Would the scientific discovery of Sasquatch revolutionize Paleo Anthropology

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

MIB, I know the land bridge existed somewhere before the Pleistocene ( as well as the more recent interglacials) as camels and horses crossed.

I'm not sure the exact date or dates are known but somewhere 2.5 to 4 million years and that lines up nicely with earlier hominids and Australopiths.

Makes sense to me since they would have had the continent to themselves for a while before the new comers had a another series of land bridges. 

Some hominid species left Africa by 1.8 million years ago so it still fits that curve.

Additional, Erectus came later but is somewhat a candidate but too late for the earlier land bridges but could possibly still have interbred with Australopiths (and even early paleo homo sapiens man). Just a few thoughts.

Throw in Afarensis and Lucy as well at the earlier date regarding possibilities from the known record.

 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[ShadowBorn]

14 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

They course of this thread got me thinking (l know.."oh, great...here we go again...")

 

Over the cycles of glaciation and ice sheet formation covering large expanses of this continent, with the concurrent ice bridges/significantly lowered sea levels, there may very well have been successive migrational events or periods.

 

So, just possibly, say the first time around, a species or population is pushed out of a region, as described by MIB, and crosses over to the new world. Either through continued movement, or expanding numbers, this group comes to occupy this new territory as it opens up with the receding ice sheets, absent the more assertive competitors that got them moving in the first place.  Then, as the cycle repeats and the ice sheets return, this first wave of hominids get pushed south as the ice extends, depriving them of food sources and manageable weather.

 

But, just as these guys are moving south, to the north, the land bridge is reforming and the sea levels drop once again allowing a next wave of migration. However, this second wave is comprised of "a species" which, while initially may have been of  the same stock as the first group, has developed faster, in that by the time of the second cycle they have had to compete and survive with those that drove out the first group. This results in a population more advanced, to some degree, than the first, moving through  the same corridors, into the new territory. 

As this cycle repeats, the original forms get pushed father and farther south by successive ice formations, while more developed(socially, physically, cognitively) forms cross over and expand into the regions emptied by the glaciers and opened by their receeding. Of course, these distinct groups or forms will inevitably come to cross paths, resulting in either domination of habitat, or zones of integration.

Meanwhile, those of the latest group to migrate who didn't get across, will once again face the selective pressures of the original habitat, and either evolve or perish. One would think that over repeated cycles the numbers of the stragglers populations would progressively diminish.

 

This paradigm would account for the seeming gradiation of form from the more ape like forms seem in the south east to the "I couldn't shoot cuz it looked so human" forms of the PNW. 

Of course, the population dispersion of the various forms and integrations hasn't stopped, resulting in diverse populations, as reported by witnesses in recent times, with numerous types observed within the same region...

 

Just a thought.....

I realize this may have been proposed previously, but I'm now old enough not to remember that occurring, which also allows me to feel insightful, rather than grasping that I just formatted something I read in the past as original thinking on my part....

Guy

Yesterday I was along the same train of thought but in a modern way with them as existing creatures. My thoughts are of how different they are from the Northern part and from the Southern part of the states. They tend to be more aggressive down in the Southern part of the States then in the Northern part of the States. So is there a difference in creatures and their patterns of behavior Between the two sides?

 

If there were two land mass to cross from then would that not mean of different breeds interbreeding in order to survive? It only make sense that inter breeding would take place for species to survive. Then the factoring in of DNA and where true man originated and how true man moved. Through the DNA studies that have been being done on people when they order those DNA kits. If these creatures are to be found they would have big implications on Human evolution and I would place them not much older then us . If anything they might even be younger then us  and that we had some part in their creation.

[Guest WesT]

15 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

MIB, I know the land bridge existed somewhere before the Pleistocene ( as well as the more recent interglacials) as camels and horses crossed.

I'm not sure the exact date or dates are known but somewhere 2.5 to 4 million years and that lines up nicely with earlier hominids and Australopiths.

 

 

I researched this and the land bridge window of opportunity just widened a bit. Horses first crossed over to Asia via the land bridge 10 million years ago during the Miocene Epoch. So what we have is 10 million years worth of on again off again.

[guyzonthropus]

. So what we have is 10 million years worth of on again off again.

Sounds like me an one of my ex's....

[Incorrigible1]

You're older than I would have thought.

 

[Guest WesT]

Guy, It just felt like 10 million years.

[MIB]

18 hours ago, WesT said:

 

I researched this and the land bridge window of opportunity just widened a bit. Horses first crossed over to Asia via the land bridge 10 million years ago during the Miocene Epoch. So what we have is 10 million years worth of on again off again.

 

I think 10 million years is too far back.   That predates our shared ancestors with chimps and possibly even with gorillas.   Take the difference between us and chimps and break it into 10 even chunks.   Mark chimps as 0, us as 10.   Some of the early DNA results pointed towards something out there scoring about a 9.   That makes sense from the standpoint of native lore including stories of women abducted and returning pregnant with "something."    A 10 MYA split, more remote from us than chimps, would not result in offspring even if there was intercourse ... forced or otherwise.

 

If we want answers, we really need new DNA samples.   The testing in the past has been biased.   Early samples were discarded for seeming more human than the ape-camp assumptions allowed for.   More recent were filtered too heavily through Ketchum's hybrid biases.   Sykes got the leftovers.    We need to look for whatever **is**, not whatever we hope to find, not "science" for the purpose of validating a foregone conclusion.   

 

Honest questions are risky.   With the advances in testing and methodology, we might find that the samples are indeed normal human DNA degraded by the environment.   They could be a near cousin or a very far one indeed.   They could be all misidentified normal animals.   They could be alien or "angel."   When we ask honest, open questions we have to be willing to risk answers that refute our most closely held beliefs.     I'm no different than anyone else, I have my best guesses.   Having real testing done may validate them or may drive a stake through their hearts.

 

MIB

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Prior the interglacials the advance of the various ice ages would have created a land bridge, but at much greater intervals.

Although each one probably had many interglacials themselves there is the longer periodicity 

[Guest WesT]

5 hours ago, MIB said:

 

I think 10 million years is too far back.   That predates our shared ancestors with chimps and possibly even with gorillas.   Take the difference between us and chimps and break it into 10 even chunks.   Mark chimps as 0, us as 10.   Some of the early DNA results pointed towards something out there scoring about a 9.   That makes sense from the standpoint of native lore including stories of women abducted and returning pregnant with "something."    A 10 MYA split, more remote from us than chimps, would not result in offspring even if there was intercourse ... forced or otherwise.

 

 

Well I didn't mean to insinuate that a human relative crossed over the land bridge 10 million years ago. Sorry bout that. CM's post got me curious as to when archaic horses first crossed over to Asia. I was surprised to learn that the land bridge existed that long ago.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Due to the whole out of Africa thing and the hominid fossil types you see hominids did not get evolved enough to produce a Bigfoot like animal (Australopiths, Erectus) a good estimate would be earliest about 3 million years ago. 2 million would be a optimal time for them to cross and explain how they survived isolated from the more aggressive, organized, technical, social-cultural, and competitive types of the more Homo like evolutions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[guyzonthropus]

There were primates all through europe, any one of these may have developed at a pace  not recorded in the fossil record, resulting in something not only capable of following a lowered coast line but also populating the continent it came upon.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

21 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

There were primates all through europe, any one of these may have developed at a pace  not recorded in the fossil record, resulting in something not only capable of following a lowered coast line but also populating the continent it came upon.

They are recorded in the fossil record as there are 1.8 million year old hominid skeletons found outside of Africa in Georgia.

Or Java Man, or other Erectus, Hobbits, and the like. So not an unknown unknown but a known unknown as Rumsfeld was wont to expostulate.

[guyzonthropus]

There were early hommies found on the steps of central Eurasia where once herds even grander than those of the African plains once ran...there we were...little .monkey boys with our pointy sticks and all...long time ago! At one point the discovery of such was thought paradigm shifting, til the establishment showed it was just an archaic polar bear.......doh!

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Land bridge at 2 million, Homo Erectus near Russia at 1.7, earlier undiscovered Erectus just a bit earlier or the Australopth Erectus boundary at a bit earlier and we have ignition.

Seems Russia, Tibet, and North America have the highest incidences of convincing current day sightings and seems to line of with the path of a theoretical paleo migration.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[FarArcher]

I don't trust those dates, I don't trust anthropologists timelines, and I don't believe they know half of what they say they do.

 

It wasn't but a few years ago that the anthropological collective front stated that men came to North America over the Bering Strait bridge some 10,000 years ago. Then they said 12,000 years ago.  Now it's 13,000 years ago. They also drew a map and the little arrows to demonstrate the migration pattern in subsequent years.

 

But then, they couldn't explain the Clovis.  Nor a lot of other findings they simply called anomalous and then went to great lengths to ignore.  Then a skull in Texas at Buttermilk Creek that's 15,500 years old.  12,700 year old remains found in Montana.

 

Then.  THEN there was the little problem in South America - and "conclusive" evidence pushed back their carefully contrived narrative they'd protected for decades.  Whoa!  Some 30,000 years ago, there were folks along the South American coast in Equador.

 

Now there's the Serra de Capivara location in Brazil that shows humans there 48,000 years ago.

 

Now if these yahoos can't get their science down within the past 50,000 years in North and South America - then how confident do you think I feel about all that other crap they put out when they start talking millions of years ago?

 

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by FarArcher