Jump to content
Cryptic Megafauna

What Branch Of The Family Tree Does Patty Belong?

Recommended Posts

MIB

BUT ITS HUMAN!!!! We cannot have our cake and eat it too people........

 

I've been very careful to say "people", not "human".   When I do, I'm talking about behaviors I've observed, not ancestry.   Ancestry is a massive puzzle because no matter which choice you make, there are at least twice as many reasons it has to be wrong as there are reasons for it to be right.   And yet ... what I saw came from somewhere so one of those wrong answers is right.  

 

I don't perceive a "having cake and eating it, too" situation here.   That seems an artificial dichotomy.   Very simply, human tool use is an adaptation to overcome physical limitations.   Lacking the physical limitations. tools aren't needed ... we never start on the path to going to the moon.   That doesn't make us less "people" because of it, merely different.   I think in this regard  you cling too rigidly to a black and white world view when in fact the world is gray.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JiggyPotamus

I think Twist's perception is interesting. I do not recall ever having heard the claim that Patty appears out of shape, or older and thus not as athletic, or something of that nature anyway. I would never say you were wrong, as I don't really know, but I think she looks extremely strong and muscular. Obviously anything that big is not going to be super-athletic and wily, but I bet even Patty could run flat-out at a pretty good rate of speed. I do agree that she looks a bit older, and translating sasquatch years into human years, I would say she looks at most 50. I highly doubt they age the same way we do, but even if they do, I think she is around 50 or whatever the equivalent is for them. Possibly a bit younger, the equivalent of 40's.

 

The hybrid idea was mentioned, and I am wondering what the threshold is, meaning what is considered a hybrid and what is concerned a relationship between ancestors at some point? I'm just thinking that if one goes back far enough, one species crossed with another, creating a hybrid species. I suppose that maybe a human-something hybrid is what is meant where sasquatch is concerned? Where a human mated with some other species a long time ago, producing what we know as sasquatch today? That actually seems like a pretty good candidate I suppose. I would say this because of the human-like characteristics of sasquatch. They look more human than most other species of non-human primates. Especially in the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

BUT ITS HUMAN!!!! We cannot have our cake and eat it too people........

 

I've been very careful to say "people", not "human".   When I do, I'm talking about behaviors I've observed, not ancestry.   Ancestry is a massive puzzle because no matter which choice you make, there are at least twice as many reasons it has to be wrong as there are reasons for it to be right.   And yet ... what I saw came from somewhere so one of those wrong answers is right.  

 

I don't perceive a "having cake and eating it, too" situation here.   That seems an artificial dichotomy.   Very simply, human tool use is an adaptation to overcome physical limitations.   Lacking the physical limitations. tools aren't needed ... we never start on the path to going to the moon.   That doesn't make us less "people" because of it, merely different.   I think in this regard  you cling too rigidly to a black and white world view when in fact the world is gray.

 

MIB

Its not artificial at all but a reality.

A Chimp could rip our arms off strength wise, but its not going to knit you a shirt or braid rope or wire the hubble telescope.....

We gave up strength for finesse. And we got bigger brains as a result of using our delicate hands to create more and more complex creations.

Bipedalism came first, before big brains, we know this now from the fossil record. Some lines evolved into us, and some lines ate a gorilla type diet, had a gorilla sized brain despite walking upright and supposedly died out......vanquished by their smaller brainer cousins who slowly became us.

If Sasquatch came along for the ride on our bus? Were are the traits that put them on that bus? It goes against what the fossil record shows us to have happened.

Homo Erectus is the dividing line for me. And he flaked stone hand axes, lived in family units and created fire.

How does Sasquatch stackup? Is he above or below that line? I say below.....which means mass regression which we have never seen. The most primitive and remote tribes on earth today are still light years ahead of Homo Erectus in terms of technology. Why is that?

And as far Tribal Bigfoot, here is one of my own efforts  :prankster:

attachicon.gif0004.png

I think that is close. And I dont think creature has any bigger cc brain case than say a gorilla, despite being bipedal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I've got my money on a Heidelbergensis descendent.

That would be a logical assumption since Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans are all considered to have descended from Homo heidelbergensis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigTreeWalker

They also buried their dead. But they weren't giants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Its a trade off.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-are-chimpanzees-stronger-than-humans-1379994/

You get one or the other but not both.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigTreeWalker

Just conjecture, but maybe gigantism developed during the ice ages as it did with many other animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Here's my theory:

 

When an organism moves in to exploit an environmental niche, it often develops two forms, the Robust and the Gracile. Examples include wolves and coyote, raven and crow. Its already known that humans are the gracile form of our species. Is there a robust form? If so what is it? Interesting coincidence: 'Bigfoot' hair under analysis always comes back as 'human'.

 

The robust form of a human would look pretty close to what a human is; larger might be one difference. We already see how much hoaxing is done where humans try to pass themselves off as BF; apparently the two forms are pretty close to each other...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WesT

Just a theory.

 

The Robust form may have already been discovered. An interestingly enough,  Denisovan DNA has Neanderthal, and some other unknown archaic hominid.  We don't know how big they got, but, the tooth was almost overlooked as being a Cave Bear tooth. So she wasn't a Gracile form that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

There is no way in hell I would put Patty in genus Homo.  Straight-up appearance says no; so does the absence of any compelling evidence of the technological culture that defines Homo.

 

Ape or robust australopithecine...or just as likely, a lineage for which no fossil remains have been found yet.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptic Megafauna

Here's my theory:

 

When an organism moves in to exploit an environmental niche, it often develops two forms, the Robust and the Gracile. Examples include wolves and coyote, raven and crow. Its already known that humans are the gracile form of our species. Is there a robust form? If so what is it? Interesting coincidence: 'Bigfoot' hair under analysis always comes back as 'human'.

 

The robust form of a human would look pretty close to what a human is; larger might be one difference. We already see how much hoaxing is done where humans try to pass themselves off as BF; apparently the two forms are pretty close to each other...

The problem there is that the foot structure and the mid tarsal break indicates the body and arms are more great ape like. At the same time the upright walking posture developed independently of man (that is if it is not our direct lineage but that model is becoming increasingly tenuous i.e. that we have a direct v.s. branchy genetic inheritance)  The real question that would be most revealing regarding human relatedness would be brain morphology and the related cranial morphology. How well can they think, are they able to mirror our thinking cause they have a brain that is capable of human level abstraction, planning, and deception and reality modeling and processing. Can they appreciate song and do they have a language. It may be that protohumans such as homo habilis may have been more apelike than appreciated, for instance.

There is no way in hell I would put Patty in genus Homo.  Straight-up appearance says no; so does the absence of any compelling evidence of the technological culture that defines Homo.

 

Ape or robust australopithecine...or just as likely, a lineage for which no fossil remains have been found yet.

Your aware of that language analyst that did a presentation on a Bigfoot language? They do seem to mimic human names on occasion and have "samurai chatter" (unproven) Although it was pretty speculative it did have some genius to it and if you get more recording of more of that chatter it would be a great discovery that might yield some real insights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptic Megafauna

The remains might be misidentified remains found in ancient burial sites in NA. There was one possible 23,000 BP skeleton in South America with ribs structure consistent with a Neanderthal and then there are the fossil beds in the Rift Valley. Perhaps Eurasia or China will be where the next relevant discovery will be made. 

My point is by considering the Bigfoot in this context your are going to get the most meaning, not by treating it a cryptic outlier. It may that there are no fossils of Ape men that get preserved in forest habitat as Meldrum points out, but looking at relatives gives you a context. The same reason we study the fossil record to shed light on our own evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

 

Here's my theory:

 

When an organism moves in to exploit an environmental niche, it often develops two forms, the Robust and the Gracile. Examples include wolves and coyote, raven and crow. Its already known that humans are the gracile form of our species. Is there a robust form? If so what is it? Interesting coincidence: 'Bigfoot' hair under analysis always comes back as 'human'.

 

The robust form of a human would look pretty close to what a human is; larger might be one difference. We already see how much hoaxing is done where humans try to pass themselves off as BF; apparently the two forms are pretty close to each other...

The problem there is that the foot structure and the mid tarsal break indicates the body and arms are more great ape like. At the same time the upright walking posture developed independently of man (that is if it is not our direct lineage but that model is becoming increasingly tenuous i.e. that we have a direct v.s. branchy genetic inheritance)  The real question that would be most revealing regarding human relatedness would be brain morphology and the related cranial morphology. How well can they think, are they able to mirror our thinking cause they have a brain that is capable of human level abstraction, planning, and deception and reality modeling and processing. Can they appreciate song and do they have a language. It may be that protohumans such as homo habilis may have been more apelike than appreciated, for instance.

 

I suspect the 'mid tarsal break' thing is caused by someone's inability to sort out what barefoot tracks look like. IOW I think that is a rumor. I've seen plenty of barefoot human tracks that have the same 'mid tarsal break'. Its caused by the walker going at a certain speed and of course is more visible in certain types of soil than others. In tracking parlance the 'break' is known as a 'dish'.

 

Another part of my pet theory is that Neanderthal may well be the ancestor of BF. We don't actually know what Neanderthal looked like; almost any rendering you see of their face is anthropomorphized. IOW we have no proof that they were hairless, but we do know that they were much more powerful than us and also larger. 

 

This would explain why 'there are no bones'; we've been encountering them all along, just misidentifying them!

 

I don't think its reasonable to expect that to be part of the human branch that they have to think like us. That is very, very environmental! For example, did you know that while perfect pitch is rare in the western hemisphere, its fairly common in China (90-95%), due to the fact that the actual tone (frequency) of a syllable is part of what the word means (everyone has to hit the same notes to be understood properly). That's really different, almost alien to "our" way of thinking, but we are talking about humans.  So mirroring our thinking is not a requirement, IMO. Of course its all conjecture, the only part I know for real is that they are.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

 

Your aware of that language analyst that did a presentation on a Bigfoot language? They do seem to mimic human names on occasion and have "samurai chatter" (unproven) Although it was pretty speculative it did have some genius to it and if you get more recording of more of that chatter it would be a great discovery that might yield some real insights.

 

I guess that what I'd say is this:  everything like this that is out there *presumes* that Homo sapiens is the only species that does it, which - even unto language - may not be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Hello Cryptic Megafauna,

 

(Gosh I like that user name :) )

 

The real question that would be most revealing regarding human relatedness would be brain morphology and the related cranial morphology. How well can they think, are they able to mirror our thinking cause they have a brain that is capable of human level abstraction, planning, and deception and reality modeling and processing.

 

 

When I consider what is bolded above I can't help but think it includes a capacity for ingenuity. On some level that may be true but it has to be limited in it's capacity for imagination beyond what is necessary for survival. Something that doesn't seem to include building the better mousetrap...or domicile, or anything up to (but not including) fire.

 

Technically according to science renditions of modern man we are the only majorly hairless ones. We are the ones with all the recessive traits and one major recessive trait in how our brain works.I've turned over a bunch of things in running town why Homo Sapiens Sapiens brain does what it does. Lots of ancestral Omege-3 from a fish diet? A cosmic superwave striking the side of the Earth Cro-Magnon lived on which mutated the DNA over time? IDK. Does anyone? Will we ever know?

 

DANG but couldn't we use some bones or a body right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×