Jump to content
BFSleuth

Are Other Hominins (Hominoids) Alive Today?

Recommended Posts

BFSleuth

I agree that we are totally outclassed in terms of both woods craft and in terms of perception as noted in this thread:

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/30337-sasquatch-and-perception/

Some BF researchers have theorized that they process information more quickly than humans. This makes sense, since they live in an environment that is complex. Part of the problem for humans in thick woods is that there is too much information to process, with hundreds of trees, foilage, etc. in 360º plus a vertical environment. We rely heavily on sight, and have relatively less ability to use our hearing, and much less ability to smell. In the woods we are overwhelmed with visual information, so we tend to focus on movement. I can see a squirrel 100' away through the trees if it moves, but if it is still ... not so well.

By comparison, a creature that lives 24/7/365 in a highly complex visual, auditory, and olfactory environment should have heightened ability to process information. By comparison humans tend to focus perception to a select few stimuli. There have been a number of studies in psychology that talk about information overload and how easy it is to fool humans.

We have a lot to learn from our brethren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

People don't notice stuff - true. In centuries of global exploration, no one has been able to prove that there are any other extant Homo besides us - also true. Now, one could make the argument that the latter is the only the result of the former, i.e., there really are other extant Homo but we just haven't found them. The far more parsimonious explanation, however, is that they aren't out there to be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFSleuth

The parsimonious (stingy) argument would say that since one hasn't observed it, it doesn't exist.

The observant argument would say that evidence suggests the potential existence of hairy hominids and deserves further open minded research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

If I was going to bet on a chance of there being any other species of hominin still living on Planet Earth today, it would be a very outside chance, but the best bet would be with these guys...

ft_hdr.1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

^The title makes the picture infinitely creepier :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The parsimonious (stingy) argument would say that since one hasn't observed it, it doesn't exist.

I'd qualify that though. It not just that bigfoot hasn't been observed (i.e., collected and scientifically described), it's that it hasn't been observed despite centuries of exploration and settlement in the places where it's alleged to live. It hasn't been observed despite at least 50 years of notable scientists and skilled amateurs devoting significant effort to finding it. There is no other example in nature of something like this.

Remember, bigfoot is nothing like gorillas or okapis or saolas, all of which were easily found and collected once Westerners actually got to the places where those very rare and isolated large mammals live. Bigfoot is supposed to live where those Western scientists live! It's not that we haven't explored bigfoot range. It's not that we can't access the habitats that support them. It's not that we haven't specifically looked for them. We have, we can, and we have. But for all that, we lack a modern collection, we lack fossil evidence, and we don't even have a single photo that gives me pause to think there might be something out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Tell that to the coelecanths and 7-gill sharks. They've been out there for millions of years when man thought they were long gone and only relatively recently been re-documented as existing.

Context context context.

I know Skeptics don't like that word, because it kills their neat little generalizations dead.

I'd qualify that though. It not just that bigfoot hasn't been observed (i.e., collected and scientifically described),

There you go again, applying...unique...definitions to terms that you can twist as desired to suit your purposes.

Bigfoot is supposed to live where those Western scientists live! It's not that we haven't explored bigfoot range. It's not that we can't access the habitats that support them.

This has been addressed time after time after time, Sas. We have NOT "explored" bigfoot range in the manner you suggest. You would have us believer that somehow a bunch of people lined up within sight of one another and traipsed across the whole of N America such that not a single square yard of it has been left uninvestigated.

But for all that, we lack a modern collection,

We have hairs, cast tracks, body and body part impressions cast, eyewitness accounts, photos, and more.

we lack fossil evidence,

How many chimpanzee fossils have we had until relatively recently? There surely have been at least as many (probably more) chimps than BF out there.

and we don't even have a single photo that gives me pause to think there might be something out there.

Nothing whatsoever seems to "give you pause", so why should we find your dismissal of photographic evidence in any way informative?

The parsimonious (stingy) argument would say that since one hasn't observed it, it doesn't exist.

The observant argument would say that evidence suggests the potential existence of hairy hominids and deserves further open minded research.

In fact, the truly parsimonious argument to explain the large amount of bf evidence would be a real living bf.

The alternative argument is a vast army of delusional people and deliberate hoaxers that have been active for generations (going all the way back to aboriginal times) who have organized themselves to commit the most brilliant anthropological hoax ever conceived, and managed to erase all traces of the mechanics of them doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Branco

I'd qualify that though. It not just that bigfoot hasn't been observed (i.e., collected and scientifically described), it's that it hasn't been observed despite centuries of exploration and settlement in the places where it's alleged to live. It hasn't been observed despite at least 50 years of notable scientists and skilled amateurs devoting significant effort to finding it. There is no other example in nature of something like this.

Of course that is a scientist's definition of the word. There are probably hundreds of thousand more laymen in the woods than scientists, and thousands of them have "observed" bigfoot. Only in very, very recent times has there been any real scientific effort made to collect and scientifically describe these creatures, and science has generally ignored evidence gathered by laymen. Had science ignored the reports of natives of other countries about their sightings and knowledge of unusual (unclassified) animals as they have bigfoot on this continent, those animals might still be "unobserved".

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Tell that to the coelecanths and 7-gill sharks. They've been out there for millions of years when man thought they were long gone and only relatively recently been re-documented as existing.

Context context context.

Context? Here's some context for you Mulder: I live in a county from which there are multiple accounts of bigfoots in the BFRO database. In other words, I do field work all the time (like weekly) in places that are within bigfoot's range and in habitats from which bigfoots are reported. There are bigfoots reported from where Krantz lived and worked, from where Meldrum lives and works - probably from where you live and work. But none of us - you, me, Krantz, Meldrum - spend a lot of time in sea floor caves of the Indian Ocean where we might bump into a Coelacanth.

Context isn't a problem for science - it's extremely important in these discussions. Seventy-four years ago scientists had the surprise of their lives when they discovered something living that had only been known from fossils. They discovered that thing because technology had allowed us to finally access some theretofore inaccessible places. Meantime, we still haven't collected a bigfoot - although the technology to do so has existed since the invention of shovels and blunderbusses - and the danged things are supposed to be out there, with me, when I do field work. Yep, it's about context, Mulder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFSleuth

I'd qualify that though. It not just that bigfoot hasn't been observed (i.e., collected and scientifically described), it's that it hasn't been observed despite centuries of exploration and settlement in the places where it's alleged to live. It hasn't been observed despite at least 50 years of notable scientists and skilled amateurs devoting significant effort to finding it. There is no other example in nature of something like this.

This isn't one of those arguments where you say that there have been no observations because you are throwing out all the observations noted in the BFRO database, Green's database, etc. etc. is it?

I guess that would definitely qualify as the stingy (parsimonious) argument.

post-1142-0-10135700-1334857816.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

Sas - If I'm not too prying, could you describe the nature of your field work? Activities, time of day, duration, etc?

Thx!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFSleuth

One of the key questions I am raising with this thread is how do we explain that the genus homo should have all species go extinct with the exception of homo sapiens sapiens? I know this has been attempted to be explained as humans (HSS) killing off all competitor species, or that the other species somehow thrived for hundreds or millions of years but suddenly became stupid or incapable of adapting, or that a natural disaster somehow killed all other species of the genus except HSS, but none of these theories seem to be adequate.

It could be that HSS lived in some kind of equilibrium with other homo species, but with the rapid advance in our technologies, cutting of forests, etc. that other species were driven back into pockets of surviving species. This would make more sense. I could also see the other species adapting to the new HSS environment by simply melting back into areas that we couldn't control, to forests and mountains. Their adaption of behavior could also include additional precautions vis a vis HSS, especially if they have the ability of language and can teach their young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Homo species didn't just 'Become extinct', when a group of superior people came into contact with another group, the dominance of their genes, and their ability to outcompete the lesser group, led to the superior group assimilating the inferior group. It would take 10's of thousands of years in some cases.

So an example: if two populations, A & B, started to intermingle, the dominant population would slowly start mixing with the inferior group, perhaps there was no war, only passing mixture of genes as the two groups mingled through the years. Eventually all of the B's would have a little bit of A in them, and the B's would have a little bit of A in their genes. After thousands and thousands of years you have a completely distinct population that has engulfed both populations, and is at the same time starting to mix with new populations. This all happens without an Extinction Event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

Sleuth, I am with you 100% on that one. I find it hard to believe that Hss went out and killed all other hominids, or for some reason, some event occurred that wiped out all other homonids, but not us.

Makes no sense to me, especially when nearly every year, we're discovering new homonids (fossils) that we never knew existed. I think that's where human arrogance comes into play when thinking that we are the only ones left. I liken it to 'life on other planets' and how that was recently changed to 'intelligent life on other planets'

@Drew. so by the interbreeding eliminating the different species taking 10's of thousands of years, you would agree then that pockets of florensis or denisoven could indeed still be living as there are fossil records indicating that the species was intact 10,000 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×