bipedalist Posted January 10, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 10, 2012 http://blogs.smithso...became-extinct/ Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum comments on the article on his facebook page. Glad to see the Smithsonian maintaining its tradition of objective consideration of the question of Sasquatch/Bigfoot. Gigantopithecus has often been pointed to as a potential antecedent of sasquatch -- after all it is a species that is the right size in the right place at the right time. George York's reconstruction of Gigantopithecus (pictured above) conveys the sense of the enormity of the ape, but it seems unlikely that a terrestrial ape would retain the limb proportions and suspensory specializations of an over-sized orangutan, if it ever even possessed them to begin with. Fragmentation of the Pleistocene forests might just as well have spawned novel adaptations as driven Gigantopithecus to extinction. The extremely sparse fossil record for this large and likely rare ape provides only a meager glimpse of its past range and distribution. As for diet, the recent paper pointing to a C3 diet and therefore a forest habitat is an important addition to our understanding. It really doesn't lend that much support to the "bamboo hypothesis." Omitted from discussion is reference to the analysis of dental microwear, which says something about the composition of such a C3 diet (Bamboo feeding, dental microwear, and diet of the Pleistocene ape Gigantopithecus blacki. Daegling, DJ | Grine, FE. South African Journal of Science. Vol. 90, no. 10, pp. 527-532. 1994). This pointed to a catholic diet most similar to that of chimpanzees, not what was predicted for a specialized bamboo feeder. The characterization of a lumbering 1,200 quadruped (or biped for that matter) --"the size of a polar bear" -- is misleading. I suspect few would want to challenge a polar bear to a foot race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 A couple more giganto links: http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/12/28/gigantopithecus-and-crackpot-cryptozoologists/ RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 From the link above attributed to Dr. Meldrum ...As for diet, the recent paper pointing to a C3 diet and therefore a forest habitat is an important addition to our understanding. It really doesn't lend that much support to the "bamboo hypothesis. ... Unlike most tropical grasses, all bamboo are C3 plants according to several sources. That would pretty much eliminate that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 From the link above attributed to Dr. Meldrum Unlike most tropical grasses, all bamboo are C3 plants according to several sources. That would pretty much eliminate that argument. Keep reading. The devil (as the saying goes) is in the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kronprinz Adam Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 A skull, a few jaw bones, teeth, etc. That's it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus In fact, the giganto skull does not resemble the modern BF descriptions of the past 50 years. Such as an evolved cranium, more prominent frontal lobe development, etc. And the whole theory that giganto was a biped. Do we know this as a fact? I think the skull is a reconstruction (probably inspired on gorillas and orangutans) I think no one knows really how Giganto Skull looked like!! all the other material (even full-size reconstructions) are simply assumptions... A skull, a few jaw bones, teeth, etc. That's it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus In fact, the giganto skull does not resemble the modern BF descriptions of the past 50 years. Such as an evolved cranium, more prominent frontal lobe development, etc. And the whole theory that giganto was a biped. Do we know this as a fact? I think we know really little of Giganto (we only know it was huge, probably herbivore and we asumme it was like a giant bamboo-eater gorilla)..we do not know exactly waht Bigfoot really is, and how it evolved, but nevertheless, Giganto is an example that some apes can really grow to a huge size!! Megafauna rules!!! Greetings. K. Adam . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) My take-away here is that paleontological theories (extrapolations) are accepted based on far less physical evidence than contemporary information is. Edited January 10, 2012 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KentuckyApeman Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Why does this gigantopithicus deal keep popping up? This species is not what Sasses are. They are a people, not justan ape. Bipedal or otherwise.JMEO-Knuck People would have to build at least seasonal structures to inhabit. They would need some type of real tool(not just a simple club or stick).I lean towards an evolved biped ape theory, or maybe a hairy, early hominid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 lol Bill.. if it was reaching for a Durian, I would have to downgrade any assessment on intelligence, or would at the very least criticize its "taste" in fruit... BLECCH, smelly disgusting fruit with the consistency and taste of putrified rotten onions... Just had to comment on that- sorry to derail.... ART Oh yummy!!! I love durians and buy them in the summer when I can eat them outside. The guy I housesit for won't allow them inside Quite the quandry, ole chum. Yes, no tools(not even a phillps head screw driver). But do they need manufactured tools and mechanically forged hammers, axes, etc, to exist? Surely grizzley bear or a moose do not. To exist? no. but to be classed as humans or Homo? yes they would need tools for that. Part of the description for the genus Homo is tool production. Stone tools are all we have to demonstrate this for most human species such as Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis. However humans do use a variety of other tools for all sorts of uses made from degradable materials. There is little mention of these tools in BF lore. Old stories often mention clubs but modern stories do not. My take-away here is that paleontological theories (extrapolations) are accepted based on far less physical evidence than contemporary information is. Do you know where we can look at BF teeth and jaw bones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 In any bigfoot mouth, I'm certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 In any bigfoot mouth, I'm certain. So you mean "No"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 No, I mean look one in the mouth and you'll see teeth mounted in a jawbone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 No, I mean look one in the mouth and you'll see teeth mounted in a jawbone. Well you're the one who made the claim that suggested we have more evidence of BF than paleontologists do for gigantopithecus. Where's your BF mouth that we can look into? I mean you should really direct me to a particular mouth available at the moment for observation. As it stands we have more evidence for G blackii than we have for BF. And none whatsoever that says BF and GB are the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Oh, I don't think BF and GB are the same thing at all. I'm just saying that the evidence of each is treated differently. If I bring a paleontologist to a site where a footprint set in documentably paleolithic mud, he will go about classifying the creature that left the print. He may even declare that it is a new species. By contrast, if I bring a skeptic to a fresh bigfoot track that is part of a series of tracks that extends for hundreds of yards, and just one of those tracks is clear enough to provide dermal ridges and evidence of foot flexion, etc.; they'll more likely devote their time to noodling out as many alternative explanations as possible, rather than simply examining the evidence. Different standard. With regard to directing you to a specific bigfoot, I'm afraid that I cannot do so. Something to do with the Hidenseek Uncertainty Principle. I can direct you to multiple locations where I have encountered squatch and suggest that you find a quiet place to sit and watch until one comes by to see if you're real. You'll have to convince it to open its mouth yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 If I bring a paleontologist to a site where a footprint set in documentably paleolithic mud, he will go about classifying the creature that left the print. He may even declare that it is a new species. By contrast, if I bring a skeptic to a fresh bigfoot track that is part of a series of tracks that extends for hundreds of yards, and just one of those tracks is clear enough to provide dermal ridges and evidence of foot flexion, etc.; they'll more likely devote their time to noodling out as many alternative explanations as possible, rather than simply examining the evidence. Different standard. Well a paleotologist will not identify a NEW species on footprints. When plaeontologist discover footprints in stone they may give the prints a binomial latinized name but that name only has meaning when talking about footprints. Some footprints have been linked to some fossils but this is technically "tentative". Autstralopithecus existed three million years ago and we have found footprints this old and they are consistent with each other but they are not conclusively labelled as australopithecus footprints and certainly we do not know which species of australopithecus these footprints belong to. Modernly, scientists looking at BF footprints have to determine if these are BF prints, human prints, fake prints etc. The fact that hoaxers are common enough the fake prints have to be given a good deal of consideration. This was perhaps less likely during the paleocene but perhaps aliens faked the prints, who knows? Figuring out whatever possibilities there may be is part of science. Once they figure out what possibilities they have, they can then try to figure out how likely each one is. Just because a scientist can come up with a bunch of possibilites doesn't mean he is denying the possibility of BF but only that he is covering all of the possible outcomes. Footprints will never really determine any species. Footprints, both modern and fossil, only say something came this way but don't really say what that something is or was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Common ground. Understand that I'm already satisfied that they do exist. Someone will get around to proving it one day, but it's old news as far as I'm conccerned. My interests are with regard to their intelligence level, range of physical characteristics, and behavior. So I'm more interested in information regarding these aspects and I treat every bit of bigfoot evidence the same way. I look at who and where it came from and apply a consistency standard with regard to its reliability. Some is so outlandish that I discard it out of hand (or give it a low value). Some is so consistent with so many other reports that it might as well be vanilla - nothing new other than to add statistical weight. The extraordinary evidence requires the most scrutiny. Film, photos, and detailed reports that contain both consistent and new data. I am particularly brutal when it comes to film and photos. With reports, some new data is simply new, doesn't lack consistency, necessarily, because the characteristic or behavior simply has not been reported before, but it isn't outlandish - so it is added to the database and catalogued as something to watch for in the future. It's a statistical approach more than anything, but critical none-the-less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts