Would the scientific discovery of Sasquatch revolutionize Paleo Anthropology

January 6, 2017

4 hours ago, FarArcher said:

I think that people do make mistakes all the time - but only the scientific community gets to change the rule to meet the requirement of the moment - and I just feel that's basically dishonest. Oh, I understand - they need funding for their field trips, and there's nothing like someone suddenly discovering a "new" hominid to provide a few years of paid vacation.

Yes, Lucy was constructed. Estimated to be 3.2 million years old. Bowlegged as a newborn - but supposedly walked erect - on a foot with curved toes for tree life, loosely hinged, with a divergent toe. Shoulder blades of an ape, shoulder joint vertical, large ape-like wrist flexors, elbows were ape, metacarpals large, parallel with curved shafts like chimps, finger bones even more curved than chimps, muscle attachments for shoulder and back muscles massive compared to humans, hip blades oriented like chimp blades for climbing, and a valgus knee joint like a gibbon's - great for climbing. Yes, she was constructed, but even with the v-shaped jaw - which if found alone would indicate ape - they fudged on every description - to make her something she isn't. They lied and exaggerated everything. Just another extinct ape. But they made a career out of it.

And they ignored the other finds, including tools, indicating a second species - maybe Habilis - but to include that in the reports just wouldn't work. So that part was unaddressed. Mighty honest of them, huh?

The reason they went to lengths to exaggerate upright, bipedal characteristics is, the footprints. Not hers. Those found at Laetoli. 3.6 million years old. Lucy was only 3.2 million years old, so they're trying to sell Lucy as being the track maker - and that's fraud.

Oh, we all know about the finds since WWII in the Olduvai Gorge by the Leakey's and others. There's one no one seems to want to talk about. Found there in 1913. A completely modern skeleton - found IN SITU, in the upper bed of Bed II - not on the surface of the ground like Lucy and the others - and this clearly modern skeleton was dated to be 1.15 million years old. KInda shoots that 100,000 year ago showing of modern man up - right in the butt - doesn't it? Louis Leakey even came to verify the dating of this modern skeleton - and admitted it was correct.

So for God's sake, I really don't want to hear about "proof." "Scientific evidence." "Scientific method." "Acceptable scientific evidence."

Anthropological "proofs" are BS.

And if you need further examples of outright, scientifically accepted, ongoing frauds - I got plenty.

Edit: To add on.

The Dmanisi finds will go even further - as it appears anthropologists have mis-identified two, or maybe three homo species incorrectly, and they'll likely be stricken from the record. A reader can look this up and consider the implications for themselves. Just too big of a rush to "find" a new species, name it, and bask in the glow of Anthropological fame.

Sounds very conspiratorial... sources? You're not going to quote authors from the giant/Nephelim crowd, are you?

By seeing Bigfoot on numerous occasions, knowing exactly where they live, having the skills to acquire tangible evidence and yet still not acquiring tangible evidence does that not also mean that you have shifted the goalposts to suit? Or are mistaken like the rest of us poor slobs who get mistaken about things?

15 minutes ago, norseman said:

Proof is needed......absolutely.

But other Hominids were sharing this planet until very recently with us. In fact non African Homo Sapiens are hybrids with Neanderthal DNA and Denisovian DNA. And that's just the ones we know about. This is a very very small sliver of time.

A comparison like a plesiosaur in which no fossil evidence has ever been found above the KT boundary which was 65 million years ago? Is a very very poor one.

And we have ZERO fossil evidence of Aliens, Pixies and Gnomes.....zero.

And I'm willing to bet that if I reverse cloned a Homo Hedelbergensis or Gigantopethicus or other large fossil cousin and had him run out in front of your car at 2 in the morning?

You would proclaim you saw a Bigfoot.

So while proof is needed for any proposed crypto species? I would bet a lot more money on cryptids that fit the description of known species that were walking the Earth until very recently. Your mileage may very.

Added:

By your logic why not add the Tasmanian Tiger to that Cartoon picture? They are supposedly extinct and people claim to see them all the time in Tasmania? I will tell you why.....because there is a dang good chance that animal is not extinct. A little over 100 years is a nano second on the evolutionary scale. Proof is still needed of course! But it's odds in cryptozoology are some of the best.

Plesiosaur comparisons to sea serpents and Nessie may be poor yet they have been made and continue to do so. People have also reported seeing live dinosaurs. There may be no fossil evidence of fairies (maybe they are too fragile to preserve) yet thousands of people have, and continue to, see them... just like ghosts and Bigfoot... Comparing Bigfoot to Homo/Giganto is equally poor even though the time-frames are relatively closer - the gap is still too large and there is nothing of Bigfoot to make any valid comparisons...

I could add the thylacine - more sightings and supposed evidence occur on the mainland (go figure) - but it lacks legendary qualities of Bigfoot, etc... Which species of Homo/Giganto/etc resembles Bigfoot? Is Patty Homo/Giganto? It resembles neither... There is a wide variety of descriptive and behavioural discrepancies reported by a wide variety of people - it can't match all of them and that's the thing - for Bigfoot to actually match Homo/Giganto/whatever it takes creativity on the part of the enquirer to make it fit. This is surprisingly more common than you'd think:

There are quite a few "wild man" sightings reported in newspapers throughout the 19th century - many with descriptions that seem to describe Bigfoot. Descriptions often emphasized animalistic features - the wild man's body commonly reported as being "covered with (long) hair)". Eureka - Bigfoot! Well, not so fast - some of those very hairy wildmen were later captured and despite being clearly human people who had run wild they were STILL often reported as being "covered with (long) hair". How can this be so? Because back then describing something as being "covered with (long) hair" was not a literal description but a cultural one that equated wildness with hairiness (and vice versa). Even Abraham Lincoln was described as an ape and gorilla. Furthermore, most sightings of these hairy wildmen (and sometimes women and children) occurred in times of great fascination with gorillas which were big news from about 1850 to the 1930s...

As for betting how I'd react if I saw a reversed cloned Homo Hedelbergensis or Gigantopethicus or whatever - I'm not sure what is achieved by this fantastic scenario... However, if I couldn't capture clear images of it on my camera I reckon I'd be the first to question the objectivity of what I thought I saw... I don't come across many who would do that. Most are adamant: "I know what I saw"... despite not really knowing what it is they saw...

January 6, 2017

1 hour ago, Night Walker said:

Sounds very conspiratorial... sources? You're not going to quote authors from the giant/Nephelim crowd, are you?

By seeing Bigfoot on numerous occasions, knowing exactly where they live, having the skills to acquire tangible evidence and yet still not acquiring tangible evidence does that not also mean that you have shifted the goalposts to suit? Or are mistaken like the rest of us poor slobs who get mistaken about things?

Plesiosaur comparisons to sea serpents and Nessie may be poor yet they have been made and continue to do so. People have also reported seeing live dinosaurs. There may be no fossil evidence of fairies (maybe they are too fragile to preserve) yet thousands of people have, and continue to, see them... just like ghosts and Bigfoot... Comparing Bigfoot to Homo/Giganto is equally poor even though the time-frames are relatively closer - the gap is still too large and there is nothing of Bigfoot to make any valid comparisons...

I could add the thylacine - more sightings and supposed evidence occur on the mainland (go figure) - but it lacks legendary qualities of Bigfoot, etc... Which species of Homo/Giganto/etc resembles Bigfoot? Is Patty Homo/Giganto? It resembles neither... There is a wide variety of descriptive and behavioural discrepancies reported by a wide variety of people - it can't match all of them and that's the thing - for Bigfoot to actually match Homo/Giganto/whatever it takes creativity on the part of the enquirer to make it fit. This is surprisingly more common than you'd think:

There are quite a few "wild man" sightings reported in newspapers throughout the 19th century - many with descriptions that seem to describe Bigfoot. Descriptions often emphasized animalistic features - the wild man's body commonly reported as being "covered with (long) hair)". Eureka - Bigfoot! Well, not so fast - some of those very hairy wildmen were later captured and despite being clearly human people who had run wild they were STILL often reported as being "covered with (long) hair". How can this be so? Because back then describing something as being "covered with (long) hair" was not a literal description but a cultural one that equated wildness with hairiness (and vice versa). Even Abraham Lincoln was described as an ape and gorilla. Furthermore, most sightings of these hairy wildmen (and sometimes women and children) occurred in times of great fascination with gorillas which were big news from about 1850 to the 1930s...

As for betting how I'd react if I saw a reversed cloned Homo Hedelbergensis or Gigantopethicus or whatever - I'm not sure what is achieved by this fantastic scenario... However, if I couldn't capture clear images of it on my camera I reckon I'd be the first to question the objectivity of what I thought I saw... I don't come across many who would do that. Most are adamant: "I know what I saw"... despite not really knowing what it is they saw...

That was clever - suggesting I was pulling out the giant/Nephilim guns.

If I was going to bring that up - I'd have brought it up. You're the one who brought up the giants, so you may want to look back at the Pleistocene era and consider that most things back then - just take North America for an easy search - were giants. We even had a giant sloth here in North America. They referred to the multiple giants as megafauna. Glyptotherium, giant beavers, short-faced bears, giant tortoises, and around the world, giant whatevers. Giants.

Sounds conspiratorial? Could that even be possible? What, in the nineteenth century - would cause anthropologists and biologists - to conspire to prevent large skulls, skeletons, and bones from being represented as found? What mechanism, or movement, could possibly influence the sanitized, approved, biological model?

Why would they term everything outside the approved narrative to be "anomalous?" "Intrusive?" Or just discarded?

I don't know what sources you're referring to specifically, but if you're referring to some of the things about "Lucy," you can start with Johanson and Edey 1981 - more than one species present can be found on page 271. The December 1986 NatGeo article, Johanson himself made a clear distinction between Lucy and what he termed the First Family - which he considered 'homo,' and Lucy which he considered an early Australopithicus. Richard Leakey later said that Lucy with her V-shaped jaw and other primitive features represented "a late Ramapithecus (Fix 1984, p.70.

Johanson was convinced to change his findings and determinations by a Timothy D. White. Johanson referred to his original paper, "I would withdraw that paper today if I could." (Johanson and White (1979). Johanson and White said that Lucy had "smallish essentially human bodies." Johanson and Edey 1981, p.275. Really?

I'm not going to cite every item - if you're interested - read the works of Johanson and White, Johanson and Edey, Leakey's papers, W.W. Ferguson (1984), P. Schmid )1983, Groves (1989) p.263, P.V. Tobias (1980), Susman et al, 1984, pp 120-121, Oxnard 1984, p.334, Stern and Susman 1983, p.281, 284, Feldesman 1982b, p. 187, and when you get through all that - I have a lot more specifics.

I'm not the one shifting the goal posts. The experts are shifting the goal posts. It's now an inbred habit.

Conspiratorial? Yeah, it does sound conspiratorial.

Edited January 6, 2017 by FarArcher

January 6, 2017

How does Patty not resemble neither? Patty is a large hairy, upright walking Hominin (or a hoax). Even if she is a hoax? She is masquerading as a Hominin.

She is not a one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater, or another cryptid that has NO precedence of existence anywhere in the universe at any point in history.....

Nor does she represent a Dinosaur or other creature that has been supposedly extinct for 65 MILLION years.

My point is, is that I take exception to your cartoon based on real world probabilities. I'm not here to debate existence with you.

I require proof of the existence of Bigfoot same as you. But in the gray area of probabilities? I'm going to give a cryptid Hominin more of the benefit of the doubt than a purple people eater or a Dinosaur.

Thats logical.

This is a artistic representation of Gigantopethicus......if you had to stick your hand into the cryptid bin and pull out the creature that most closely resembles this recreation? What would you choose?

January 6, 2017

"By seeing Bigfoot on numerous occasions, knowing exactly where they live, having the skills to acquire tangible evidence, and yet still not acquiring tangible evidence does that not also mean that you have shifted the goalposts to suit? Or are you mistaken like the rest of us poor slobs who get mistaken about things?"

Your assuming much, incorrectly.

First, and this may be important: I haven't gone looking.

Second, and this may be a surprise: I'm not a Bigfoot researcher. Not a BF hunter. Not a BF enthusiast. I don't even like the damned things.

Third, and this may be confusing: I'm not going on a manhunt arbitrarily. Manhunting is draining, and requires a much different mindset than hunting. I know.

Fourth, and this may sound counterintuitive: I do know where a clan lives, and have for centuries. And your point is . . ?

Fifth, and this may tick you off: They have two unique abilities I refuse to discuss. Those must be circumvented. Doable. No fix, no see.

Sixth, and this may be selfish: I don't have any motivation. Refer to #2. I know what I know for a fact. I'm not confused in the least.

Seventh, and this may sound flippant: Acquiring tangible evidence is not my job. Maybe in the future - but not my task.

January 6, 2017

18 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Unless the Australopith Hobbit could be considered a gnome...

gno way

January 7, 2017

4 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

gno way

U Gnu

January 7, 2017

gnaturally.

January 8, 2017

Just saw this about Homo denisova posted by my research partner on Facebook.

http://sciencevibe.com/2017/01/06/homo-denisova-mysterious-bridge-species-between-neanderthals-and-homo-sapiens/

They mentioned them having larger teeth than either neanderthal or Homo sapiens, which I find interesting after my work with tooth impressions. Also mentioned hybridization.

January 8, 2017

I truly like reading stuff like that article. Thanks BTW

January 9, 2017

On 1/6/2017 at 3:52 PM, FarArcher said:

Sounds conspiratorial? Could that even be possible? What, in the nineteenth century - would cause anthropologists and biologists - to conspire to prevent large skulls, skeletons, and bones from being represented as found?

Fabrication, hoaxing, and storytelling are not new things. In fact, they seem to have been a popular form of entertainment in the 19th and early 20th century (if not always) particularly when it comes to topics outside of the ordinary - like giants, sea serpents, lake monsters, ghosts, and wildmen. If I had a conspiratorial mindset and a penchant for taking dubious accounts literally then I'm sure I would see things the same way as you... Perception is key. You question every source (which is admirable) except the ones which are telling you what you want to hear. You also fail to question the most important source - yourself... i.e. how you perceive things... Everyone can and does get things wrong. Everyone but you and those that are telling you what you want to hear, apparently...

On 1/6/2017 at 3:59 PM, norseman said:

This is a artistic representation of Gigantopethicus......if you had to stick your hand into the cryptid bin and pull out the creature that most closely resembles this recreation? What would you choose?

An orangutang...

Perhaps the problem is that many are too quick to go to the cryptid bin for answers...

January 9, 2017

I don't know what you use for internal gauges when it comes to certain things but hopefully it's scientific like myself and couched in some fairly solid logic. If a member on this Forum says that they have experienced a Sasquatch or what has been described as a Sasquatch-like form then are you yourself likely to believe them? If your go to is misidentification then at what point or under what point of description of the animal do you think would be adequate enough as a minimum for someone to know that whatever they saw wasn't a misidentified bear?

Edited January 9, 2017 by hiflier

January 9, 2017

2 minutes ago, Night Walker said:

Fabrication, hoaxing, and storytelling are not new things. In fact, they seem to have been a popular form of entertainment in the 19th and early 20th century (if not always) particularly when it comes to topics outside of the ordinary - like giants, sea serpents, lake monsters, ghosts, and wildmen. If I had a conspiratorial mindset and a penchant for taking dubious accounts literally then I'm sure I would see things the same way as you... Perception is key. You question every source (which is admirable) except the ones which are telling you what you want to hear. You also fail to question the most important source - yourself... i.e. how you perceive things... Everyone can and does get things wrong. Everyone but you and those that are telling you what you want to hear, apparently...

An orangutang...

Perhaps the problem is that many are too quick to go to the cryptid bin for answers...

Now these things are entertainment? That's a really impressive take. I think you've enlightened all of us with that most astute concept! I never knew . . .

Perceptions of mine somewhat questionable? Unless you're talking about women - Nah. The US government used to spend a minimum of a half million - often enough some fifteen million dollars - and on occasion - more - in one day - entirely on my perceptions. Since these actions got the desired results from my reports, I never heard a complaint. Then again, they spent (at least we were told this) a half million just training me. Five of us was a walking, talking, two-and-a-half million dollar investment.

What you perceive as "dubious accounts," I examine with a much different eye. What you perceive as reliable approaches - I find they much too frequently jump to erroneous conclusions, conceal part of their findings, and in some cases - conceal findings, and even misrepresent what they found and where.

Some people have no agenda whatsoever, as they have nothing to gain by describing their experience and observations. Others have nothing but agendas to support - as they have everything to gain by tilting the table to reach predetermined conclusions. Or risk ostracizing if they report exactly what their findings were - and in what order.

Of "professionals," pick one - and they're just as uninformed and tainted as can be. Pharmaceuticals falsify and perform incomplete testing all the time - and pay out big law suits all the time - but they manage to stay ahead of the financial curve pushing new, high dollar dangerous products.

Pick another - physicians? I've personally seen them operate on a man who was dead for ten minutes before they noticed - quickly closed and rushed him to Recovery, where he "passed." Those prescriptions they write? Pharmaceutical salesmen handed them the selling literature, and often paid them to prescribe those items. Which create more problems than they solve.

Anthropologists? Why's everyone familiar with "Lucy," but not with Reck's skeleton? It's because it's ignored, as it blows up the sanitized and approved narrative. Dating artifacts is supposed to be relatively certain - but nothing could be further from the truth. Lots and lots of assumptions in any testing method, and so many variable that can alter the results - it's hilarious. Doesn't matter if it's Carbon 14 dating, Uranium Content, Fluoride Content, or Amino Acid Racemization dating. Three different methods on the same bone can give dates from one method as 26,000 years, another dates it at 23,600 years, and the third method dates the identical same bone at 3,560-5,100 +/- 500 years.

That's not science. It's Grade Your Own Paper. Pick the test results you want it to be.

Sound to me like the scientific community is the party guilty of telling someone what they want to hear.

Your science is like a religion. You have your high priests who defend at all costs the dogma of the discipline. They are the ones infallible, the ones alone that have the authority and power to approve any additional revelations, and if one lowly priest should ever defy the process and present something counter to the generally accepted holy text - they are found to be anathema and ostracized.

The laymen? They're automatically discarded out of hand. Farmers were telling astronomers a century and a half ago that rocks fell from the sky - and they were laughed at and derided as everyone knew that rocks don't fall from the sky. Even though folks saw them fall to earth in real time.

I'll stick to folks who at least know that they don't know.

January 9, 2017

3 hours ago, Night Walker said:

Fabrication, hoaxing, and storytelling are not new things. In fact, they seem to have been a popular form of entertainment in the 19th and early 20th century (if not always) particularly when it comes to topics outside of the ordinary - like giants, sea serpents, lake monsters, ghosts, and wildmen. If I had a conspiratorial mindset and a penchant for taking dubious accounts literally then I'm sure I would see things the same way as you... Perception is key. You question every source (which is admirable) except the ones which are telling you what you want to hear. You also fail to question the most important source - yourself... i.e. how you perceive things... Everyone can and does get things wrong. Everyone but you and those that are telling you what you want to hear, apparently...

An orangutang...

Perhaps the problem is that many are too quick to go to the cryptid bin for answers...

So you think the answer to all of the Sasquatch sightings is people seeing Orangs!!???

How perceptive of you. Why didn't I think of that!

January 9, 2017

So....maybe "Sasquatchutans"?. "Oh-Mah-Utang"?

January 9, 2017

9 hours ago, norseman said:

So you think the answer to all of the Sasquatch sightings is people seeing Orangs!!???

Well of course! North America is their native habitat. Every scoffing denialist knows that, says so right in their handbook. (Hmm ... it actually might. That's a sign of the sad state of denialist "science.")

MIB

Edited January 9, 2017 by MIB

Sign In

Would the scientific discovery of Sasquatch revolutionize Paleo Anthropology

Recommended Posts

Night Walker

FarArcher

norseman

FarArcher

Trogluddite

Guest Cryptic Megafauna

hiflier

BigTreeWalker

hiflier

Night Walker

hiflier

FarArcher

norseman

guyzonthropus

MIB

Browse

SSR

Policies

Activity