What If Bf Isn't A Primate.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

So Basically Bigfoot is a Yowie ?

Tim

[Guest]

Could be a marsupial, but a marsupial is a mammal.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

The questions just keep adding up ~ Ok enough is enough ~ someone is going to have to bring a Bigfoot in soon too solve this once and for all, i would go out and get one but unfortunately my best friends mom just found out she didn't like the new furniture she just bought at wallmart so i have to lend her my pick up truck, that leaves me with a 16' aluminum boat and a mountain bike with a flat, closest place with BF is upstate NY so it might take a while for me too thumb a ride up there, anyone want to help out here and cut down on time ?

Tim

[Guest]

Well! as my youngest would say. If BF isn't a primate, clearly it's a marsupial with a bad case of parallel evolution. Marsupial tiger......marsupial man-ape. And double duh, as she would also add.

[yowiie]

So Basically Bigfoot is a Yowie ?

Tim

Finally someone has put the pieces together. Hooray

[Guest wild eyed willy]

are there any reports that would suggest the possibility that BF might be other than a primate?

I dont think they lay eggs, could you imagine the size of a BF egg. LOL it would be hard to miss

[yowiie]

are there any reports that would suggest the possibility that BF might be other than a primate?

I dont think they lay eggs, could you imagine the size of a BF egg. LOL it would be hard to miss

I can't say that Ive read anywhere that suggests BF/ yowies are anything but primate. As for the eggs, I very much doubt that, although they do make bed structures that could be mistaken for a nest. Maybe your onto something, there could also be a possibility that they carry there young in a pouch.

[Guest]

I can't say that Ive read anywhere that suggests BF/ yowies are anything but primate. As for the eggs, I very much doubt that, although they do make bed structures that could be mistaken for a nest. Maybe your onto something, there could also be a possibility that they carry there young in a pouch.

If it looks like a primate, quacks like a primate, and lays eggs like a....ummm

[Guest]

Not everything fits neatly into a category, they don't think plesiosaurs laid eggs. However, if people were finding egg shells in these giant nests they talk about associated with BF, you think it would have been mentioned before now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14447187

[Guest]

If BF isn't a primate, two other candidates that have some similarities and have lived in the Americas are:

1) Large ground sloths- these walked on 2 legs as well as 4. A group could have branched off, lost the tail, and evolved to become BF-like.

2) short-faced bear - what if, instead of going extinct, they evolved to become completely bipedal? The hind feet of a bear are similar to human tracks anyway, so it's not much of a stretch for them to evolve to be longer if the animal spent more time walking bipedally. A bear's carcass looks very much like a human's, so there is a good framework for a BF like creature. This bear's snout is already very short, and it becomes much shorter as some kind of evolutionary advantage. Once in a while one is born with a muzzle (a throw-back), which explains the "dogman" sighting some people have had. The diet is already established, contrary to what the "expert" anthropologist said on the show last night about apes not being able to survive in this "wasteland". Plus, the creature already has excellent night vision, the greatest sense of smell on the continent, and is equipped with the ability to hibernate in winter if necessary, which solves the other problems the skeptical scientists raised last night.

Food for thought anyway...

Edited September 4, 2011 by Surveyor

[Guest Biggie]

I don't know of any sloths that can run fast, especially up steep inclines as seen in some reports. I believe it is most likely a primate since we know the similar creature Giganto Pithicus existed in the past, since reports account for them exhibiting similar behaviors to primates, and since found hairs taken by people after their bf sightings were analyzed and discovered to be from a unknown primate.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I think we can nix the sloth theory.

Tim

[Guest]

I hold to the primate theory too, I was just playing along with the "If they aren't primates, what could they be?" idea. Obviously, whether sloth, bear, primate or whatever, they would have to have made some major adaptations to be where they are now. But you know what I really believe from PMs anyway Biggie, lol

Edited September 4, 2011 by Surveyor

[Guest]

Dr. Nina Jablonski was the woman.

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.

That is just a nonsense statement. It is pathetic coming from a so called expert.

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.

Well, I think I'll defend Dr. Jablonski.

She is referring to the natural diets of known great apes. She is doing what any good scientist would do --- she is extrapolating from known principles and facts. Truth be known, if sasquatch is a giant ape and lives as other great apes do, then yes the food source in North America is lacking of the type of vegetable staples year round found in the diet of other great apes. Consider the diet of the gorilla: http://www.seaworld....orilla/diet.htm

This type of argument from Dr. Jablonski is made by someone who is told Bigfoot is an ape. If ape, then the following must apply (so the argument goes). What Dr. Jablonski is probably unaware of is the tenacity of the Bigfooter. To some Bigfooters, the sasquatch is an ape, but an ape that is so unlike other great apes that one cannot extrapolate generally from known ape to sasquatch. It is a special ape --- an idea that Dr. Jablonski may not have considered.

Even Dr. Meldrum realises that it is no good to pretend Bigfoot is just another ape. He understands that the sasquatch could not have a gorilla like diet, so he suggests Bigfoot harvests fish from rivers to sustain itself with protein. John Green has likened the sasquatch lifestyle to that of bears.

Problems with Bigfoot diet are numerous. If sasquatch could sustain itself gorilla-like, it would be a grazing eater. We would not see a nomadic ape, migrating here and there. We would see a more cow-like eater, slowing spending most of its day eating low caloric foods, making up in quantity what it lacks in quality.

We ought to see more sasquatch dung than we do. After-all, this IS a big ape, right? Dr. George Schaller, in his forward to Meldrum's SASQUATCH makes this observation: "I am puzzled, for example, why so few large fecal piles have been reported along sasquatch trails. One would expect many from a bulky vegetarian with only rare access to meat, as shown by gorillas and giant pandas."

Of course, Dr. Schaller is behind the times. It is now casually known (or, at least, so promoted by Bigfooters) that Bigfoot is a deer eater. This would seem to explain how a giant primate can survive in the American wilds. Except, like any other primate, the sasquatch would not seem to be equipped to be a predator of this magnitude. Like a chimpanzee, sasquatch may eat meat it can conveniently capture, like a mole in a hole. But if it were to deer hunt, it would use up a tremendous amount of energy, too large for such a big animal to expend regularly, not to mention being ill-equiped for the task (no claws or weapons). So, it is easy to say a large sasquatch may live like any other large predator, a bear for instance; in reality, an ape is not built like any large predator; a sasquatch is not a bear.

BTW, I once read that Dr. Heuvelmans himself once gave credence to the idea that sasquatch reports may have been reports of giant ground sloths. Good gravy!

[bipedalist]

After-all, this IS a big ape, right?

It is a GREAT ape. I think this is the trap everybody falls into. I think there are many human-sized or smaller sasquatch about, shake the PNW ten footer rubric. It's almost as bad as the big brain small brain debate.....and here comes "The Hobbit". JMOVHO.