Guest wild eyed willy Posted September 4, 2011 Posted September 4, 2011 Is it possible that BF is not a primate? Could they have a linage unknown to science? On the show ( best evidence) the woman ( I can't remember her name) said BF is not characteristic of what you would expect of a large primate living in the woods. She didn't go into details. It left me wondering, what if they are not primates.
Guest RedRatSnake Posted September 4, 2011 Posted September 4, 2011 Hi Ya That's how i have always thought of what ever what we call BF is ( not a primate ) i just don't see how it could be a smart monkey it would have to be so much more ~ Tim
Guest HairyGreek Posted September 4, 2011 Posted September 4, 2011 Sorry, too illogical a topic to speculate on for me...
Guest Posted September 4, 2011 Posted September 4, 2011 Give para ape a minute to find this thread and you will have your answer!
gigantor Posted September 4, 2011 Admin Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) I won't dismiss this question out of hand because frankly, I've never considered it a possibility. So, WEW, if not a primate, what else could it be? Edited September 4, 2011 by gigantor
Guest Posted September 4, 2011 Posted September 4, 2011 Well WEW I gave it some serious thought, even suggested it in one of the DNA threads because the only choices anyone was discussing were the ape vs. human debate. There is always the platypus that demonstrates what wacky features nature can come up with. This is an old theory gone out of fashion but I believe bigfoot spends a lot of time underwater, better known as the aquatic ape. It would explain why you don't see crap, footprints, and hair everywhere even in an area they are known to frequent. The big bulging glowing eyeballs, huge lung capacity, the smell (oils secreted to keep the skin from shriveling up), can seem to tolerate cold very well so perhaps has some kind of component to the blood that acts as antifreeze similar to fish. We have an intelligent mammal that looks like a fish( dolphin), why not an amphibian that mimics a mammal?
Guest RedRatSnake Posted September 4, 2011 Posted September 4, 2011 I think they are very old world humans that have somehow adapted and focused all there energy to there environment so well as too almost be one with nature, Or they are the poor homeless people that were living with Janice Carter and have us all bowled over big time Tim
bigdva Posted September 4, 2011 Posted September 4, 2011 Give para ape a minute to find this thread and you will have your answer! Lol! You got that right!
BobZenor Posted September 4, 2011 Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) Dr. Nina Jablonski was the woman. Essentially this is a dietary wasteland for an ape. Humans are apes and feed themselves very well in that dietary wasteland. Sasquatch would logically have larger jaws and be able to process more food. They would apparently lack the benefits of cooking but humans didn't always have that ability. Just because we would usually have a hard time collecting enough to eat without cooking doesn't mean that would apply to some animal that was evolved to eat rougher food. She obviously doesn't have a clue how to do it but that is no reason to assume that there is no food there. Grizzles live in that so called wasteland. The circumstantial evidence would indicate that bigfoot simply could not exist. That is just a nonsense statement. It is pathetic coming from a so called expert. Apes are relatively big bodied creatures for the most part but more importantly they have big brains and in order to supply those big brains with energy, apes have to eat quite energy rich foods. How can these animals live in an environment that is so poor in high quality food? Gorillas don't eat high quality food. How could a primate expert possibly not know that? It is probably obvious that I don't find her opinion at all valid. I don't even like the idea of other apes convergently evolving manlike characteristics. I would only give that a 1 percent chance of bigfoot not being a hominid if I was feeling generous. Monkeys would be a hundred times less likely. Something other than primates is practically impossible unless people are really bad witnesses and Patty is a fake. Edited September 4, 2011 by BobZenor
Guest Posted September 4, 2011 Posted September 4, 2011 According to dozens of reports, Sasquatch has often been seen with a deer carcass. If deer are the staple of their diet, there would not be a place in North America that would be considered a "dietary wasteland". If they had a diet comparable to bears, (fish, deer, berries, etc.) it seems that their is plenty of food to sustain a small population. If there is one.
Guest wild eyed willy Posted September 4, 2011 Posted September 4, 2011 I don't have any answers, I supose anything could be possible however unlikely. Yes your right Bob that was her name, I had no idea what her views were, but they don't sound very educated. Thank you for posting those clips. It was a very good show and I enjoyed watching it.
Guest wild eyed willy Posted September 4, 2011 Posted September 4, 2011 Lol! You got that right! SHHHH don't tell him.
Guest wild eyed willy Posted September 4, 2011 Posted September 4, 2011 Well WEW I gave it some serious thought, even suggested it in one of the DNA threads because the only choices anyone was discussing were the ape vs. human debate. There is always the platypus that demonstrates what wacky features nature can come up with. This is an old theory gone out of fashion but I believe bigfoot spends a lot of time underwater, better known as the aquatic ape. It would explain why you don't see crap, footprints, and hair everywhere even in an area they are known to frequent. The big bulging glowing eyeballs, huge lung capacity, the smell (oils secreted to keep the skin from shriveling up), can seem to tolerate cold very well so perhaps has some kind of component to the blood that acts as antifreeze similar to fish. We have an intelligent mammal that looks like a fish( dolphin), why not an amphibian that mimics a mammal? how does the structure go? all primates are mamles, but all mamles are not primates. Hominids are mamles .. Mamles means it breaths air or has lungs?No because frogs are amphibious but they have lungs. How does the structure go?
Guest wild eyed willy Posted September 4, 2011 Posted September 4, 2011 I won't dismiss this question out of hand because frankly, I've never considered it a possibility. So, WEW, if not a primate, what else could it be? good question
Guest Posted September 4, 2011 Posted September 4, 2011 how does the structure go? all primates are mamles, but all mamles are not primates. Hominids are mamles .. Mamles means it breaths air or has lungs? No because frogs are amphibious but they have lungs. How does the structure go? Mammals give live birth, have vertebrae, and breathe air. However the platypus and spiny anteater are two mammals that lay eggs. There is always an exception. Bigfoot might be something different following the same pattern we did for evolution as far as bipedalism is concerned.
Recommended Posts