Saskeptic’s first post.

[MIB]

Could be and should be.   If moderated evenly we could have more civil discourse and maybe productive discussion.  I have used it before and will use it again ... I don't care which "side" oversteps, the rules regarding conduct apply to all.   If I overstep, then I expect to be reported ... and have been, and have been reprimanded.   What is good for one must be good for all.  

 

'bout personal stuff, PM coming. 

[norseman]

On 5/4/2018 at 0:52 PM, MagniAesir said:

The main problem that I have with Gigantopithecus blacki is the fossil record.

Fossil remains have been found in South China, Vietnam  and Indonesia.

So not only have no fossils been found in North America, but none have been found in Russia including Siberia.

To me this makes the migration theory even less likely.

Also I believe that most anthropologist now consider G.blacki a quadraped 

 

To my knowledge no fossil of any species of gigantopithecus has been found in North America, Russia or any other regions except as mentioned above and India

 

True.

 

But we just recently discovered Denisovan and Hobbit fossils in Siberia and Flores. With the mind blowing discovery that we interbred with Denisovans and that the hobbit fossils were only 15000 years old. 

 

What Im saying is that Asia has been coughing up some big discoveries. There may be more coming.

[WSA]

I was chatting with DWA this weekend...he continues to wear out boot sole leather at an alarming rate...and those of us still tethered to a desk (like myself) can only be envious of his perambulatory existence these days.  So, he was asking what was doing on the BFF and I gave him a thumbnail. I told him I thought the pro/con trench wars here have pretty much been fought to a stalemate. In the years I've weighed in on this, nothing has appeared that would change my mind about my conversion to the protagonist's p.o.v. I don't expect that to happen either, mainly because all I've ever done is stand here and say, "Explain this to me then..." and the answers have been as feeble as the sarcastic rejoinders have been vigorous.  The underpinnings of the hypothesis continue to accumulate, but there will always be this unbridgeable chasm between those who  know good science requires good arithmetic. that 2 + 2 = 4, and those who were always suspicious of any number between 3 and 5 they haven't met personally. It is simply a way of looking at the world's mysteries, or not looking at them, however you prefer to phrase it.

 

So, Saskeptic...

 

I have no doubt he was (and hopefully still is) a very brilliant practitioner in his field. He is also of an ilk I never gee-hawed with, those I describe as Hyper-rationalists. They would stand out in the open, getting pummeled in a thunder storm, and deny it was raining unless they were holding a rain gauge. You'll be very safe approaching life that way. You'll not have to worry about being made to look a fool in front of your peers either. You will also help kill off the capacity man has for the weird and compelling joy that comes from gazing into the abyss to see what stares back. Trying to find out that they are not so clever by half as they might have thought they were is not something they seriously entertain, ever.

 

I remember having an exchange with him here, and how he allowed that he holds out hope of existence, and for that reason he was always looking down at the ground for some possible bone or fossil evidence when he was in the field.  I couldn't think of a more perfect apt description of where the typical Hyper-rationalist is focusing, and why those of his type, and mine, are just different critters, and always will be.

[norseman]

13 minutes ago, WSA said:

I was chatting with DWA this weekend...he continues to wear out boot sole leather at an alarming rate...and those of us still tethered to a desk (like myself) can only be envious of his perambulatory existence these days.  So, he was asking what was doing on the BFF and I gave him a thumbnail. I told him I thought the pro/con trench wars here have pretty much been fought to a stalemate. In the years I've weighed in on this, nothing has appeared that would change my mind about my conversion to the protagonist's p.o.v. I don't expect that to happen either, mainly because all I've ever done is stand here and say, "Explain this to me then..." and the answers have been as feeble as the sarcastic rejoinders have been vigorous.  The underpinnings of the hypothesis continue to accumulate, but there will always be this unbridgeable chasm between those who  know good science requires good arithmetic. that 2 + 2 = 4, and those who were always suspicious of any number between 3 and 5 they haven't met personally. It is simply a way of looking at the world's mysteries, or not looking at them, however you prefer to phrase it.

 

So, Saskeptic...

 

I have no doubt he was (and hopefully still is) a very brilliant practitioner in his field. He is also of an ilk I never gee-hawed with, those I describe as Hyper-rationalists. They would stand out in the open, getting pummeled in a thunder storm, and deny it was raining unless they were holding a rain gauge. You'll be very safe approaching life that way. You'll not have to worry about being made to look a fool in front of your peers either. You will also help kill off the capacity man has for the weird and compelling joy that comes from gazing into the abyss to see what stares back. Trying to find out that they are not so clever by half as they might have thought they were is not something they seriously entertain, ever.

 

I remember having an exchange with him here, and how he allowed that he holds out hope of existence, and for that reason he was always looking down at the ground for some possible bone or fossil evidence when he was in the field.  I couldn't think of a more perfect apt description of where the typical Hyper-rationalist is focusing, and why those of his type, and mine, are just different critters, and always will be.

 

Well. DWA’s constant hammering about the evidence and science got old for me. But if he is out beating the woods? Good for him! Thats what its gonna take. I wish him safety and luck!

 

Scientists are responsible for our reality and technology today. Thank goodness for rain gauges!

 

If the creature is truly out there? Its the proponents who are burdened with the proof. Its our cross to bear. The good news is? If the creature is real? Proof will be found at some point. Even if we are dealing with a intelligent, crafty, shy, nocturnal proto human. 

 

 

[WSA]

You know what Norseman? I don't feel burdened by anything associated with putting this question to rest. While I admire your willingness to take that responsibility on, I never will. There is evidence aplenty out there. If you look at it all and draw completely different conclusions than I have I don't feel any obligation (anymore) to correct you. If science doesn't see how it hangs together, science can just as well go pound sand down a gopher hole for all I care, but far be it from me to point that out to our science practitioners. And yeah, that is probably where DWA and I differ the most too. 

 

I'll send him your good wishes too. He is pounding trails in the Presidentials lately, when not skulking about in the Blue Ridge. He is not on any field expedition to collect BF evidence, although he keeps his eyeballs peeled, always.

[MagniAesir]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

 

True.

 

But we just recently discovered Denisovan and Hobbit fossils in Siberia and Flores. With the mind blowing discovery that we interbred with Denisovans and that the hobbit fossils were only 15000 years old. 

 

What Im saying is that Asia has been coughing up some big discoveries. There may be more coming.

While I get where you are coming from, there is nothing linking g.blacki to sasquatch except wishful thinking.

The only reason people talk about g.blacki is because Dr. Krantz needed to link a large primate in the fossil record with sasquatch.

While it may match in size, it doesn't match location, mode of locomotion or time frame.

Finding g.blacki fossils in Siberia would cause me to reexamine my stance

[norseman]

15 minutes ago, MagniAesir said:

While I get where you are coming from, there is nothing linking g.blacki to sasquatch except wishful thinking.

The only reason people talk about g.blacki is because Dr. Krantz needed to link a large primate in the fossil record with sasquatch.

While it may match in size, it doesn't match location, mode of locomotion or time frame.

Finding g.blacki fossils in Siberia would cause me to reexamine my stance

 

Ok, lets say your right. Blacki was just a large quadrapedal relative of an Orang that only lived in SE Asia and ate only bamboo.

 

What about this?

 

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/130000-year-old-mastodon-threatens-upend-human-history/

 

If something was smashing mastadon femurs in California 130,000 years ago? Homo Sapiens are still living in Africa...... So what was it? If this site holds water and proves beyond any reasonable doubt something with opposable thumbs was eating mastadon bone marrow 130,000 years ago in California? Then we must start looking for a likely candidate in Asia. 

 

If other Hominids could live outside of Africa like we know they could? Why is it that Homo Sapiens would only make the trek 12000 years ago? To me that has never made sense. If we could walk/swim/float here, why couldnt something else? But lacking fossils of actual human relatives/ancestors in the Americas, its all conjecture. 

 

But “it” could be something either in the fossil record, related or evolved from the example in the fossil record or something completely undiscovered. But the guys that spend their days breaking elephant bones using primitive methods are convinced that those Mastadon bones under went similar marrow extraction.

[MagniAesir]

I am not sure what you are getting at. If and that is a big if, this find stands up to scrutiny how does that affect sasquatch?

We know that the glacial periods may have destroyed ancient evidence of human occupation  in North America.

We know that many older coastal sites are now under water and presumably will never be found.

My position  is simple, what direction does the evidence point in.

Right now there is zero evidence that g.blacki or its relatives were any closer to North America than Northern China.

Right now there is zero fossil evidence that any primate other than g.blackie approached the size attributed to sasquatch at any time any where in the world.

 If new discoveries show that a large primate or hominid inhabited North America or Russia then again I would need to reevaluate my position.

[norseman]

34 minutes ago, MagniAesir said:

I am not sure what you are getting at. If and that is a big if, this find stands up to scrutiny how does that affect sasquatch?

We know that the glacial periods may have destroyed ancient evidence of human occupation  in North America.

We know that many older coastal sites are now under water and presumably will never be found.

My position  is simple, what direction does the evidence point in.

Right now there is zero evidence that g.blacki or its relatives were any closer to North America than Northern China.

Right now there is zero fossil evidence that any primate other than g.blackie approached the size attributed to sasquatch at any time any where in the world.

 If new discoveries show that a large primate or hominid inhabited North America or Russia then again I would need to reevaluate my position.

 

Well it certainly means that a bipedal something was here before Homo Sapiens by about 115000 years. Regardless if north American sites are destroyed, we find NO evidence of Homo Sapiens outside of Africa 130000 years ago. We were just getting around to exterminating Neanderthals in Europe around 45000 years ago. 

 

Shaq approaches the size attributed to Sasquatch. Andre the Giant? The Big Unit? As I said, we can park Blacki and consider other candidates even within our own species let alone genus. Plus all of the species that probably have not been dug up yet.

 

 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

A great read and thanks for sharing. I do however agree with MagniAesir. I am also quite confident we have not  even came close to completing  the fossil record here in North America. 

A lot to find and learn about our past. 

[dmaker]

At the mention of DWA, I am reminded of the fact that the case for bigfoot has a huge, gaping hole that better physical evidence should have filled in long, long ago. To basically ignore that void and try to fill it with anecdotes will never achieve anything much less provide an arrogant perch from which to preach your superior position. 

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by dmaker

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I actually didn't mind him. He told me some good books to read. He tried to educate me and could not understand that I did not believe in the creature with all of the evidence available to me. 

I explained to him that I was just a chemist and no expert in mythical creatures. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Patterson-Gimlin

[MagniAesir]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

Well it certainly means that a bipedal something was here before Homo Sapiens by about 115000 years. Regardless if north American sites are destroyed, we find NO evidence of Homo Sapiens outside of Africa 130000 years ago. We were just getting around to exterminating Neanderthals in Europe around 45000 years ago. 

 

Shaq approaches the size attributed to Sasquatch. Andre the Giant? The Big Unit? As I said, we can park Blacki and consider other candidates even within our own species let alone genus. Plus all of the species that probably have not been dug up yet.

 

 

Sasquatch is commonly described at over 8 feet tall and 600 to 1200 pounds.

Shaq and the others you mentioned approach the very small end of the spectrum 

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I don't recall a verified account of any human reaching 8 feet tall and still be athletic, or someone being even 500 pounds and showing the stamina that Sasquatch is supposed to have.

Sumo wrestlers reach that weight and are athletic in their own way, but do not have the reported stamina of Sasquatch.

 

[norseman]

Just now, MagniAesir said:

Sasquatch is commonly described at over 8 feet tall and 600 to 1200 pounds.

Shaq and the others you mentioned approach the very small end of the spectrum 

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I don't recall a verified account of any human reaching 8 feet tall and still be athletic, or someone being even 500 pounds and showing the stamina that Sasquatch is supposed to have.

Sumo wrestlers reach that weight and are athletic in their own way, but do not have the reported stamina of Sasquatch.

 

 

Can you tell me the size, strength and agility of a Homo Heidelbergensis? The femur picture I posted is attributed to that species. The genus Homo has a huge range of sizes. From the hobbit on up.

 

For me at least we are not outside the realm of possibility for size. We being the genus Homo. And there are other possibilities outside the genus as well.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

• Fossil evidence regarding body size and shape is currently limited but leg bones indicate they were tall, reaching about 180 centimeters in height and had relatively long legs like their earlier ancestor, Homo ergaster.
• The shinbone’s thickness and bony ridges indicate that these people were strongly built. This would indicate they were tall and athletic.