The Family Tree - Different Species Of Bigfoot? Or... Maybe Not? (Theory/opinion)

[Night Walker]

Night walker,

Have you considered the idea that if the Squatch crawled into the wallow to get the fruit? That it may have crawled out as well?

Is that not a perfectly logical explanation without introducing wings into the equation?

Also, there is a skookum cast thread somewhere I think this discussion would be better served there.

 

Elk prints evident at site. Body imprint lines up well with that of an elk at rest. No hand/knuckle prints. No knee prints.

 

(Admin can move it to appropriate thread if needed.)

[Night Walker]

Really.

Although I can't resist pointing out two very funny things. Look at two lines from the elk to the cast: the third and sixth from the left.

As to the third: HOW did the elk's RIGHT SIDE get into the cast if the elk was lying as depicted?

 

The elk in the video is lying slightly on it's right side (and used its right rear leg to leap) whereas the elk in the Skookum imprint is lying slightly on its left side (see Elk at rest compared to Skookum cast above) - its right side is not on the ground nor does it show up in the Skookum imprint. When lying on its left side still has its right rear leg on the ground (hence the similar imprint) as does the image of the Elk resting on its side (above) when flipped horizontally to match the pose of the Skookum elk:

 

[Guest]

I'll respond to both of those statements.  Yowie's didn't need tidal waves which would have likely killed them to get to Australia, as I just responded to DWA ocean levels were low enough during some ice ages to cause land bridges to Australia.

 

On the second statement, I believe sasquatches are likely hominids and are not a splinter away from lemurs.  They could not be on a branch from lemurs and also be on the branch that homo sapiens derived from.

Well if it's so easy, why does Australia have no elephants or tigers? Only Homo sapiens has yielded evidence of boating. No other hominid has shown this. Swimming that gulf is too much for most land animals. Rafting on trees downed in storms and tidal waves is a known action. Animals have rafted to new homes holding on to trees that have crossed huge distances. Humans have been rescued from floods, tidal waves and hurricanes while they held on to trees and other flotsam. These are known events and as such are more likely than events never recorded like swimming the huge distance or inventing boating when there is no evidence the species possessed it.

 

There were no land bridges between Australia and Asia.

 

As for lemurs in NA. I only posed that as a possibility not a probability. I try to look at as a many possibilities as I can. I feel I am open minded enough to look at any possibility and look critically at my own. Many others are too closed minded to consider other options. Convergent evolution is another known quantity and so is not impossible or even improbable. One would expect some fossils to have been left over the 50 million years or so since the lemur last left one.

[Guest]

Maybe...maybe not.  But the evidence can't be discounted because things we don't know about something we haven't attempted to identify just make us go, no way.

 

All those witnesses being wrong is pretty durned no-way, too.  No way I'll believe it until it's proven to me.  You can't debunk reports from an armchair.

 

Um, how do birds migrate to the same pond every year?  Monarch butterflies to the same tree?  They can't see it from where they start.

 

The starting point is to address the evidence saying something's there, not to cook up things in your head that give you warmfuzzy that you're right to just sleep on this.

Birds and monarch butterflies are using instincts that have been honed over thousands or millions of generations. Their ancestors had contact with both endpoints before they became placed where they are now. Monarch butterflies likely evolved in Mexico and then gradually future generations spread farther and farther from their origin. Birds likely have something similar in their background. Birds predate the breakup of the continents into the arrangement we have now. What may once have been a relatively short trip became a monstrous journey over generations of minute changes. Humans and other apes would not have this migration instinct to drive them over an empty horizon much less in search of a land they don't know is there. Aborigenes probably discovered New Guinea first by boating around hunting big fish. As they went further south they found a new landmass and eventually made settlements there. Very different from what a bigfoot or other ape might do.

[Guest]

Dr Jane Goodall is the most notable IMO, but there are others. Chris B.

No Dr. Goodall does not actively assert that bigfoot exists but has stated that she thinks it is possible they exist.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

No Dr. Goodall does not actively assert that bigfoot exists but has stated that she thinks it is possible they exist.

http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2009/10/jane-goodall-bigfoot-im-sure-that-they.html

 

Yes she does, Dr Goodall was quoted: "I'm sure they exist."  Straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.  So, Dr Jane Goodall does now actively assert these creatures do indeed exist.

Chris B.

Edited December 4, 2014 by ChrisBFRPKY

[Guest thermalman]

Everything in that cast is easily explainable by Occam. A WELL KNOWN PRIMATOLOGIST, A BIGFOOT SKEPTIC BEFORE HE SAW THIS CAST, SEES AN ACHILLES TENDON! RIGHT! IN! THE! CAST!

Occam was not there! For a proclaimed primatologist to miss the fact of NO bipedal tracks in the soft mud, doesn't bode well for his credentials. What do your sources tell you the results of all the hair samples tested out to be? BF, elk or something completely different?

[Guest]

http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2009/10/jane-goodall-bigfoot-im-sure-that-they.html

 

Yes she does, Dr Goodall was quoted: "I'm sure they exist."  Straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.  So, Dr Jane Goodall does now actively assert these creatures do indeed exist.

Chris B.

 

 Yes and she has since then been persuaded by her peers to lessen her stance so that is probably why she hasn't been more outspoken on the subject after she made those comments. She was due to appear at a bigfoot symposium in 2003 but peer pressure forced her to pull out. I'm sure she's still convinced privately.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Neanderfoot, 

 

I think the difference is that Dr Jane Goodall is not seeking headlines. As with many, she's not interested in grabbing attention of the public and moreover concerned about her work in education both past and present.

 

In other words, she's already completed more research on Chimpanzees than most could dream of doing with a subject in the span of their entire careers. Wonderful lady and one I very much admire for her past work with Chimps as well as her vocal opposition to their mistreatment in research labs.

Chris B. 

[Guest]

http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2009/10/jane-goodall-bigfoot-im-sure-that-they.html

 

Yes she does, Dr Goodall was quoted: "I'm sure they exist."  Straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.  So, Dr Jane Goodall does now actively assert these creatures do indeed exist.

Chris B

She says she is sure they exist. This is her personal hope but she does not categorically claim they exist. She would not do that without actual physical evidence. One says "I am sure" when they cannot prove it. It is like claiming faith or belief. Not the same thing as knowledge. There is a difference between "I am sure they exist" and "they do exist."

 Yes and she has since then been persuaded by her peers to lessen her stance so that is probably why she hasn't been more outspoken on the subject after she made those comments. She was due to appear at a bigfoot symposium in 2003 but peer pressure forced her to pull out. I'm sure she's still convinced privately.

I seriously doubt that Dr. Goodall would bow to peer pressure. She would take heed of the scientific process however. One of the reasons I still think bigfoot has a chance of being real is because she thinks they could be real. I don't see her stance as softer at all really but pretty much the same.

and ChrisBFRPKY re post 129 : agreed.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

antfoot, 

 

At no time have I suggested Dr Goodall held any physical evidence for proof of existence of Bigfoot. She's simply on board with those other few in the scientific community who share the same opinion that these are biological living creatures.

 

Of course this is just opinion without definite proof of existence. Everyone has an opinion it's true, but some may outweigh others.  

Chris B.

[Night Walker]

http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2009/10/jane-goodall-bigfoot-im-sure-that-they.html

 

Yes she does, Dr Goodall was quoted: "I'm sure they exist."  Straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.  So, Dr Jane Goodall does now actively assert these creatures do indeed exist.

Chris B.

 

Goodall also went on to say "Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist." (Chuckles) and "Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."

 

She's simply on board with those other few in the scientific community who share the same opinion that these are biological living creatures.

 

She's certainly on board with those other few in the scientific community that wants Bigfoot to exist as well as being on board with the vast majority of the scientific community that acknowledges the complete lack of objective biological evidence - ie that Bigfoot in all probability does not exist. A lot of us who are interested in the subject feel the same (like me for one)...

 

Go Goodall! Tell it like it is!

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

I really like these parts of the interview, the edited version of them above is too edited.... for some reason.  Chris B.

 

"Dr. Goodall: Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist.

Ira Flatow: You are?

Dr. Goodall: Yeah. I've talked to so many Native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them. I've probably got about, oh, thirty books that have come from different parts of the world, from China from, from all over the place, and there was a little tiny snippet in the newspaper just last week which says that British scientists have found what they believed to be a yeti hair and that the scientists in the Natural History Museum in London couldn't identify it as any known animal.

Ira Flatow: Wow.

Dr. Goodall: That was just a wee bit in the newspaper and, obviously, we have to hear a little bit more about that.

Ira Flatow: Well, in this age of DNA, if you find a hair there might be some cells on it.

Dr. Goodall: Well, there will be and I'm sure that's what they've examined and they don't match up. That's what my little tiny snippet says. They don't match up with DNA cells from known animals, so -- apes.

Ira Flatow: Did you always have this belief that there., that they, that they existed?

Dr. Goodall: Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist. (Chuckles.)"

[Guest]

 

I seriously doubt that Dr. Goodall would bow to peer pressure. She would take heed of the scientific process however. One of the reasons I still think bigfoot has a chance of being real is because she thinks they could be real. I don't see her stance as softer at all really but pretty much the same.

 

 

But that's exactly what she DID do. She was already booked to speak at the 2003 Bigfoot Symposium in Willow Creek but pulled out at the last minute. She obviously got cold feet due to peer pressure. This is evident. Since then she has said next to nothing on the subject. I don't blame her as it's tough thing for somebody with her reputation coming out in support of bigfoot. 

[Guest]

I really like these parts of the interview, the edited version of them above is too edited.... for some reason.  Chris B.

 

 

 I know the reason why the post cherry picked and edited the conversation.

 

This is very very interesting "I'm sure they exist...I've talked to so many Native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them!"

 

Far more important than that last cherry picked part.