Why has bigfoot not been listed as an endangered species?

[norseman]

25 minutes ago, Catmandoo said:

I thought that the central message  is that chickens taste like dinosaurs. Might be why Chic-fil-A has a 2 lane stack up at the drive through.

I am not a Dino eater…. Mammal beef steak medium rare please.

[MIB]

7 hours ago, norseman said:

I am not a Dino eater…. Mammal beef steak medium rare please.

Too bad we can give only one "response", that's worth both a thumbs up and a laugh!   

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, norseman said:

I am not a Dino eater…. Mammal beef steak medium rare please.

 

Snake and alligator meat isn't bad, and I'm told that iguana is pretty good. But I have to agree that an angus ribeye is pretty tough to beat, but it's very possible with seafood. Yelloweye and black rockfish top the list for me.

[9-dot]

I think that using Patty as the "standin type specimen" for sasquatch is understandable, given the glaring lack of an actual type specimen, but it sends the discussion in a canted direction.  My idea of a sasquatch phenotype, based on my own sighting, my viewing of a large number of forensic artist sketches of sightings, and a large number of sighting descriptions (both reported and unreported via personal interviews), involves much less hair (on the face as well as on the body) and much more Homo sapiens-like facial features (and even human-like facial expressions!).

The bottom line for me:  My understanding of the sasquatch phenotype is much closer to Homo sapiens than it is to Patty.

[norseman]

30 minutes ago, 9-dot said:

I think that using Patty as the "standin type specimen" for sasquatch is understandable, given the glaring lack of an actual type specimen, but it sends the discussion in a canted direction.  My idea of a sasquatch phenotype, based on my own sighting, my viewing of a large number of forensic artist sketches of sightings, and a large number of sighting descriptions (both reported and unreported via personal interviews), involves much less hair (on the face as well as on the body) and much more Homo sapiens-like facial features (and even human-like facial expressions!).

The bottom line for me:  My understanding of the sasquatch phenotype is much closer to Homo sapiens than it is to Patty.

As a non witness such as my self? How am I suppose to take this? Is Patty a hoax? 
 

 

[Huntster]

9 minutes ago, norseman said:

As a non witness such as my self? How am I suppose to take this? Is Patty a hoax? 

 

Like the scientists who analyzed the film prior to 1972, the possibility of a hoax "can't be ruled out", but it almost can. Thus, what you see on that film, combined with all the trace evidence, testimony, and site/area history that comes with it,  is a matter of opinion. The fact that there is a whole bunch to be digested makes a hoax difficult to accept.

 

Again, considering the film, trace evidence, testimony, and site/area history, the actions (and lack thereof, including a complete absence of official pronouncement) of the appropriate authorities is the most suspicious and remarkable aspect of the entire affair, and it mirrors their overall behavior with regard to the phenomenon.

[9-dot]

46 minutes ago, norseman said:

As a non witness such as my self? How am I suppose to take this? Is Patty a hoax? 
 

 

I did not intend to imply that I view Patty as a hoax (I rather think that the Patty film is valid).  In all animal populations there is morphological variance around what might be called a norm.  My view is that Patty varies from the sasquatch norm.  Perhaps Patty herself exhibits a form of sasquatch hirsutism.

[norseman]

21 minutes ago, 9-dot said:

I did not intend to imply that I view Patty as a hoax (I rather think that the Patty film is valid).  In all animal populations there is morphological variance around what might be called a norm.  My view is that Patty varies from the sasquatch norm.  Perhaps Patty herself exhibits a form of sasquatch hirsutism.

Her hair is the least of her departure in morphology from a Homo Sapien.

 

Her limb proportions are different, her size, her head shape, her gait, etc. Researchers argue this point consistently.

 

You might not be implying she is a hoax, but if she looks nothing like what you have witnessed? That’s the direction the compass is pointing.

 

We cannot have it both ways. Either she looks different than a Homo Sapien or she doesn’t.

[MIB]

22 minutes ago, norseman said:

You might not be implying she is a hoax, but if she looks nothing like what you have witnessed? That’s the direction the compass is pointing.

 

Another possible consideration is if you look at bigfoot as a species in rapid terminal decline, you should expect great difference in morphology as there is no buffering population.   I don't necessarily believe they are in decline but neither can I have confidence that they are not.  

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

Her hair is the least of her departure in morphology from a Homo Sapien.

 

Her limb proportions are different, her size, her head shape, her gait, etc. is……

 

…….We cannot have it both ways. Either she looks different than a Homo Sapien or she doesn’t.

I played high school football with a Samoan. As a freshman, he was the size I am today; 6’ tall, 285 lbs. When he graduated four years later, he weighed 485 lbs. My dad marveled at him when he visited…….said he’d never even heard of a guy who would lay down and still be 3 1/2 feet tall. The state of California barred him from wrestling in his senior year. He literally twisted his opponents into pretzels.

 

Stand him next to an African Pygmy tribesman, and you’d be looking at two vastly different images, but the exact same species.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

I played high school football with a Samoan. As a freshman, he was the size I am today; 6’ tall, 285 lbs. When he graduated four years later, he weighed 485 lbs. My dad marveled at him when he visited…….said he’d never even heard of a guy who would lay down and still be 3 1/2 feet tall. The state of California barred him from wrestling in his senior year. He literally twisted his opponents into pretzels.

 

Stand him next to an African Pygmy tribesman, and you’d be looking at two vastly different images, but the exact same species.

Size isn’t the single determining factor and neither is hair….

 

Patty isn’t a Homo Sapien. Instead of defending it here, I suggest anyone who disagrees go look at the volumes of research material in the PGF section that argues Patty isn’t a man in a suit because of X,Y or Z. Bill Munns can explain it 1000x better than I can.

 

But if eye witness accounts describe something completely different? There is a problem. Yes there is differential morphology within a species. Maybe a juvenile looks more like a human. But even then? Its limb ratios will be similar. It’s head will be similar.

 

I mean I can tell this a Chimp. It’s not a Human, Gorilla or Orangutan.

[norseman]

3 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Another possible consideration is if you look at bigfoot as a species in rapid terminal decline, you should expect great difference in morphology as there is no buffering population.   I don't necessarily believe they are in decline but neither can I have confidence that they are not.  

May I ask why? I know inbred populations get some crazy mutations. But I am not talking about 6 toes or fingers.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Size isn’t the single determining factor and neither is hair….

Correct. Neither is tool use, brain size, or use of fire. It’s the genetic code.

 

Quote

……..Patty isn’t a Homo Sapien. Instead of defending it here, I suggest anyone who disagrees go look at the volumes of research material in the PGF section that argues Patty isn’t a man in a suit because of X,Y or Z. Bill Munns can explain it 1000x better than I can………

Krantz and Gigantopithecus essentially proved decades ago that Patty’s shoulder width is significantly outside the range of Homo sapiens, regardless of gender or height. It doesn’t matter. Even if everybody agrees with you that Patty is not a Homo sapien, that does not place her outside the genus Homo, which still

makes her *human*.

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

Correct. Neither is tool use, brain size, or use of fire. It’s the genetic code.

 

Krantz and Gigantopithecus essentially proved decades ago that Patty’s shoulder width is significantly outside the range of Homo sapiens, regardless of gender or height. It doesn’t matter. Even if everybody agrees with you that Patty is not a Homo sapien, that does not place her outside the genus Homo, which still

makes her *human*.

Your debating what came first, the chicken or the egg with yourself. bipedalism begot tool use begot meat eating begot bigger brains…..rinse, wash, repeat.
 

 

 

It would make her a SEPARATE species from a Homo Sapien….
 

By your terminology? We cannot have a specific conversation. Because you lumping 4 million years of evolution together into a giant pile and calling it “human”.
 

Again! We DO NOT know that Patty belongs to the genus Homo. 

[Huntster]

38 minutes ago, norseman said:

Your debating what came first, the chicken or the egg with yourself. bipedalism begot tool use begot meat eating begot bigger brains…..rinse, wash, repeat.........

 

All behaviors, not genetic code. I'm not the the guy trying to use them to assign taxonomy to a creature that still hasn't even been verified as existing.

 

Quote

.........It would make her a SEPARATE species from a Homo Sapien….

 

Probably so. But if the taxonomy goes through the genus Homo, it would still be human.

 

Quote

.......By your terminology? We cannot have a specific conversation. Because you lumping 4 million years of evolution together into a giant pile and calling it “human”........

 

It's not my terminology. Nor did I assign genus to Homo habilis, Homo Neanderthalis, Homo floresensis, Homo Denisovan, etc. All I've done is posted definitions and used the terminology correctly.

 

We can't have the specific conversation that you insist we have because th definitions don't fit your ideology. 

 

Quote

........Againw! We DO NOT know that Patty belongs to the genus Homo. 

 

Again, correct. Now, that agreed upon (for the umpteenth time), to what current genus would you assign Patty? Or would you invent one?

 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Huntster