Poll: Which is the Best Candidate for Bigfoot?

[norseman]

50 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

What I find interesting and may have bearing on the question of BF is that both horses and camels originated on North America and migrated to Eurasia.    There was a huge camel whose fossils have been found very near the artic circle in Canada that apparently was very adapted to the cold arctic.       The last native NA horse disappeared from the fossil record only 8000 to 10,000 years ago only to be reintroduced back into NA in the 1600s by the Spanish.     Could it be that BF had unknown origins in the Americas?     There are certainly monkeys in South America who came from someplace and that could have evolved.     It just seems to me that the origin and ancestral record of BF is so hard to imagine that it might be even stranger than we have imagined.    

As I said earlier, that’s all fine and dandy. But we have no fossil evidence to support this. 
 

The largest monkey in the new world is 25 lbs. This obviously isn’t the case with old world primates.

[gigantor]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

The largest monkey in the new world is 25 lbs.

 

 

Unless you believe the Central American  legend of The City of the Monkey God.  To me the monkey looks more like a BF.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[norseman]

4 minutes ago, gigantor said:

 

 

Unless you believe the Central American  legend of The City of the Monkey God.  To me the monkey looks more like a BF.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That looks super cool!

 

I read the book excerpt, it didn’t talk about the legend. 

[Huntster]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_de_Loys

 

 

[SWWASAS]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

As I said earlier, that’s all fine and dandy. But we have no fossil evidence to support this. 
 

The largest monkey in the new world is 25 lbs. This obviously isn’t the case with old world primates.

The largest monkey now in the new world is 25 lbs.      If anything evolved in the new world that is not known now in the fossil record,  it could have evolved completely independently of monkeys.      The present ice age cycle has been running over 2,1 million years now.   For the first part of that they started every 41,000 years.    For the last 800,000 years they occur every 100,000 years.    The interglacial periods like we are in now only last 10,000 to 12,000 years.     BF or its ancestors could have arrived anytime during the low water levels during any of the ice ages as likely did the monkeys.    For all that matter as old as human existence seems to be in South America that is currently pushing towards 30,000 years ago,   maybeo some Polynesian sea farers brought monkeys with them.   

 

To make it clear there is no evidence of BF ancestry in the Americas.     But lack of evidence does not rule it out completely.      They came from someplace.   But they seem very well adapted to life during and between ice ages so could have been here a very long time, perhaps through several ice age cycles.   Since their prime habitat is in the Northern Sierra Nevada and the Cascades of the PNW and Canada,    volcanism likely has destroyed much of the evidence of their existence.    What volcanism has not destroyed,   the glaciers grinding out of the mountains during the ice ages have finished the job.    The super volcano hot spot that is now underneath Yellowstone park,   worked its way across Oregon,  and Idaho,  to its present location.     Now and then erupting violently, in a matter that makes the St Helens eruption look small.   Mt Mazama, now Crater Lake,  likely erupted during the time BF was in North America.    If mankind had originated in North America instead of Africa,   the unstable geology of North America would likely have destroyed all existence of our origins.     The Cascades were preceded by a mountain range even larger that has nearly completely eroded away.    Africa, especially the cradle of humanity,   were all evidence of early man has been found,   has changed little in 100s of millions of years.  

[BC witness]

@Huntster

I agree on the Marten. My encounter with one occurred when I returned the second day to retrieve the front quarters of a moose, having packed out everything else the first day. When I got to the carcass, a marten stood atop it, refusing to let me near it. All efforts to chase it off were fruitless, so I had to dispatch it with my .22 revolver. The tanned hide has sat on my wife's nightstand ever since (about 35 years now), and she picks it up and strokes every now and then, as if it were her pet.

 

On topic, I think that migration both ways across Beringia was very likely for most everything that existed each time that the area opened up, including homo xxx. 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

Interesting to see 'hominid' leading the pack.  That's the way that I have been leaning over the past few years.  

 

The fossil record is a finicky sort of thing.  My gut tells me that, if and when found, it will be something that currently does not appear in the record as opposed to a variation of an already discovered hominid.  Again, that's just my intuition speaking...if I was called upon to defend that opinion I couldn't tell you why other than none of the currently known hominids seem to possess the right blend of intelligence.  Clever enough to systematically avoid detection but not a handy tool user.  

 

The one thing that always bothers me is the vastly different accounts that appear.  This one looks like an ape, this one looks like a human with more hair and this one looks like an extra from Quest For Fire.  I know that some think that there are regional variations, but some of the descriptions seem to paint a picture of completely different species of creatures.  

 

I know that is completely improbable, but it would be something if there were not one but a couple of relic hominid population scattered across the land that explained the differing descriptions...

[SWWASAS]

The juvenile I saw sure does not look like Patty.     Even with changes due to aging, I cannot morph the juvenile into an adult that looks like Patty.     The prime thing being ear location on the head.     So at this point, until I get a good look at an adult in Washington State,   I think Washington and California have different species.  

[NatFoot]

On 5/20/2020 at 6:00 PM, ShadowBorn said:

Starchunk

No offense taken. What I saw was flesh and blood too. But what I saw does not fit what the poll represents. Giganto does not even come close. I have searched the internet to see what I have seen and there is nothing out there that matches. 

 

Out of all of the BF sketches that exist on the net (I shared a massive site not long ago), nothing matches what you saw?!?

 

I'd suggest you didn't see a Bigfoot then and you might be using your time better suited looking for answers elsewhere. I don't see how what you said is possible and you are here talking Bigfoot.

[ShadowBorn]

Natfoot

I would not say all. Since I have said that star wars fellow that is hairy and this to me would be the best match to what I saw. Beside I did see this little fellow who was about 5' tall and pretty heavy set  for being so small. Which to me look like it could lift a nice size heavy 12"  to 16" dia  log that I would say be 10 ' feet long well over it's head and toss it. Sure do spend time a lot of your time on me. I really do not mind . Why would I be better suited looking for answers elsewhere when I can find answer here. I have just as much right to be here as you do . Why would you suggest that I did not see a Bigfoot?  How would you know and how could you prove it? I have shown proof of the things that I have found that suggest that I have encountered a Bigfoot. So of those things have been lost on this very Forum since it was BF 1.0. How many times has this forum been moved from server to server. Since 2000 I have encountered the ridicule by some of or most of the members here on this very forum. But I have stuck around and have waivered. If you want to call me out then go ahead and do it on the forum. I do not have a problem with it. I know the truth and the truth is with me. Like I said I still have not found what I saw on the internet and the closes that I can think of is the book cover to the face of Enoch.

 

A lot good people have left this forum and to me I have always wondered why. Why is there not a creature on a slab. It is not like they have not hunted for one. Yet, where is that body. Here we have a poll with suggestions of what we think it might be . But all that people can do is maybe guess. And come up with ideas of our past.  All I said that on this poll there is nothing that matches so I suggested maybe one answer. Fine no one liked that answer and one suggested I take it to the paranormal so I did.  Again I have not waivered from what I have encountered.  Again I am talking about this on an open forum. When I came out with my encounter for the first time in public it was in a church. To that means a lot about what I am saying. I am not sure about your beliefs but for me it meant a lot.

Quote

I'd suggest you didn't see a Bigfoot then and you might be using your time better suited looking for answers elsewhere. I don't see how what you said is possible and you are here talking Bigfoot.

 

As you can see I am not coming out and attacking you. But you are very watch full at what I am saying . Now I see you as one wanting to kick me off this forum. Did I wrong you in some way?    

[NatFoot]

You are twisting my words.

 

You made a comment that surprised me because it seemed so unusual. You have every right to be here just like everyone else. I was giving you some advice based on the strange comment you made.

 

As for my time spent on you, I typically can't muster the patience to get through an entire post (just like the one above).

 

You said you've never seen anything that resembled what you saw. There are literally thousands of BF artist renditions out there - I found that strange and it might have suggested you didn't see a BF. Then a person would wonder why you thought it was one and why you'd stick around if what you saw didn't fit any rendition you've seen.

 

That's all. I think you are talking about a "Wookie" with the Star Wars thing. Oh, and the little guy would be an "Ewok" in the Star Wars world.

 

Have a good night man - no I'll feelings here.

Edited May 24, 2020 by NatFoot

[ShadowBorn]

44 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

I was giving you some advice based on the strange comment you made.

 

But that was not advice Natfoot it was a suggestion that I did not see a Bigfoot as quoted Here  " I'd suggest you didn't see a Bigfoot then and you might be using your time better suited looking for answers elsewhere " If I did not see a Bigfoot then why the heck would I be doing here in the first place since 2000. I do not have no ill feelings either.  But I sure as heck know what I saw since I was up close to it or them. If they were ET's I would be on some alien forum looking for answers. But that's not where they led me too. Sure I went down that road of them being Apes/ chimps. Maybe even being Orangs but it was other things that suggested other. But no one wants to go down that road. It is not a road that wants to be followed since it brings grief when suggested in public.  It is ok to say that they are apes and that they go down on all fours . Because it is easy for us to accept that. But if we stray from the norm we are then named as crazy. It is already hard to accept that they exist but add the extra and it becomes trouble some.  So we brush that stuff under the rug. Since there is no way to prove it.

 

1 hour ago, NatFoot said:

I think you are talking about a "Wookie" with the Star Wars thing. Oh, and the little guy would be an "Ewok" in the Star Wars world.

 

Sure I can go with a wookie but taller and very strong. That would be suggestive of a juvenile with orange/ reddish hair that is long and fluffy. Chewbacca would be more of what I saw as an adult. Now this is what I saw . But what I saw through that starlight scope looked different. They looked more like shadows. which was strange..But I cannot go there since some will not like what I think about  what I saw there. But I have no hard feelings towards you . But I do feel like you do pay extra attention to me even though you say that you do not.

[7.62]

Don't take things too personal  

 

I don't know what the hell we saw either but it wasn't a bigfoot , wish it was because that's what we were looking for 

 

I think there's a lot of stuff that would blow our minds that are associated or connected  in some weird way to  bigfoot .

Just my personal  opinion .  

[NatFoot]

I voted hominid but Mendoza is right, more like hominins. I forgot that distinction from my freshman anthropology class at UM.

[hiflier]

To clarify: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

 

A hominid is a member of the family Hominidae, the great apes: orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans.

A hominine is a member of the subfamily Homininae: gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans (excludes orangutans).

A hominin is a member of the tribe Hominini: chimpanzees and humans (excludes orangutans and gorillas).

 

My own hypothesis includes Sasquatches:

 

A hominid is a member of the family Hominidae, the great apes: orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, sasquatches and humans.

A hominine is a member of the subfamily Homininae: gorillas, chimpanzees, sasquatches and humans (excludes orangutans).

A hominin is a member of the tribe Hominini: chimpanzees, sasquatches and humans (excludes orangutans and gorillas).

 

In the above, my hypothesis is that there was one more Last Common Ancestor (hominin), after the Chimpanzee line split off, which was the LCA to Sasquatches and Humans. I further propose that the subsequent split between Sasquatches and Humans was when our Human ancestors began to benefit from the mutational copying of the NOTCH2NL gene.

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by hiflier