Jump to content
Cryptic Megafauna

What Branch Of The Family Tree Does Patty Belong?

Recommended Posts

Cryptic Megafauna

Another new one on (on YouTube anyway) orang pendek, monster quest but not too bad. 

Has Dr Meldrum 2014 some good eyewitness and cast evidence and ties it into homo floriensis 

 

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptic Megafauna

I thought I would throw out another idea regarding human evolution and Bigfoot physiology and a logical intersection, branches of the tree from which the fruit falls not very far from.

 

As Bigfoot has a smaller cranium (I did not say "head" of "skull") due to smaller brain size (likely, if the PG is real).

What follows is that this is a known from the evolutionary record.

 

A smaller birth canal means more efficient walking which is a characteristic of Homo Erectus, where that fits in may be relevant as Erectus was the species that spread our Homo genus ancestors across the planet and the driver was the more effective than modern man walking ability. So Patty being a powerful and efficient in the manner of the physics in the art of walking may have assisted her ancestors in spreading across the continents.

 

Coupled with a knee that does not fully extend or lock and superior muscles and strong bones makes this is even more true.

 

The hip morphology means that the baby BF can be brought to term more quickly and possibly can walk as soon as it is born.

 

Faster natal and post natal development probably means that the BF comes to maturity much faster than man as well.

 

Likely sexualy mature many years before a human female so say at 8-14 years of age?

 

Probably six feet tall by six years of age (anecdotal naive tale).

 

Much less time required for learning than human, as they mature more quickly and do not need to learn the complex culture of humans such as writing, speaking, singing, and intellectual argumentation and technology training.

 

With much less language structure and less sophisticated technologies (rocks and branches, hoots, whistles, and howls) they are fully adult much sooner.

 

You can anticipate they also have much shorter life spans due to demands and stresses of living outdoors in forests without fire and subject to injury or starvation.

 

So I'm thinking 18 would be mature middle aged individual, late 20's would be approaching old age and 30 or more would be ancient with few reaching 40.

 

I think the average age might be 18 to 26 but I am pulling it out of my hat.

 

The interesting question since they are so cryptic with such large ranges and in such difficult terrains how they manage to find breeding partners and form child raising units. This would be where some form of communication would come in.

 

Or perhaps they have an instinctual understanding and navigate by season and are imprinted on geographical areas and meet up by happenstance assisted by a whistle or a hoot?

 

You could theorize mindspeak or some type of megahertz wavelengths that can be apprehended by the nervous system and on the some frequencies that generate ideation and fantasy in test subjects? Infrasound might be one such a means, odor another.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I'd say putting money on any past, extinct hominid being is a losing bet.  The species JDL references is known to be over 200K year old.  This creature is here and now, its been evolving all along its existence. We need to stop looking in the past of what it could/may have been 200k ago, but what it is/can be today.  We look to the past, we look to past hominids yet we have no fossil records.  Why spend an ounce of energy describing what it "was" vs. what we have in front of us.


 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Because I think in human evolution digging up and learning about other extinct species of the genus homo is important.

 

So with Bigfoot it helps us understand what we may be dealing with, by looking at the fossil record.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

It goes without saying then that I think it also pares down things to help us better understand what we're NOT dealing with. The process of elimination is important to us as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

Until we have proven DNA, we are not going to know what we are not dealing with, we will only have guesses about probabilities.   People who do not truly understand biology may mis-assert something as fact or knowledge but they will be wrong, at least wrong in process if not wrong in result.   Instead of wasting your time and effort arguing online about what the results will someday say, if the results matter to you, how 'bout putting your effort into going out into the field to obtain them?

 

Human evolution IS interesting and it is relevant, but not for the reasons you-all seem to be clinging to.   Increasing our knowledge does not answer questions so much as it "de-answers" questions we thought were answered.   The lesson to take from study of human evolution, right now, regarding bigfoot, is not to be so darn sure of anything we think we've learned.  Gigantopithicus.   Solutrean hypothesis and  Ketchum's human hybrid.   Sykes' "40K year -extinct polar bear".   Zana.    Each an idea someone has, at some point, over-invested in that hasn't panned out ... or at least hasn't yet.  

 

We need more "maybe" and less assertion of "is". 

 

MIB

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I agree.  Always big one my biggest pet peeves in bigfootery is all the absolute assertions thrown around about a yet undocumented creature.  Let's truly identify the creature before making assertions about it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptic Megafauna
18 hours ago, Twist said:

I agree.  Always big one my biggest pet peeves in bigfootery is all the absolute assertions thrown around about a yet undocumented creature.  Let's truly identify the creature before making assertions about it.

Well, with that approach there would be a deafening silence (perhaps an improvement ? :mellow:) and there would be nothing to talk about but the PG film and some foot prints and all the sightings of whatever level of credibility.

 

The sighting allow for the re-entry of all the ridiculous postulation since that is where those ideas originate and may be folklore or real, depending on who is doing the storytelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
4 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Well, with that approach there would be a deafening silence (perhaps an improvement ? :mellow:) and there would be nothing to talk about but the PG film and some foot prints and all the sightings of whatever level of credibility.

 

The sighting allow for the re-entry of all the ridiculous postulation since that is where those ideas originate and may be folklore or real, depending on who is doing the storytelling.

 

I disagree about a silence.  I could possibly see it creating more dialogue, or at least more healthy dialogue.  A lot of arguments about BF stem from people asserting their beliefs as facts instead of just beliefs or educated guesses.  Just my opinion of course.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptic Megafauna
9 hours ago, Twist said:

 

I disagree about a silence.  I could possibly see it creating more dialogue, or at least more healthy dialogue.  A lot of arguments about BF stem from people asserting their beliefs as facts instead of just beliefs or educated guesses.  Just my opinion of course.  

I think the PG ruined a rich folklore story cycle that originated in early prehistory (who knows, all the way back in Africa when there ware still Australopiths to throw rocks at and watch their eyes shine from out of the darkness beyond the campfire).

 

With the PG all of a sudden we are standing up on our hind feet and banging our paws together and demanding more and squeaking noises like "science" and "proof" or "type specimen."

 

Perhaps a Gorilla escaped from a zoo and went charging into the wilderness and learned to walk upright to get around in the mountains, along came a couple of dudes and a movie camera and voila!

 

He fell out of imagination and into history, and now we are stuck, looking for reality instead of really good scary stories about shadowy monsters.

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptic Megafauna
On 9/9/2016 at 11:49 PM, Twist said:

I'd say putting money on any past, extinct hominid being is a losing bet.  The species JDL references is known to be over 200K year old.  This creature is here and now, its been evolving all along its existence. We need to stop looking in the past of what it could/may have been 200k ago, but what it is/can be today.  We look to the past, we look to past hominids yet we have no fossil records.  Why spend an ounce of energy describing what it "was" vs. what we have in front of us.


 

And yet we still have chimps and gorillas from 8 million years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I agree with MIB on that.    If we could convert all this computer conjecture time to field time we might have found something to prove what BF is. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptic Megafauna

Give me the cash money and perhaps I can go out and round one up.

No bodies though.

Just selfies and poop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Cryptic:   We still have caelocanth's from 65 million years ago and sharks virtually unchanged swimming around so 8 million year lines of chimps and gorillas should hardly be a surprise.   That a new species like man is still around is after only 200 thousand years is the special case.   There must be thousands of new species of animals that do not have fossil records so we really do not know how new they are.   

 

Talk about a stretch of logic, to pin BF on an escaped gorilla that P/G filmed in California to explain sightings all over the Western states, making large non gorilla footprints of different sizes which indicates a breeding population.   I hope you were joking or you just lost all credibility with anyone that is older than 10 who can think critically.   

Edited by SWWASAS
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...