Jump to content

A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

Guest Crowlogic

By Guest Crowlogic
in General Bigfoot Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Yes the precedent is that there are very large apes as well as bipedal non human apes in the fossil record so bigfoot is not something far out like werewolves or fairies.

southernyahoo Sasquatch

southernyahoo

Posted
Posted

 

You state that sasquatch has precedent in the fossil record. How do you figure that?

Care to expand on this?

All the bipedal apes in the hominin/ hominid record. Do you think they weren't hairy or something? Do those bones have to somehow match your hypothetical vision of BF? Technically it may not be in the fossil record, though I can't see all the bones in it, but I claimed a precedent. Denisovans were the most recent which showed a new species never seen before in the fossil record with just a tooth and a pinky bone. The shared DNA in hominins says we've always cross bred here and there, so I no longer hold out hope for the nonhuman ape hypotheses on BF, it's more likely hybridized, by looking at the evidence.

Bodhi Yowie

Bodhi

Posted
Posted

Yes the precedent is that there are very large apes as well as bipedal non human apes in the fossil record so bigfoot is not something far out like werewolves or fairies.

gotcha, thanks for clarify that. I was curious about what was meant by precedent.

norseman Sasquatch

norseman

Posted
Admin
Posted

All the bipedal apes in the hominin/ hominid record. Do you think they weren't hairy or something? Do those bones have to somehow match your hypothetical vision of BF? Technically it may not be in the fossil record, though I can't see all the bones in it, but I claimed a precedent. Denisovans were the most recent which showed a new species never seen before in the fossil record with just a tooth and a pinky bone. The shared DNA in hominins says we've always cross bred here and there, so I no longer hold out hope for the nonhuman ape hypotheses on BF, it's more likely hybridized, by looking at the evidence.

Not trying to hijack this thread but its common in nature for an adaptation to duplicate its self with like species which I see no reason bipedalism could not be one of them.

Nor is it impossible that Chimps may in the far future adopt it as well.

WSA Yeti

WSA

Posted
Posted

Me, I only see about 50 pages mostly taken up by folks not able to discern good evidence from bad. Way it goes.

Bodhi Yowie

Bodhi

Posted
Posted

Not trying to hijack this thread but its common in nature for an adaptation to duplicate its self with like species which I see no reason bipedalism could not be one of them.

Nor is it impossible that Chimps may in the far future adopt it as well.

From what I've read, true bipedalism is very rare. Being able to briefly walk on two legs is quite different from being bipedal of course.

Guest DWA

Guest DWA

Posted
Posted

Not trying to hijack this thread but its common in nature for an adaptation to duplicate its self with like species which I see no reason bipedalism could not be one of them.

Nor is it impossible that Chimps may in the far future adopt it as well.

Also, chimps and gorillas are bipedal a much greater percentage of the time than most people know.  (Never mind that gibbons are *exclusively* bipedal when on the ground.)

WSA Yeti

WSA

Posted
Posted

Let's just pause for emphasis too: Three teeth. Three.

 

Now, one could make the argument that it is only ONE tooth that separates BF from scientific acceptance (On that I have my doubts, but never mind...) Here we have a species that has co-existed with humans as far back as history is recorded AND we now have pretty good confirmation that could go back to possibly .75 million years.  And in all that time, three teeth is the SUM TOTAL of the entire fossil record for this familiar animal.

 

So, come again with the, "But we have no fossil record for Sasquatch..." Get outta here. 

BigTreeWalker Yowie

BigTreeWalker

Posted
Posted

The article also mentioned the process of fossilization which keeps coming up here in the forums.

Also interesting, 3 teeth, evidence of chimpanzees. So what does many impressions made by similar type incisors give us?

Just asking!

Guest DWA

Guest DWA

Posted
Posted

Let's just pause for emphasis too: Three teeth. Three.

 

Now, one could make the argument that it is only ONE tooth that separates BF from scientific acceptance (On that I have my doubts, but never mind...) Here we have a species that has co-existed with humans as far back as history is recorded AND we now have pretty good confirmation that could go back to possibly .75 million years.  And in all that time, three teeth is the SUM TOTAL of the entire fossil record for this familiar animal.

 

So, come again with the, "But we have no fossil record for Sasquatch..." Get outta here. 

 

The whole thing is silly.  The part about talking fossils when people are seeing something that is making footprints RIGHT FREAKING NOW! is borderline batshite but I'll leave it...

 

We have FAR MORE EVIDENCE for sasquatch than we do for MANY things we accept.  This is NOT! AN! OPINION!

Bodhi Yowie

Bodhi

Posted
Posted

Let's just pause for emphasis too: Three teeth. Three.

 

Now, one could make the argument that it is only ONE tooth that separates BF from scientific acceptance (On that I have my doubts, but never mind...) Here we have a species that has co-existed with humans as far back as history is recorded AND we now have pretty good confirmation that could go back to possibly .75 million years.  And in all that time, three teeth is the SUM TOTAL of the entire fossil record for this familiar animal.

 

So, come again with the, "But we have no fossil record for Sasquatch..." Get outta here. 

There isn't a fossil record for sasquatch WSA, sorry. Gigantopithecus blacki might be have evolved to sasquatch and developed bipedalism but I'm not aware of any bones of a sasquatch having been found anywhere. Even during the Great Pleistocene Die-Off which was a megafauna die off all over in North America, nary a single Gigantopithecus blacki bone anywhere.

So while blacki could be the progenitor of sasquatch claiming there is a solid fossil foundation for sasquatch is unsupportable.

Guest DWA

Guest DWA

Posted
Posted (edited)

There isn't a fossil record for sasquatch WSA, sorry. Gigantopithecus blacki might be have evolved to sasquatch and developed bipedalism but I'm not aware of any bones of a sasquatch having been found anywhere. Even during the Great Pleistocene Die-Off which was a megafauna die off all over in North America, nary a single Gigantopithecus blacki bone anywhere.

So while blacki could be the progenitor of sasquatch claiming there is a solid fossil foundation for sasquatch is unsupportable.

 

Which is irrelevant as crap but whutevah.  And misses WSA's point could-not-be-worse.

 

The only reason those THREE TEETH! are accepted as fossil evidence for the chimpanzee is that...I'll give the slow members of the class a year to catch up THAT'S IT! ...we had, BEFORE we found those THREE TEETH!...CHIMPANZEE SPECIMENS with which to do the comparison.

 

Which blows that entire silly point clear out of Earth orbit.

Edited by DWA
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...