Guest Joey Kay Posted October 11, 2010 Posted October 11, 2010 Some might say that Bigfoot is an "Original Unaltered Human", that idea seems to always be over looked... Thats defiatnly what I think. Its a shame that guy wont elaborate on the 'amazing mental powers' thing. I would love to hear what you mean by that.
Guest Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) I voted APE. What gets me is that we have no idea, until a body is brought in, so no one can be so sure, of course. Wouldn't it be great when someone makes certain claims they would at least explain why they make the claim or just keep it private. Sorry, just my opinion Edited February 22, 2011 by Noni
Guest Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 I chose other because: 1)I think gigantopithecus is too easy, does not quite match, has too many questions about it, and the fossil record of primates (both tropical great apes and humankind) is what I consider poor with many options not even discovered yet (my opinion). I agree that many if not all present sasquatch reports possess apelike characters, they are not always phenotypically described as typical apes even though at least a lot of their threat displays mirror them, according to literature and reports..(both personal and what I have read). 2) Although they physically appear to be a kind of caveman according to many, but with variance and some look more apelike, I think if they even come close to approaching the numbers claimed by the reports, I think we would have a better handle on them.. it makes sense to think they are somewhere in this category.. I grant that. 3) I chose other because I think they represent their own family, not quite apes not quite humans. I think they exhibit categories of both... but there is a weirdness about them.. and because of that, and their phenotypical or physical characters constantly described.. that is why I go this route. The main example of weirdness: WHY is it still undocumented ? WHAT is the psychological aspect of people that allows this spp to do whatever it wants and still remain undocumented? HOW can researchers continued to be baffled on getting a handle on verification? (not accounting for future public releases that may be soon ready) Add the quip I read on the dna reference to them by Nelson. Not quite ape, not quite human...oooo.. AND can we be sure there is only one type? WHAT if there are actually nonhuman AND remnant protohumans in different localized areas ? So I suppose it is possible that two answers could be correct here.. lessee what did I forget.. oh yeah, my favorite color is green and I like dolphins ..
Guest Fister Crunchman Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 I suspect Bigfoot may be a form of Homo long adapted to living in the enviromment of the pacific North West without recourse to artifacts or primitive technologies. Members interested in the proposition that Bigfoot might be a form of human could look at the article at the link below or the publication it draws on. http://www.sify.com/news/new-study-suggests-earliest-humans-were-not-very-different-from-us-news-scitech-lcplEeaieef.html Fister
Guest fenris Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 If Bigfoot is a real....hmm...creature? ape? caveman? person? then if/when it is discovered it will need to be classified. I'm curious as to what you think that classification or genus may be. This is assuming that Bigfoot is real and will be found. Pesonally, I'm torn between choices 2 and 3. I just can't relate descriptions of Bigfoot to a great ape. No opposed thumb or toe and bipedal mainly. Your thoughts? Edit to add "Other" choice. What it isn't, is Giganto, that was always a dumb theory.
Guest fenris Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Just wondering, what would an "other" be? That chimera thingy. I've always considered that to men differently sentient, but am dubious of it. It'sa relic homind not a monkey ie, ape....
Guest fenris Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 I chose other because: 1)I think gigantopithecus is too easy, does not quite match, .. giganto doesn't add up because it doesnt fit the description, it would have had a mother of a time getting here, and just plain doesn't fit the bill. It seems like that idea was nothing more than a weak attempt at an explanation by various academics.
Guest Cervelo Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Come on Sas, You've taken a beatin and bounced back everytime with aplomb and I may not agree with you on some stuff but you've earned my respect (not that it matters) but I for one would love to hear it and will make no judgement or snarky comments. Bring it girl!
Guest The big grey man of ben ma Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 So if Bigfoot falls into the Erectus/Neanderthal category why are they so far behind? You don't hear too many reports of them making fire. Also, lets say these stick structure shelters that people claim to find are actually a place to live, at least temporarily. If Erectus was making fire so long ago, then they also must of had better built shelters. You don't hear too many reports of them making fire ? You don't hear too many reports of them making complicated glue resins for their spear points
Guest fenris Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 You don't hear too many reports of them making fire ? You don't hear too many reports of them making complicated glue resins for their spear points maybe fire attracts attention?
Guest Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 giganto doesn't add up because it doesnt fit the description, it would have had a mother of a time getting here, and just plain doesn't fit the bill. It seems like that idea was nothing more than a weak attempt at an explanation by various academics. I remember a verbal debate by the good Doctor (Meldrum) vs an anthropologist over the teeth. I happen to reside with Doc Meldrum on the issue because I thought what he brought to the table made more sense. The issue was what did the tooth structure represent (the jaw of Giganto) and his answer was gramnivorous I think (without looking it up, off the cuff here) which is comparable to baboons being able to chew and ingest various vegetation but ALSO being able to handle antelope.. I do not know how far off that is from us (being primarily vegetational at least according to some since we do not have the carnassials (cutting teeth) like typical predators do..(comparison being a cougar which I have been told can cut through the backbone of a whitetail deer in so many seconds)... So THAT is a flavorful point toward Giganto.. but I think , Fenris, that you are right.. there are way too many variables to just ice it that easy as the leading candidate.. perhaps the leading candidate that we are aware of now.. But so little is known of it. AND I think there are variable options that we do not even know about at present that will come to light in time.. unfortunately maybe not ours..) As more work together.. the faster we will know.. with a current dude or dudette..hopefully via bloodwork.
Guest Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 You don't hear too many reports of them making fire ? You don't hear too many reports of them making complicated glue resins for their spear points Re-read my post, and you'll see that I meant if Bigfoot is a Erectus/Neanderthal they SHOULD be making fire.
Guest gadgetgurl Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 All of the above, depending on sighting. Also, bear with mange.
Guest Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 All of the above, depending on sighting. Also, bear with mange. I sense a touch of sarcasm there, gadgetgurl....
Recommended Posts