Poll: Which is the Best Candidate for Bigfoot?

[trapper]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

trapper, may I say that science, by not taking an interest in this creature, in spite of its historical record, anecdotal or not, is running contrary to its own scientific method. There is trace evidence being collected even to this day and yet science remains mute. It comes down to the fact that WE are the last bastion when it comes to proving the creature real. And as much as this runs counter to what you've been saying, there is a level of impossibility for that proof if the creature is paranormal.

 

I think there are two choices here for scientific discovery. Having the creature take a bullet, or spearheading a scientific program of e-DNA sampling and testing. I've been pushing for the sampling/testing angle. And then the are those who don't want discovery. I look at it this way, hominid or Wood Ape, something is happening out there. We have had more people in the forest in the past decade for various reasons than ever before. We should be buried up to our necks in PGF-type videos by now showing clear images of this creature. But we are not. Not even close. Something is going on that is more than just the creature moving into remote habitat and it worries me. Again, there are two choices for discovery. It's time we made a decision about which way to go and seriously stick to it.

 

And with that I will move off the thread as well.

 

 

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

 

 

 

What do you think that something is, that is keeping bigfoot from public knowledge if you dont mind me asking?  

 

 

Also I don't understand the first paragraph completely as far as it contradicting my point.  I'm not being difficult or anything I just do/did not understand the point made.   Is it that you are saying that if bigfoot is paranormal then a direct sample cannot be taken from it?  Probably and I think that is probably accurate IF bigfoot is paranormal of the variety that Jung discusses.  On the other hand what if it is an inter-dimentional being?  or a being that is physical but that possesses supernatural abilities?  or, as one poster on this forum has suggested to me, a purely physical being that paranormal activity is somehow attracted too?

 

I see all of these as possibilities at this point.   The only position I do not think has any weight at all is a purely physical being that does not have any paranormal activity associated with it.  I think you have to deny evidence in significant ways to think that.

[gigantor]

@trapper

 

We have a section exclusively for paranormal subjects. You're welcome to take your paranormal viewpoints there.

 

This thread is for the poll subject.

 

Thanks

[ShadowBorn]

Quote

Which is the Best Candidate for Bigfoot?

How would a ancestral being sound since there is no way to really classify them yet. I just cannot go along with what is on the poll. Since neither of them really fit the poll

Quote

Ancestral Being

Ancestral Being n : are spirit entities from the early days of the world, according to the Dreamtime or Creation myths of Australia's aboriginal tribes.  Modern science dismisses these ideas as purely the stuff of fantasy but many aboriginals firmly believe in their continued existence.

I just feel like they fit the bill to  what I have seen and have experienced . The only problem is that they have manifested into the flesh and blood form.  What else could explain what others have experienced to the mindspeak and the dimensional stuff that goes on. Also all the other weird stuff that is associated with this creature like these orbs that people see.

[hiflier]

ShadowBorn, everyone sort of has their take on the subject in an effort to explain everything that people claim about this creature. Bottom line? What you said about science is true. Science is a flesh and blood kind of institution. For that reason I have to stay with Sasquatch being a flesh and blood creature if I want to have science get involved. That's tough to do as it is when just talking about a flesh and blood creature and DNA. The Sasquatch subject has enough credibility issues without mentioning the paranormal. With science there are the five senses, there is no sixth.

[starchunk]

8 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

How would a ancestral being sound since there is no way to really classify them yet. I just cannot go along with what is on the poll. Since neither of them really fit the poll

I just feel like they fit the bill to  what I have seen and have experienced . The only problem is that they have manifested into the flesh and blood form.  What else could explain what others have experienced to the mindspeak and the dimensional stuff that goes on. Also all the other weird stuff that is associated with this creature like these orbs that people see.

 

No offense, not an option on the poll, and as stated theres a paranormal section for that less likely sort of thing. Relic hominid or similar remains most likely. What I saw was flesh and blood and totally corporeal. Also, and apologize to management in advance if too far, but... if those on the paranormal side are unable to provide supporting evidence, they have a weaker hand in the game.

[starchunk]

8 hours ago, hiflier said:

ShadowBorn, everyone sort of has their take on the subject in an effort to explain everything that people claim about this creature. Bottom line? What you said about science is true. Science is a flesh and blood kind of institution. For that reason I have to stay with Sasquatch being a flesh and blood creature if I want to have science get involved. That's tough to do as it is when just talking about a flesh and blood creature and DNA. The Sasquatch subject has enough credibility issues without mentioning the paranormal. With science there are the five senses, there is no sixth.

 

And not to get political about it, but as the paranormal already has its own section on the forum, how would it go over if a flesh and blood type got too "present" in that section. It seems the management made the choice to separate the two, so if anything maybe a seperate poll covering that end of the spectrum?

[hiflier]

58 minutes ago, starchunk said:

.....so if anything maybe a seperate poll covering that end of the spectrum?

 

I can only imagine (see what I did there?  ) what such a poll would look like. But hey, each to their own. It does make me wonder if it's just as difficult to find a Sasquatch in a three dimensional world (length + width only, plus time)  as is in our four-dimensional world 

[gigantor]

1 hour ago, starchunk said:

so if anything maybe a seperate poll covering that end of the spectrum?

 

Members can create polls.

[Mendoza]

In modern taxonomy Gigantopithecus is actually classified as a hominid, along with the great apes and several other extinct apes.  If we're talking about close relatives of Homo, the correct term is hominins or homininans (depending on whether you include or exclude chimpanzees).

 

I vote Gigantopithecus because it's the best we've got right now.  The size is about right (maybe on the large side), the ecology fits given certain assumptions, and there's a plausible migration path.  The million dollar question of course, is whether or not Gigantopithecus was bipedal.  If it wasn't, forget about it.

 

The homininan options are implausible and IMO not deserving of serious consideration by researchers.  The first problem is height:  The tallest Paranthropus specimen found to date was barely over 5 feet tall.  Homo erectus maxed out around 6 feet, and aside from one disputed estimate H. heidelbergensis was in the 5' range, as were the Neanderthals.  These aren't even worthy of the name "Bigfoot."  Furthermore, unless paleontologists' reconstructions have grossly underestimated hair coverage, these species were nowhere near as hairy as Bigfoot was reported to be.  Finally, none of these except for Paranthropus had the sagittal crest described in many Bigfoot reports.

 

And if you're inclined to support the authenticity of the Patterson-Gimlin film, it would seem that the homininan options listed and the film's subject are mutually exclusive.

 

At this point, nobody even agrees on what Meganthropus was.  Paleontologists' opinions range from it being a close relative of H. erectus to it being more distantly related to us than the gorilla.

[norseman]

16 minutes ago, Mendoza said:

In modern taxonomy Gigantopithecus is actually classified as a hominid, along with the great apes and several other extinct apes.  If we're talking about close relatives of Homo, the correct term is hominins or homininans (depending on whether you include or exclude chimpanzees).

 

I vote Gigantopithecus because it's the best we've got right now.  The size is about right (maybe on the large side), the ecology fits given certain assumptions, and there's a plausible migration path.  The million dollar question of course, is whether or not Gigantopithecus was bipedal.  If it wasn't, forget about it.

 

The homininan options are implausible and IMO not deserving of serious consideration by researchers.  The first problem is height:  The tallest Paranthropus specimen found to date was barely over 5 feet tall.  Homo erectus maxed out around 6 feet, and aside from one disputed estimate H. heidelbergensis was in the 5' range, as were the Neanderthals.  These aren't even worthy of the name "Bigfoot."  Furthermore, unless paleontologists' reconstructions have grossly underestimated hair coverage, these species were nowhere near as hairy as Bigfoot was reported to be.  Finally, none of these except for Paranthropus had the sagittal crest described in many Bigfoot reports.

 

And if you're inclined to support the authenticity of the Patterson-Gimlin film, it would seem that the homininan options listed and the film's subject are mutually exclusive.

 

At this point, nobody even agrees on what Meganthropus was.  Paleontologists' opinions range from it being a close relative of H. erectus to it being more distantly related to us than the gorilla.

Great post! And good point on hominid vs hominin!

 

The only thing I disagree with is that hominin’s are implausible. Sasquatch isn’t outside the height, weight or hairiness scale of humanity.

 

And without knowing if Giganto was bipedal? This group is a contender. Just based on the mastodon bone find in California 140000 years ago I’m convinced something made it here on two feet. How it’s been evolving during that time independent from modern humans is anyone’s guess. Obviously we link it to Sasquatch though.

http://thestyleinspiration.com/top-10-very-different-man-that-you-wont-believe-actually-exist/

[Mendoza]

One option that I think we should seriously consider was left out:  A hypothetical descendant of New World monkeys.  Some work I've done but haven't yet shared (though I plan to eventually) suggests a range for Bigfoot in the United States that could just as easily have been populated northwards via Mexico as southeastwards via Beringia.  Also, in Chilcutt's work on dermal ridges in footprint casts, the closest resemblance to the "Bigfoot" dermal ridges he studied were actually those of the spider monkey.

[norseman]

16 minutes ago, Mendoza said:

One option that I think we should seriously consider was left out:  A hypothetical descendant of New World monkeys.  Some work I've done but haven't yet shared (though I plan to eventually) suggests a range for Bigfoot in the United States that could just as easily have been populated northwards via Mexico as southeastwards via Beringia.  Also, in Chilcutt's work on dermal ridges in footprint casts, the closest resemblance to the "Bigfoot" dermal ridges he studied were actually those of the spider monkey.

But there is a giant fossil record gap between a spider monkey and something like a Sasquatch in North America.

[starchunk]

12 hours ago, Mendoza said:

In modern taxonomy Gigantopithecus is actually classified as a hominid, along with the great apes and several other extinct apes.  If we're talking about close relatives of Homo, the correct term is hominins or homininans (depending on whether you include or exclude chimpanzees).

 

I vote Gigantopithecus because it's the best we've got right now.  The size is about right (maybe on the large side), the ecology fits given certain assumptions, and there's a plausible migration path.  The million dollar question of course, is whether or not Gigantopithecus was bipedal.  If it wasn't, forget about it.

 

The homininan options are implausible and IMO not deserving of serious consideration by researchers.  The first problem is height:  The tallest Paranthropus specimen found to date was barely over 5 feet tall.  Homo erectus maxed out around 6 feet, and aside from one disputed estimate H. heidelbergensis was in the 5' range, as were the Neanderthals.  These aren't even worthy of the name "Bigfoot."  Furthermore, unless paleontologists' reconstructions have grossly underestimated hair coverage, these species were nowhere near as hairy as Bigfoot was reported to be.  Finally, none of these except for Paranthropus had the sagittal crest described in many Bigfoot reports.

 

And if you're inclined to support the authenticity of the Patterson-Gimlin film, it would seem that the homininan options listed and the film's subject are mutually exclusive.

 

At this point, nobody even agrees on what Meganthropus was.  Paleontologists' opinions range from it being a close relative of H. erectus to it being more distantly related to us than the gorilla.

 

Giganto has been presented as a large precursor to the orangutan, and still would need some stimulant to leave a tropical environment as a specialist (mostly herbivore), to a less hospitable climate, and ... then evolve ina small amount of time into bigfoot, it's just bad as an attempt at science. It isn't Giganto.

[Incorrigible1]

51 minutes ago, starchunk said:

 

Giganto has been presented as a large precursor to the orangutan, and still would need some stimulant to leave a tropical environment as a specialist (mostly herbivore), to a less hospitable climate, and ... then evolve ina small amount of time into bigfoot, it's just bad as an attempt at science. It isn't Giganto.

 

It's ludicrous you imagine being able to assign reasons for a prehistoric animal to move (or not move once opportunity occurs) from one locale to another. Just stop. It's silly.

 

Ever heard of punctuated equilibrium?

 

Rapid evolution.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Incorrigible1

[MIB]

15 hours ago, Mendoza said:

One option that I think we should seriously consider was left out:  A hypothetical descendant of New World monkeys.

 

I agree that this should be considered, should be kept on the table.    It would be a case of parallel evolution but such ARE known, for example, the south american mara and old world hares have both adapted to fill similar niches from dissimilar ancestors.    I don't think it is the front-runner candidate / consideration but it could account for at least one thing otherwise out of place: night vision.  

 

MIB