Saskeptic’s first post.

[norseman]

23 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

• 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. 

 

So would you consider them a candidate?

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I would say that they are a viable candidate if they existed in North America. Of course and are here in the here and now. 

[MIB]

Not a viable candidate for bigfoot but possibly a candidate for bigfoot's ancestor.   Lack of evidence for existence in North America is a major "thing".   Timeline seems viable for previous, not most recent, land bridge crossing.   I'm not sure there was enough time for environmental pressure to select for sufficient size to account for growth to the proportions of what I saw.   

 

I'd say keep it on the back burner, don't dismiss it, but I sure wouldn't promote it as any sort of best and final answer.   Caution .. self-skeptical .. or something like that?

 

MIB

[Patterson-Gimlin]

That is exactly what I meant by saying viable. Distant relative. You explained it well. 

I wasn't dismissing North American prehuman fossils either. Archeologists I have spoken with and others on this forum have enlightened me 

We have only scratched the surface of the fossil record. Still lots to be discovered including ancient man. 

We may have to rethink what we have been taught .

 

 

[MIB]

19 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

We may have to rethink what we have been taught .

 

Yep yep yep, I'm in complete agreement with you there and apply it to many things!     Makes you wonder just how reliable many of the things 'we all know' really are.   

 

MIB