General consensus on what Bigfoot is

[MIB]

^^^ that would be the only satisfactory way to answer the question.

[Huntster]

This is the standard flow of the denial/confirmation process, so I'd love to see the question asked incessantly. Eventually, somebody with authority will show up with that certified tape measure..........

 

In the meantime, the Zana situation confirms (proves?........oh, people hate that word!) that at least some of the reports of wildmen appear to be exactly that: wild men (or wild women with incredibly rare and convenient hairiness disorders and reportedly great physical size). 

[SquatchRex]

A large, bipedal primate that's highly intelligent and incredibly well adapted to it's habitat. As far as taxonomic identification goes, that's anyone's guess. The Giganto theory was popular back in the day but I've found that more and more people think that they're actually a branch of homo or australopithecus these days. We won't know for sure until we have an actual specimen that can be examined. 

[MikeZimmer]

On 5/5/2022 at 7:24 AM, Huntster said:

 

That is what was reported........just like her very existence was just reported to Boris Porshnev about 1960. She is now positively identified. I'll speculate that continued denial of her reported extraordinary height will eventually result in somebody with some letters behind his name to assemble the skeleton and apply a certified tape measure to it.

 

"She is now positively identified". Does you mean that her skeletal remains have been found? Thanks

[Huntster]

32 minutes ago, MikeZimmer said:

 

"She is now positively identified". Does you mean that her skeletal remains have been found? Thanks

 

Yes. Her son's grave was marked and well known, and he died in 1954, just 8 years before Soviet scientists began investigating the story. Zana died in the 1890's and her grave was lost to time, but the search continued for it. Eventually they found it, and the DNA link to her son confirmed it. The 100% African genetic lineage was also a pretty good clue.

 

I'm pretty sure that there remain people who will question that, though.........

[MikeZimmer]

4 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Yes. Her son's grave was marked and well known, and he died in 1954, just 8 years before Soviet scientists began investigating the story. Zana died in the 1890's and her grave was lost to time, but the search continued for it. Eventually they found it, and the DNA link to her son confirmed it. The 100% African genetic lineage was also a pretty good clue.

 

I'm pretty sure that there remain people who will question that, though.........

Thanks for the update. I had not heard about finding her grave. Regards

 

[Curtis]

It's most likely a bipedal primate, in my opinion at least. Probably an ancestor of Gigantopithicus. I'm guessing (assuming) that the species crossed the land bridge around the same time that humans first came to the Americas. I think that also helps explain similar creatures being seen in Eurasia. It's fun to explain away the creatures' elusiveness by attributing mystical, magical powers to them, I don't think this is the case however. 

[MegWhite]

On 3/30/2022 at 3:31 PM, Huntster said:

After nearly 60 years of interest and reading about the subject, I am now of the belief that these creatures are a hominid; a species of primitive man. I also believe that hybridization with homo sapiens occurs.

Considering how there is constantly new evidence about primitive and modern hominids not only co-existing, which even 50 years ago was something many people didn’t believe could be true, it’s now proven  inter-breeding happened, and I think science has just discovered the very tip of the iceberg with that. Why would it be any different with this hominid species? Definitely something to think about! 

[MegWhite]

On 4/1/2022 at 11:03 AM, Huntster said:

 

I'm more physically different from a Mtubi tribesman as a gorilla is from a chimp, but I can readily interbreed with his female family members while gorillas and chimps cannot. That is the primary genetic reality that makes all the uniquely different people on this planet Homo sapiens. Thus, if we could interbreed with Neanderthals, Denisovans, and sasquatches, what makes them different species?

Very good point! I’ve been doing a lot of reading lately about how so many researchers and scientists, and archaeologists want to be able to be “the one” to discover a new species, and now in present day, a lot of what was classified as “new species,” needs to be reconsidered, and likely falls into place of a species that has been discovered. The term “species” i think is often used and taken out of context. I will use an example in my response to this thread’s original question. I have been waiting to post my own thought of what it could be! 

[MegWhite]

I have been waiting to post my thoughts on what Sasquatch is. @Grub-Girl I too am fairly new to the Sasquatch/Bigfoot world. Always loved idea but started taking it seriously about 6 months ago! From everything I have been able to read, research and learn so far, I think my best theory of what it is; a primate that falls under the genus Homo, but I think it likely is a branch in our human evolutionary tree that veered off somewhere, at some point, and like @Huntster mentioned, interbreeding likely and probably happened! I don’t know if with Homo Sapiens per day, but who really knows at this point! As we know, the homo genus family tree is becoming bushier and bushier, and as more fossils are being discovered, and science is advancing with amazing genetic technology, I hope in my lifetime we figure out the answer to your question, and all of our questions, WHAT IS A BIGFOOT?! 
 

I also want to say the most intriguing theory to me on it being a known relict hominid, would be if it was Australopithecus Sediba. A researcher who goes by ‘The Forest Fleur’ is where I first came across this theory, and one thing I do believe, from what I have researched, is that A. Sediba should actually be categorized as a homo species. Maybe some of these very primitive humans embarked on a different path than their direct relatives? 

[guyzonthropus]

I think some of you are getting hung up on the term "species" thinking that fertile offspring are not possible. In reptiles, cross -species hybrids are quite often fertile. So you might say "well, reptiles yeah, sure, they're lower vertebrates" but that doesn't matter if the definition of species, something that goes well beyond vertebrate biology, says they can't be fertile. But even more damming for that definition is the Fact that there are hybrids that cross Genus!! And they're fertile! For example the royal python(Python regius) of Africa has been crossed with an Australian python species, the Woma(Aspidites ramsayi) producing fertile offspring! Just something to consider within this heated and controversial debate.....

[MegWhite]

30 minutes ago, guyzonthropus said:

I think some of you are getting hung up on the term "species" thinking that fertile offspring are not possible. In reptiles, cross -species hybrids are quite often fertile. So you might say "well, reptiles yeah, sure, they're lower vertebrates" but that doesn't matter if the definition of species, something that goes well beyond vertebrate biology, says they can't be fertile. But even more damming for that definition is the Fact that there are hybrids that cross Genus!! And they're fertile! For example the royal python(Python regius) of Africa has been crossed with an Australian python species, the Woma(Aspidites ramsayi) producing fertile offspring! Just something to consider within this heated and controversial debate.....

That is a good point, and now we know that modern humans did of course breed with Neanderthals for sure, I’m sure further research and understanding of ancient hominids and their fossils being found will help to continue understanding how the “muddle in the middle” actually looked! I think that information will likely help with finding out what a Sasquatch is. I think there was likely interbreeding between the homo genus and Australopithecus. I also think the line between the two species is very much “grey area” still! 

[guyzonthropus]

Maybe George Harrison has it right in that sasquatch goes on within you and without you......heheheheh

[gigantor]

2 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

For example the royal python(Python regius) of Africa has been crossed with an Australian python species, the Woma(Aspidites ramsayi) producing fertile offspring!

 

I don't think you can compare what reptiles can do with mammals.

 

[guyzonthropus]

Gigantor ~ But don't you see? It not about mammals vs reptiles or even mammals vs cartilagenous fish, it's about the parameters of "species" that comes under question here, because that definition can't simply vary or be discarded depending on Class, or even Kingdom, to go by the old ways& titled, taxonomy must remain consistent or its of precious little value to science. Obviously there's something amiss with species, but what o f Genus in light of this. Of the two snakes, Aspidites is a far older form than Python(the genus) yet hybridize they can. Does this infer that we coul breed with more ancient ancestors/ "species/genus" ? I dunno, but rather than try to bend the data, maybe it's time to rewrite the definition? Or determine its status by different criteria that actually apply to everything..after all those concepts are from a long time ago, when we really didn't know much. Hell, even just sexual dimorphism threw them for a loop! For example the male and female grand eclectus parrots were thought to be different species for a good long while because one is green and the other red and purple! And these ideas were formulated long before we were proficient at breeding anything but mammals and a few birds, so we didn't ready grasp the potentials at the time.