Branco Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 If you ever have the opportunity of seeeing one of these animals in the flesh, you question will be answered. Not human Could you describe in detail what they do look like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 24, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted June 24, 2012 The dooligah, junjadee, Giant Quinkin and australopithecines have been described over on the AYR forum . Guess the question is with all those which one is the real Yowie Branco? Seems they have several types too don't they? Not to hijack the thread but I feel the differentiation in Australia may be a signpost of the differentiation that possibly could occur in North America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Well I'll be darned! Sounds like you are right. That video clip in which the man was talking about his and a friend's encounter sure rang a bell. When he described that very loud, and long, uninterrupted (40 seconds or more) screaming sound, I had a "flash-back". There ain't no critter, including man, out there that can do that except the real Bigfoot. (One of those they described sure does come close to matching the Skunk/Swamp Ape from here in the south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Maybe we could ask, "Are we hairless Bigfoot?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Branco, bp, et al I think that the concept that we are looking for a singular species of hairy hominid or ape is likely incorrect. It is far more likely that we are looking at a variety of species, big and small, worldwide. I base this on Sanderson, Bayanov, Meldrum, and the fact that there seems to be variance in the description of the hairy bipedal figures in the woods and swamps of North America, South America, Asia, and Australia (not to mention Indonesia and Africa). It would surprise me if genus homo only had one remaining species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kronprinz Adam Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Branco, bp, et al I think that the concept that we are looking for a singular species of hairy hominid or ape is likely incorrect. It is far more likely that we are looking at a variety of species, big and small, worldwide. I base this on Sanderson, Bayanov, Meldrum, and the fact that there seems to be variance in the description of the hairy bipedal figures in the woods and swamps of North America, South America, Asia, and Australia (not to mention Indonesia and Africa). It would surprise me if genus homo only had one remaining species. Dear Bfsleuth.. I personally find the tropical species worldwide (Orang Pendek, Kapre [Philippines], Nguoi Rung, Sisimite, and so on) very intriguing...what are they? Are they more apelike than the others? Why you hear the same mysterious legend of the apemen of "backward feet" from Himalayas to Southeast Asia, from Central America to Patagonia.??? It is possible that some relict apemen creatures survived isolated in some specific forests until historical times? For sure Asia was an excellent evolutive environment for apemen and orangutan-like apes...but, if some of them survived, how did they arrive to the Americas? Did Bigfoot and Skunk Apes were also present in Mexico and Central America, but did not survived the expansion of human population and agriculture, but remained in local legends? Best regards. K. Adam. Everyone seems quick to say that NO, sas is not human. But what about the reports and witnesses who say they couldn't shoot the thing because what they saw looked like a furry man? Not an ape. They probably look hominoid..like cavemen, but large, muscular and very hairy....probably they are also intelligent and sentient!!! I agree and in my humble opinion it's a species of Australopithicus. Here's a link, just follow the trail...... Meganthropus I also find this "robust australophitecine" theory very interesting!!! I personally suspect that Bigfoot split from an unknown apemen branch at the same time than australophitecines, but I also would like to know if it is simply an oversized australophitecus or a similar species... According to fossil records, mammals may present dramatic size variations.....at the time of the Megafauna, beavers and armadillos were huge...and there are also evidence of small elephants in islands... I have also read some information about Meganthropus....some reports state they were "big", but it is not specified "how big". It seems there are some teeth, jaws and crushed skulls...some scientist think they are some kind of asiatic robust australophitecine, some others think it is an early (and atypical) Homo erectus...so it remains a mystery!!! I also think that,Asia was also important on the evolution of apes and apemen, but I think more fossils have to be discovered in the future to prove this theory. I would like to mention another asian large ape, "Sivaphitecus parvada". I found some information in Wikipedia that this seems to be an ancestral orangutan...other Sivaphitecus were not so large, but this "parvada" species was particularly large. But I haven't found some size estimation.... Best regards. K. Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Branco, bp, et al I think that the concept that we are looking for a singular species of hairy hominid or ape is likely incorrect. It is far more likely that we are looking at a variety of species, big and small, worldwide. I base this on Sanderson, Bayanov, Meldrum, and the fact that there seems to be variance in the description of the hairy bipedal figures in the woods and swamps of North America, South America, Asia, and Australia (not to mention Indonesia and Africa). It would surprise me if genus homo only had one remaining species. Yes sir, That's exactly what I have been saying and writing for about 25 years. I base that on field work in 15 southeastern states. Different sizes, body shapes, hair type and color, grossly different tracks, different atitudes towards humans, very different vocalizations, with only the Big Reds having a true language as far I know. The Reds are by far the most human-like and intelligent, and show human emotions, including compassion, in many types of situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kronprinz Adam Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Yes sir, That's exactly what I have been saying and writing for about 25 years. I base that on field work in 15 southeastern states. Different sizes, body shapes, hair type and color, grossly different tracks, different atitudes towards humans, very different vocalizations, with only the Big Reds having a true language as far I know. The Reds are by far the most human-like and intelligent, and show human emotions, including compassion, in many types of situations. Dear Branco. I also have read these posts of "black" and "red" Bigfoot creatures...(and I think you wrote a couple of them)...the "blacks" being more territorial and apelike, and the "reds" being more "humanlike"...very intesting observations!!! Does "Skunk apes" fit on any of these groups? Best regards. K. Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Maybe we could ask, "Are we hairless Bigfoot?" lol, nice one indiefoot! +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) You don't have to go to arguments based on behaviour to determine if BF is human (meaning genus Homo) or not. Whether they have a saggital crest or not doesn't really signify either because previous forms of human DID have them...they simply are a place for really huge chewing muscles to anchor on in a very large skull. The presence of a mid-tarsal break isn't very meaningful either to go by as we have classified previous homo species with no knowledge of whether they had it or not, and indeed it could simply be an adaptation to a very large bipedal creature becoming more flat-footed in a montane environment where they have to travel quickly up and down mountains. But going from previous forms of humans, what we do know is that no previous non-human primate has a foot with toes so close together as us...and BF. Also there is no other form of primate which has such a high, large cranium as us...and bigfoot, at least according to sighting reports. Look at how flat the top of the head is in australopithecines and other non-homo great apes. Even little Homo habilis and Homo floresiensis had more inside their heads, and there is possible tool use in digs where they are found which further supports the argument that these tiny creatures were really humans. Ultimately though the answer will not come until we can examine both the bones and the behaviour of sasquatches in more detail. Until then all is simply speculation. My guess is that if they exist then they are a form of non-tool using Asian Homo erectus which has become larger and more adapted to cold, Northern forested areas. I think that anything that has the word Homo in front of it is human, but not human by most people's standards as in Homo sapiens sapiens. If it turns out that they have language then the potential is certainly there. Edited June 25, 2012 by vilnoori 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Brilliant thinking, vilnoori! Bigfoot's foot looks almost identical to human feet but bigger. No other apes have feet so similar to us, not even our closest relatives, the chimpanzees or bonobos. Just another reason to believe that BF may be a hairier type of human +1 for your thought-provoking post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Is BF a hairy human being?.......... Nope, I certainly do not think they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 The "Red" ones have language? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tirademan Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 No. tirademan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Dear Branco. I also have read these posts of "black" and "red" Bigfoot creatures...(and I think you wrote a couple of them)...the "blacks" being more territorial and apelike, and the "reds" being more "humanlike"...very intesting observations!!! Does "Skunk apes" fit on any of these groups? Best regards. K. Adam. In my opinion, the original Bigoot animals were divided into three distinct "races" in the distant past. Their widely spaced places of origin produced the variations in their appearances, habits and traits. Like humans, all three types migrated to this and other countries. And, like humans their "races" interbred, leading to even further variations in the offspring. I have no clue as to how or where th Swamp/Skunk originated, but suspect it was in South America. No. tirademan Sorry; they do. Seeing them and hearing them do it is proof enough for me and others. (How did you determine with the same certainty that they have no language?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts