Guest fenris Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 And why does it fall flat on its face? A large ape suited to a jungle/tropical existence for whatever reason suddenly changes its modus operandi, and makes an epic journey across an artic land bridge, when it had a largely plant based diet where it was, had little if any of that on the journey, somehow surives a massive change of environment and then evolves at an accelerated rate into the man monkey we know today? Using that as an explanation for sasquatch is a bit of a stretch.
Guest Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Most of the bones you would have seen have been looked over by professionals and disregarded as unimportant or invaluable. If a Sasquatch bone were to get donated to a museum, chances are somebody would stop and notice. I think the reason we haven't found Sasquatch bones is because we haven't looked for them. How many times have forests in Western North America been excavated for fossils? Furthermore, if Sasquatches were to live in caves, then their bones would likely be found in caves. Maybe it's just a matter of finding and investigating these caves, instead of disregarding them as bear dens all the time. I sincerely believe that BF has been discovered. The bone collections that I saw had to number into the millions. I was 18(?)when these occasions occurred. Has anyone here ever toured the basements of the Smithsonian, or The London Museum of Natural Science? I do remember that the bathrooms were also located near some of the storage areas in England, so some of you here may have also had a glimpse of the storage areas. What is displayed above is nothing when compared to the storage areas, and untold thousands of bones, boxes, tombs,some huge items like walls, just amazing things. I was 18-19,and not particularly interested at that time about what I was seeing, but years later I realize the importance of those articles, boxes, bones in trays being worked on,just tens of thousands of items stored, of various articles, tiny, small, large, huge, and it is all in the basement of both institutions. I truly believe that BF is somewhere in the basements of these institutions. Will we ever know if they are?
Guest Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 I think bones mistaken to be elk are actually sasquatch... I think that is an excellent idea! Hopefully if someone here runs across those type of bones(those with no horns) pick some up! It would not hurt.
Guest Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Most of the bones you would have seen have been looked over by professionals and disregarded as unimportant or invaluable. If a Sasquatch bone were to get donated to a museum, chances are somebody would stop and notice. I think the reason we haven't found Sasquatch bones is because we haven't looked for them. How many times have forests in Western North America been excavated for fossils? Furthermore, if Sasquatches were to live in caves, then their bones would likely be found in caves. Maybe it's just a matter of finding and investigating these caves, instead of disregarding them as bear dens all the time. Are there that many caves where BF could seek shelter from the weather, and actually make that a home base for them? One Destination Truth program searched a large cave where they thought that a BF could seek shelter, but I don't remember them finding anything particularly important showing that a large creature lived there. I do think that is an excellent idea about BF seeking shelter from weather in caves.Ice and snow can really create a difficult time for all wildlife to survive. One reason I believe BF has to be an omnivore is the lack of winter eatable foliage.
Guest LAL Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 A large ape suited to a jungle/tropical existence for whatever reason suddenly changes its modus operandi, and makes an epic journey across an artic land bridge, when it had a largely plant based diet where it was, had little if any of that on the journey, somehow surives a massive change of environment and then evolves at an accelerated rate into the man monkey we know today? Using that as an explanation for sasquatch is a bit of a stretch. The land bridge was 1000 miles wide at times, temperatures were milder and the forests of both Asia and NA stretched more northerly than now. There were groves of hardwoods on the land bridge. Giganto's 'tooth wear pattern is most like chimps indicating it was an eclectic omnivore. There needn't have been any "suddenly" about it, but the journey from one continent to another would have taken days. Mammoths were plant eaters and they made it. Those that didn't were feasts for scavengers. The most recent Giganto fossils are about 300,000 years old. If Giganto, or a relative, migrated circa 20,000 years ago they'd had plenty of time to adapt. The coastal areas are relatively mild. Given a covering of hair and sufficient body fat I see no reason they wouldn't have survived and thrived. They may have had predator pressure - namely Homo erectus and paleolithic hunters, ancestors of the First Nations people - or just an expanding population forcing them into another niche. I don't think it's a stretch.
Guest LAL Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Are there that many caves where BF could seek shelter from the weather, and actually make that a home base for them? One Destination Truth program searched a large cave where they thought that a BF could seek shelter, but I don't remember them finding anything particularly important showing that a large creature lived there. I do think that is an excellent idea about BF seeking shelter from weather in caves.Ice and snow can really create a difficult time for all wildlife to survive. One reason I believe BF has to be an omnivore is the lack of winter eatable foliage. Don't forget club moss and the inner bark of trees. They're available all winter. The volcanic areas of the PNW are riddled with lava tubes and there are limestone caverns in Oregon and in the Appalachians. I don't know about a home base, but temporary shelter, sure. "Cave men" didn't usually live in caves either.
Incorrigible1 Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 A large ape suited to a jungle/tropical existence for whatever reason suddenly changes its modus operandi, and makes an epic journey across an artic land bridge, when it had a largely plant based diet where it was, had little if any of that on the journey, somehow surives a massive change of environment and then evolves at an accelerated rate into the man monkey we know today? Using that as an explanation for sasquatch is a bit of a stretch. I'm not sure you fully grasp the realities of the Bering land bridge. The 1000 mile wide "bridge" was not barren of vegetation, nor was it a frozen, windswept glacial plain. Cold and arid, Beringia was clothed in the hardy grasses, herbs, dwarf birch and willows of the Mammoth Steppe. This plant life supported such extinct species as the woolly mammoth, the mastodon, the steppe bison, the giant beaver, the North American horse, and camel. Also present were large predators - the giant short-faced bear, the American lion and the scimitar cat. http://www.beringia.com/research/index.html If the bigfoot creature exists, it's unknown its evolutionary history or ancestors. Personally, I wouldn't assume its immediate forebears were necessarily "jungle/tropical" adapted.
Guest Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 The land bridge was 1000 miles wide at times, temperatures were milder and the forests of both Asia and NA stretched more northerly than now. There were groves of hardwoods on the land bridge. Giganto's 'tooth wear pattern is most like chimps indicating it was an eclectic omnivore. There needn't have been any "suddenly" about it, but the journey from one continent to another would have taken days. Mammoths were plant eaters and they made it. Those that didn't were feasts for scavengers. The most recent Giganto fossils are about 300,000 years old. If Giganto, or a relative, migrated circa 20,000 years ago they'd had plenty of time to adapt. The coastal areas are relatively mild. Given a covering of hair and sufficient body fat I see no reason they wouldn't have survived and thrived. They may have had predator pressure - namely Homo erectus and paleolithic hunters, ancestors of the First Nations people - or just an expanding population forcing them into another niche. I don't think it's a stretch. Bigfoot type creatures have been reported all around the world. They had to have originated somewhere, and moved around to lightly cover pretty much the entire earth if you look at all of the sighting reports. The first report I heard was about the Yettie, and the news had the pictures of the footprints found in the snow. Back then I did not believe,and had no explanation for what those prints could be. Today I sorta' do believe..
Guest Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) A large ape suited to a jungle/tropical existence for whatever reason suddenly changes its modus operandi, and makes an epic journey across an artic land bridge, when it had a largely plant based diet where it was, had little if any of that on the journey, somehow surives a massive change of environment and then evolves at an accelerated rate into the man monkey we know today? Using that as an explanation for sasquatch is a bit of a stretch. It wasn't icy cold then though, it was much more temperate than a lot of people understand, with significant sources of plant foods. It also wasn't as much of a land "bridge" as a continuation of both environments. It wasn't a massive change of environment then at all. It's more reasonable to think a hair covered primate made it than "humans". edited to add: sorry, I guess I didn't read far enough...what I said has been explained. Edited February 19, 2011 by Ace
Guest LAL Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 It wasn't icy cold then though, it was much more temperate than a lot of people understand, with significant sources of plant foods. It also wasn't as much of a land "bridge" as a continuation of both environments. It wasn't a massive change of environment then at all. It's more reasonable to think a hair covered primate made it than "humans". Humans did make it.
Guest ajciani Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 'ajciani'said: I also hesitate to include this, but the Searching for Bigfoot people claim to have a giant hominoid fingernail that was found in a possible bedding site. I have no idea how authentic their claim is, or if they tested it. Susi thinks: I'm not put off by those type of TV shows having something analyzed. Destination Truth had possible blond Yettie hairs analyzed, and the result was unknown Humanoid species. Dr. Ketchum(sp?) did the analysis from her genetic laboratory. Susi, Perhaps you were unaware, but Searching for Bigfoot is not a TV show. It is a bigfoot research group connected to Bis..... Bisc.... Bi...... and Ku... Ku... Hmm. I seem to be having trouble typing their names. Also, the Rugg Tooth and Ketchum's work on it have never appeared in anything but presentations of the Bigfoot Discovery Museum.
Guest Sallaranda Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Humans did make it. Exactly. Therefore it's equally likely that Bigfoot did too.
Guest LAL Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Exactly. Therefore it's equally likely that Bigfoot did too. Homo georgicus upset the idea that it was necessary to have a sophisticated toolkit and the use of fire in order to make it out of Africa. They weren't out to discover new lands, they were just making a living farther north. We know Gigantopithecus was a widespread species; we don't really know how widespread. Without porcupines we wouldn't know much about them at all.
Guest Sallaranda Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Homo georgicus upset the idea that it was necessary to have a sophisticated toolkit and the use of fire in order to make it out of Africa. They weren't out to discover new lands, they were just making a living farther north. We know Gigantopithecus was a widespread species; we don't really know how widespread. Without porcupines we wouldn't know much about them at all. and that's what this whole debate comes down to. Incomplete fossil records and inability to know for certain how things have evolved for the past million years.
Guest Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Humans did make it. Just because Green said so doesn't make it any truer than seeing it on Monsterquest. Really, though, that's my point. Any land bridge there was was more of an extension of eco-systems not traveled through for the sake of moving along, but just an extension of where animals would otherwise be. So if people made it, other things probably did too.
Recommended Posts