What do you think Bigfoot is?

[Huntster]

24 minutes ago, WSA said:

Federal law Hunster, the Endangered Species Act....a much different, umm, animal, although it quite possibly could be a felony. While the penalties for a violation under the assorted and various state Bigfoot laws are assumed to vary widely (and I've not looked into that in detail...just a safe prediction) under the classification of the offense these are all, as far as I know, GAME laws. The point being debated here, as I understood it, is whether the killing of a BF is prosecutable as a homicide, predicted to result in a conviction for anything from manslaughter up to murder.........

 

AFAIC, any felony, whether murder, manslaughter, or game violation, is somewhere I don't want to go.

 

And I have seen several people convicted of felonies for illegally shooting moose, brown bears, and Dall sheep. 

 

.........

if we give presumptive human status to a Sasquatch it opens the door to ridiculous outcomes. I mean, can we have a guardian ad litem appointed on a showing of incompetency so as to bring a civil action by the Biggie for slander, civil rights violations, access to Section 8 Housing and SNAP benefits? You see where this lead us?  

 

I most certainly do, which us why I believe government might be covering up their existence.

[WSA]

Hunster...well sure, violating a federal game law is never a percentage play. But, there is no federal rap possible here. I'd doubt if any state game laws could be classified any higher than a Class A misdemeanor, so I'm not thinking you'd be in any serious doo-doo. Still, I get that is not something YOU would choose to deliberately step in, but you don't have to. There are probably thousands of volunteers who would step up to the chance to put this mystery to rest and have their names chiseled next to those of the storied  intrepid explorers, scientists and adventurers of all time. In fact, I can point out many who are BFF members!  

[Huntster]

25 minutes ago, WSA said:

.........I get that is not something YOU would choose to deliberately step in, but you don't have to. There are probably thousands of volunteers who would step up to the chance to put this mystery to rest and have their names chiseled next to those of the storied  intrepid explorers, scientists and adventurers of all time. In fact, I can point out many who are BFF members!  

 

Yup. I'll sit back and watch. 

[starchunk]

1 hour ago, bipedalist said:

My only point is that my opinion is that it is not a giganto.  Sure hybrids exist, nobody knows where the bushes lead.

 

 

 

I would think Giganto isn't at all likely

[Madison5716]

On 9/1/2019 at 7:56 PM, Huntster said:

I'll tell you what: find a reference to a 6'6" wild homo sapien female who can carry 200 lbs around with one hand, can outrun a horse, and routinely swims raging rivers. I'll place my bet beforehand that she won't be homo sapien

 

This is exactly what I find fascinating about Zana.

 

Yes, she could physically have escaped eventually.  Why does any female stay with an abusive spouse? So many reasons... Ignorance of her rights, not knowing her rights of even knowing what rights are, social programming and expectations, intergenerational family abuse systems, tied down by children etc. Who knows what is normal for Bigfoot society? The little glimpses we have seems to suggest a dominant male and submissive females ... which is what Zana lived. Maybe it's the Bigfoot norm to mate with different males and she never thought it unusual. Maybe she was so emotionally isolated and beat down, that her spirit was just broken. Stockholm syndrome? No one asked her what she thought and felt because she didn't speak any language that the humans understood. who knows if she could have even been capable of putting it to words. Even backwoods hicks would find commonalities with a simple woman of African descent. It's racist and ridiculous to think those people couldn't figure out that a black woman was human, even if they'd never seen one before. I therefore think Zana was so far outside of human norms, to actually be not human at all, but disturbingly "other'. 

 

What a fascinating opportunity lost.

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, Madison5716 said:

........Maybe it's the Bigfoot norm to mate with different males and she never thought it unusual........

 

The story indicates that she was sexually used after she was drunk on wine. But, really, by that time she was "broken" like one breaks a wild horse. 

 

The part of the story that is missing and that I'm really interested in us how they captured her alive? 

 

Another fascinating aspect is her description. The only difference in her description and Patty is the mane Zana was reported to have.

[Celtic Raider]

On 9/3/2019 at 6:12 PM, starchunk said:

On 9/3/2019 at 4:39 PM, bipedalist said:

My only point is that my opinion is that it is not a giganto.  Sure hybrids exist, nobody knows where the bushes lead.

 

 

 

I would think Giganto isn't at all likely

 

Care to elaborate on why it isn't likely?

 

We don't know yet exactly what gigantopithecus was, whether it was upright, how it diverged or how many if there was more than one species for example. It fits around the right dimensions and there could have been different related species maybe? 

 

Dating to roughly five million years before G. blacki, a separate species, Gigantopithecus giganteus, is known from extremely fragmentary remains from northern India and China. In the Guangxi region of China, teeth of this species were discovered in limestone formations in Daxin and Wuming, north of Nanning. Despite the name, G. giganteus is believed to have been about half the size of G. blacki.[5][6] Based on the slim fossil finds, it was a large, ground-dwelling herbivore that ate primarily bamboo and foliage.

[starchunk]

1 hour ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

Care to elaborate on why it isn't likely?

 

We don't know yet exactly what gigantopithecus was, whether it was upright, how it diverged or how many if there was more than one species for example. It fits around the right dimensions and there could have been different related species maybe? 

 

Dating to roughly five million years before G. blacki, a separate species, Gigantopithecus giganteus, is known from extremely fragmentary remains from northern India and China. In the Guangxi region of China, teeth of this species were discovered in limestone formations in Daxin and Wuming, north of Nanning. Despite the name, G. giganteus is believed to have been about half the size of G. blacki.[5][6] Based on the slim fossil finds, it was a large, ground-dwelling herbivore that ate primarily bamboo and foliage.

 

 

Giganto, from what we know, was tropical, and likely mainly vegetarian, so where is the massive catalyst for such a creature to up and migrate across a more tundra like Siberia, where it likely would be pretty ill suited to adapt

[Celtic Raider]

28 minutes ago, starchunk said:

 

 

Giganto, from what we know, was tropical, and likely mainly vegetarian, so where is the massive catalyst for such a creature to up and migrate across a more tundra like Siberia, where it likely would be pretty ill suited to adapt

 

Maybe they migrated to many different areas at around the same time and a smaller version became the giganteus, the blacki is the one we know and the one that went up through Eastern Russia became the almasty and then on into Canada and became sasquatch? I'm not saying that this is an entirely hole free hypothesis but it seems more reasonable than an ape evolving independently. Somehow, they would have had to get into the Americas and it seems reasonable to link it with an ape of known huge size? That is if you believe it to be an ape of course....................... 😀

[starchunk]

1 hour ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

Maybe they migrated to many different areas at around the same time and a smaller version became the giganteus, the blacki is the one we know and the one that went up through Eastern Russia became the almasty and then on into Canada and became sasquatch? I'm not saying that this is an entirely hole free hypothesis but it seems more reasonable than an ape evolving independently. Somehow, they would have had to get into the Americas and it seems reasonable to link it with an ape of known huge size? That is if you believe it to be an ape of course....................... 😀

 

I tend to lean towards relic hominid or similar but with the possibility of other lesser giganto subspecies, I wonder if there's another fossil evidence to know one way or the other

[MIB]

2 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

Maybe they migrated to many different areas at around the same time and a smaller version became the giganteus, the blacki is the one we know and the one that went up through Eastern Russia became the almasty and then on into Canada and became sasquatch? I'm not saying that this is an entirely hole free hypothesis but it seems more reasonable than an ape evolving independently. Somehow, they would have had to get into the Americas and it seems reasonable to link it with an ape of known huge size? That is if you believe it to be an ape of course....................... 😀

 

If it evolved in North America rather than traveling here more or less in the form we know it, it's not an ape, it's a monkey.   There are examples in zoology of similar-ish creatures filling similar niches that come from different roots ... essentially if a niche is open, something will evolve to fill it.    An example is the mara or patagonian hare which is a rodent whose ancestors adapted to fill the niche since there are no true hares there as would be found in similar niches in Europe.

 

There are a couple things seemingly wrong with the true monkey idea.   First, no true monkeys that we know of have grown anywhere that large, second, none are bipedal, third, there's not a single hint in the fossil record from North America for either current or previous species of that size.    For it to be correct we'd have to be breaking new ground in several areas at once ... seems less probable than an immigrant from Asia (or even Europe).  

 

Everything seems to point towards something from genus Homo sharing a close common ancestor with us, the question is ... what, which ancestor, and how far back?    H. erectus is a serious possibility but far from the only one we should consider.

 

IMHO, we should not take any cards off the table.  None.   We simply don't have enough information to support doing so, all we have are belief systems.   Filtering what you will look at because if you find it, it won't fit your belief system, is about the surest way I can think of to be wrong.    It's dogma, no more, no less.

 

MIB

 

[Incorrigible1]

Nature is remarkable. Evolution and punctuated equilibrium can work wonders in quick (geologic time) order.

 

Species overall size has been enlarged/shrunk countless times. Indeed, we have our own Homo floresiensis as an example.

 

Regarding diet, I've observed gray squirrels and prairie dogs cannibalizing neighbors. A deer species has been found to be a major predator of ground-nesting birds.

 

As MIB states above, best not to limit the possibilities.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Incorrigible1

[SWWASAS]

MIB has a good point on lack of data available to make a determination of relative size and relationships.    Jack Horner, a Canadian Palentologist, basically caused several species of dinosaurs to go extinct.     Extinct is not the right word exactly, but he showed the species never existed.   www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_shape_shifting_dinosaurs/transcript?language=en     Entertaining video.    He wondered why baby dinosaurs were not found more frequently.    They should be found more often than mature adults in the same strata because most likely do not achieve adult size.

 

   In our search for the origin of BF we are making a lot of assumptions based on very few findings.       Relative size of likely candidates are perhaps premature because of lack of specimens.     The size and morphology of  giganto,  homo erectus, etc are all based on very little data.     From the mistakes made with the dinosaurs,   I would expect similar problems with man kinds ancestors and members of our family tree.    There is too little data to have any likelihood of assuming the correct evolution and origins of BF.   .Meldrum contends that several species in our more recent human lineage likely have yet to be found.    Fossels and ancient bones are very rare.   

Edited September 13, 2019 by SWWASAS

[Doug]

9 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Nature is remarkable. Evolution and punctuated equilibrium can work wonders in quick (geologic time) order.

 

Species overall size has been enlarged/shrunk countless times. Indeed, we have our own Homo floresiensis as an example.

 

Regarding diet, I've observed gray squirrels and prairie dogs cannibalizing neighbors. A deer species has been found to be a major predator of ground-nesting birds.

 

As MIB states above, best not to limit the possibilities.

 

Along those lines, I am was a taxidermist and I encountered many other taxidermists who received white tail deer for skull mounts or shoulder mounts and routinely got a skull or two every other year with fang like tusks in the upper jaw like  water deer, muntjacs, elk and red stags have, although white tailed deer almost never have them.

[bipedalist]

On 9/13/2019 at 4:59 AM, Celtic Raider said:

 

Care to elaborate on why it isn't likely?

 

We don't know yet exactly what gigantopithecus was, whether it was upright, how it diverged or how many if there was more than one species for example. It fits around the right dimensions and there could have been different related species maybe? 

 

Dating to roughly five million years before G. blacki, a separate species, Gigantopithecus giganteus, is known from extremely fragmentary remains from northern India and China. In the Guangxi region of China, teeth of this species were discovered in limestone formations in Daxin and Wuming, north of Nanning. Despite the name, G. giganteus is believed to have been about half the size of G. blacki.[5][6] Based on the slim fossil finds, it was a large, ground-dwelling herbivore that ate primarily bamboo and foliage.

 

I should have prefaced to say G. blacki;   sure it could be a hybrid or cousin G. in my way of thinking and forming an opinion based on my meager knowledge, experience and sighting reference at night.   Not all of these Sasquatch are massive and not just because they are not full grown.  That is something that is not being considered often enough in these diatribes IMHO.