Incorrigible1 Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Geogerm, it's all good. We are actually living in a rare moment in our Homo history, that we cannot confirm another similar, closely-related species living concurrently with us. Hopefully Norse can provide a type-specimen and correct that situation. That was a very kind and generous thing to say there Incorrigible1. Stop that! I've a reputation to uphold. I am a scoundrel and thoroughly incorrigible. So buzz off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted May 31, 2016 Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2016 No worries. We have several species of both Homo and non Homo Apes that could fill the bill of a Sasquatch predecessor living in the far East. As Ive said before the concept of Sasquatch really is not strange at all. The only two factors that puts Sasquatch out of whack with scientific knowledge is time and location. We have fossil beds full of bipedal ape men......even in far Asia. Crawling out on a limb a little bit just for the sake of keeping an open mind, we have the same 100% lack of (identified) bigfoot/ancestor fossils in North America as we have from Africa and Asia. Whatever the cause for that ... unless it is a matter of having them but not recognizing them for what they are yet ... there's as much evidence for "evolving" in North America as there is for Africa and Asia. There have been periodic land bridges for the past 2 to 2.5 million years. A shared ancestor of theirs and ours could just as easily have been isolated here LONG ago and developed into what we call bigfoot here as developing elsewhere then migrating here. The fossil record for each is equal right now. Dunno. What I am fairly sure of is the results of testing 'reliable' sasquatch DNA would be very, very interesting. We could find out just how close we are to them both in absolute terms and relative to known great apes. There's even a chance they're not closely related at all, instead, they fill a similar niche so they take a similar form, akin to European hares vs Patagonian "hares" that are physically similar but genetically very very distant indeed. Did I mention "dunno" yet? Curious, though, very curious. MIB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Hmmm Those fellows who went to all that trouble to make the best digitization of Paul Freeman's bigfoot are going to wish they hadn't. I never thought much of Freeman's ape but notice in the enhanced version we can see the ridiculous arm extension. Dead giveaway. Sorry Paul but you tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 (edited) Crow, if you think that the Freeman film and the PG film are fake you probably think reality is a conspiracy as well? I have been a data analyst and an image interpreter with excellent skills and what I can tell you is... Know reality when it is knocking, otherwise it goes away after awhile. If I play your game, however, the only way you could make a suit that real is skin an actual Gorilla (or Bigfoot, or Homo Habilis) and modify it and pad it to fit on a bulky individual although that approach still does not account for proportional differences especially of the head. I know you like to debate these things playing devil's advocate but I'm the type that reaches a logical conclusion and moves on. Not really an armchair debater as there are no referee so no incentive for he pro or con position to do anything but endlessly argue, which accomplishes not much but is what people seem to enjoy who have invested many years in developing the topic of the film analysis and so have invested a lot in that direction. I haven't. I can just cherry pick the best information, get an answer. You are right that many you debate have a lack of grounding in reality but are you stooping to the same level by not admitting prima facie evidence? Edited May 31, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 No worries. We have several species of both Homo and non Homo Apes that could fill the bill of a Sasquatch predecessor living in the far East. As Ive said before the concept of Sasquatch really is not strange at all. The only two factors that puts Sasquatch out of whack with scientific knowledge is time and location. We have fossil beds full of bipedal ape men......even in far Asia. Crawling out on a limb a little bit just for the sake of keeping an open mind, we have the same 100% lack of (identified) bigfoot/ancestor fossils in North America as we have from Africa and Asia. Whatever the cause for that ... unless it is a matter of having them but not recognizing them for what they are yet ... there's as much evidence for "evolving" in North America as there is for Africa and Asia. There have been periodic land bridges for the past 2 to 2.5 million years. A shared ancestor of theirs and ours could just as easily have been isolated here LONG ago and developed into what we call bigfoot here as developing elsewhere then migrating here. The fossil record for each is equal right now. Dunno. What I am fairly sure of is the results of testing 'reliable' sasquatch DNA would be very, very interesting. We could find out just how close we are to them both in absolute terms and relative to known great apes. There's even a chance they're not closely related at all, instead, they fill a similar niche so they take a similar form, akin to European hares vs Patagonian "hares" that are physically similar but genetically very very distant indeed. Did I mention "dunno" yet? Curious, though, very curious. MIB The reason that is advanced for lack of fossils for Bigfoot by Meldrum and Anthropological Anthropologists for Apes as there are no Gorilla fossils, Chimp fossils etc. is that they don't life in areas that preserve fossils. After Australopithecines lost the competition for premier ecological niches to our ancestors they too moved into niches that did not preserve fossils (rain forests). There are also not fossil bearing strata for the right time sequences in most places. Ironically there is a good strata for when many of our ancestors developed in Africa (with large gaps) Some more fossil hominids with even larger gaps in time sequences will be found over a long period time outside of Africa nad advance our thinking slowly. One good example is the Hobbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted May 31, 2016 Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2016 ^^^^ Understood and agreed. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted May 31, 2016 Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 Hmmm Those fellows who went to all that trouble to make the best digitization of Paul Freeman's bigfoot are going to wish they hadn't. I never thought much of Freeman's ape but notice in the enhanced version we can see the ridiculous arm extension. Dead giveaway. Sorry Paul but you tried. Thanks for bringing up a serious point. We can study your question more. This is how a skeptic can question what is being presented as evidence. You make the whole community think rather than going away angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Stop that! I've a reputation to uphold. I am a scoundrel and thoroughly incorrigible. So buzz off! OOPS! Sorry for shining the badge. I'll never do that again. Folks, listen up: Inc1 is a scoundrel. 'Nuff said. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Stop that! I've a reputation to uphold. I am a scoundrel and thoroughly incorrigible. So buzz off! OOPS! Sorry for shining the badge. I'll never do that again. Folks, listen up: Inc1 is a scoundrel. 'Nuff said. In fact we are calling him corrigible now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Stop that! I've a reputation to uphold. I am a scoundrel and thoroughly incorrigible. So buzz off! OOPS! Sorry for shining the badge. I'll never do that again. Folks, listen up: Inc1 is a scoundrel. 'Nuff said. In fact we are calling him corrigible now Anything but that! Nor am I scrutable or scrupulous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 CORRIGIBLE! CORRIGIBLE1 CORRIGIBLE! ABUWWAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) No worries. We have several species of both Homo and non Homo Apes that could fill the bill of a Sasquatch predecessor living in the far East. As Ive said before the concept of Sasquatch really is not strange at all. The only two factors that puts Sasquatch out of whack with scientific knowledge is time and location. We have fossil beds full of bipedal ape men......even in far Asia. Crawling out on a limb a little bit just for the sake of keeping an open mind, we have the same 100% lack of (identified) bigfoot/ancestor fossils in North America as we have from Africa and Asia. Whatever the cause for that ... unless it is a matter of having them but not recognizing them for what they are yet ... there's as much evidence for "evolving" in North America as there is for Africa and Asia. There have been periodic land bridges for the past 2 to 2.5 million years. A shared ancestor of theirs and ours could just as easily have been isolated here LONG ago and developed into what we call bigfoot here as developing elsewhere then migrating here. The fossil record for each is equal right now. Dunno. What I am fairly sure of is the results of testing 'reliable' sasquatch DNA would be very, very interesting. We could find out just how close we are to them both in absolute terms and relative to known great apes. There's even a chance they're not closely related at all, instead, they fill a similar niche so they take a similar form, akin to European hares vs Patagonian "hares" that are physically similar but genetically very very distant indeed. Did I mention "dunno" yet? Curious, though, very curious. MIB Interesting and important points being made here. First, and one I have made numerous times: no conclusions can be drawn from the fossil record (or absence of same). In fact, a number of finds of anomalous remains have been reported from North America. There is little reason to doubt that finds were made but not reported; misinterpreted; etc.. That we don't have the bones in hand and identified for what they are (they're in museum mothballs more than one somewhere, I'll bet) means an infinite amount less than nothing. DNA cannot be expected to resolve anything. But analyzed by open-minded scientists, it could provide leads, questions and discussion that could take the search somewhere. For everything negative I've said about DNA, all evidence present at any site should be gathered and analyzed for whatever it can yield. Never know where the great (open) minds will be lurking. Edited June 1, 2016 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted June 1, 2016 BFF Patron Share Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) Lack of early human fossils in North America is not the problem. The problem is that some have been found here but they are too early to be believed. DWA's "anomalous remains" are things like human remains encased in Carboniferous coal hundreds of feet underground in a coal mine in Ohio. Rather than figure out how that could happen science just ignores things it cannot begin to explain. I have often said North American history is completely wrong. But if some of these anachronisms are real, human history is wrong too. Bigfoot or ancient human skeletons or fossils are out there to find in North America if they have not been found already. Edited June 1, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I hope DWA isn't referring to this. Know the position of the publication and you'll know how unlikely it is. http://www.icr.org/article/possible-human-artifact-found-coal/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted June 5, 2016 BFF Patron Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) Actually you made my point without knowing it. If coal is dated 359 to 299 million years ago because it is coal and in the Carboniferous but it is found that coal can be formed more recently because of carbon 14 dating and decay then all of strata dating is wrong, including dating of human fossils. Objects completely embedded or encased in a lump or formation of coal have to have been formed when the coal was. Stratification dating is based on known or presumed dates of layers and you walk further or more recently in time going up or down in the strata based on some known or presumed to be known date of a layer. If strata markers used to determine significant layers are wrong based on wrong assumptions, the whole system is wrong. But science comes along and continues to use the same yardsticks for time measurement based on something that is only assumed in the first place. Reminds me of when I was a fireman. Every before noon every day the fire department dispatcher would check the phone company 911 dispatcher time to make sure their clock was correct then blow the siren precisely at noon. One day someone called the fire department and said that the whistle was blown 5 minute after noon on their wrist watch and wondered what was going on. The dispatcher checked his clock with the phone company time and they matched so he did not understand why it would have been late. Then he called the phone company and asked them what they used to make sure their time was correct. They replied that they checked their phone time with the fire station siren every noon. Each one was using the other to set their time and it gradually drifted off the real time. Is that what is going on with stratification dating? Edited June 5, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts