraint would exist to the same degree in a less technological hominid. We also have to defend territory and I think 4 guys with spears is going to defend it better than one huge guy with a spear. We may be adapted to basically be the size where a group of us is most deadly if you break it down to total weight. Total weight of the population is a basic measure of the food supply in the environment they are protecting. The size where you get the most effective fighting force is basically how big we are. That is my theory anyway but other forces no doubt tug at the edges like girls preferring larger males.There is also the fact that superior technology allowed us to kill the largest of animals so there is less need for us to grow larger. There is no biological constraint for us growing much larger than Polynesians if we were subjected to different selection pressures. That is my main point. The set of pressures on a non technological would logically be different than it is for us. Most paleontologists simply have no reason to think along those lines. They never had an experience like I did where I think I encountered an extremely large primate at Bluff Creek.

The Arundel Mills Police report. A report from the Olympic Peninsula. Police Officer as a witness - http://woodape.org/reports/report/detail/340

A couple of thoughts..... 1) Just recently we thought Homo Erectus had died out over 100,000 years ago, and then we find remains of the Hobbit that died out only 13000 years ago. Another bomb shell was the discovery of the Denisovians, a distinct species that just abruptly appeared out of no where. What I'm getting at is that the forests were filled with a lot more species of archaic humans as well as other primate species than we first thought. And that their demise in some cases was very recent. So recent in fact that we cannot be sure that somewhere, somehow, something still hangs on to life today. 2) The next logical step in these debates is for the opponent to make a mockery of north America as a likely place to find a large primate. It's true, there is nothing in the fossil record to indicate that north America has ever had a large temperate primate living here, other than us. But as I laid out above? One bone found in a cave or a university basement for that matter can flip Academia on it's head. Also, there were large primates living in Asia during the last ice age. Just like many other species that made the Beringia walk to get to north America. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that it could have made it here. 3) So we have species that fit the description of a Sasquatch, and we have their distribution range confirmed all the way into Asia, which most all north American species migrated from. So the last point I wanted to address was why haven't we heard anything official from Science or Government about this species? I'm going to skip the conspiracy theories surrounding this, because they simply detract from the conversation at hand, I feel. Not because they cannot be real, but because we cannot verify any of this, and there fore it will forever remain in the realm of speculation. But the easiest answer to this for me? Is that we have! We have Soldiers, Marines, police officers, sheriffs, wildlife officers and rangers whom have all claimed they have seen Sasquatch. Unfortunately these accounts are simply filed away as anecdotal evidence.......... And as for most amateur groups out looking for Sasquatch? Are the same ones that give you grainy photos and cool stories! Why? Because none of them are pro kill, which you can trust me on this, is the extreme minority mindset concerning this mystery. Your gonna get stories, track casts, and grainy photos until? A) Science launches a well funded expedition. B ) A pro kill group kills one. (Bullets are cheap) I also want to comment on your picnic area comment. You live in Canada..........where 90% of the human population lives within 100 miles of the US border. To put this into perspective the DRC (Congo) is 905,567 sq. miles in size versus Canada which is 3.8 MILLION square miles in size. And a vast majority of that area is wilderness.........just some food for thought.

He got his expenses paid through donations and they sent him home with a nominal amount of money in his pocket.

Mechanically, it comes down to the robustness of the limb. With longer, you have to go bigger in bone diameter and in tendon and muscle structure. I would also expect the tendons and musculature to adapt to support greater size and weight, perhaps with additional tendons, anchor points and muscle width to provide more stability. I'd postulated a while back that the thing most likely to plague a bigfoot of advanced age would be orthopedic deterioration. Plenty has been written about their foot structure and compliant gait. These indicate a different foot and leg structure than ours.

That one is pretty easy really. No one is trying to get proof. Academia seems to be ignoring it, which means when a single ranger or biologist has a sighting, that account is treated as heresy within the department. We know this to be true. Same goes for the average joe and a police or wildlife report, it's never taken seriously....... And then within the Sasquatch community? 99 percent of squatchers are not out there to get proof. Most of them are scared urbanites that want to see something and then pray they don't. And then there is the 1 % who play the long odds and hope that a opportunity for a projectile to smack flesh and bone happens within their lifetime, and pray that when their number is called they are prepared!

Plussed. I think that is a very good explanation of the situation. What we have is not proof but it is sufficient evidence to warrant a more serious investigation than we have seen to date. What we have, instead, is people (lead by the scientists) demanding proof before they'll consider the evidence. That's not how science works is supposed to work. MIB

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.

Moderator Statement This topic has some issues! Please remember the rules. 7. Do not discuss religion or politics. No exceptions. If you see a post that you feel is in violation of the rules and guidelines, report it! Do not respond to it. Responding creates a ton of work for the staff - today me! I have done some editing/deleting of posts. But so many led right back to the post that started it all, that it became quite a mess. Therefore, I'm telling everyone here. Keep it on topic and report offending posts. If you respond to posts that are found to be in violation, you may be in violation and subject to warnings as well!! This topic is now open.