norseman Posted May 30, 2017 Admin Share Posted May 30, 2017 Except for the 8 ft tall, 800 lbs frame and the size 29 foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 On 5/28/2017 at 9:47 PM, wiiawiwb said: I don't think it Giganto at all. I think it is some very close offshoot of humans. The encounter reports don't make me think that. But of course the fossil record that might clear this up is pretty much lacking. (And I certainly wouldn't hold my breath to find it; the geologic history of the NA continent tells you why.) I don't know where this will end up on the primate family tree. But... 21 hours ago, starchunk said: That would make more sense. Giganto is an attempt to reshape a puzzle piece to make it fit the piece that is missing in my opinion. ...I tend to feel this way about it. It's another instance of using the fossil record to explain something people are seeing now, a more enlightened way, mind you, than the one the scoftics use, but still. I'd place a significant bet on sasquatch lineage being something we don't have - and may never have - a bone record for, again, NA geology being my backing evidence. But I think the robust australopithecines morphologically plausible; and the most obvious reason we don't have robust australopithecine fossils from Asia or NA is...nobody's looked. In terms of what people are seeing, and what people with scientific chops have speculated from that, I don't think "close offshoot of humans" is making more sense. Not saying it totally isn't on the table. But not where I'd put my main money. 11 hours ago, norseman said: Except for the 8 ft tall, 800 lbs frame and the size 29 foot. ...Which, ya know, kinda keeps Giganto in the running. Plus, jaw and teeth are all we have for Giganto, which is kinda, not much for this discussion except, right place, right time. And again, with fossils, what we have is what we have, not what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 And when I mention NA geology, here's a post with a good take on what I am talking about: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 On 5/30/2017 at 11:47 AM, DWA said: The encounter reports don't make me think that. But of course the fossil record that might clear this up is pretty much lacking. (And I certainly wouldn't hold my breath to find it; the geologic history of the NA continent tells you why.) I don't know where this will end up on the primate family tree. But... What about the encounters? Please elucidate. Giganto was nothing more than a dumb monkey. Do dumb monkeys silently approach a human camp and throw stones while purposely miss injuring humans? Do dumb monkeys wood knock in response to humans? Are dumb monkeys mindful to leave as little footprint evidence as possible when they locomote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I don't think we know near enough what Giganto was to speculate on its behaviors (and "dumb monkey" might fall well short). The encounter reports make me think, hominid primate, with ape quite plausible, whether it winds up being that way taxonomically or not. Shoot, *mountain lions" are mindful to minimize footprint evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts