Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[FarArcher]

How is it going to rewrite history? What makes it significant over the dozens of bipedal ape men already represented in the fossil record?

 

Per anthropologists, Neanderthal is extinct.  So are all the other pithicuses and homos.  Dead.  Gone.

 

Then, there's the contrived story of North America, and they keep having to move the goal line and the out-of-bounds lines, as more discoveries are made.  

 

Then there are all the narratives and legends from every continent - now they're going to carry weight.  Have to be considered, when previously they were ignored.

 

Then there will be the geneticists - and that's going to require an entirely new re-write of their "tree" of apes and man.

 

And then the big one.  Science versus religious texts.  Science has been saying no.  Religious texts are full of references.  Admission of the existence will demonstrate validity of the discounted religious texts, and demonstrate the narrow minded allowances of what is so-called "science."

 

Just to name a few

[JDL]

Why do bigfoot have such powerful necks?

[Guest Crowlogic]

Living relic humanoid does not change what we ourselves are.  In this dumbed down America it'll right over most peoples heads anyway.

[Gotta Know]

 

How is it going to rewrite history? What makes it significant over the dozens of bipedal ape men already represented in the fossil record?

 

Per anthropologists, Neanderthal is extinct.  So are all the other pithicuses and homos.  Dead.  Gone.

 

Then, there's the contrived story of North America, and they keep having to move the goal line and the out-of-bounds lines, as more discoveries are made.  

 

Then there are all the narratives and legends from every continent - now they're going to carry weight.  Have to be considered, when previously they were ignored.

 

Then there will be the geneticists - and that's going to require an entirely new re-write of their "tree" of apes and man.

 

And then the big one.  Science versus religious texts.  Science has been saying no.  Religious texts are full of references.  Admission of the existence will demonstrate validity of the discounted religious texts, and demonstrate the narrow minded allowances of what is so-called "science."

 

Just to name a few

 

Well stated.

[FarArcher]

Living relic humanoid does not change what we ourselves are.  In this dumbed down America it'll right over most peoples heads anyway.

 

Not to be technical, but a relic is an object from the past.  A biological relic must be dead.  Or something like a 1934 Packard hubcap.  Or a Pharoah's crown.

 

A relict species is a numerically diminished species.  A biological relict species is one that was more numerical at some point in the past, but is diminished now.

 

And Crow - for a scientifically oriented mind - you're making unsubstantiated assumptions as to whether or not a new relict species will change what we are or not.  After all, an in depth study of a relict specimen must be analyzed to determine any immediate connections between it and us - similarities, and differences, which just maybe WILL change what we are.

 

Or at least our perceptions of what we are.  We just think we know what we are, and that is one, huge, subjective universe of variables.

 

Perceptions and connections are in fact relative.  How relative?  We'll just have to see.

[SWWASAS]

Why do bigfoot have such powerful necks?

Good question.    I looked at some information about gorillas and why they have a thick neck similar to BF.     Way I read it the gorilla  neck supports their massive head and jaw muscles which have developed because they are primarily vegetarian.    Reading more one wonders if BF is an offshoot of the family tree of the gorilla.   BF has massive neck,    sagittal crest,  known to be omnivore,   long arms thought to have indicated tree habitation in the past for the gorilla,  frequent quadrupedal movement,   no tail,  has adapted to colder climates like the mountain gorilla,      Anyway that neck question certainly does raise some interesting similarities.    http://seaworld.org/en/animal-info/animal-infobooks/gorilla/physical-characteristics/

[JDL]

I have another explanation.  Male mammals' most direct threat and most direct competition is other males of their own species.  The competition for mates, control of mates, and the right to mate often becomes violent.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection_in_mammals. 

 

Sexual competition results in the evolutionary selection of characteristics among males that best lead to competitive success in mating.  Most often this takes the form of larger size, and the more violent the competition is, the greater the size dimorphism is between females and males.  Female bigfoot are, on the average, reported to be 12" to 18" shorter than male bigfoot, so if this trend holds true, sexual competition between male bigfoot can become violent.  As with gorillas, they are physically powerful.  So powerful that in the heat of combat they could seriously injure one another. 

 

One of the most vulnerable spots on gorilla or bigfoot bodies would be the neck, so it would not be surprising if, along with the trend toward larger size and strength, there would be a defensive trend toward more muscular necks, to reduce the chance that a neck might be broken during combat, or that a vital artery may be damaged by teeth.

 

I point this out because people generally regard them as non-violent and the BFRO is reported to sometimes reject reports of bigfoot violence.  This makes no sense, because there is no reason to believe that they are any less violent during mating competition than gorillas.  If they are capable of this level of violence in competition with each other, then they are most certainly capable of violence against humans.  And if they have developed strong necks to withstand this competition, then it indicates that the neck may be a preferred target during violent behavior.

 

So there is no reason to rule out the occasional decapitation of a human by a violent bigfoot other than wishful belief that they are some sort of enlightened species.

Edited March 26, 2016 by JDL

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

Living relic humanoid does not change what we ourselves are.  In this dumbed down America it'll right over most peoples heads anyway.

 

Not to be technical, but a relic is an object from the past.  A biological relic must be dead.  Or something like a 1934 Packard hubcap.  Or a Pharoah's crown.

 

A relict species is a numerically diminished species.  A biological relict species is one that was more numerical at some point in the past, but is diminished now.

 

And Crow - for a scientifically oriented mind - you're making unsubstantiated assumptions as to whether or not a new relict species will change what we are or not.  After all, an in depth study of a relict specimen must be analyzed to determine any immediate connections between it and us - similarities, and differences, which just maybe WILL change what we are.

 

Or at least our perceptions of what we are.  We just think we know what we are, and that is one, huge, subjective universe of variables.

 

Perceptions and connections are in fact relative.  How relative?  We'll just have to see.

 

 It won't change what we are , we won't get hairier, bigger smaller , smarter or dumber.  It of course  change our thinking on the paths that we think lead up to us but it won't change US any more than finding living Saber tooth Cats would change house cats.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Why do bigfoot have such powerful necks?

More like the shoulder meets at the ears.

The result a funnel shaped primate rib cage.

Homo evolved a larger spinal cord in his upper back to control breath for speech.

This probably evolved in sync with with the upper body physiology of lungs, rib cage and shoulder.

Also we need less muscle mass so are chewing muscles and upper arm and shoulder muscles don't need to sheath the neck leading to a less robust appearance.

[JDL]

I don't use much of my neck when chewing.  I'm sure they don't either.

[SWWASAS]

JDL on the other hand bears have similar violent behavior with mating competition,   territorial disputes,   competition for the great fishing spot catching salmon,   yet bears shoulders and necks are not nearly as massive with the same weight ranges as BF.    Of course bears primary weapons are their claws (which BF does not seem to have), and their predator canine teeth.      Perhaps BF are the WWF creatures of the animal world and work out aggression more with wrestling because of lack of claws.       BF mating behaviors are all conjecture at this point.    Bears not only do not have family units including males but the females have to protect the young from being eaten by males.   Hopefully that is not the case with BF.     

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 It is still alive?  

It's called Bigfoot...

I don't use much of my neck when chewing.  I'm sure they don't either.

Large cheek muscles meeting the trapezoidal shoulder, eclipsing the neck. Kind of like the sun and the moon.

No doubt you already know the answer so all I need to do is wait. 

Edited March 27, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[JDL]

The strong neck would perhaps come into play not in the act of chewing itself, but when sinking one's teeth into meat or vegetation and then using the neck to pull the food away from the body or plant to which it is attached.  Chewing alone, though, is primarily a matter of jaw musculature.

 

A bear can't put you in a headlock and attempt to twist your head off.

[ShadowBorn]

I have another explanation.  Male mammals' most direct threat and most direct competition is other males of their own species.  The competition for mates, control of mates, and the right to mate often becomes violent.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection_in_mammals. 

 

Sexual competition results in the evolutionary selection of characteristics among males that best lead to competitive success in mating.  Most often this takes the form of larger size, and the more violent the competition is, the greater the size dimorphism is between females and males.  Female bigfoot are, on the average, reported to be 12" to 18" shorter than male bigfoot, so if this trend holds true, sexual competition between male bigfoot can become violent.  As with gorillas, they are physically powerful.  So powerful that in the heat of combat they could seriously injure one another. 

 

One of the most vulnerable spots on gorilla or bigfoot bodies would be the neck, so it would not be surprising if, along with the trend toward larger size and strength, there would be a defensive trend toward more muscular necks, to reduce the chance that a neck might be broken during combat, or that a vital artery may be damaged by teeth.

 

I point this out because people generally regard them as non-violent and the BFRO is reported to sometimes reject reports of bigfoot violence.  This makes no sense, because there is no reason to believe that they are any less violent during mating competition than gorillas.  If they are capable of this level of violence in competition with each other, then they are most certainly capable of violence against humans.  And if they have developed strong necks to withstand this competition, then it indicates that the neck may be a preferred target during violent behavior.

 

So there is no reason to rule out the occasional decapitation of a human by a violent bigfoot other than wishful belief that they are some sort of enlightened species.

Well take a look at bucks and their necks during the rut and how they swell during the rut or even before during their fighting time. Your theory seems right in line that their necks are large due to their nature of fighting among themselves and might be even due to who will lead their tribe, if they do live tribal. I happen to believe that they act like chimps where they go on patrols  just like chimps do. That they have their mating periods jut like other animals do, except that I believe that they happen to have their babies in the spring so that they can be strong by the fall. I have found places where I have seen some rough patches where some thing was fighting but have always blown it off as deer or turkey, or maybe even coyote. But maybe I should be looking at these more care fully. But see no one never knows until some one else suggest some thing that might click in some one else's head. So yes I can see why them having this big strong neck feature being some thing more of them wrestling with each other, preparing for what ever battle that they might have to prepare for. 

[SWWASAS]

That use of shoulders and arms for food gathering is referenced in my post above about gorillas and their upper body strength.   We have not observed much about BF other than reports of them pulling out root plants,  tearing logs apart for termites,  and having pits where they frequently go to harvest picas.    Some of that is similar to gorilla harvest needs.    Some use of trees by juveniles would lead to upper body development also even though tree climbing may not be done by adult BF.     We just need a lot more observational data to fill out the picture for BF.   Certainly that massive neck is there for a reason or reasons.    

Edited March 27, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT