Jump to content
gigantor

Poll: Which is the Best Candidate for Bigfoot?

Which is the Best Candidate for Bigfoot?  

93 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

norseman
3 hours 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.


And Homo Sapiens closest living relative is a Chimpanzee.... A higher ape that lives only in the jungles of Africa. And yet Humans have adapted to every climate on Earth.

 

You may be right? But not for the reasons you espouse. 
 

If Giganto was bipedal? It could have walked over the Berengia land bridge just like humans did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
17 minutes ago, norseman said:

.........If Giganto was bipedal? It could have walked over the Berengia land bridge just like humans did.

 

And for the same reason a chicken uses to cross a road.

Why do mountain goats leave their habitat to frolick in towns?

 

For the same reason chickens cross roads..........

 

https://www.matsugov.us/news/mountain-goat-takes-a-rest-downtown-palme

 

 

(I added the video so that those who suspect that it was Bob in a goat suit could analyze it properly for the next half century.........)

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I’m going to need goat limb proportions please!  :lol:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Huntster said:

(I added the video so that those who suspect that it was Bob in a goat suit could analyze it properly for the next half century.........)

 

Only excellent, Huntster :D Only excellent. Lots of speculation going on here. But since people's methodologies haven't changed, what else is there to do?

 

5 minutes ago, Twist said:

I’m going to need goat limb proportions please!  :lol:

 

Just stick a red circle around the beast and all will be well ;) 

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I did notice some irregularities in the goat fur which might suggest zippers.     Judging from the normal height of a natural gas regulator on the building to the left, the goat cannot be more than two feet tall.     See how useless pictures are?   :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starchunk
4 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

 

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.

 

No, the Giganto hypothesis is silly. An alledged ape theorized from a few molars, suddenly gets up from its home range and gets across the land bridge and isn't out competed by everything else there better suited to that environment, and then morphs from a ginormous orangutan into bigfoot. Makes perfect sense... :whistle:

1 hour ago, norseman said:


And Homo Sapiens closest living relative is a Chimpanzee.... A higher ape that lives only in the jungles of Africa. And yet Humans have adapted to every climate on Earth.

 

You may be right? But not for the reasons you espouse. 
 

If Giganto was bipedal? It could have walked over the Berengia land bridge just like humans did.

 

And have been likely mostly herbivorous, and ill suited for the environment. Pick a reason why Giganto is bunk. Just because Meldrum gave it consideration doesn't make it any less far fetched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)

As far as Gigantopithicus goes, we know more about primate evolution than before and, as a result, there are better candidates. As long as we're speculating, as Humans got better at hunting I see no reason to think they didn't kill off every other primate outside of Africa simply for meat in the colder climates. Being so much smarter because of the NOTCH2NL gene improvements, apes would have been no match for Human cunning.

 

On another note, the Great Apes we have now including several species of Chimpanzees and at least two species of Gorillas and two species of Orangutans, there's no reason to think that the Chimpanzee and Gorilla and Orangutan family trees (bushes) didn't have many more species types during the millions of years that Nature was experimenting. Good enough for Humans, good enough for Great Apes. So there should be plenty of room and choices for Sasquatch ancestors. I just happen to think that because of the advanced primate features of Sasquatch that it was the last creature (creatures?) to split off from The Human primate line.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
1 hour ago, starchunk said:

No, the Giganto hypothesis is silly. An alledged ape theorized from a few molars, suddenly gets up from its home range and gets across the land bridge and isn't out competed by everything else there better suited to that environment, and then morphs from a ginormous orangutan into bigfoot. Makes perfect sense... :whistle:

 

And have been likely mostly herbivorous, and ill suited for the environment. Pick a reason why Giganto is bunk. Just because Meldrum gave it consideration doesn't make it any less far fetched.

 

In addition to teeth, there is also a supposed partial mandible, which is similar to the Denisova fossils: a mandible, and a sliver of a finger bone. All of this conjecture is equally silly, but people insist on playing with it. 

 

In all fairness, your absolute refusal to entertain the possibility of a primate "leaving its home range" and traveling over Beringia is most amusing because the consensus of all science (not just the hated Meldrum) agrees that is exactly what occurred with humanity. 

 

Oh, well. Whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starchunk
7 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

In addition to teeth, there is also a supposed partial mandible, which is similar to the Denisova fossils: a mandible, and a sliver of a finger bone. All of this conjecture is equally silly, but people insist on playing with it. 

 

In all fairness, your absolute refusal to entertain the possibility of a primate "leaving its home range" and traveling over Beringia is most amusing because the consensus of all science (not just the hated Meldrum) agrees that is exactly what occurred with humanity. 

 

Oh, well. Whatever.

 

Humanity were omnivores, giganto was thought more of a herbivore, so perhaps the point is missed. But then a mandible an d few teeth dont tell the whole story. With all limits on what we do know, its a long shot compared to a relic human. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, starchunk said:

 

No, the Giganto hypothesis is silly. An alledged ape theorized from a few molars, suddenly gets up from its home range and gets across the land bridge and isn't out competed by everything else there better suited to that environment, and then morphs from a ginormous orangutan into bigfoot. Makes perfect sense... :whistle:

 

And have been likely mostly herbivorous, and ill suited for the environment. Pick a reason why Giganto is bunk. Just because Meldrum gave it consideration doesn't make it any less far fetched.


Wait. So your contesting the ape ever existed based on “a few molars”? And I agree with you a giant Orang would not make the trek. But based on jaw fossil evidence?  (Yes the fossil evidence is more robust than you make it out to be) The Jaw was wider than a gorilla. Which could mean That it was accommodating a upright neck. Which mean if bipedal over tens of thousands of years it could make the trek.

 

Playing devils advocate here? It it’s definitely a hominin as you say it is? Why isn’t it manufacturing stone tools? Why isn’t it wearing animal skins, making fire and making spears? 
 

I voted hominid or hominin because we know we are bipedal. We don’t know that about Giganto. But there are still problems with the hominin theory as well. And if Giganto was bipedal as Krantz and others argued? There is zero reason it could not have made the same trek as human ancestors did.

41 minutes ago, starchunk said:

 

Humanity were omnivores, giganto was thought more of a herbivore, so perhaps the point is missed. But then a mandible an d few teeth dont tell the whole story. With all limits on what we do know, its a long shot compared to a relic human. 


 

 

Edited by norseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starchunk
13 minutes ago, norseman said:


Wait. So your contesting the ape ever existed based on “a few molars”? And I agree with you a giant Orang would not make the trek. But based on jaw fossil evidence?  (Yes the fossil evidence is more robust than you make it out to be) The Jaw was wider than a gorilla. Which could mean That it was accommodating a upright neck. Which mean if bipedal over tens of thousands of years it could make the trek.

 

Playing devils advocate here? It it’s definitely a hominin as you say it is? Why isn’t it manufacturing stone tools? Why isn’t it wearing animal skins, making fire and making spears? 
 

I voted hominid or hominin because we know we are bipedal. We don’t know that about Giganto. But there are still problems with the hominin theory as well. And if Giganto was bipedal as Krantz and others argued? There is zero reason it could not have made the same trek as human ancestors did.


 

 

 

 

Maybe its fair to say not enough is known about Giganto to use it as a viable model due to the knowledge gap. That said, based on the model sof it I've seen present, (The orangutan one), no it wouldn't survive. If someone can offer up a differing model then I'm all ears. I'm going on the model I've seen presented. I favor an offshoot hominid in the meantime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trapper
On 5/19/2020 at 7:06 AM, starchunk said:

 

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?

 

 

This seems to be a big part of what is wrong with the whole bigfoot world in general.   When people come to a place where they don't even want to listen to each other or dialogue with each other then there is not much of a chance of coming to any real understanding.    I for one would welcome flesh and blood people in the paranormal section because then we would be having a full fledged discussion taking into account all the evidence rather than a selective one concerning only one viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
21 minutes ago, starchunk said:

 

 

Maybe its fair to say not enough is known about Giganto to use it as a viable model due to the knowledge gap. That said, based on the model sof it I've seen present, (The orangutan one), no it wouldn't survive. If someone can offer up a differing model then I'm all ears. I'm going on the model I've seen presented. I favor an offshoot hominid in the meantime.


Well let’s look at the positives for Giganto.

 

It was in Asia, not Africa, so closer to N. America.

It was big like Bigfoot.

It didn’t use stone tools or fire unlike early humans.... like Bigfoot.


The negatives.

 

Not proven to be bipedal.

Not a dedicated omnivore, but apes are naturally opportunistic.

 

Postitives for early humans

 

Definitely bipedal 

Also in Asia

 

Negatives for early humans

 

Smaller

use fire and stone tools

 

Whats the answer? Kill one and dissect it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
1 hour ago, starchunk said:

Humanity were omnivores, giganto was thought more of a herbivore, so perhaps the point is missed.......


My point is highlighted within your own words.

 

.......But then a mandible and few teeth dont tell the whole story........


 

And you make my point yet again.

 

.......With all limits on what we do know, its a long shot compared to a relic human.


 

With just a mandible and collection of teeth, I fail to see how it can be ruled that Gigantopithecus wasn't human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...