If Bigfoot Were Real.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

So, you make a case for  the  creature not being  human.  Good job fellow scientist.   Just kidding.  I appreciate your honesty. 

I  have read your  responses  and respect them very much as a fellow scientist.  I hope you respect mine  .   No  creature  equals .  No absolute proof.   Now, having said that, I am very open to further study   and  that proof being  presented  to science in the form of DNA ,

 

Edited September 2, 2016 by Patterson-Gimlin

[Guest WesT]

It's common knowledge there's no proof of the creature. Just ask anyone that posts here. So until the time that we have the proof on a slab, the only alternative is to go see for yourself. When I did, I found ambush set ups. Primitive, but nothing short of genius at the same time. I don't know for a fact who was responsible, but if you asked me who I thought was responsible, I'd have to say some type of primitive human. I'd really like to take a scientist out into the wilds so they can see for themselves. I just turned the big 6-0 this year (the countdown has begun) so I'm starting my bucket list.....   

[hiflier]

I wish I was hitting the big 6-0. Did that 7 years back and so hear you loud and clear on the bucket list thing

Edited September 3, 2016 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

On 8/20/2016 at 6:44 PM, norseman said:

 

No, what that means is that arch places us further from the trees. If Bigfoot has a mid tarsal break he is much closer akin to a tree climbing chimp than we are. Other than the diverged big toe of course.

I talked to Meldrum about the human arch on Saturday.     You are absolutely correct.     My theory that it was left over from tree climbing is wrong.     Our immediate ancestors did not have an arch,   and according to Meldrum,  humans developed it very late in their history when we moved out onto the savannas in the last couple of hundred thousand years.     It allows us to efficiently cover great distances with less energy expenditure.    We may not have been about to outrun the predators on the savanna of Africa but we could out distance them if we saw them coming.       So that means that the  BF mid-tarsal break,  implies an older species who has not yet adapted to bipedalism or perhaps is better adapted to its mountain environment because of the mid-tarsal break..     Meldrum is emphasizing Relic Hominid designation because it covers all the bases for common human and non human ancestry of BF..    

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

On 9/5/2016 at 0:07 PM, SWWASAS said:

I talked to Meldrum about the human arch on Saturday.     You are absolutely correct.     My theory that it was left over from tree climbing is wrong.     Our immediate ancestors did not have an arch,   and according to Meldrum,  humans developed it very late in their history when we moved out onto the savannas in the last couple of hundred thousand years.     It allows us to efficiently cover great distances with less energy expenditure.    We may not have been about to outrun the predators on the savanna of Africa but we could out distance them if we saw them coming.       So that means that the  BF mid-tarsal break,  implies an older species who has not yet adapted to bipedalism or perhaps is better adapted to its mountain environment because of the mid-tarsal break..     Meldrum is emphasizing Relic Hominid designation because it covers all the bases for common human and non human ancestry of BF..    

Bipedalism and moving out onto the savannahs is much older that a few hundred thousand years.

The spreading of the African Rift Valley that drove the evolution is 8 an million years old geological feature.

Full upright walking is estimated at 2 million years old, adaptation for upright walking is 6 million years old.

I'm guessing you misheard. Likely only one incident of bipedalism developed and was common to all know hominids.

Do not have to invent the idea of a separate development to explain it, you provided the argument yourself.

The problem is that hominid fossils rarely have footbones so it is all speculation at this point, even if you find Patty.

[norseman]

Which is why I do not believe we are dealing with our own species and quite possibly not our own genus Homo. If we are to believe the evidence we do have at hand. As well as the things we dont see that are associated with our genus. Fire, stone tools, etc.

CM is correct timeline wise.

 

The oldest foot arch we have been able to pinpoint is a fossilized 1.5 million year old Erectus track.

 

http://www.livescience.com/55388-homo-erectus-walked-like-humans.html

[JKH]

I'm just gonna start using this acronym, NPA for not paying attention when I see inaccuracies repeated. It's been pretty well documented that they use tools and have speech. I don't know how closely related they are and don't care, though.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/46494-rudimentary-tool-use/#comment-824855

 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

1 hour ago, JKH said:

I'm just gonna start using this acronym, NPA for not paying attention when I see inaccuracies repeated. It's been pretty well documented that they use tools and have speech. I don't know how closely related they are and don't care, though.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/46494-rudimentary-tool-use/#comment-824855

 

You have to understand the discussion first.

A chimp uses tools as well.

The difference is what kind and how.

And that discussion is cutting tools and hand axes.

 

And subsequently, the regular use and culturally transmitting of the via speech or culture.

The reason is brain's development, the relevant issues, culture, language, brain size, dietary protein from animal sources particularly and sources that need to  be processed by hand axe such as marrow bones and hide covered kills or disarticulation of joints for removing of limbs or meat chunks.

 

With one you get rock throwing dominance displays, the eating of ants on twigs, digging of a root vegetable and small brains.

 

With the other you get tents, spears, and campfires and big brains.

 

So the flying of the tool use flag doesn't matter unless you master the subsidiary argumentation as well.

 

Because all tools and all toll uses are not created equal.

 

Well documented using tools and speech, not at all, so pay attention.

 

Assertion is not a scientific protocol.

 

Then you have a standard of proof you can then classify that ias to relevance to the discussion above.

 

Not otherwise despite wishful thinking.

 

For instance the samurai chatter to which you perhaps refer is demonstrably fox vocalizations.

 

What was the original "proof"?

 

A tape with no association with the physical evidence of an animal that might be classified as a a sasquatch (if they ever have one).

 

So with that level of "evidence" one day you get a fox another a sasquatch, depending on your "opinion".

 

Howls and whistling are not a language, they are vocalizations.

 

I could ramble on but no doubt you will doubt so the quantity of counter arguments probably don't matter just what you "believe" has been proven.

 

Perhaps it has to your own level of satisfaction but that is not what is meant by proof in a scientific sense.

 

The only proof of Sasquatch is basically one film and a few foot prints.

 

So then you see that even that proof is not accepted by science, it is by the rule of three's

 

Three discoveries of that level of  evidence or a body.

 

The rest is speculative, or circumstantial reportage.

 

Which might get you a conviction in a court of law (although more often not) but not entered as science fact as they have a higher standard.

 

Like a film, a body, a recording of a bigfoot on a film using a tool like an axe, shaping the axe, talking to an offspring as it demonstrates how to make an axe, preferably with audio.

 

Otherwise it is just more BFF posturing and gullibility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Twist]

I agree with a lot of what you said CM.  

[Guest DWA]

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 1:06 AM, MikeZimmer said:

 

I often walk with a compliant gate, and have done so for years. I find I need to do some specialized conditioning exercises, or I lose it. However, I am pretty close to 70 now, and do have knee problems. When barefoot outside, I will often plant my toe first. Going up hill, I pretty much always have a compliant gate. Training in a martial art for decades, I always move with a compliant gate when practicing. Sometimes, the ball of the foot plants first, sometimes the heel. So, it is certainly one of the modes of walking that people can use. I have never heard it called fox walking apart from this forum.

I believe it's also been found that that pesky mid-tarsal break is actually found in quite a few people.  This animal is probably close to us on the primate family tree; one would actually expect this.  What is compelling about the compliant gait and midtarsal break are that they show up so consistently in tracks and eyewitness descriptions.

[FarArcher]

On 9/7/2016 at 0:20 PM, JKH said:

I'm just gonna start using this acronym, NPA for not paying attention when I see inaccuracies repeated. It's been pretty well documented that they use tools and have speech. I don't know how closely related they are and don't care, though.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/46494-rudimentary-tool-use/#comment-824855

 

 

In that link, I found it somewhat interesting that the description of a type of club called the "hog bopper" is in keeping with multiple renditions of European critters - they are frequently depicted with what we'd call a club - and these depictions mostly occur during the Middle Ages.

 

Oddly, we don't seem to have many reports of carrying clubs here in North America.  Doesn't mean some don't, but I just haven't seen many reports PERSONALLY.

[norseman]

Or it could be that what was present in Europe a thousand years ago was very different than Sasquatch.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

40 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

 

In that link, I found it somewhat interesting that the description of a type of club called the "hog bopper" is in keeping with multiple renditions of European critters - they are frequently depicted with what we'd call a club - and these depictions mostly occur during the Middle Ages.

 

Oddly, we don't seem to have many reports of carrying clubs here in North America.  Doesn't mean some don't, but I just haven't seen many reports PERSONALLY.

Native groups had war clubs.

Often a root ball club.

[FarArcher]

Just now, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Native groups had war clubs.

Often a root ball club.

 

Aye, and one can purchase reproductions of these ball clubs as well as the blade clubs.

 

I was mostly noting that reports of BF carrying clubs must be mighty sparse in North America as I don't recall seeing even one report.  But if one will simply Google "Woodwose," the European hairy man, you'll find images in every medium they had available a few hundred years ago - and many had a club.

[jayjeti]

I've read several accounts of sasquatches carrying clubs.  One involved a deer that ran through a campsite followed by a bigfoot running with a club in its hand.