Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
MikeG said:
Nothing other than a couple of jaws and some teeth, as far as I know. We have no idea whether it was bipedal.
Click to expand...

That's true Mike, only a few fossilized remnants make up the entire record for Giganto. Similarly, only one large table of fossil remnants describes the entire fossil record for man.

It'd be nice to find a bit more on Giganto to determine whether it was bipedal or not. Until then , the locomotion of Giganto will remain theory.
 
Let me caveat what I am about to say by reinforcing that I am skeptical of the existence of bigfoot, but the fossil record is far from complete as evidenced by the previous posts I've made. In other words, it isn't definitive either way. So little has been researched regarding the genetic origins for modern man within Africa, so what kind of accurate conclusion could you possibly draw from genetic research on humans outside of Africa? The same principle fits for Giganto.

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

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4734675&page=1
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
That's true Mike, only a few fossilized remnants make up the entire record for Giganto. Similarly, only one large table of fossil remnants describes the entire fossil record for man.........
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't so. Unless your definition of a large table is a very great deal different from mine.
 
Dinwar said:
With a few exceptions:

1) Wrong continent

2) You can't know the highlighted part, as all we have no post-craneal anatomy

3) Wrong time period

Gigantopithicus is not going to save you, not without providing proof it lived in North America.
Click to expand...


1) So there are no peoples of Asian decent to ever arrive in the North Americas? (I'll give you a hint, land bridge)

2) Giganto's size and body structure has been indicated by the size of the jaw and teeth. Yes, these estimates were/are based on comparisons with gorillas and other modern apes.

3) Even 300K years is just a blink in the evolutionary view. The time period Giganto existed was well within the proposed land bridge theory and that's that.
 
Last edited:
Where are the fossils for Giganto in Africa? Shouldn't they be there too if all hominidae came from there? Like I said, nothing can be determined with what we have now in either direction.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Yes he did. But just because a good man was taken in by a hoaxer, it doesn't mean he was wrong about everything he did does it?
Click to expand...

Of course not. But when they start making pronouncements or conclusions about something without sufficient evidence, those pronouncements/conclusions can be questioned or even ignored.

Krantz was not only bamboozled at Bossburg, he drew up the bone structure of the foot without ever seeing the actual foot or the bones within that foot.

To his credit, even Krantz admitted that solid evidence in the form of a type specimen must be obtained in order for science to accept bigfoot as a biological being.

RayG
 
Last edited:
RayG said:
Of course not. But when they start making pronouncements or conclusions about something without sufficient evidence those pronouncements/conclusions can be questioned or even ignored.

Krantz was not only bamboozled at Bossburg, he drew up the bone structure of the foot without ever seeing the actual foot or the bones within that foot.

To his credit, even Krantz admitted that solid evidence in the form of a type specimen must be obtained in order for science to accept bigfoot as a biological being.

RayG
Click to expand...

I agree. Sometimes it's difficult to see the forest from the trees. His belief in those specific castings enabled his work on the foot bone structure. I've seen the photos of the original tracks before they were cast. They were obviously hoaxed.

Krantz did try to get the species recognized without a body at first though based on the footprints. I think it was only after his paper was denied he started carrying around the rifle in hopes of shooting one.

This is one of the reasons why it's so important to expose Bigfoot hoaxes.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
That's true Mike, only a few fossilized remnants make up the entire record for Giganto. Similarly, only one large table of fossil remnants describes the entire fossil record for man.
Click to expand...

As has been demonstrated to you before, the highligihted part is a lie. We have a very good fossil record for hominids, and for H. sapiens sapiens. Ignorance of science doesn't help your cause.

I stand by my statement.
Click to expand...
Standing by false information is not a sign of honesty, and is deadly to a scientific career.

Jodie said:
Where are the fossils for Giganto in Africa? Shouldn't they be there too if all hominidae came from there?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The family originated in Africa, but it's almost inevitable that it would diversify as it spread to other areas.
 
Dinwar said:
As has been demonstrated to you before, the highligihted part is a lie. We have a very good fossil record for hominids, and for H. sapiens sapiens. Ignorance of science doesn't help your cause.

Standing by false information is not a sign of honesty, and is deadly to a scientific career.

Not necessarily. The family originated in Africa, but it's almost inevitable that it would diversify as it spread to other areas.
Click to expand...

This statement coming from credentials that claim blood is a terrible source for DNA.

I'll weigh it accordingly.

Apparently, even blood found in boot scrapings is sufficient to determine DNA type.

Please attack the argument and not the member. If you have supporting evidence for your statement please list it accordingly.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
This statement coming from credentials that claim blood is a terrible source for DNA.

I'll weigh it accordingly.

Apparently, even blood found in boot scrapings is sufficient to determine DNA type.

Please attack the argument and not the member. If you have supporting evidence for your statement please list it accordingly.
Click to expand...

Chris,
Do you own a mirror?
 
Chris, please specify what exactly you mean by your statement that the entire fossil record of humans can fit on a table (even a relatively large one). I'm not even sure that an absurdly restrictive use of the terms "fossil" and "human" can support your case here but I'd like you to give it a shot. Please don't just provide a link to something else; I'd like to see you explain yourself, yourself.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
This statement coming from credentials that claim blood is a terrible source for DNA.

I'll weigh it accordingly.
Click to expand...
Actually, it comes from every practicing anthropologist, archaeologist, and paleontologist with an interest in African rift valley paleontology. The blood thing comes from pretty much everyone--there are FAR better ways to get DNA (it's not impossible to get it out of blood, but it's a lot easier to get it out of parts of the body that have higher concentrations of cells with nuclei, which have structures that can protect the DNA from the elements, etc). YOU ARE WRONG. Accept it and move on.

Please attack the argument and not the member.
Click to expand...
Oh dear gods in Hell---after the comment above you have the audacity to complain about personal attacks?! You flat-out refuse to accept that I've offered evidence to support every claim I've made, and have focused exclusively on attacking me personally. I'm sorry, but wasps don't get to complain when they're stung.

If you have supporting evidence for your statement please list it accordingly.
Click to expand...
Okay.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/twelve.html

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_17

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/fossil-evidence-human-evolution.htm

http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6941/abs/nature01670.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/239/4845/1263.short

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/3/1134.short

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Evolution-Second-Edition-Series/dp/0500288984/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-1&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Human-Story-DK-Publishing/dp/0756686733/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-2&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Lone-Survivors-Came-Humans-Earth/dp/1250023300/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-4&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Smithsonian-Intimate-Guide-Human-Origins/dp/0061196673/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-5&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Evolution-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0192803603/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-6&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Evolution-An-Illustrated-Introduction/dp/1405103787/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-10&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.getcited.org/pub/102357673

http://www.getcited.org/pub/102357673

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/15/6128.short

http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/15/109.extract

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6941/full/423692a.html

http://edutube.org/interactive/human-evolution-primate-fossil-finds-around-world-interactive-map

Bear in mind that I've skipped the PDFs; I can't easily post a link to them. Also note that this is merely a sampling; there's a great deal more. I've included a combination of popular-press articles, peer-reviewed articles, textbooks, course websites, books intended for non-experts, etc. My hope was that even if you can't understand some of the references (again, no insult intended--I simply don't think you have a very good science background) you'll find something useful there.

Can we put this lie to rest now? We have an absolutely astounding number of human fossils. YOU ARE WRONG. If you continue to deny it, you're only harming yourself.

ETA: I beleive I've been placed on Chris' ignore list. Can someone quote at least the list of links, so that he sees it? Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Per Dinwar's request (and removing quote tags so it can be easily replied to):

Actually, it comes from every practicing anthropologist, archaeologist, and paleontologist with an interest in African rift valley paleontology. The blood thing comes from pretty much everyone--there are FAR better ways to get DNA (it's not impossible to get it out of blood, but it's a lot easier to get it out of parts of the body that have higher concentrations of cells with nuclei, which have structures that can protect the DNA from the elements, etc). YOU ARE WRONG. Accept it and move on.

Oh dear gods in Hell---after the comment above you have the audacity to complain about personal attacks?! You flat-out refuse to accept that I've offered evidence to support every claim I've made, and have focused exclusively on attacking me personally. I'm sorry, but wasps don't get to complain when they're stung.

Okay.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/twelve.html

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_17

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/fossil-evidence-human-evolution.htm

http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6941/abs/nature01670.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/239/4845/1263.short

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/3/1134.short

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Evolution-Second-Edition-Series/dp/0500288984/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-1&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Human-Story-DK-Publishing/dp/0756686733/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-2&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Lone-Survivors-Came-Humans-Earth/dp/1250023300/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-4&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Smithsonian-Intimate-Guide-Human-Origins/dp/0061196673/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-5&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Evolution-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0192803603/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-6&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Evolution-An-Illustrated-Introduction/dp/1405103787/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-10&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.getcited.org/pub/102357673

http://www.getcited.org/pub/102357673

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/15/6128.short

http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/15/109.extract

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6941/full/423692a.html

http://edutube.org/interactive/human-evolution-primate-fossil-finds-around-world-interactive-map

Bear in mind that I've skipped the PDFs; I can't easily post a link to them. Also note that this is merely a sampling; there's a great deal more. I've included a combination of popular-press articles, peer-reviewed articles, textbooks, course websites, books intended for non-experts, etc. My hope was that even if you can't understand some of the references (again, no insult intended--I simply don't think you have a very good science background) you'll find something useful there.

Can we put this lie to rest now? We have an absolutely astounding number of human fossils. YOU ARE WRONG. If you continue to deny it, you're only harming yourself.

ETA: I beleive I've been placed on Chris' ignore list. Can someone quote at least the list of links, so that he sees it? Thanks in advance.​
 
Dinwar said:
Actually, it comes from every practicing anthropologist, archaeologist, and paleontologist with an interest in African rift valley paleontology. The blood thing comes from pretty much everyone--there are FAR better ways to get DNA (it's not impossible to get it out of blood, but it's a lot easier to get it out of parts of the body that have higher concentrations of cells with nuclei, which have structures that can protect the DNA from the elements, etc). YOU ARE WRONG. Accept it and move on.

Oh dear gods in Hell---after the comment above you have the audacity to complain about personal attacks?! You flat-out refuse to accept that I've offered evidence to support every claim I've made, and have focused exclusively on attacking me personally. I'm sorry, but wasps don't get to complain when they're stung.

Okay.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/twelve.html

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_17

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/fossil-evidence-human-evolution.htm

http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6941/abs/nature01670.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/239/4845/1263.short

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/3/1134.short

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Evolution-Second-Edition-Series/dp/0500288984/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-1&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Human-Story-DK-Publishing/dp/0756686733/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-2&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Lone-Survivors-Came-Humans-Earth/dp/1250023300/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-4&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Smithsonian-Intimate-Guide-Human-Origins/dp/0061196673/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-5&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Evolution-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0192803603/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-6&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Evolution-An-Illustrated-Introduction/dp/1405103787/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1379187262&sr=8-10&keywords=human+evolution

http://www.getcited.org/pub/102357673

http://www.getcited.org/pub/102357673

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/15/6128.short

http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/15/109.extract

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6941/full/423692a.html

http://edutube.org/interactive/human-evolution-primate-fossil-finds-around-world-interactive-map

Bear in mind that I've skipped the PDFs; I can't easily post a link to them. Also note that this is merely a sampling; there's a great deal more. I've included a combination of popular-press articles, peer-reviewed articles, textbooks, course websites, books intended for non-experts, etc. My hope was that even if you can't understand some of the references (again, no insult intended--I simply don't think you have a very good science background) you'll find something useful there.

Can we put this lie to rest now? We have an absolutely astounding number of human fossils. YOU ARE WRONG. If you continue to deny it, you're only harming yourself.

ETA: I beleive I've been placed on Chris' ignore list. Can someone quote at least the list of links, so that he sees it? Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

There absolutely is not an astounding number of fossils on record for man. In fact, find me an example of 1 complete skeleton used to describe a Hominid on record. You can't.

Do you not realize that every description on the books of any form of fossilized man is based on a few pieces? A skull cap, or incomplete skull?

The links you use are no help to your argument. The Smithsonian link is actually a good one to support my argument, thanks. Take a cruise thru the Smithsonian and view their collection of the fossils of man. You'll find it's mostly bits and pieces used to describe an entire species.

Here's one of the more recent discoveries and one of my favorites please pay particular attention to the bolded part.:

"Hobbit", Homo floresiensis
Discovered by an Australian/Indonesian team in 2003 at the Liang Bua cave on the Indonesian island of Flores. This find consisted of an almost complete skull and a partial skeleton consisting of leg bones, parts of the pelvis, hands and feet, and some other fragments. LB1 was an adult, probably female, about 1 meter (3'3") tall with an extremely small brain size of 417cc. The skull has human-like teeth with a receding forehead and no chin. The fossil is 18,000 years old and was found with stone tools. This species is thought to be a dwarf form of Homo erectus. (Brown et al. 2004, Morwood et al. 2004, Lahr and Foley 2004)

As I said before, the entire fossil record of man will fit onto one large table.
 
The Shrike said:
Chris, please specify what exactly you mean by your statement that the entire fossil record of humans can fit on a table (even a relatively large one). I'm not even sure that an absurdly restrictive use of the terms "fossil" and "human" can support your case here but I'd like you to give it a shot. Please don't just provide a link to something else; I'd like to see you explain yourself, yourself.
Click to expand...

Shrike, What Dinwar is failing to comprehend is that all hominids were described from partial skeletal remains. Some use only a partial skull cap to describe an entirely new find. (I'm sorry but off the top of my head I can't remember which one I'd have to look it up.)

Admittedly the table would need to be a larger than a coffee table, but I'm guessing a 6 feet by 12 feet surface area space would suffice.
 
Robrob said:
Not so much of a "table" anymore...
Click to expand...

Actually, that's quite a bit smaller than say a board room table. Ever see one of those?

Added to clarify: I also mean each fossil would be laid out side by side, no stacking required.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom