What Is A Bigfoot?

[Guest BlurryMonster]

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.

That's still "according to the evidence." In science, ideas can always be built upon or falsified. Nothing is ever regarded as an absolute fact that can't be changed.

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?

We both are. I was presenting my conclusions based on evidence that I've examined. I didn't start off thinking that bigfoot didn't exist and only looked at evidence supported that. I actually started off thinking that bigfoot did exist, and the more evidence I saw, that opinion changed. I didn't ignore things that didn't agree with what I thought, and I didn't make excuses for that evidence. I've also never regarded anything as a law.

In regards to my notion that bigfoot can't be an Australopithicine, Paranthropoid, or Homo, here's how I came to that conclusion (so you you see without accusing me of anything): I saw a program on the History Channel that suggested bigfoot was related to H. Heidelbergensis. I knew that Heidelbergensis lived in Europe, so that didn't sound right to me. I researched if it had been found anywhere else (specifically Asia, where land bridge crossings happened), and found that there was no evidence of that species living there. I then found out that there's a lot of speculation in the bigfoot community about bigfoot being closely related to us, and looked into those claims. Loren Coleman's theory of Paranthropus was the first one that I found. To the best of my knowledge, he never says which species of Paranthropus he thinks is bigfoot, but since they were only found in Africa, I thought it was unlikely they would just pop up in North America. The same goes for the common assertion of Neanderthal, which was actually a descendant of Heidelbergensis. They have been found from the Middle East to Europe, but never in East Asia or close to the Bering Land Bridge. I then started to look into tool usage, since that was universal among members of the Homo genus, and discovered no evidence for bigfoot tool usage. See? I never assumed anything. I heard claims, I looked into them, and made a conclusion based on the best evidence I could find.

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.

If your hypothesis is that bigfoot descended from Homo Heidelbergensis (or close to it), you need to examine the evidence that relates to that hypothesis and draw a conclusion based on what it. Evidence says that HH likely descended from H. Ergaster and mostly inhabited Europe. Some people speculate that a skull found in Dali, China could be HH, but it's the only such skull in Asia, and most attribute it to an H. Erectus (something that also descended from Ergaster). HH also used tools, Achuelean tools, to be more specific. A known descendant of HH was H. Neanthertalensis (Neanderthals), who also inhabited mostly Europe. They were smaller than HH, had bigger brains, and used more complex tools. From knowing all of that, it doesn't seem likely to me that a giant, hairy bipedal ape in North America with no evidence of tool usage is a descendant or relative of HH. Again, that is a conclusion that I have drawn based on evidence I have seen. You don't need to agree with it, but to rule out the evidence is being unscientific.

Our lore includes stories of people like St. George who killed dragons, too. Not all stories are based in fact. To find out if they are, you need to look at the origins of them and see if they do come from real events. As far as I know, most people think those stories came from Norse mythology, but I'm not that knowledgeable about that subject, so I won't act like I am.

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?).

I wasn't knocking a religious belief, I was knocking people that knock science because it doesn't agree with them. The same goes for the global warming thing. I know that some that support it fudge a lot of the facts (which is why I try to stay away from the subject myself), but there are people that say that it doesn't exist. Whether it's caused by human activity or by natural cycles can be debated, but evidence does say that climate change is happening. Those that say it doesn't are ignoring evidence because it doesn't agree with them, and that's wrong. A scientist (or any rational person) should be able to accept what evidence says. With regards to bigfoot, I feel the evidence says it isn't very closely related to us. But, if someone found a tool that wasn't made by a human in the Americas, or a body that was close to ours, I would reconsider that notion. I go with what the evidence says.

[Guest vilnoori]

I agree with you, Bob. The nuchal crest develops because of very large, strong stress on the trapezius muscles, and the saggital crest because of huge masseter (chewing) muscles going from the scalp to the lower jaw. So gorillas have these because they chew roughage a great deal of the time. Not all gorillas have them, mostly just the big males. And so it seems with people's descriptions of BF, only some have the crest, others don't. It does appear to be associated with large well-grown males, same as with gorillas.

I have seen a couple prints crossing a muddy road. The adult print was about 17 inches and was very flat looking, with not many distinguishing features other than distinct toes. I can see how that kind of track would be easily faked, but I think the singularly flat appearance was due to a large fat pad on the foot and compression under a large weight (7 or 8 hundred pounds, imagine) but the other track associated with it was as delicate and finely arched as a human tenderfoot's. I think it was a young kid, maybe 4 to 6 yrs old by comparison to our kids, old enough to be walking with mum, but still tender feet and needing help up steep bits and lots of watching.

Here's the pics I took of these tracks I'm talking about:

Baby (the back of the track was covered by a tire track, the track points toward the top left, toes can be seen as well as an arch)

Mom and baby (one mom track to the front, the track behind is the same one as above):

Mom track:

Edited May 9, 2011 by vilnoori

[BobZenor]

...

If your hypothesis is that bigfoot descended from Homo Heidelbergensis (or close to it), you need to examine the evidence that relates to that hypothesis and draw a conclusion based on what it. Evidence says that HH likely descended from H. Ergaster and mostly inhabited Europe. Some people speculate that a skull found in Dali, China could be HH, but it's the only such skull in Asia, and most attribute it to an H. Erectus (something that also descended from Ergaster). HH also used tools, Achuelean tools, to be more specific. A known descendant of HH was H. Neanthertalensis (Neanderthals), who also inhabited mostly Europe. They were smaller than HH, had bigger brains, and used more complex tools. From knowing all of that, it doesn't seem likely to me that a giant, hairy bipedal ape in North America with no evidence of tool usage is a descendant or relative of HH. Again, that is a conclusion that I have drawn based on evidence I have seen. You don't need to agree with it, but to rule out the evidence is being unscientific. ...

I don't actually support the notion that BF is derived from Homo heidelbergensis but I don't totally dismiss it either. Homo heidelbergensis were however almost certainly more widely spread out than you research suggests. Our probable immediate ancestors in Africa were H heidelbergensis. They lived in Europe and new evidence suggest that also occupied Asia. Dr. Meldrum mentioned in a recent show that they found one in China with an extremely recent preliminary date of about 13,000 years old. I still haven't heard anything else about that.

Cris Stringer in a very recent article described heidelbergensis or more precisely their immediate ancestors as inhabiting Africa, Europe and Asia. Stringer just got around to concluding what I have been saying for a few years. It is actually obvious if you think of this as a biological question and don't get stuck on relatively meaningless labels like heidelbergensis. They should just be a population that diverged from us about 600,000 years ago in the biological sense. There probably is no reason to separate all African heidelbergensis that some call Homo rhodesiensis and those from Europe. The quality and quantity of the fossils just doesn't justify that fine a distinction.

I think you might be overestimating the amount of fossil evidence if you conclude that a lack of fossils in a particular area means they weren't there. They did find a fossil in denisova cave with mitochondrial DNA that suggested they diverged somewhat before heidelbergensis. They or close relatives were in Siberia.

Edited May 9, 2011 by BobZenor

[Guest BlurryMonster]

I don't actually support the notion that BF is derived from Homo heidelbergensis but I don't totally dismiss it either. Homo heidelbergensis were however almost certainly more widely spread out than you research suggests. Our probable immediate ancestors in Africa were H heidelbergensis. They lived in Europe and new evidence suggest that also occupied Asia. Dr. Meldrum mentioned in a recent show that they found one in China with an extremely recent preliminary date of about 13,000 years old. I still haven't heard anything else about that.

Cris Stringer in a very recent article described heidelbergensis or more precisely their immediate ancestors as inhabiting Africa, Europe and Asia. Stringer just got around to concluding what I have been saying for a few years. It is actually obvious if you think of this as a biological question and don't get stuck on relatively meaningless labels like heidelbergensis. They should just be a population that diverged from us about 600,000 years ago in the biological sense. There probably is no reason to separate all African heidelbergensis that some call Homo rhodesiensis and those from Europe. The quality and quantity of the fossils just doesn't justify that fine a distinction.

I think you might be overestimating the amount of fossil evidence if you conclude that a lack of fossils in a particular area means they weren't there. They did find a fossil in denisova cave with mitochondrial DNA that suggested they diverged somewhat before heidelbergensis. They or close relatives were in Siberia.

A lot of your information about hominids seems to be off. Earlier you state that H. Florensis was older than H. Erectus; they actually lived from about 38,000-13,000 years ago. That's definitely more recent than Erectus, it's actually more recent than even some Neanderthals. Also, Homo Heidelbergensis wasn't our most likely direct ancestor, it was Neanderthal's. Our most likely direct ancestor is H. Rhodesiensis. HH is far too old to be a direct ancestor; some have been found in Africa (I never said they haven't), but they did live mostly in Europe. If you don't believe me, ask any archeologist what continent he would be on if he found a HH skeleton. H. Rhodesiensis lived a lot later than HH did, and was basically exactly the same as us physically, except for a slightly smaller brain.

What Meldrum was probably talking about was the skull that I mentioned (the Dali skull). It's 209,000 years old (nowhere near 13,000, I don't know where that comes from), and is most likely a Homo Erectus. It has some features that aren't as refined, but their species did have variation (just like ours), and it was found among other Erectuses. I just makes more sense than not that it's an Erectus, according to what's known about it. Your date for the Denisova remains are also off; it's about 41,000 years old. That's within the range of when Neanderthal lived, which is after Heidelbergensis.

By the way, it's very important to make distinctions between different species if you just lump different things into a general "not us" category, you lose out on a lot of the information that comes from seeing how the individual species and cultures developed and are different from one another. For example, Neanderthals were smaller and stockier than us, because they were built for colder climates. But they also has bigger brains, on average, despite being seemingly less intelligent. H. Erectus was much closer to us physically, but has smaller brains and made less advanced tools than Neanderthal did. They weren't the same species; everything that's labeled as a different species does have a noticeable difference to another species.

[BobZenor]

A lot of your information about hominids seems to be off. Earlier you state that H. Florensis was older than H. Erectus; they actually lived from about 38,000-13,000 years ago. That's definitely more recent than Erectus, it's actually more recent than even some Neanderthals.

I looked over what I wrote and it seemed accurate. I have to assume this is what you are taking issue with.

There are good candidates in Asia. Floresiensis has features that indicate that it diverged from us well before erectus.

If they did diverge before erectus, they would logically be a member of a lineage that lived in Asia that was more "primitive" than erectus. There were probably multiple waves of migrations out of Africa and some included members that diverged from humans before any significant technology happened. The evidence for that is primarily a wrist bone that shows very primitive features and is closer to a chimps wrist bone. It controls how flexible the thumb is in humans. They also have no arch on their feet and they have a very small brain. Their teeth also show signs of being very primitive or less derived as is the preferred way to phrase that. The fact that floresiensis lived until modern times doesn't change that more primitive hominids apparently lived in Asia. They don't have definitive fossils for them existing either but they had too exist because floresiensis didn't just fall out of the sky. They are logically derived from some primitive Asian group that lived alongside the various populations of "erectus".

Also, Homo Heidelbergensis wasn't our most likely direct ancestor, it was Neanderthal's. Our most likely direct ancestor is H. Rhodesiensis. HH is far too old to be a direct ancestor; some have been found in Africa (I never said they haven't), but they did live mostly in Europe. If you don't believe me, ask any archeologist what continent he would be on if he found a HH skeleton. H. Rhodesiensis lived a lot later than HH did, and was basically exactly the same as us physically, except for a slightly smaller brain.

I thought you must be reading from a reference that was calling rhodesiensis the ancestor of humans which is why I mentioned it. I hate to quote Wiki as a source for this but it but it makes the point I was intending to convey. There are many sources that call our immediate ancestors heidelbergensis. That is why I said that heidelbergensis, the name, was rather meaningless if people don't look at the apparent divergence dates. That is really all that is significant when considering possible bigfoot ancestors. The rest of the things are either unknowable or not particularly relevant like size. Size potentially changes way too fast to be relevant. The only thing that potentially changes faster than that would be cultural items like tool use.

from wiki

"...Most current experts believe Rhodesian Man to be within the group of Homo heidelbergensis though other designations such as Homo sapiens arcaicus and Homo sapiens rhodesiensis have also been proposed...."

What Meldrum was probably talking about was the skull that I mentioned (the Dali skull). It's 209,000 years old (nowhere near 13,000, I don't know where that comes from), and is most likely a Homo Erectus. It has some features that aren't as refined, but their species did have variation (just like ours), and it was found among other Erectuses. I just makes more sense than not that it's an Erectus, according to what's known about it.

I rather doubt Dr. Meldrum just casually mentioned a Heidelbergensis as living up until 13,000 years ago if it was 209,000 years old. He is usually very careful about what he says. He wasn't specific about what fossil he was talking about but I believe he said it was recently found in China on the show Bigfoot: The definitive Guide. I would guess it was about 4 months ago when he mentioned it. If your fossil has been more recently described, then maybe that was it and someone made a mistake about the date of the fossil that Meldrum mentioned.

They did find a fossil in denisova cave with mitochondrial DNA that suggested they diverged somewhat before heidelbergensis. They or close relatives were in Siberia.

Your date for the Denisova remains are also off; it's about 41,000 years old. That's within the range of when Neanderthal lived, which is after Heidelbergensis.

It had mitochondrial DNA that suggested it diverged from us about a million years ago. I was implying that it was likely descended from the same population that gave rise to heidelbergensis and it lived until almost modern times. The implication is that there were multiple populations of even more recent hominids.

By the way, it's very important to make distinctions between different species if you just lump different things into a general "not us" category, you lose out on a lot of the information that comes from seeing how the individual species and cultures developed and are different from one another. For example, Neanderthals were smaller and stockier than us, because they were built for colder climates. But they also has bigger brains, on average, despite being seemingly less intelligent. H. Erectus was much closer to us physically, but has smaller brains and made less advanced tools than Neanderthal did. They weren't the same species; everything that's labeled as a different species does have a noticeable difference to another species.

Believe me, I am not a lumper and there is no way that anyone should think that I lump all non human hominids into the same category. You are probably generalizing about erectus. I don't know what specific feature you are talking about but erectus is so varied and long lived that any feature isn't going to be universal. You also can't reliably assign tools to all erectus when there were multiple populations and likely different species that have been included in the group Homo erectus.

Heidelbergensis just becomes a meaningless label when it is constrained to a single European population. The only thing that really matters as far as it being an ancestor of bigfoot is the divergence date from us. Things like size, technology and pretty much any physical feature had enough time to change. We don't really know enough about the original hominids or bigfoot to get any more precise than that estimate.

[Guest vilnoori]

I think what Bob is trying to portray is something like this:

Not sure where I got that image from, maybe someone could help me on that one.

It is obvious that although H. floresiensis is the most modern of the hominids in terms of age of remains (meaning late survival) it was of early origin. Bob is talking about date of origin.

You have to remember that remains/fossils are just a snapshot, and a lucky one at that, of the presence of the creature in time. It doesn't mean it didn't exist before then. It must have, considering its archaic features.

[BobZenor]

I made the original graphic a few years ago but I can't find the original reference. This article is very similar and has a good writeup about the difficulties with classifying erectus and heidelbergensis. It seems like an updated version of the graphic I used with the dates of heidelbergensis being more logical in my opinion because they go to 800,000 years and strip off most of the antecessor. The references are fairly old though. I updated it after Dr. Meldrum mentioned the remarkably recent heidelbergensis in Asia.

It wasn't meant to be exact but just a visual representation of logical hominid lineages in Asia based on the most recent evidence. Neanderthals were in Asia and at least to Israel 100,000 years ago so they likely were in parts Africa as well but I didn't mean to stretch their range into Africa when I redid the graphic a few months ago.

Corrected graph but I prefer the layout in the link as it applies to the heidelbergensis population logically starting about 800,000 years ago and largely eliminating antecessor.

[Guest]

Interesting graphic, though it makes Europe and Asia seem like mutually seperate geographical regions, whereas from the biological perspective and indeed the geophysical one, they are a single landmass sometimes called Eurasia. For quite a few species of terrestrial animals during the last few million years even North America and Eurasia have effectively been one landmass as well for all but a few brief periods of time, such as the one we are in now.

[BobZenor]

Yeah, that is definitely a good point. The graph seems to work pretty well for technological hominids because they probably didn't inhabit much of Europe until after about 800,000 years ago. I think that antecessor is just a population of ergaster that made it to southern Europe about roughly a million years ago. Asia or at least parts of Asia have the tropical climate so the non-technological hominids probably didn't have much problem getting established there. The big question as far as bigfoot ancestors goes is when did one of the probably non-technological hominids become cold adapted. If it is a real creature that must have happened. The cold adaptation would have been also a way to isolate them from technological hominids until probably about a half a million years ago in my opinion. Before that, they probably used terrain and the night to largely isolate themselves from more aggressive hominids. It would also be great if we had a fossil record indicating when they got larger. Maybe in a hundred years that will be so. For now, we just have to speculate. That at least applies to those of us who believe we have had encounters with them.

Edited May 11, 2011 by BobZenor

[Guest]

Great perspective, Bob. As for cold adaptation (and so no longer obliged to seek the protection of caves or other shelter), and being non-technological; sometimes I wonder just what that would really mean as far as fossilization/preservation since it would mean that the need for habitation sites/encampments, caves and intentional burial, which accounts for the bulk of fossil evidence would be almost nil and very few (if any) human ancestral fossils from h. erectus onward were the result of accidental preservation out in the open, or so it seems to me from what I've read. Lots to ponder. Cheers.

[Guest vilnoori]

You know, one thing I'd love to see is an analysis of the sea levels, continental/coastal borders and changes in connectivity of the continents (as well as ice sheet extent) done as a sort of animation with the species and extent of human habitation. Wouldn't that be absolutely cool?

If the extent of the Sahara and other barrier deserts could be factored in that would be such a bonus too. Since climate change is so dependent on ocean currents and they in turn depend a great deal on continental position it would be so interesting to see. I wonder if there is such a thing.

Edited May 13, 2011 by vilnoori

[JDL]

You know, one thing I'd love to see is an analysis of the sea levels, continental/coastal borders and changes in connectivity of the continents (as well as ice sheet extent) done as a sort of animation with the species and extent of human habitation. Wouldn't that be absolutely cool?

If the extent of the Sahara and other barrier deserts could be factored in that would be such a bonus too. Since climate change is so dependent on ocean currents and they in turn depend a great deal on continental position it would be so interesting to see. I wonder if there is such a thing.

You know, your point about sea levels is key. We all know that migrations occurred when the Bering Land Bridge was exposed. This means lower sea levels at the time and, potentially, migration along coastal routes that are now submerged. It may be that the fossils we're looking for are simply not above water today. This alone would cause a major gap in the record.

It could also be that bigfoot evolution coincided with that of "other" megafauna. A larger individual has an advantage in colder environments because its body has an overall lower surface area to volume ratio, helping it to retain heat. Under these conditions, a 5-6 foot tall species may spawn larger progeny.

[Guest vilnoori]

Yes indeed. We know, for example, that at certain times the Mediterranean and Red seas disappeared and reappeared, the Sunda Shelf around Indonesia (Java) and the area around the Arctic ocean, the English Channel, Baltic sea and so on came and went depending on the climate and sea levels. Also there were huge inland seas or lakes that periodically emptied out, such as Lake Agassiz in North America. All of these had a significant effect on past human development and migrations, but all of it in total has never been satisfactorily mapped out and presented to the average person interested in the subject.

This is a crying need!

[JDL]

Yes indeed. We know, for example, that at certain times the Mediterranean and Red seas disappeared and reappeared, the Sunda Shelf around Indonesia (Java) and the area around the Arctic ocean, the English Channel, Baltic sea and so on came and went depending on the climate and sea levels. Also there were huge inland seas or lakes that periodically emptied out, such as Lake Agassiz in North America. All of these had a significant effect on past human development and migrations, but all of it in total has never been satisfactorily mapped out and presented to the average person interested in the subject.

This is a crying need!

Even more so when you consider that the most habital land has always been near the coast because of its food sources. Much of our history and the accompanying fossil record, particularly during the ice age, is under water.

[Guest WesT]

Do you mean by evolutionary convergence a merging of the species of man and a BF type creature by mating?

Evolutionary convergence is the evolution of similar physical traits in unrelated and distantly related linages. What your describing is hybridization.

Surely not. Most higher mammals can not merge and have living off spring. I know that there have been a few exceptions, but not among the *higher* primates, ie humans and apes..

That is true, but, higher primates (in the past) have interbred producing hybrids. One example we know for a fact is Homo Sapien and Neanderthal.