Hoaxes and hoaxers

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, vinchyfoot said:

The proposed ape on the other has seemingly been unique to a tropical environment, WHY would it suddenly uproot and make such a dramatic change of said environment.........

 

Neanderthals, Denisovans, Almas, Yetis, and Sasquatches are all associated with temperate, boreal, or alpine environments, and their adaptations to said environments in the "Out-of-Africa" theory occurred at or over 100,000 years ago. The last Beringia land bridge is believed to be 11,000 years ago.

[vinchyfoot]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Neanderthals, Denisovans, Almas, Yetis, and Sasquatches are all associated with temperate, boreal, or alpine environments, and their adaptations to said environments in the "Out-of-Africa" theory occurred at or over 100,000 years ago. The last Beringia land bridge is believed to be 11,000 years ago.

And all were likely Omnivores, a tropical likely herbivorous ape is a much less likely candidate for survival, also, going from huge Orangatang looking thing to upright hominoid is so short a time evolutionarily speak also unlikely. The Giganto theory is simply BS.

[Wooly Booger]

1 hour ago, vinchyfoot said:

And all were likely Omnivores, a tropical likely herbivorous ape is a much less likely candidate for survival, also, going from huge Orangatang looking thing to upright hominoid is so short a time evolutionarily speak also unlikely. The Giganto theory is simply BS.

There are many potential candidates for Sasquatch in the fossil record. Gigantopithicus is simply one of several possibilities. Paranthropus Robustus is perhaps the most plausible candidate found this far. 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, vinchyfoot said:

And all were likely Omnivores........

 

Bingo.

 

Quote

........going from huge Orangatang looking thing to upright hominoid is so short a time evolutionarily speak also unlikely. The Giganto theory is simply BS.

 

Building a giant Orang from fossilized teeth and a partial mandible is a weak theory, and clinging to it to explain or deny extant bipedal apes or hominids in Old and/or New Worlds goes beyond weak. 

 

The bottom line here and today is that there is evidence that there is a rare bipedal ape or hominid in North America. To many, that alone is too much to swallow. That's fine with me. They can run along and study the mating habits of echidnas. I'm curious enough to pay attention to events and wade through the stupid hoaxes, bickering, back biting, and basement theorizing that is expected as the BS in any other human line of thought. As an avid outdoorsman, I hope for an encounter with one of these creatures, but I'm aware that the odds are exponentially against me. A glimpse of one would be enough for me. Even another footprint find would be a gift. I'll leave the anthropological theorizing to the point heads that are still not in the game yet.

 

[Wooly Booger]

1 minute ago, Huntster said:

 

Bingo.

 

 

Building a giant Orang from fossilized teeth and a partial mandible is a weak theory, and clinging to it to explain or deny extant bipedal apes or hominids in Old and/or New Worlds goes beyond weak. 

 

The bottom line here and today is that there is evidence that there is a rare bipedal ape or hominid in North America. To many, that alone is too much to swallow. That's fine with me. They can run along and study the mating habits of echidnas. I'm curious enough to pay attention to events and wade through the stupid hoaxes, bickering, back biting, and basement theorizing that is expected as the BS in any other human line of thought. As an avid outdoorsman, I hope for an encounter with one of these creatures, but I'm aware that the odds are exponentially against me. A glimpse of one would be enough for me. Even another footprint find would be a gift. I'll leave the anthropological theorizing to the point heads that are still not in the game yet.

 

Exactly! That Gigantopithicus was a herbivore is merely an assumption and a flawed one at that. I recall that its discoverer thought the jaw structure and teeth suggested it had been a carnivore. Neither hypothesis is of course definitive.  But my point is, the model constructed of Gigantopithicus as a vegetarian is far from conclusive. 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

9 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Bingo.

 

 

Building a giant Orang from fossilized teeth and a partial mandible is a weak theory, and clinging to it to explain or deny extant bipedal apes or hominids in Old and/or New Worlds goes beyond weak. 

 

The bottom line here and today is that there is evidence that there is a rare bipedal ape or hominid in North America. To many, that alone is too much to swallow. That's fine with me. They can run along and study the mating habits of echidnas. I'm curious enough to pay attention to events and wade through the stupid hoaxes, bickering, back biting, and basement theorizing that is expected as the BS in any other human line of thought. As an avid outdoorsman, I hope for an encounter with one of these creatures, but I'm aware that the odds are exponentially against me. A glimpse of one would be enough for me. Even another footprint find would be a gift. I'll leave the anthropological theorizing to the point heads that are still not in the game yet.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

Exactly! That Gigantopithicus was a herbivore is merely an assumption and a flawed one at that. I recall that its discoverer thought the jaw structure and teeth suggested it had been a carnivore. Neither hypothesis is of course definitive.  But my point is, the model constructed of Gigantopithicus as a vegetarian is far from conclusive. 

Great points.

[norseman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus
 

Gigantopithecus is considered to have been a herbivore. Carbon-13 isotope analysis suggests consumption of C3 plants, such as fruits, leaves, and other forest plants.[21] The robust mandible of Gigantopithecus indicates it was capable of resisting high strains while chewing through tough or hard foods. However, the same mandibular anatomy is typically seen in modern apes which primarily eat soft leaves (folivores) or seeds (granivores). Gigantopithecus teeth have a markedly lower rate of pitting (caused by eating small, hard objects) than orangutans, more similar to the rate seen in chimpanzees, which could indicate a similarly generalist diet.[2]

The molar-like premolars, large molars, and long rooted cheeked teeth could point to chewing, crushing, and grinding of bulky and fibrous materials.[22][23] Thick enamel would suggest a diet of abrasive items, such as dirt particles on food gathered near or on the ground (like bamboo shoots).[19]Similarly, oxygen isotope analysis suggests Gigantopithecus consumed more low-lying plants such as stems, roots, and grasses than orangutans. Dental calculus indicates the consumption of tubers.[24]Gigantopithecus does not appear to have consumed the commonplace savanna grasses (C4 plants).[21] Nonetheless, in 1990, a few opal phytoliths adhering to four teeth from GigantopithecusCave were identified to have originated from grasses; though, the majority of phytoliths resemble the hairs of fig family fruits, which include figs, mulberry, breadfruit and banyan. This suggests that fruit was a significant dietary component for at least this population of Gigantopithecus.[23]

The 400–320,000 year old Middle Pleistocene teeth from Hejiang Cave in southeastern China (near the time of extinction) show some differences from Early Pleistocene material from other sites, which could potentially indicate that the Hejiang Gigantopithecus were a specialised form adapting to a changing environment with different food resources. The Hejiang teeth display a less level (more crenulated) outer enamel surface due to the presence of secondary crests emanating from the paracone and protocone on the side of the molar closer to the midline (medially), as well as sharper major crests. That is, the teeth are not as flat.[7][25][26]

In 1957, based on hoofed animal remains in a cave located in a seemingly inaccessible mountain, Pei had believed that Gigantopithecus was a cave-dwelling predator and carried these animals in.[27] This hypothesis is no longer considered viable because its dental anatomy is consistent with herbivory.[21] In 1975, American palaeoanthropologist Tim D. White drew similarities between the jaws and dentition of Gigantopithecus and those of the giant panda, and suggested they both occupied the same niche as bamboo specialists.[28] This garnered support from some subsequent researchers, but thicker enamel and hypsodonty in Gigantopithecus could suggest different functionality for these teeth.[19]

 

It would seem tooth morphology and preferred foods was not consistent across the species as a whole. Based on the fossil record in Asia.

 

[Madison5716]

We've tried the crying baby route once. Since I'm a preschool teacher, it was pretty easy to get a recording of a baby crying. We didn't get any response that we knew of, but it was a super creepy section of forest, so.

 

That doll is creepy AF. If I found that in the woods, I would run so fast in the other direction... Holy Toledo.

 

But we can totally try the crying baby thing again. But from my truck, not a hike=in.

[vinchyfoot]

21 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Bingo.

 

 

Building a giant Orang from fossilized teeth and a partial mandible is a weak theory, and clinging to it to explain or deny extant bipedal apes or hominids in Old and/or New Worlds goes beyond weak. 

 

The bottom line here and today is that there is evidence that there is a rare bipedal ape or hominid in North America. To many, that alone is too much to swallow. That's fine with me. They can run along and study the mating habits of echidnas. I'm curious enough to pay attention to events and wade through the stupid hoaxes, bickering, back biting, and basement theorizing that is expected as the BS in any other human line of thought. As an avid outdoorsman, I hope for an encounter with one of these creatures, but I'm aware that the odds are exponentially against me. A glimpse of one would be enough for me. Even another footprint find would be a gift. I'll leave the anthropological theorizing to the point heads that are still not in the game yet.

 

 

assuming it wasn't from a few teeth is a weak foundation in either direction of the argument, and to have that giant Orangatang suddenly morph into Patty in the new world is just f****g stupid. It remains an attempt to fill the square hole with the round peg.

[7.62]

21 minutes ago, Madison5716 said:

We've tried the crying baby route once. Since I'm a preschool teacher, it was pretty easy to get a recording of a baby crying. We didn't get any response that we knew of, but it was a super creepy section of forest, so.

 

That doll is creepy AF. If I found that in the woods, I would run so fast in the other direction... Holy Toledo.

 

But we can totally try the crying baby thing again. But from my truck, not a hike=in.

I really think they need to see it  to make them selves known. I don't think just a recording will do it .  This is just me spitballing  but If and it's a big if . If they are in the area 

and 3 of these dolls were placed  sitting on small chairs around a small folding table in the middle of the forest with a remote controlled recorder with the sound of children playing . I  think their curiosity is going to get the better of them and will approach it. If I thought we had Sasquatch  here where I live I would try it. We just don't have any here.

 

The trick is though you have to be far enough away so they do  investigate it. . A few hundred yards at least  and viewing with a spotting scope .So finding the right spot to do it in it's self is a challenge . You don't want it in a large  open clearing where they also can observe from a far and cover.. You want it so they have to break cover to get a good look.

[Madison5716]

The only time recently that I've hiked with a child - we were mushroom hunting with him (5yo) and his family - and we got action. Or, THEY got action. We split into three groups. NorthWind and I, my friend and her adult son with special needs and her adult daughter/BF/son. Both the other two sets of people heard footsteps and brush breaks. NorthWind and I got nothing LOL, except a few chanterelles.

 

My very first experiences were picking up my then 8-year old son from summer camp when he couldn't handle the overnight. I showed up at 11pm and the experience began.

 

I just hesitate to use children as bait, LOL.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

3 hours ago, 7.62 said:

I really think they need to see it  to make them selves known. I don't think just a recording will do it .  This is just me spitballing  but If and it's a big if . If they are in the area 

and 3 of these dolls were placed  sitting on small chairs around a small folding table in the middle of the forest with a remote controlled recorder with the sound of children playing . I  think their curiosity is going to get the better of them and will approach it. If I thought we had Sasquatch  here where I live I would try it. We just don't have any here.

 

The trick is though you have to be far enough away so they do  investigate it. . A few hundred yards at least  and viewing with a spotting scope .So finding the right spot to do it in it's self is a challenge . You don't want it in a large  open clearing where they also can observe from a far and cover.. You want it so they have to break cover to get a good look.

Hands up…

 

Who all has been pricing super realistic baby dolls since your post?

 

[7.62]

26 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Hands up…

 

Who all has been pricing super realistic baby dolls since your post?

 

I'm just out of ideas , Knocking , call blasting it's been done over and over again . Even if you hear the howl or get a knock back it seems when watching most researchers they never seem to get the visual of a Sasquatch when actively looking for one. Most of these encounters seem to be when  campers , hikers , hunters are doing their thing and it just happens but they aren't ready to take a photo or film and then it's over and it becomes a just a story or report filed with the BFRO . I know there's no guarantee this idea will work either but it just seems like it's one that hasn't been tried . 

[7.62]

1 hour ago, Madison5716 said:

The only time recently that I've hiked with a child - we were mushroom hunting with him (5yo) and his family - and we got action. Or, THEY got action. We split into three groups. NorthWind and I, my friend and her adult son with special needs and her adult daughter/BF/son. Both the other two sets of people heard footsteps and brush breaks. NorthWind and I got nothing LOL, except a few chanterelles.

 

My very first experiences were picking up my then 8-year old son from summer camp when he couldn't handle the overnight. I showed up at 11pm and the experience began.

 

I just hesitate to use children as bait, LOL.

See that's interesting . Are their reasons nefarious ? I don't know because if you read some reported stories of found  very young children who were lost have said a bear helped them out or something to that effect . 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

12 minutes ago, 7.62 said:

I'm just out of ideas , Knocking , call blasting it's been done over and over again . Even if you hear the howl or get a knock back it seems when watching most researchers they never seem to get the visual of a Sasquatch when actively looking for one. Most of these encounters seem to be when  campers , hikers , hunters are doing their thing and it just happens but they aren't ready to take a photo or film and then it's over and it becomes a just a story or report filed with the BFRO . I know there's no guarantee this idea will work either but it just seems like it's one that hasn't been tried . 

I agree.  I might give this a shot.