The case for Homo Erectus

[Willystyle]

58 minutes ago, starchunk said:

all descriptions include the Sagital crest, the plus or the minus of which is still within the frailty of anecdotal evidence. The Giganto "theory" is still just braindead.

This is true which is why the conical shaped heads that are sometimes described could easily be explained by the saggital keeling which has been found in some Homo erectus skulls. 

[Willystyle]

...it wouldn’t be fair of me to bring up the saggital keel however without adding that it’s been found in many early Homo sapien skulls as well. Remnants even pop up from time to time today in modern humans (think Patrick Stewart).

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, starchunk said:

 

Not all descriptions include the Sagital crest, the plus or the minus of which is still within the frailty of anecdotal evidence.........

 

Agreed, just as the descriptions of a mane are not universal, but both features could be the result of hair and not muscle. Or the sagital crest might be more prominent in mature males and less so in females and younger males like with gorillas. There are several possibilities that might explain the variances in descriptions.

 

........The Giganto "theory" is still just braindead.

 

It is not the theory that is brain dead, but those who reject it out of hand based only upon fossil teeth and a partial mandible who are brain dead. Brains can, however, be exercised to operate reasonably after intellectual death, but my obsevations are that such rebirth is unlikely.

[Willystyle]

Well, judging from the shape of Patty’s head (assuming that the P & G film wasn’t a hoax) then it seems as though the conical head can be apparent in males as well as females unlike in gorillas, Bili Apes, or Orangutans where it’s a feature of sexual dimorphism. Crests or keels in hominins such as Paranthropus, Homo erectus or early Homo sapiens seemed to appear independent of sex. Is this further proof that Sasquatch isn’t a species of ape? 

[SWWASAS]

In looking at my own juvenile picture I think that BF may actually accentuate the crest by hair grooming.  The juvenile looked like it’s hair had been greased or slicked up for a Mohawk look and some of Patty’s crest may be hair.   Perhaps it is a matter of pride or self recognition for BF to  exaggerate the crest.  That may be regional as are human fashion trends.  

[norseman]

I’m not so sure Bigfoot is concerned about it’s hairdo.

 

But maybe Indians copied the Bigfoot “look”?

[starchunk]

20 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Agreed, just as the descriptions of a mane are not universal, but both features could be the result of hair and not muscle. Or the sagital crest might be more prominent in mature males and less so in females and younger males like with gorillas. There are several possibilities that might explain the variances in descriptions.

 

 

 

It is not the theory that is brain dead, but those who reject it out of hand based only upon fossil teeth and a partial mandible who are brain dead. Brains can, however, be exercised to operate reasonably after intellectual death, but my obsevations are that such rebirth is unlikely.

 

I discount it because of the unlikely odds that a more vegetarian and tropic dwelling primate would up and migrate out of a specialized environment without a catalyst, let along then survive a long trek through much colder terrain without, freezing or starving or being out competed by animals better suited to environment if not preyed upon. Giganto in SE Asia accounting for a North American Mystery Primate is like cutting off a segment of a jigsaw puzzle piece to force to fit rather than having the correct piece in the first place.

[hiflier]

A better picture may be that whatever Sasquatch is, or was, it's entirely possible that it came from older and deeper in the line that produced Zana. In other words, the line that led to the Almasty? In reading Zana's preferences for sleeping accomodations as well as other physical abilities and attributes she possessed I could see her "species" surviving the ancient trek. Especially if they were pursued East for decades if not centuries by Homo Sapiens once the line arrived into Northern Asia?  They didn't necessarily need to be vegetarian either and may even have started out being a bit smaller in size.

Edited September 13, 2019 by hiflier

[starchunk]

54 minutes ago, hiflier said:

A better picture may be that whatever Sasquatch is, or was, it's entirely possible that it came from older and deeper in the line that produced Zana. In other words, the line that led to the Almasty? In reading Zana's preferences for sleeping accomodations as well as other physical abilities and attributes she possessed I could see her "species" surviving the ancient trek. Especially if they were pursued East for decades if not centuries by Homo Sapiens once the line arrived into Northern Asia?  They didn't necessarily need to be vegetarian either and may even have started out being a bit smaller in size.

 

An Omnivore would have had a better chance in such a migration if thats what you were referring to

[Arvedis]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

A better picture may be that whatever Sasquatch is, or was, it's entirely possible that it came from older and deeper in the line that produced Zana. In other words, the line that led to the Almasty? In reading Zana's preferences for sleeping accomodations as well as other physical abilities and attributes she possessed I could see her "species" surviving the ancient trek. Especially if they were pursued East for decades if not centuries by Homo Sapiens once the line arrived into Northern Asia?  They didn't necessarily need to be vegetarian either and may even have started out being a bit smaller in size.

 

That is musing? wheel spinning? based on....? Zana has nothing to do with Bigfoot. Are you piecing together anecdotal stuff from wherever? You have a solitary study to stand on with zana. Sykes has been politely but decidedly proven off target by many. Why don't you search for Loren Coleman's book review or just do searches. You'll find nothing that substantiates a connection or even brushes against anything remotely feasible except legend.

 

I know we're leaving out Burtsev's zana investigation here and for good reason.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Arvedis

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, starchunk said:

I discount it because of the unlikely odds that a more vegetarian and tropic dwelling primate would up and migrate out of a specialized environment without a catalyst, let along then survive a long trek through much colder terrain.......

 

Read the news. We've got legions of greenies and liberal politicians wailing about "climate change"..........which is exactly what would cause the Beringia land bridge to appear and disappear. And it doesn't happen overnight. A gigantopithicus doesn't get up from his nest in northern China, start walking, and doesn't stop until he's in Puget Sound, either. It could take centuries or millenia for a species to expand its range intercontinentally. 

[SWWASAS]

8 hours ago, starchunk said:

 

I discount it because of the unlikely odds that a more vegetarian and tropic dwelling primate would up and migrate out of a specialized environment without a catalyst, let along then survive a long trek through much colder terrain without, freezing or starving or being out competed by animals better suited to environment if not preyed upon. Giganto in SE Asia accounting for a North American Mystery Primate is like cutting off a segment of a jigsaw puzzle piece to force to fit rather than having the correct piece in the first place.

I think you have hit on an interesting point.    If BF made the Asia to North American migration, what drove that?   While a Bering land bridge would make it easier, why migrate unless there was a need for such a difficult journey.   I just left Alaska.   It became very evident to me that a migration North to South in Alaska would be a very difficult thing without boats.     Every glacier dumping into the sea is a formidable barrier and there are many ruining out into the ocean from the mountains to the East.   Travel Eastward is just as difficult because of North South running major mountain ranges.     

 

What would drive major migrations human or BF?      The disappearance of mastodons is thought to be overhunting by humans.  DId that drive humans North  then South into North America in search of more game.?     One mastodon kill likely fed a tribe for months.    Did BF simply follow the humans as the humans migrated?    They seem to have been watching us for thousands of years.     Perhaps unlike their smaller cousins,  BF because of their size were able to carry off what mastodon humans could not.     We have modern reports of BF grabbing human shot deer and elk and carrying it off.    Even more unlikely, but possible,   is that before wolves bonded with and began to protect humans,  perhaps BF protected humans from Saber Tooth tigers and other large predators in exchange for scavenging rights.   There were some very large and nasty predators during the last ice age.   The point is, what drove them to migrate or did they?   Maybe they migrated in an earlier ice age and that explains their large differences from humans?   That would put them genetically more divergent from humans in the primate family tree.  

[Huntster]

6 hours ago, Arvedis said:

.......Zana has nothing to do with Bigfoot.......

 

There you go again. "Sykes means nothing", says Professor Arvedis. 

 

But your opinions are somehow so solid that any theorizing based on the recent dna studies simply have to be condemned.

 

Quote

......Are you piecing together anecdotal stuff from wherever?......

 

Such theorizing is based upon dna studies conducted by one of the world's most respected geneticist.

 

Quote

.......You have a solitary study to stand on with zana......

 

What have you got to condemn Sykes study on Zana? 

 

Quote

......Sykes has been politely but decidedly proven off target by many.......

 

Then you should easily be able to provide "many" references. Please do so.

 

This is my second request for you to back up this claim.

 

The original interviews and study on Xana were conducted by zoologist Professor Alexander Mashkovtsev in 1962, not Burtsev. Burtsev is the third accredited Russian academic to study the case. Sykes is the first to have conducted dna study on Zanas progeny, some of whom are still alive.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Huntster

[Willystyle]

57 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

What would drive major migrations human or BF?

Hominins have always been an adventurous race. What drove us to brave the deserts of the Sahara and the Middle East in wave after wave after wave in order to leave Africa? It’s just in our biology to be explorers and it’s one of the reasons we began to walk upright in the first half place. 

 

57 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

The disappearance of mastodons is thought to be overhunting by humans.

I’m still skeptical of the Marx Overkill Theory. Why were elephants in Asia and Africa spared but mammoths (amongst other ice age megafauna) in Europe and the Americas systematically targeted for slaughter and wiped out? I think it’s always been about the warming climate rendering shaggy fur obsolete (no matter what our friends on the right accuse of simply being a Chinese hoax or a “greenie/liberal” conspiracy theory). I’m not saying we didn’t occasionally hunt them or even scavenge from kills but surely they weren’t the easiest quarry to bring down and decimate?? 

 

57 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Did BF simply follow the humans as the humans migrated?

I think they were here long before we were. The Cerutti Mastadon site is thought to be 130,000 years old. Big assumption tying this to Sasquatch I admit but I have to ask ‘what else had the means of smashing a mastadon bone with a crude cobble 117,000 years before the first paleo-Indian showed up?’ Homo had entered Eurasia as early as 2 million years ago. It’s anybody’s guess how long it took them to find Beringia and trek it but the potential is there for it to be a pretty long while back. 

 

57 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

just left Alaska.   It became very evident to me that a migration North to South in Alaska would be a very difficult thing without boats.

I don’t doubt the difficulty of the terrain one bit but if mammoths, bison,  wolves, bears, etc were able to make the trek numerous times without boats then it’s entirely possible that a bipedal hominin was able to follow these herds into the new world without boats as well when the water levels were much lower. 

[Incorrigible1]

15 minutes ago, Willystyle said:

I think it’s always been about the warming climate rendering shaggy fur obsolete (no matter what our friends on the right accuse of simply being a Chinese hoax or a “greenie/liberal” conspiracy theory). I’m not saying we didn’t occasionally hunt them or even scavenge from kills but surely they weren’t the easiest quarry to bring down and decimate??

I agree nearly entirely with your posting, and regret I'm out of plusses for the day.

However, the warming that doomed the mammoths was entirely natural, and that I doubt any current warming trend due to "our friends on the right," but again due to natural causes shouldn't shade my consensus with your posting.