The Shape Of A Face

[WSA]

I do think it is what the evidence is telling us, or at the least, a "neither-fish-nor-foul" animal.  This is what we all hang around to find out, right?

 

I must say DWA, that recent sighting report in Texas of the apparent deer kill that included a possible crude stone hand blade/flake in situ was really something to ponder.  That alone doesn't "say" one or the other, but it sure broadens the possibilities, if true.  Yes, apes use tools, but butchering? Order of magnitude greater, in my book. (Makes me wonder though why there would be a need for it, unless we have evidence of BF in need of dentures, possibly?)

 

Biological taxonomy is all well and good, yes. Got to have it.  Still, it is very possible this critter's behavior, when confirmed, might stretch our understanding of what it means to be "human" and "ape." l

[Guest DWA]

You'd think the sheer curiosity would be moving the mainstream a lot more than it is.  But we find once again that the run of scientists have a hard time expanding The World According to Canon.

 

I'd be particularly interested if Meldrum's speculation of possible robust-australopithecine ancestry becomes a prominent possibility.  Of course, they "can't be!" in NA...because we only have fossils from Africa.  Well, yeah.  But fossils, again, ain't animals.  And if the speculation is true that we only have evidence for 5% (five percent) of all the primates that have ever lived...

 

This provides not only an artist's conception of the putative suspect, but also - for the astute - some hints why it might not be such a remote possibility:

 

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-paranthropus-boisei-tiger-nut-diet-01680.html

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

...I'm prepared for a branch separate from both the great apes and us, possibly extending an "extinct" line into the present.

If the Hairy One exists then that seems to be the most likely. Not Human, Not Ape, not a hybrid. Something else genetically similar, but not belonging to, either Human or Ape. A completely separate branch with facial features that run the gamut from Humans to Apes. Kind of makes one ask who got what from whom. So......Is Sasquatch then a the actual left over from the supposed common ancestor? IS it the common ancestor! Still alive and kicking?

[Guest]

Hello DWA,

...I'm prepared for a branch separate from both the great apes and us, possibly extending an "extinct" line into the present.

If the Hairy One exists then that seems to be the most likely. Not Human, Not Ape, not a hybrid. Something else genetically similar, but not belonging to, either Human or Ape. A completely separate branch with facial features that run the gamut from Humans to Apes. Kind of makes one ask who got what from whom. So......Is Sasquatch then a the actual left over from the supposed common ancestor? IS it the common ancestor! Still alive and kicking?

That's very interesting. I've read online....not sure where that the reason for the cover up is that it would completely change the idea of humans all together. Who knows.

[hiflier]

Hello Hx22826,

I would imagine it could cause a very slight shift in the paradigm.....YA THINK?

[Guest DWA]

The very least it is gonna do is start a scramble to search for fossils in a bunch of places people just aren't looking right now.  Fossil hunters tend to hunt in places they are gonna find something; and right now no one is looking for fossil primates in NA.

 

The facial features observed don't seem to point the search in a direction; but study of a specimen close up may change that.  I'm not ready to postulate "human/hybrid/close relative" just based on eyewitness descriptions of faces.  But a bunch of scientists looking at the same thing is a game changer.

Edited September 1, 2015 by DWA

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The best and possibly only way to settle once and for all what Bigfoot is, is to obtain a specimen so that DNA analysis can be done. No one will reject the DNA if it's retrieved straight from an available specimen. 

[hiflier]

Hello OntarioSquatch.

True enough! It why I keep thinking of the different ways in which one could possibly die and a body be found. Death by winter, death by fire....name it. All it takes is looking for it which takes a lot of time and work. But people have found things quite easily and unexpectedly too. The field is where it will happen if there's any chance that it exists.

[Guest DWA]

Hello DWA,

 

...I'm prepared for a branch separate from both the great apes and us, possibly extending an "extinct" line into the present.

If the Hairy One exists then that seems to be the most likely. Not Human, Not Ape, not a hybrid. Something else genetically similar, but not belonging to, either Human or Ape. A completely separate branch with facial features that run the gamut from Humans to Apes. Kind of makes one ask who got what from whom. So......Is Sasquatch then a the actual left over from the supposed common ancestor? IS it the common ancestor! Still alive and kicking?

 

I am thinking (and shoot it is all a guess at this point) that the common ancestor of both us and them probably lived in either Africa or Asia, if I had to bet, the latter.

 

If one views the "migration" across the Bering land bridge that likely brought both of us to NA as what it actually was - a gradual, long-term range expansion - it's easier to see that it's something that just happened, no necessary connection between their movement and ours, other than, of course, following the food.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

Yep makes sense if it's an extant species that survived in it's lineage. We of course OBVIOUSLY did. One of the things too in my perusals was than some scientists are of the opinion that the separation of Homo from Pan (apes) took place over several million years and that during that time inter-species mingling, and therefore the production hybid offspring, was a dynamic that went back and forth regularly so much so that a well defined line for each is very much a complicated affair. The process of speciation therefore is a complex one that eventually resulted in the two lines finally making the break from each other.

With regard to the Sasquatch then those that think it a currently extant species the two lines would be three lines that went on to the present day. If true then it means that there would now actually be four hominid groups: Old World primates, New World primates, Humans, and.....the Hairy One. The only one so far without a fossil; except for possibly that missing tooth from the Bigfoot Discovery Museum in Santa Cruz. I've not heard any news on it's recovery yet either nor whether Dr. Brian Sykes finally returned the pulp sample that was sent to him.

[WSA]

One thing we know to be true, across all known time, is any organism will shtup  any another, if it be even remotely physically possible. Resulting offspring are not a prerequisite for that either, but life always finds a way. 

[Guest WesT]

True that WSA. Nothing is sacred when it comes to the call of the hormones. As we all know now, the human race is the product of hybridization events that happened in the past. I've always thought Paranthropus Boise, or a hybrid therof, is a good candidate.

Edited September 1, 2015 by WesT

[Guest DWA]

Never discount a primate specialist seeing morphological similarities, sez me.  The fossils can wait 'til we find 'em; I find the robust australopithecines right up there with Giganto among potential candidates we know about, particularly as the latter seems to have been much more "ape" than "something else."  (And while we are on faces:  given the paucity of remains for Giganto, I suppose it is possible that our takes on its possible appearance might reflect scientists' biases.  So I could be as easily wrong as right there, too.)

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

You are right in that there is at least some bias in the perception of what Gigantopithucus may have looked like. And there are a lot of other disciplines involved in the renderings that we see. Factors like competition for the Giant Panda at the time, the morphology of the teeth, the massiveness of the lower jaw, the types of abundant forage, the introduction of Homo into the area also competing for food and space while defending it's own survival.

The facial reconstruction by Dr. Grover Krantz took a lot of these factors into consideration. And we now know a lot more about the flora and other environmental factors during the period as well. All in all I think it pares down the choices for what the creature may have looked like. If it turns out way different I would be surprised, biases notwithstanding.

[Branco]

Based on the descriptions of the BF seen by several hundred witnesses I have interviewed in the Southeastern states, - and my one and only really clear view of a "teenage" one in 2010 - I firmly believe there are as many differences in the faces of individual BF as there are in the faces of individual Homo sapiens. I am also convinced that the hair, body sizes and shapes of BF vary as much or more than that of Homo sapiens from various countries around the world.

 

Just as forensic hair experts classify human hair into three basic types (some scientists say four), with some variations when the hair in question is from the offspring of an interracial couple, BF can be classified by their hair in one of  three  "races". 

 

One of the most interesting things that I have learned from the field work I have done is that the largest of the BF races - with hair nearly matching that of a Caucasian human, has a larger and more powerful body, much heavier jaws and associated muscles, which give the lower part of the face/head a square appearance. Witnesses invariable say the mouth line is wide with very little of the lips showing. This "race" of BF is the one that most often hunts, stalks, and kills large animals for food, and the one most apt to prowl around human shelters or home sites in the wee hours of the night. .

 

In contrast, another type of BF is not as tall or as muscled and lacks the heavy jaws and square chin, has long black hair and nearly invariably forages along and in large creeks and rivers. In many areas of the South they are called "Water Apes" by those area residents who have seen them on more that one occasion. Reportedly these animals typically subsists on aquatic creatures. They have also developed an appetite for field corn in the "roasting ear" stage, and typically pull up a large batch of the stalks when the "ears" are in that stage and carry the stalks to a nearby river, creek or bayou to be eaten at there leisure. Reportedly these animals are very passive and seldom vocalize.

 

Another "race" of BF is often described by witnesses but to describe it in detail might be offensive to some in these days of "political correctness".

 

Bottom line; Bigfoot has many faces.  

Edited September 1, 2015 by Branco