What Is A Bigfoot?

[gigantor]

Great discussion!

But it seems to me that there is a lack of knowledge for conclusive declarations to be made, not that anyone here is making any. Hopefully, more discoveries will be made and the puzzle will become clearer over time.

[JDL]

Two quick points about science in general:

In science, nothing is ever a hard fact. Things are always "to the best of our knowledge" or "according to the evidence." There isn't a rule that says bigfoot can't exist, there just isn't any evidence to say that it does, at least according to what is known. Also, the "backwards" approach that you're talking about isn't science. If people were trying to work to prove things, the hypotheses they suggested wouldn't be falsifiable. Conformation bias (and ignoring things you don't like) would always get in the way of reaching a credible conclusion. That's one of the biggest problems with how the bigfoot community researches their subject; they don't try to reach an objective conclusion, they look for evidence that agrees with the conclusion they want and make excuses for, or ignore, the evidence that doesn't. The same way of "research" can be seen with people that want to support Creationism or the idea that global warming isn't real. It just doesn't lead to credible ends.

But, that's beside the point, since my original intent in this thread wasn't to say anything about the possibility of bigfoot's existence. What I was originally commenting on is something that actually relates to your questions a lot; namely, about what bigfoot could (or couldn't) be.

Two quick points about science in general:

In science, nothing is ever a hard fact. Things are always "to the best of our knowledge" or "according to the evidence." There isn't a rule that says bigfoot can't exist, there just isn't any evidence to say that it does, at least according to what is known. Also, the "backwards" approach that you're talking about isn't science. If people were trying to work to prove things, the hypotheses they suggested wouldn't be falsifiable. Conformation bias (and ignoring things you don't like) would always get in the way of reaching a credible conclusion. That's one of the biggest problems with how the bigfoot community researches their subject; they don't try to reach an objective conclusion, they look for evidence that agrees with the conclusion they want and make excuses for, or ignore, the evidence that doesn't. The same way of "research" can be seen with people that want to support Creationism or the idea that global warming isn't real. It just doesn't lead to credible ends.

But, that's beside the point, since my original intent in this thread wasn't to say anything about the possibility of bigfoot's existence. What I was originally commenting on is something that actually relates to your questions a lot; namely, about what bigfoot could (or couldn't) be.

There is such a thing as hard fact in science. It's called empirical data. I use it all the time and will use some below.

When I said I was doing things backward from you, I was referring to the fact that your own posts seem rife with conformational bias as you, yourself, have defined it. You regard certain theories as immutable law and reject any facts that contradict those theories. I'm backward from you in that I'm starting from a set of direct observations, sifting through theory (performing a literature search), and rejecting theories that are in contradiction to my direct observation. Which of us is applying the scientific approach?

From direct observation I will state that they do exist, that they are a physical species, that their intelligence is within the range of human intelligence, that they will spend many hours of the day studying us, and that they understand our behaviors in their environment. What I want to know is how closely they are related to us. If I consider the reports that recent DNA analyses indicate that they are more closely related to us than chimpanzees and consider past reports of interbreeding, then I have to consider that they must have diverged from our lineage, or we from thiers, relatively recently.

The theories I am exploring, and challenging in the process, are that they may have diverged either just before, from, or after homo heidelbergensis; that they may have developed some of their physical characteristics in part because we pushed them out of the best habitat; and that they may have developed some of their behavioral characteristics, in part, due to the fact that we would have wiped them out otherwise. Our lore does include Jack the Giant Killer stories.

But getting back to scientific methods, I find it absurd, if not hypocritical, that you knock a religious belief in the same sentence that you knock those who don't believe in a theory that incorporates so much junk science that it is now regarded as a cult by objective scientists.

I used to include the greenhouse effect as part of my curriculum. I, referred to it, however, by the term "atmospheric energy retention", which is more accurate and incorporates the concept of extreme weather phenomenon. Global warming has occurred, does occur, and will occur. The same goes for global cooling. They're part of the same sinusoidal effect tied to the sinusoidal solar radiation cycle. If you look at the hockey stick graph, you will find that it does not depict either the midieval warming period or the little ice age (directly concurrent with an observed period of diminished solar activity), both of which are historical fact. If it did, it would look more like a sine curve.

Also the role of CO2, and thus anthropogenic effect, has been greatly exagerrated. CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas (99.438%, of which 3.207% is anthropogenic) Global warming alarmists discount water vapor. If you factor in water vapor, you find that it comprises 95% of the greenhouse gas effect (of which just 0.001% is anthropogenic) and that CO2 is only 99.438% of the remaining 5%. If you adjust for heat retention efficiencies of the various gases, water vapor is responsible for 95.000% of the greenhouse effect (anthropogenic sources contributing 0.001%), CO2 is responsible for 3.618% (of which 0.117% is anthropogenic) and the remaining gases (CH4, N2O, CFC's, etc) are responsible for 1.382% (of which 0.160% is anthropogenic). The bottom line is that if you IGNORE A MAJOR FACT, that there is nineteen times as much effect from water vapor as from all other greenhouse gases combined, you can fervently say that man's production of CO2 is destroying the world (ignoring water vapor, man's contribution to the greenhouse effect is 5.53%). But if you objectively include water vapor (99.999% of which is from natural sources), you find that man's contribution to the greenhouse effect is only 0.278%. So, if 100% of all man-made sources of CO2 stopped today, to include all of us exhaling CO2, 99.722% of the greenhouse effect would still persist. So you can see why the community of objective scientists now regard global warming alarmists as a cult filled with fanatical fact-rejecting adherents. The solar activity cycle is still increasing, but will peak and then decline. Nothing we do can change that and nothing will.

An objective person should separate fact from theory. An objective person should verify fact and question theory. Using theory alone to suppress fact is not objective. It is, however, an act of faith. Unquestioning belief in theory is no longer science, it is religion (is belief in the infallibility of a theory's author any different than belief that a holy book was written by someone with infallible guidance?).

[Guest Silver Fox]

I feel that BF is in the Homo line and close to humans, but there are so many problems with that.

Mid tarsal break that we lost 2.4 million years ago? Huh?

Where are the BF fossils anyway? How long as BF been evolving?

What's with the saggital crest? How many Homo types have a saggital crest?

If it's close to Neanderthal, as some suggest, why no toolset? Why no fire? Why the huge size, when Neanderthal was small?

It's got to be in the Homo line, since it's bipedal. None of the pongids are bipedal. All are quadripedal.

BF is so mysterious! So many things don't seem to add up or make sense. In a way, the skeptics are right on that. BF seems impossible. But I think it's true. Therefore, the impossible is true!

[JDL]

How do we know this? If I lost my home, my electricity, my more or less modern life I would survive. I may never relearn the art of metal making but I could certainly chip a rock into an arrowhead, and with practice, learn to hunt. Fishing is an option and since I can crochet and knit, no big stretch to make a net out of grass for me. I would just swap my modern tools for the more primitive versions, but even without the primitive ones, I could survive if I did not object to eating earthworms, grasshoppers, and other insects. Would I like it? No, but I'll eat anything that doesn't eat me first if I am hungry enough. There are also plenty of edible plants in my location. I think you are making a big assumption on what would happen to us if we lack available modern tools. Once everything got smaller than you after the ice age, what would be the point in going back to using tools if they aren't needed? So how can we be sure it hasn't gone in the other direction? Have we found giant chips out of Mammoth bones from spear heads that were just a little too large? No one has ever said. Perhaps bigfoot got bigger once his diet became more well rounded and not limited to certain game? I just don't see how we could know this one way or another with any certainty.

I'm with you Jodie. I grew up in the Sierras and spent more time outdoors than in. During my military career, basic survival training was a piece of cake. The challenging thing, though, is doing this while someone is trying to catch or kill you. Survival and evasion is a different story from simple survival. You use fire, you get caught, or at least chased away from the rattlesnake you were trying to cook. Try to carry a cooking pot and it slows you down. Makes you want to grow hair and learn to eat meat raw. Makes you want to be able to see and move around freely in the dark.

Makes you think that one species, driven out of prime habitat by another, and perhaps threatened by the other species on a continual basis to the point that it was either constantly on the run or forced to lie low, might just develop a set of characteristics to allowed it to survive under those conditions.

[JDL]

I feel that BF is in the Homo line and close to humans, but there are so many problems with that.

Mid tarsal break that we lost 2.4 million years ago? Huh?

Where are the BF fossils anyway? How long as BF been evolving?

What's with the saggital crest? How many Homo types have a saggital crest?

If it's close to Neanderthal, as some suggest, why no toolset? Why no fire? Why the huge size, when Neanderthal was small?

It's got to be in the Homo line, since it's bipedal. None of the pongids are bipedal. All are quadripedal.

BF is so mysterious! So many things don't seem to add up or make sense. In a way, the skeptics are right on that. BF seems impossible. But I think it's true. Therefore, the impossible is true!

These are the things I'm wrestling with too. There must be examples in nature of species that have recovered a less advanced characteristic when conditions prevailed that once again made that characteristic an advantage. Throwbacks, with lost traits do occur in our gene pool. A throwback trait, reappearing when it is advantageous, may be passed on. This could explain recovery of the mid-tarsal break. I think the saggital crest probably goes along with large powerful jaws. I'm not convinced that it would not reappear if we simply selected and bred for this characteristic.

If the theory that we drove them out of the best habitat is viable, then it would be harder to find their fossils. Most homo fossils we find are in what must have been prime habitat. If the theory that we kept them on the run until only the biggest, strongest, and least reliant on tools survived is viable, then it might explain the reliquishment of fire and other tools.

If a pongid is the antecessor, then the only thing I can think of is that it must have sprung up long enough ago that pongid homo crossbreeds were still viable. This seems unlikely. None of this will be proven short of DNA from a verifiable source that can be used to map backwards.

[Guest Silver Fox]

These are the things I'm wrestling with too. There must be examples in nature of species that have recovered a less advanced characteristic when conditions prevailed that once again made that characteristic an advantage. Throwbacks, with lost traits do occur in our gene pool. A throwback trait, reappearing when it is advantageous, may be passed on. This could explain recovery of the mid-tarsal break. I think the saggital crest probably goes along with large powerful jaws. I'm not convinced that it would not reappear if we simply selected and bred for this characteristic.

If the theory that we drove them out of the best habitat is viable, then it would be harder to find their fossils. Most homo fossils we find are in what must have been prime habitat. If the theory that we kept them on the run until only the biggest, strongest, and least reliant on tools survived is viable, then it might explain the reliquishment of fire and other tools.

If a pongid is the antecessor, then the only thing I can think of is that it must have sprung up long enough ago that pongid homo crossbreeds were still viable. This seems unlikely. None of this will be proven short of DNA from a verifiable source that can be used to map backwards.

This may make some sense. The ones that used fire were tracked down and killed. The rest forgot it. What doesn't make sense is that BF seems too stupid to figure out how to use fire in the first place. I don't think that they know fire but just refuse to use it. OTOH, the Seraphina Long story claims that they had fire in their cave.

So BF's are throwbacks! Sure, that makes some sense.

I don't think a pongid is their ancestor. Then why are they bipedal?

[Guest]

I'm not as smart as Jodie and you guys but let me throw a "M" bomb in here...a mid-tarsal break makes no sense for a biped that spends most of it's time on the ground. Is it possible that much like a childs skull close's up as it ages, the mid-tarsal break fuses as Bigfoot matures? I can see the need for a youngser to need to climb more to escape predators and possibly be "parked" by an adult while foraging or sleeping for safety?

I've been throwing this idea around the tracks including the break have been hoaxed by proponents of the "desended from apes" theorists for awhile now. That bit of misinformation would go a long way in jiving with keeping the status quo as far as the perception it's an animal rather than a type of intelligent hominid/human. Folks who have more than a few infrequent excursions have been reporting the tracks they find as NOT having the break...in fact most of the tracks cast don't.

Do I think Dr. Meldrum is intentionally off track? No...could he have been mislead by someone with an agenda? Maybe. (JMO)

[JDL]

I'm not as smart as Jodie and you guys but let me throw a "M" bomb in here...a mid-tarsal break makes no sense for a biped that spends most of it's time on the ground. Is it possible that much like a childs skull close's up as it ages, the mid-tarsal break fuses as Bigfoot matures? I can see the need for a youngser to need to climb more to escape predators and possibly be "parked" by an adult while foraging or sleeping for safety?

I've been throwing this idea around the tracks including the break have been hoaxed by proponents of the "desended from apes" theorists for awhile now. That bit of misinformation would go a long way in jiving with keeping the status quo as far as the perception it's an animal rather than a type of intelligent hominid/human. Folks who have more than a few infrequent excursions have been reporting the tracks they find as NOT having the break...in fact most of the tracks cast don't.

Do I think Dr. Meldrum is intentionally off track? No...could he have been mislead by someone with an agenda? Maybe. (JMO)

It may be that they are not exclusively ground dwelling. There are quite a few reports of individuals in trees, climbing cliffs, etc. It may also be that young are more arboreal than adults and that only the adults are primarily ground dwelling. If so, it would be a survival advantage to retain the mid-tarsal break. It would expand the available food sources - birds and their nests, squirrels and their storage, nuts higher up, etc. It could mean that the young are as important to the family group foraging effort as the adults. It would also offer avoidance of larger predators when young are separated from foraging adults, travel from tree to tree, lookouts, etc. Older, heavier individuals would still have the characteristic without it being a disadvantage. Also, it may be an advantage for the mid-tarsal break in a heavier than human hominid. Is it's purpose simply to facilitate climbing and grasping? Would the mechanics of a mid-tarsal break allow more comfortable locomotion for someone weighing several hundred pounds?

[JDL]

It also occurs to me that there are reports of bigfoot going from bipedal to quadrupedal locomotion and back. A mid-tarsal break would potentially facilitate the quadrupedal mode.

[Guest]

Just a thought I had after discussing it with a friend who is a anthro...we were tweedling the idea. Plus it's something not noodled too hard and something to speculate on?

I try to keep all options open till a body turns up.The 4x4 locomotion has been seen and the tracks didn't show the break, so we were looking at it as a "what if the juvies feet were still developing?"

Like I said...just another unanswered question....LOL!

[JDL]

Just a thought I had after discussing it with a friend who is a anthro...we were tweedling the idea. Plus it's something not noodled too hard and something to speculate on?

I try to keep all options open till a body turns up.The 4x4 locomotion has been seen and the tracks didn't show the break, so we were looking at it as a "what if the juvies feet were still developing?"

Like I said...just another unanswered question....LOL!

A good one.

[Guest Silver Fox]

It may be that they are not exclusively ground dwelling. There are quite a few reports of individuals in trees, climbing cliffs, etc. It may also be that young are more arboreal than adults and that only the adults are primarily ground dwelling. If so, it would be a survival advantage to retain the mid-tarsal break. It would expand the available food sources - birds and their nests, squirrels and their storage, nuts higher up, etc. It could mean that the young are as important to the family group foraging effort as the adults. It would also offer avoidance of larger predators when young are separated from foraging adults, travel from tree to tree, lookouts, etc. Older, heavier individuals would still have the characteristic without it being a disadvantage. Also, it may be an advantage for the mid-tarsal break in a heavier than human hominid. Is it's purpose simply to facilitate climbing and grasping? Would the mechanics of a mid-tarsal break allow more comfortable locomotion for someone weighing several hundred pounds?

I thought that the mid tarsal break helped them to walk in the way that they do? But I'm not sure about that.

The young are definitely quite arboreal. Even the grown ones are up in trees sometimes, but they are so large that it is not so easy. And BF's can for sure just power right up a 5.9 rock-climbers grade cliff like it was nothing.

Is it actually a disadvantage in some way?

[JDL]

I thought that the mid tarsal break helped them to walk in the way that they do? But I'm not sure about that.

The young are definitely quite arboreal. Even the grown ones are up in trees sometimes, but they are so large that it is not so easy. And BF's can for sure just power right up a 5.9 rock-climbers grade cliff like it was nothing.

Is it actually a disadvantage in some way?

I don't see how it could be. The assumption seems to be that since we don't have one it would be a disadvantage to a hominid. When did the mid-tarsal break disappear in the available fossil record?

[Guest Silver Fox]

I don't see how it could be. The assumption seems to be that since we don't have one it would be a disadvantage to a hominid. When did the mid-tarsal break disappear in the available fossil record?

Homo supposedly loses the midtarsal break 2.4 million years ago IIRC.

[BobZenor]

I feel that BF is in the Homo line and close to humans, but there are so many problems with that.

Mid tarsal break that we lost 2.4 million years ago? Huh?

MT break is just a joint that we also have. Ours is tied up in tendons that form a rather rigid arch. The joint still flexes but the tendons are meant to store energy to make our locked-kneed form of locomotion more efficient. Homo floresiensis didn't have an arch. I seriously doubt they can tell how flexible that joint is and I also think the flexibility of that joint in bigfoot is likely exaggerated by some There is indications that it flexes in some footprints but that is probably with the 800 lbs pressing down when it is walking. Personally I doubt great flexibility because it would seemingly make walking less efficient. It is apparently flat footed and probably much more flexible than ours though.

Where are the BF fossils anyway? How long as BF been evolving?

What's with the saggital crest? How many Homo types have a saggital crest?

There are good candidates in Asia. Floresiensis has features that indicate that it diverged from us well before erectus. They don't have fossils that fit that description but some of the Java erectus have features in common with floresiensis. They were called erectus because everyone knew, they have been taught that for decades, that erectus was the first to leave Africa. All the primitive Asian hominids are therefore erectus. Some of the Asian "erectus" do have what some call a double sagittal crest. Their temporal muscles attach almost at the top of the skull in some and that closely resembles a sagittal crest. Some call it a double temporal crest. Others have a nuchal crest or large neck muscles that attach on that back of the skull which is probably a better description for what Patty seems to have depending on angle. (as if a true sagittal crest would depend on the viewing angle)

If it's close to Neanderthal, as some suggest, why no toolset? Why no fire? Why the huge size, when Neanderthal was small?

It's got to be in the Homo line, since it's bipedal. None of the pongids are bipedal. All are quadrupedal.

Bipedalism goes back longer including australopithecus and ardipithecus was at least partially bipedal. It may go back further but that would take bipedalism almost at least 5 million years. Growing large is very easy for any mammal to do from an evolutionary perspective. All you really need is the right selection pressure and a relatively small amount of time. I think modern humans remained relatively small because we could use deadly weapons even if we are small. Our size seems to be calibrated at the size that would make the most effective Army if you defined each army as a certain combined weight. (just one significant factor) Really large humans take more resources so they can't have as many warriors. What really defines human biological success is how much real estate we control. That ultimately comes down to warfare. Bigfoot would logically live by a different set of rules. I doubt they would attack in massive numbers so the larger individuals might well be selected for. Some of the Meganthropus had teeth 2/3 the size of gigantopithecus so they were likely exceptionally large as well. They probably had a different set of rules defining their existence than modern humans do. That is really all that is required.

I can't really think of any biological problems with their existence. They do seem to have been remarkably lucky at not being cataloged by science yet. I have a hard time imagining that a something as simple as chimp could manage that.

Edited May 8, 2011 by BobZenor