Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I actually have fangs which I was born with. Back in the day I could get free cans of Beer because people wanted to see me open the beer cans with my fangs. Very useful! If you can open cans of beer with your fangs you should come live in Australia, firsly you will be a hero to all the men here and you would quite possibly need do no other work. Beer is a very very big thing here, Im sure fangs could be too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 So Mulder, you would be okay with putting Neanderthal in a zoo? I'm "pro-zoo"... I'd be okay with having one to put in a zoo. I'd have to see how he or she behaves in a hotel room before coming to a decision on how they should be housed. Briskly..... walking..... past.....that....comment.... There's also one in the southeast closer to floresiensis, news flash. Now, let's get on to unstitching that curveball.....one stitch at a time...... Interesting! I'm assuming it would be this: ....only covered in more hair? Or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 (edited) Did Ketchum reveal the nature of Bigfoot in a post last night? The way it's written isn't exactly concise. She also seems to be referencing the Sierra shooting. Jane Goodall would not like their approach and I do not either. Think about it, they do not bother us, why should we bother them, chasing after them? They live in peace and have families just like us, just like gorillas and I am sure relic hominins also. You will never learn their true behavior by chasing them. Legislation will be needed with stiff penalties to protect them. While they can avoid us, I know of cases where an inexperienced juvenile gets himself in a jam and is confronted with a person, sometimes a person with a gun. Eventually, someone will kill one again if protection is not voted into law. Edit to add: I missed your post, exnihilo. I agree it's hard to know what she means but what "relic hominins" are out there? Did she mean (to paraprhase), "They live in peace and have families like us. Gorillas do and I am sure relic hominins also". Frustrating. Edited February 19, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 19, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 19, 2012 (edited) ....only covered in more hair? Or not? Maybe not as chimp like in the face and maybe without the black-box....... a little more firelight in the eyes too, lol. Edited February 19, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I will assume the more vocal Dr.Ketchum is the closer we are to the study's publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 and maybe without the black-box....... . LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 So has her paper been reviewed yet or will it be done when all this is released? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Patterson seemed to think it was some kind of proto-human. Why else would he draw this? This doesn't look like it is supposed to be an "ape" to me. Gimlin said she looked like a huge hairy human. What makes you think he thought it was an ape? I think what he was drawing would have commonly been called apemen or cavemen back in those days. This image isn't humanized. I guess I lack the imagination to see an ape there. I acknowledge ambiguity on Patterson's view (an interesting topic on its own). In his book he often refers to Bigfoot as "America's Abominable Snowman." In his introductory comments he says that Bigfoot is known to oldtimers around Mt. St. Helens as "Giant Hairy Ape." Refering to sasquatch/Bigfoot, he notes "Across the world in the Himalayas, he is 'Yeti' or the 'Abominable Snowman'." Patterson links Bigfoot to Yeti. At that time, Heuvelmans had already proposed Gigantopithecus as ancestral to the Yeti and giganto is considered a form of prehistoric ape by most relevant experts. Later, some Bigfoot advocates would argue that sasquatch too is a relic Gigantopithecus. Patterson also included a newspaper article where Tom Slick is quoted as saying he thought Bigfoot was "closely related" to the Yeti. But Patterson does prefer the term "Aboriginal Giant", which seems to imply a form of human, but not necessarily so. Patterson was influenced by Ivan Sanderson and John Green. Green believes sasquatch is an ape; Sanderson believed it was a form of proto-human. I disagree with you on the Patterson film portrayal. I suspect the image I used was humanized by well meaning fellows seeking to clarify the film image. One scientist looking at the film early on thought it looked like an ape from the waist up and human from waist down. Overall, the image appears to blend gorilla with human in a way that allows anyone to interpret it as ape or human. In any event, it seems self evident that the Patterson Bigfoot is not the same creature as Ullibarri's, and the Erickson Chewbacca (if reports are accurate) is like neither. Those who want to see these as of the same species cite variations found in the human population as analogous. The problem with that idea is that human population is in the millions and millions and thus capable of producing occasional aberrations. The Bigfoot population is said to be in the low thousands. The gorilla population in Africa may be a better analogy. While you have mountain and lowland gorillas, you do not find a wide variety in morphology equivalent to the three samples of Bigfoot I posted above.The answer to this riddle won't be found in your Auntie's pseudo-fangs or your own built-in "church-key". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 "In any event, it seems self evident that the Patterson Bigfoot is not the same creature as Ullibarri's, and the Erickson Chewbacca (if reports are accurate) is like neither" Jerrywayne, I disagree, I think its self evident that they very well could be the same creature, again, I refer to the nose's, the thick lips,the brow. As for the chewbacca reference if you go to the "Sasquatch the quest" site, you can see a painting of one that looks very chewbacca like, but still retains the same thick lips,nose,and brow. What you see as not the same creature, I see as obviously the same creature. I see far less variance than we see in human examples. Geographic range, and isolated breeding populations, and differences in eye witness's perception could easily account for the minor variations seen in the descriptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 19, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 19, 2012 Don't forget the black nose...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Bobby O I expressed the concern about the MK initials because I see sentences lifted from one thread and appearing in other threads or even in other forums, and so that's why I felt a reference to Dr. Ketchum would benefit by a unique set of initials not associated with anyone else we have discussed over the years. Anyways, it's simply a suggestion. Whether it will be adopted by others, I don't know. People have funny ways of inventing nicknames for people frequently discussed, and sometimes they catch on, sometimes they fade into obscurity. Seems I recall somewhere in this forum a question posed by somebody about who some initials were referring to, and so other members posted lists of common initials referencing people well known in the research effort. there weren't any duplications or ambiguity. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RioBravo Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Did Ketchum reveal the nature of Bigfoot in a post last night? The way it's written isn't exactly concise. She also seems to be referencing the Sierra shooting. Jane Goodall would not like their approach and I do not either. Think about it, they do not bother us, why should we bother them, chasing after them? They live in peace and have families just like us, just like gorillas and I am sure relic hominins also. You will never learn their true behavior by chasing them. Legislation will be needed with stiff penalties to protect them. While they can avoid us, I know of cases where an inexperienced juvenile gets himself in a jam and is confronted with a person, sometimes a person with a gun. Eventually, someone will kill one again if protection is not voted into law. Edit to add: I missed your post, exnihilo. I agree it's hard to know what she means but what "relic hominins" are out there? Did she mean (to paraprhase), "They live in peace and have families like us. Gorillas do and I am sure relic hominins also". Frustrating. So, if bigfoot is not human, gorilla, chimpanzee, or any recognized relic hominid, it must be a contemporary hominid. Sounds like bigfoot is it's own species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 That's what's going to make this so interesting! We are them they are us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Mulder, I think we're getting way off course here, but I also think you're wrong if you're trying to say I fit either of these definitions: 1. A person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness. 2. A person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative. I'm guessing you're referring more to my avatar than me as an actual person, or you're just throwing ad homs around out of frustration. The first definition is a logical fallacy as I would never believe ALL people are motivated by one single thing, no more than I would believe that ALL rabbits are grey, ALL scientists are right-handed, or ALL aircraft have propellers. I don't ever recall using the word selfish in any of the 1,000+ posts I've made, I've never made any such claim about anyone, or even implied that anyone was motivated by selfishness, so that definition seems misplaced. Was definition two associated with me because I present a skeptical attitude? Forty years of following an unsolved mystery tends to make some people a little more skeptical than others. Ok, maybe a lot more skeptical, but I've been trying really hard to keep things fair, separate fact from wishful-thinking, and not let my emotions dictate my thought process. I believe I've had more success than some and less than others. As much as we've butted heads over the past few years, I'm pretty easy going, and I would not hesitate to clink beers with you or buy you lunch. I think you would find I'm not nearly as negative as you have pegged me to be. Trust me. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 If the NA stories of bigfoots capturing and mating with NA women are legit, then they literally are somebody's cousins. It would also mean that the bigfoot gene pool is not pure. As to Patty, Ullibarri, and Chewbacca, they really do look like the same thing, just with varying amounts of hair and slightly different facial features. Wish finding pictures of natural fangs on humans was easy, but the vampire and werewolf things are just too big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts