Extinct Giant Ape Depended Upon Forest Food

[TD-40]

Gigo and Sasquatch may not be the same animal but they are probably from the same species or sub-species of some type, like coyotes and wolves are not the same animals but both are canines.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Oddly I live there. Some animals around from that era as well, mostly giant insects I've seen. Pre Sasquatch era BTW.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The only reason this species was linked with bigfoot was because they are both giants, 

 

That's true and it's a huge error that people are making. 

[CaveMan]

I've always believed that Bigfoot, the North American ape doesn't eat deer. Maybe it has eaten a deer in an opportunistic nature, but I doubt that it's a main part of their diet. If they relied on deer as a food source they would be easily trackable and found by now.

[BigTreeWalker]

Seems they eat elk though.

[MIB]

I've always believed that Bigfoot, the North American ape doesn't eat deer. Maybe it has eaten a deer in an opportunistic nature, but I doubt that it's a main part of their diet. If they relied on deer as a food source they would be easily trackable and found by now.

 

I'm curious how you came up with all this.

 

1. The report evidence refutes your belief.  

2. What leads you to think they're any more an ape than you are?

3. How would eating deer make them easily trackable?  

 

MIB

[Cotter]

Regarding the deer, and the opportunistic behavior of wild animals.  I would think that if BF are in your area (and they eat deer), there would either be a) no dead deer along roadsides or sightings/evidence of BF hauling off dead deer.

That said, there was an interesting encounter with 'something' in my state by a worker picking up road kill, as well as an encounter around my current area years ago of a mailman spotting a BF carrying off a goat.

 

Part of me always thinks - road kill?  No BF.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

So the presence of any road kill rules out the idea of an omnivore?

 

If Sasquatch are omnivores, then all road killed animals are guaranteed to be carried away by them?

[BigTreeWalker]

Probably depends on how fresh the road kill is.

There are so many road killed mule deer in Okanogan County WA that it would take a very large population of bigfoot to carry them all off.

[FarArcher]

This is in line with my suspicion that Gigantopithecus and bigfoot are not the same animals. I have always entertained the possibility, but have had this nagging thought that Gigantopithecus, despite its size, did not align with bigfoot. There was no real logical reason for this belief, just a feeling. If the two are one in the same, what are the possibilities? It would mean that either the eyewitness reports of sasquatch as a carnivore are wrong, or this scientific claim of a strictly vegetarian diet are incorrect. The only other possibility that I see is that the animals have evolved or adapted, expanding their diet through genetic variation or through necessity. The question would be whether enough time has passed for such adaptation or evolution to have occurred. Maybe, maybe not. The simpler explanation, the one that has the least contradictions, is that the two are not the same animal. I think it is plausible that no bigfoot fossils or remains have been found, while those of now extinct primates have been discovered, because of the environment. I don't think there is any large effort to unearth extant primate remains in environments that bigfoot would call home. There is some overlap I suppose, such as caves and whatnot, but the best locations for preservation of fossils and remains tend to be different from what we believe to be typical sasquatch habitat. I wonder if we do have bigfoot bones that have not been identified as such, but that the animal they originated from was not of a large stature. Instead they perhaps came from a smaller animal, thus we have no way to link the bones with bigfoot. Because let's face it, entire species of primates are classified based on a single bone. Might one of those be from sasquatch? Is Gigantopithecus truly out of the running? The only reason this species was linked with bigfoot was because they are both giants, but remembering that not all bigfoot are giant in stature, is it possible that it is an error to exclude other possibilities? I don't really know, but remember that very few bones from extinct primates actually exist. Very few in fact, so it is not that improbable that bigfoot bones have yet to be discovered.

 

I NEVER, ever, thought the boogs had anything to do with this Gigantopithicus. 

 

Let's see.  We have a few teeth and somewhere a partial jawbone.  2.5 million years old.

 

You'll note that "science" has reconstructed an entire Gigan.  Based off - dang near nothing. 

 

But now, now we're led to believe they can discern a diet from a tooth isotope or few, from 2,500,000 years ago.  Never mind that isotopes are not always consistent and can sometimes be altered by environment and surrounding matrix - especially over millennia.

 

I'm supposed to believe this baloney, but at the same time, they say this Bigfoot doesn't exist.

 

A world upside down.

[Guest DWA]

Cool.  Given that it is likely that Gigantopithecus isn't even in the sasquatch/yeti lineage, that's all it is.

 

One could certainly take your tack, FarArcher.  It's funny bordering on absurd that copious consistent evidence - including forensic evidence! - is casually dismissed by people running divining rods, chanting incantations, and performing alchemy all over the place to assert, boldly, what evidence?

Edited January 21, 2016 by DWA

[FarArcher]

Cool.  Given that it is likely that Gigantopithecus isn't even in the sasquatch/yeti lineage, that's all it is.

 

One could certainly take your tack, FarArcher.  It's funny bordering on absurd that copious consistent evidence - including forensic evidence! - is casually dismissed by people running divining rods, chanting incantations, and performing alchemy all over the place to assert, boldly, what evidence?

 

I NEVER thought for a moment that this Gigantopithecus was related to a bigfoot. 

 

If you suggest that I don't have much faith in what is often termed "copious consistent evidence - including forensic evidence" then you're absolutely correct.  

 

I have actual scientific problems with the assumptions made over loose teeth and a but of lower jaws - and for the life of me - based on those teeth - I can't figure out how they determined the G was bipedal. 

 

The testing?  Nuclear spectral analysis?

 

Give me a .999 silver one ounce ingot, mark it that it will prove it's yours, loan it to me, I'll hand it back with every appearance as you handed it to me, and you have it analyzed.  It won't show up as silver.  In fact - it won't show up as anything.  Send it to the Materials lab at Wright Patterson - it's silver - but it won't test silver.  XPS, XDS, XAS, XRF, STS, - or any one of fifty other testing methods.  But if you melt it, it shows up again as pure silver.

 

Oh.  Would that be considered alchemy?  A known metal, then an unknown metal, then back to a known metal?  Got some thorium?  Give it to me for three minutes, I'll return it just like I got it, and it won't be radioactive any more.  But it's thorium!  Not exactly.  Thorium is radioactive.  It will also be untestable - except for the lack of radioactivity.

 

So they got a test?  And results?  Was the tooth tested in a closed or open system?  What matrix composition was it found in, and exactly where?  They won't be able to tell you 99% of the time.  And don't even get me started on their "dating science."  Based on reasonable science, but completely fails outside the laboratory.

 

So the G was a vegetarian.  Good for him.  I agree he probably was - but I don't really care.

 

Not a BF.  Not even close.

[Guest DWA]

You might have misunderstood what I said.  The copious consistent evidence - including forensic evidence - is for *sasquatch* and in fact more than we have for Giganto.  I understand this to be standard bigfoot-skeptic Alice in Wonderland stuff:  you say it eats meat?  Giganto doesn't...so Bigfoot isn't real.

 

I'm arguing with you not agin you.  I don't put significant dollars on Giganto either.

Edited January 23, 2016 by DWA

[FarArcher]

You might have misunderstood what I said.  The copious consistent evidence - including forensic evidence - is for *sasquatch* and in fact more than we have for Giganto.  I understand this to be standard bigfoot-skeptic Alice in Wonderland stuff:  you say it eats meat?  Giganto doesn't...so Bigfoot isn't real.

 

I'm arguing with you not agin you.  I don't put significant dollars on Giganto either.

 

Oh, I agree. 

 

I spent hundreds of hours a few years back on another project, and had to understand what in the Wide, Wide World of Sports the scientific community was proposing as "science."  I was stunned at what they accept as "science" when even their own duplicated results were all over the map.  Some dating techniques actually overlap each other in their abilities to age - and yet not any two can give the same results.

 

In fact, the same, exact tests of identical matrixes or samples that are tested are frequently out of the park and all over the map.  They'll test volcanic material that we know for a fact is just two hundred years old, and it will give results of millions of years old.

 

I fail to understand how they can contrive an entire lifestyle, method of locomotion, dietary specifics, size, weight, territorial preferences, height, and behavior characteristics of something they can only find a few teeth of, and yet when it comes to the volumes of narratives over the millennia, backed up by footprints and thousands of witnesses - the "scientifically minded" skeptics deny the existence of the bigfoot.

 

I've been around some really interesting developments, and the pattern of behavior among "scientists," is that if they don't personally see it, experience it, and understand it, they'll deny everything.  And for researchers, they can't do the same, identical experiments all day long, day after day - just to meet the personal requirements of individuals.  And the group will not accept the results of a selected group of scientists.  I've seen engineers, forensic engineers do weeks of testing, and then refuse to provide their results - because the results they verified and verified again and again do not meet current understandings of classical physics - and they just go home.  Even when they were paid to do their testing and just provide the results.  Won't do it.

 

I guess as a result, I'm a bit jaded when "scientific" evidence seems to stretch reasonable assumptions.  And I have good reason to be jaded.

[Guest DWA]

Oh, then we agree completely.  We definitely do.

For anyone to think that a huge volume of eyewitness reports of utterly incredible consistency - for something that isn't real - on primate markers otherwise known only to specialists, and a volume just as great, and consistent, of non-visual markers also commonly associated with primates (but again, only by specialists), and a huge number of footprints dovetailing perfectly with what witnesses, who frequently find the tracks near their sightings and other encounters, are reporting...

 

[deeeep breath]

 

...if one is telling me that that isn't seriously standing up from a strictly scientific standpoint, and then that a small pile of teeth - of something else - trump it, well, one is telling me that one's grasp of science is missing considerable grasp.