Jump to content

Neanderthal locomotion


norseman
 Share

Recommended Posts

I thought he was providing good food for thought with references as well.  It’s not as common anymore for someone to make a case and provide some sort of backing.  Maybe this forum doesn’t encourage debate anymore? :D

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, gigantor said:

Don't bother responding to MonkeMan until Sunday night...  he's on vacation ;)

 

But...but...I don't want to go on vacation.  I like this place.

 

Oh wait!  That wasn't me you were referring to...Never mind...forget what I said...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2021 at 9:54 AM, MonkeMan said:

Probably because they don't think the "evidence" is conclusive.........

 

The "evidence" is not "conclusive". If it was, it would be "proof". 

 

Law enforcement and the ciurts have a saying: "cameras convict." That's why cameras are now everywhere, including on police officers chests. But not for people like you, government biologists, and academics (at least with respect to sasquatchery). Not even good enough to initiate investigation, even though the several scientists who did investigate stated that camera speed was crucial in determining validity. It's that close.

 

Quote

.........As Sasquatch enthusiasts every time we theorize on Sasquatch we are speculating or conjecturing about her phenotype. Moreover the assertions I've made are not just pulled out of thin air, they are backed by pretty sound reasoning. We have more of a reason to believe Sasquatch would be like other Anthropoids than the opposite.........

 

You are free to theorize, and I am free to discount your theories. Why?

 

Because it was not "conclusive".

 

See how easy that was? 

 

Quote

.........LOL I'm not saying that Black bears go out of their way to kill Squatches but if it ever came down to it and a Black bear would probably win.........

 

And I say that most black bears would leave the scene immediately upon smelling a sasquatch, unless it was a very young sasquatch that was alone.

 

Quote

 

........NO need, I have plenty.

DUDGdDG.jpg

0l22SW3.png

s6wrixa.jpg

YBDLxnE.jpg

zeUYr3s.jpg

o05VcG2.jpg

 

 

 

I commend your attempt to use references to discount my position, but I'm afraid you have only confirmed me when. state that leopards do indeed prey upon young and female gorillas and perhaps old, ill, and injured males. Your own link stated that the silverback at Mbeli Bai was "in very poor physical condition". The references to gorilla body parts in leopard scat does not identify whether those parts are from healthy males. And the description of the leopard attack at Bai Hokou that was heard and followed upon by the witnesses brings up a couple of additional points. Gorillas live in rather tight family groups. A leopard attacking a female or youth on the fringes of the group by a leopard is more than likely to be counter-attacked in return by the silverback. Also, in this specific case, the silverback was seen by the witnesses after the event with no injury seen.

 

Moreover, the relationships between leopards and African primates has little to do with the relationship between bears and sasquatches in North America, although it might be something to consider with regard to pumas and sasquatches.

 

Quote

........I can believe it as black bears have run from me before.........

 

I specifically wrote that inland grizzly bears bolted and ran from me upon me being scented, not black bears, although I've had black bears run from me, too. I've also had bears of both species lay down in front of me at my bear bait station, knowing full well I was there, and eat my bait. I've had black bears lay down in front of me and take a nap.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Huntster said:

Law enforcement and the ciurts have a saying: "cameras convict."

 

I don’t actually believe you're arguing in good faith here. Considering comparing videos of sasquatch with, say, security camera footage of a robbery is a false equivalence at best in this context.

 

The Sasquatch community is associated with frauds, hoaxers, con artists, and nut cases that make any sort of video evidence questionable at best.

 

16 hours ago, Huntster said:

You are free to theorize, and I am free to discount your theories. Why?

 

Because it was not "conclusive".

 

That’s nice but we’re not really trying to discern what is a scientific fact and what isn’t. We’re simply making educated guesses  on an unknown species based on what we already know about Anthropoid primates so it doesn’t actually matter what’s conclusive at that point. You can discount it all you’d like, as it is just speculation after all. But at that point why even bother having a conversation with me, or anyone for that matter on this subject?

 

I mean if we are going to take this type of conceptual rigor and apply it to simple speculation and conjecture such as this then we must be forced to conclude there is no such thing as Sasquatch after all as there is no reliable evidence suggesting as such. Hence, why most scientists don’t take it seriously at all.

Now to be clear, I do understand the point you are trying to make and I get that you’re trying to be clever, but it just doesn’t really apply here.

 

16 hours ago, Huntster said:

I commend your attempt to use references to discount my position

 

Thank you! Most seem intimidated by it, so I'm glad that at least you appreciate it.

 

 All predators avoid injury if they can. They don’t have doctors after all so of course they will focus on smaller and weaker members of prey species. However my point is that a silver-back gorilla usually stands no chance against a leopard. In fact the tracks at Bai Hokou highly suggest that the family of gorillas were being chased by a single leopard. Moreover, the only thing gorillas have to defend themselves is their bite and their strength. While these may seem like formidable weapons, in reality, even toddlers have survived such attacks and the bite force of a gorilla is only about twice as strong as a humans. In fact in the only instance of a gorilla killing a leopard the gorilla died too, which buttresses my point.

 

Even Human’s, which are predators, do not have a panniculus carnosus and as such we are far more likely to die from a brawl with another large predator.

 

16 hours ago, Huntster said:

Moreover, the relationships between leopards and African primates has little to do with the relationship between bears and sasquatches in North America,


This seems disingenuous to me considering the whole point of me bringing it up was just to make a point about how vulnerable Primates actually are, even with enormous strength.

 

16 hours ago, Huntster said:

I specifically wrote that inland grizzly bears bolted and ran from me upon me being scented, not black bears, although I've had black bears run from me, too. I've also had bears of both species lay down in front of me at my bear bait station, knowing full well I was there, and eat my bait. I've had black bears lay down in front of me and take a nap.

 

Ok. I'm not really sure how this is relevant though.

Edited by MonkeMan
A word
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MonkeMan, one thought might be to start a thread and turn your attention to the US/CAN border patrol? There is no way they are not tracking these creatures- OFTEN. They certainly have the capability.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MonkeMan said:

I don’t actually believe you're arguing in good faith here. Considering comparing videos of sasquatch with, say, security camera footage of a robbery is a false equivalence at best in this context.

 

The Sasquatch community is associated with frauds, hoaxers, con artists, and nut cases that make any sort of video evidence questionable at best.........

 

Now, that's downright funny. The sasquatch community is associated with frauds, hoaxers, con artists, and nut cases, but I suppose law enforcement and the courts are only "associated" with the most honorable of people? Why do you think cops are now required to wear cameras to go along with their guns, tazers, radios, batons, cuffs, et al?

 

Quote

........we’re not really trying to discern what is a scientific fact and what isn’t........

 

Well, I'm not, but weren't you the one aligning yourself with official government scientists with the excuse that the PG film wasn't "conclusive evidence"? Seems like you enjoy waffling between official science and theory on your own terms. Is that "scientific"? 

 

Quote

........We’re simply making educated guesses  on an unknown species based on what we already know about Anthropoid primates.......

 

I'm afraid I make my educated guesses on more factors than that, such as common threads among sighting reports, densities of reports, areas with a lack of reports, aboriginal tradition, trace evidence, and more.

 

Quote

.......But at that point why even bother having a conversation with me, or anyone for that matter on this subject?........

 

Some people converse on the subject with a basis that I can relate to, and some don't. For example, when somebody tries to tell me that they mind-speak with sasquatches after giving them a cigarette and Bic lighter, I'm pretty much done conversing with them. You originally seemed to converse from a good foundation, but I will admit that I'm starting to see cracks in your slab.

 

Quote

.......the only thing gorillas have to defend themselves is their bite and their strength.......

 

Ummm.......that's what leopards use to attack their prey, Dude, and their strength is much less than that of a silverback gorilla. Leopards use their claws primarily to climb and as defensive weapons. They do not claw their prey to death. They bite the trachea, crush it, and hold on in order to strangle their prey. 

 

You're kinda' new at this, huh?

 

Quote

......In fact in the only instance of a gorilla killing a leopard the gorilla died too, which buttresses my point........

 

Actually, it does not buttress your point, and you indeed continue to miss the point. Gorillas have absolutely no desire or intent to kill leopards, even leopards that attack them. The female gorillas in a group will immediately scream like banshees while grabbing their young and running like Hell, just like your reference describes, and the silverback will counter-attack to distract the leopard until he, too, can make good his escape, following his family and protecting the rear from more attacks.

 

Quote

........This seems disingenuous to me considering the whole point of me bringing it up was just to make a point about how vulnerable Primates actually are, even with enormous strength.........

 

Well, I consider your point weak, and as you continue to try to defend it, I will continue to attack it. And THAT is how "science" works.

 

Quote

........Ok. I'm not really sure how this is relevant though.........

 

It is "evidence" that the most powerful and feared predator on this continent is actually smart enough to take off like a bat out of Hell upon discovering that I'm in the vicinity, even though I have no panniculus carnosus whatsoever.

 

Quote

........I mean if we are going to take this type of conceptual rigor and apply it to simple speculation and conjecture such as this then we must be forced to conclude there is no such thing as Sasquatch after all as there is no reliable evidence suggesting as such. Hence, why most scientists don’t take it seriously at all.........

 

Well, I'm not a scientist, and unlike you, I don't need "conclusive" evidence to believe that sasquatches exist, and the subject in the PG film is a sasquatch.

 

Quote

........my point is that a silver-back gorilla usually stands no chance against a leopard. In fact the tracks at Bai Hokou highly suggest that the family of gorillas were being chased by a single leopard..........

 

Actually, I wish your point was true. If it was, then the endangered status of gorillas (even though there are many thousands of them) would be due to the mighty leopard which somehow failed to render gorillas extinct before science finally recognized them as a species in 1854. But since the goal of the gorillas is to escape leopard attacks instead of proactively hunting them down and killing them (like their cousins homo sapiens do), gorillas actually stand a pretty good "chance".

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Huntster said:

The sasquatch community is associated with frauds, hoaxers, con artists, and nut cases, but I suppose law enforcement and the courts are only "associated" with the most honorable of people?

 

Let's not turn this into a political debate. I'm very much for ACAB, but there is far more incentive for someone to fake Bigfoot videos than there is for a cop to (somehow) frame someone with footage from their own body cam. Moreover, you cannot deny the overwhelming and increasing presence of "woo belief" in the Sasquatch community. I don't blame Scientists for not taking the subject seriously. Its like trying to convince people you're not a nazi when all you do is hang out with nazis, have nazi memorabilia in your closet, have a copy of mein kampf in a dresser drawer, and have Nazi tattoos.

 

31 minutes ago, Huntster said:

weren't you the one aligning yourself with official government scientists with the excuse that the PG film wasn't "conclusive evidence"?

 

What are you talking about? Do you think scientists are just this homogenous group of people with all the same beliefs and thoughts? I could see National Park service, or the FBI having a reason to deny Bigfoot even if there was conclusive evidence, but I believe you're attributing too much to "official government scientists".

 

Furthermore, I don't necessarily discount the PG film and my opinion of it isn't tied to scientific consensus, I'm just skeptical of it, but I don't really know of its validity in either direction. I have to be skeptical of it because in this day and age of climate change deniers, anti vaxers, and flat earthers, there is a lot of bullcrap out there. But I'm here for a reason, and it's not to argue with you all and claim Sasquatch is make believe.

 

38 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Leopards use their claws primarily to climb and as defensive weapons. They do not claw their prey to death.

 

They don't really have to. All it takes is a good swipe and the Gorilla will bleed to death.

 

39 minutes ago, Huntster said:

You're kinda' new at this, huh?

 

Please, lets keep this civil. I like you and I'm not trying to go on vacation again.

 

39 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Gorillas have absolutely no desire or intent to kill leopards, even leopards that attack them.

 

And that's because they are prey animals.

 

45 minutes ago, Huntster said:

And THAT is how "science" works.

 

Not really no. Science isn't debate.

 

46 minutes ago, Huntster said:

even though I have no panniculus carnosus whatsoever.

 

Sasquatch doesn't have guns. Moreover, Grizzly bears sure as heck don't always run when encountering humans. There's plenty of evidence for that too.

 

47 minutes ago, Huntster said:

hen the endangered status of gorillas (even though there are many thousands of them) would be due to the mighty leopard which somehow failed to render gorillas extinct

 

What? Most prey species don't go extinct simply because they are preyed upon. I mean jeez, why aren't all prey extinct then?

5 hours ago, hiflier said:

MonkeMan, one thought might be to start a thread and turn your attention to the US/CAN border patrol? There is no way they are not tracking these creatures- OFTEN. They certainly have the capability.

 

I'll definitely look into it and post a thread if I find something interesting. Thank you!

  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MonkeMan said:

.......there is far more incentive for someone to fake Bigfoot videos than there is for a cop to (somehow) frame someone with footage from their own body cam.........

 

Cameras (worn by police or security cameras) aren't used in law to frame people. They're used to establish the truth in a field filled to the brim with liars. And their use has a H U G E effect on both convictions and negating false testimony. Photographic evidence is valid, even against "sasquatch deniers".

 

Quote

.......Moreover, you cannot deny the overwhelming and increasing presence of "woo belief" in the Sasquatch community. I don't blame Scientists for not taking the subject seriously. Its like trying to convince people you're not a nazi when all you do is hang out with nazis, have nazi memorabilia in your closet, have a copy of mein kampf in a dresser drawer, and have Nazi tatt.......

 

And you tell me to leave politics out of the debate? Scientists justifying their intentional ignorance on the existence of kooks isn't science. It's cowardice. There was a film presented that remains, over 50 years later, as highly likely to have been the real thing, and "official government scientists" (California Dept. of Fish and Game and USFWS biologists) responsible for wildlife management STILL have not uttered a single words about the subject. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Go ahead; prove me wrong. Reference their statements on either the PG film or sasquatch in general.

 

Quote

......Do you think scientists are just this homogenous group of people with all the same beliefs and thoughts?.........

 

Absolutely not, because there are quite a few scientists in several fields who show keen interest and involvement in sasquatchery. But absolutely none of them are employed in the specific careers that would be responsible for the management of such a creature if they did indeed exist.

 

Quote

I could see National Park service, or the FBI having a reason to deny Bigfoot even if there was conclusive evidence, but I believe you're attributing too much to "official government scientists".........

 

Just wait until after "discovery". I have only just begun to ask questions.........

 

Quote

have to be skeptical of it because in this day and age of climate change deniers, anti vaxers, and flat earthers, there is a lot of bullcrap out there.

 

Funny you mention those folks. I consider sasquatch deniers to fit with them like a glove.

 

Quote

........I'm here for a reason.......

 

What might that be?

 

Quote

.........All it takes is a good swipe and the Gorilla will bleed to death..........

 

:rofl:

 

Yeah, you're new at this........

 

Quote

........And that's because they are prey animals........

 

Almost purely herbivores, very peaceful, and yes, prey. But, then, so are moose, and they'll kill you, wolves, or bears in a heartbeat.

 

Quote

.......Science isn't debate........

 

Yeah, it seems like you see science as handed down from your elevated perch without retort.

 

Quote

......Sasquatch doesn't have guns.......

 

Neither do British tourists.

 

Quote

.........Moreover, Grizzly bears sure as heck don't always run when encountering humans. There's plenty of evidence for that too........

 

As I wrote. I've had them sit and eat all my bait as I sat in disgust and watch WITH my rifle laying in my knees. Do you suppose they read the Alaska Hunting Regs and know that I can't shoot them over bait?

 

Quote

........Most prey species don't go extinct simply because they are preyed upon. I mean jeez, why aren't all prey extinct then?.......

 

Unlike gorillas, ungulates have high birth rates. In other words, They'll have enough young so that the loss of some won't kill off the generation.

 

Yeah, you really are new to this, huh?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Cameras (worn by police or security cameras) aren't used in law to frame people.

 

Unsurprisingly, you've missed the point. The video "evidence" used to prove the existence of Sasquatch is more likely to be faked than body cam footage.

 

False equivalence. 

 

41 minutes ago, Huntster said:

And you tell me to leave politics out of the debate?

 

Yes. Did you consider what I said about Nazi's to be political? I can use a different metaphor if you'd like.

 

42 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Scientists justifying their intentional ignorance on the existence of kooks isn't science.

 

Why would you think it was?

 

42 minutes ago, Huntster said:

as highly likely to have been the real thing

 

Clearly overstating the possible legitimacy of the film.

 

43 minutes ago, Huntster said:

prove me wrong.

 

That's not how burden of proof works.

 

44 minutes ago, Huntster said:

I consider sasquatch deniers to fit with them like a glove.

 

I get it, you're not used to your worldview being challenged and that makes you angry but there is no reason to be so combative. 

 

45 minutes ago, Huntster said:

What might that be?

 

It was to network and discuss, but honestly I don't think this forum is for me. Reddit is far more tolerant of opposing views. Ironically.

 

46 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Yeah, you're new at this

 

I'm waiting.

 

47 minutes ago, Huntster said:

But, then, so are moose, and they'll kill you, wolves, or bears in a heartbeat.

 

Actually Grizzlies have been known to kill adult moose quite often.

 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=intensivemanagement.predatorprey

 

 

48 minutes ago, Huntster said:

you see science as handed down from your elevated perch without retort

 

You should probably re-read my comments, as this is clearly not the case. I would explain it to you, but I don't think you're really interested in anything that goes against the narrative you've already built about me.

 

50 minutes ago, Huntster said:

As I wrote. I've had them sit and eat all my bait as I sat in disgust and watch WITH my rifle laying in my knees. Do you suppose they read the Alaska Hunting Regs and know that I can't shoot them over bait?

 

Okay? You better be careful. You could easily be mauled.

 

51 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Unlike gorillas, ungulates have high birth rates.

 

Irrelevant. In fact, having low reproduction rates can decrease predation risk.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12675374/

 

  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MonkeMan said:

Yes. Did you consider what I said about Nazi's to be political? I can use a different metaphor if you'd like.

 

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

 

Yes.


Simply mentioning Nazis isn’t political. And the way I used the metaphor was not political either. But fine. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it’s probably a duck.

 

The Bigfoot advocates on the natural side of the coin have to deal with the fact that to actually be taken seriously they must distance themselves from the supernatural side.

 

 

Edited by MonkeMan
A word
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're too clever by half.

Deliberate charged words and concepts by lil' 'ol you? Say it ain't so.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MonkeMan said:

Let's not turn this into a political debate. I'm very much for ACAB, but......

 

Pathetic.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MonkeMan said:


Simply mentioning Nazis isn’t political. And the way I used the metaphor was not political either. But fine. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it’s probably a duck.

 

The Bigfoot advocates on the natural side of the coin have to deal with the fact that to actually be taken seriously they must distance themselves from the supernatural side.

 

 


The only way we are gonna be taken seriously by science IS to provide physical evidence…. a finger, a tooth, a bloody corpse. And possibly DNA from scat, hair, eDNA. But even that at this point seems convoluted. You cannot argue with a corpse tho.

 

Blurry photos and plaster casts might as well be ghost stories. It’s never going to be taken seriously.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MonkeMan said:

The Bigfoot advocates on the natural side of the coin have to deal with the fact that to actually be taken seriously they must distance themselves from the supernatural side.

With much levity and humor I submit:

https://youtu.be/zljrlArPu2E?t=28

 

IMO, a bit of so called woo-ish laden traffic on a forum is NOT the reason "science" won't look into it. I'm sure it's a cocktail and I suspect a few ingredients but who here really knows why?

 

Taken seriously by whom? Any scientist worth his salt should clearly be able to wade through surface level nonsense such as hoaxes and the ludicrous supernatural claims.  Though it does seem there is data in the anomalous range that should not be ignored. Science may currently be unequipped with the tools to deal with that data but it's awfully foolish to throw it out. Look at the NIDS team, plenty of phenomena but none of it repeating. Then what? Nothing conclusive means nothing happened?

 

As a scientist, I would think it would be fascinating to come up against a completely unknown phenomena-so much to grapple with. Yet those who do are often ridiculed by frustrated ninnies in their agentic state without the proper tools and understanding. Where will science be in 100 years, in a thousand years?? Hopefully not stagnating, ignoring things we don't understand.

That's my trope, I'm sticking to it.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...